I don’t think the source of propaganda is relevant to the distinction being made by the precedent. If TikTok can be considered propaganda, then so can Facebook or Twitter or Instagram because they all utilize algorithms subject to the control or manipulation by their owners.
Comment on TikTok sues to block prospective US app ban
djsoren19@yiffit.net 8 months agoI’m aware of the precedent, but there’s a pretty massive difference between being able to receive printed media, and being able to have continual access to post and contribute content to a foreign propoganda tool that uses an algorithm to purposefully suppress subjects the CCP disapproves of. I don’t believe the precedent is going to be applicable here, but IANAL, and maybe ByteDance’s lawyers think this defense will be a slam dunk.
archomrade@midwest.social 8 months ago
zaph@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
To me it sounds the exact same. The language doesn’t say “printed propaganda that doesn’t have a lot of nuance” it just says publications.
djsoren19@yiffit.net 8 months ago
Sure, but if you tried to explain TikTok to the ruling judge on the 1965 case, I think their head would explode. The ruling isn’t some all powerful precedent that shuts down the ban before the suit can begin, it’s old and outdated. Something like TikTok was not even getting theorized at the time, you can’t seriously expect it to be treated the same way.