• MisterMoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why are you cheerleading for TikTok to remain in the hands of a US adversary, during the same week when said adversary forced a US company to abjectly ban US-based messaging apps?

    Retaliation. Tit for tit.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      If the government can just point at a company and force a fire sale then there is no market, there is no order, there is no financial industry. This is an incredibly dangerous law.

      • jumjummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The alternative is to outright ban it. Tik Tok is a cancer directly controlled by a hostile nation state. The government absolutely has the right to block foreign interference like this.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Pray tell how is this any worse than Facebook? Is the CCP in the Los Angeles TikTok office moderating content?

          Or is this just more bullshit invented on the spot to justify an unconstitutional power grab?

          • Lynthe@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Facebook isn’t under an obligation to provide America’s data directly to the government of a hostile foreign power. Tiktok is

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Bytedance owning a stake in TikTok does not mean they can require TikTok to share data. Especially if we made a common sense law to protect data saying it’s not allowed to leave the country.

                  Oh wait, that’s already a thing. And we just let Meta and the other data vendors keep doing it.

              • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                They’re owned by the CCP (and before you say they’re not, the ByteDance C-suite is basically all current Chinese citizens and the headquarters is in Beijing).

                Businesses and people do not have rights in the way most westerners are used to. Assume anything out of China or generally owned by Chinese companies is a direct arm of the CCP … because even if it isn’t today, the CCP can unilaterally throw down an order from the top and take control of the company/have them do whatever they want or the leaders replaced.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  So are American companies that are basically all Americans in the C-Suite owned by the US Government?

                  Even if what you were saying was true, the common sense approach is to ban the trading of data internationally. Then TikTok can tell Beijing to pound sand if they tried anything. Instead we have this fear mongering racist bullshit being touted.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The government absolutely has unconditional and unlimited authority to restrict enemy states from ownership of anything in the US they want to.

        There is absolutely no possibility of any Constitutional issue. The government has explicit authority to handle anything they want about international commerce in the Constitution.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s why they’re having to pass this law I guess then? Because they already have the authority to do the thing they’re trying to make the law to get the authority to do?

          And TikTok isn’t owned by China. It’s owned by ByteDance, a MultiNational Corp with Chinese ties. It’s not operated out of China, Tiktok is operated out of Singapore and Los Angeles.

          And what exactly is the security concern of people making funny cat videos? Nobody is saying the government has to put Tiktok on government computers. So what exactly is the exposure here that trumps the first amendment and prohibition on bills of attainder in the US?

          • bastion@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            You’re thinking of laws in terms of obedience. Law is about agreed-upon structure (sometimes functional, often dysfunctional).

            Enforcement is about obedience, and comes up when people don’t go along with the agreed-upon structure. When the structure is made poorly, enforcement has harmful consequences.

            Examples:

            • food stamps (law)
            • no stealing (law)
            • preventing theft or multiple-subscription to food stamps (enforcement)
            • the wilderness act (law)
            • suing the government for not following the wilderness act (enforcement)

            Law and enforcement are closely linked, but definitely distinct.

            They have the authority to create structure (pass laws) regarding foreign powers operating within the States. So they pass laws (create structure) that state the agreed-upon structure, and enable that structure to be enforced.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Except we don’t have that power. Not unless there’s a national security threat. And they might make our children more woke isn’t a national security threat.

              American individuals and this company have a first amendment right. Furthermore this isn’t a ban on all foreign owned companies. This is a ban on companies with ownership that have nebulous ties to certain countries. A list we can add to at any time. That is capricious and open to being abused. It’s also unconstitutional under the no Bills of Attainder rule.

              • bastion@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                Except we do have that power. There’s reasonable national security risk, and your lack of understanding of the dynamics involved doesn’t make them nebulous to others.

                In any case, if you don’t like it, vote with your life choices. If it’s not that important, well… …it’s not that important.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  You know nobody has yet to actually say what the risk is. Just that China is evil and therefore a risk. There’s some overblown stuff about them pushing cancel culture but that’s not a national security risk.

                  If it’s not nebulous then tell me, how are they getting our nuclear codes with a social media app they don’t directly control?

                  And again. No. We have rights in the US. Unless you guys go giving them away because you’re afraid you might see a Chinese video.