The only difference between TikTok and other social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram is that TikTok is Chinese owned.
The law would also appy to Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
charonn0
joined 2 years ago
The US government demanded access to the US based social media companies to pull whatever sensitive information they wanted. They just don’t want China to have the same access.
Or Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
Those companies are already based in the US.
"Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm" (CPC 245(a)(1)) can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the exact circumstances.
I read the bill.
The question is irrelevant to whether this bill is a good idea.
Musk's companies are already based in the US. The issues you raise, however valid, are not really relevant to a discussion of this bill.
I think there's definitely a case to be made that recommendation algorithms, etc. constitute editorial control and thus the platform may not be immune to lawsuits based on user posts.
We’ve been covering many stories about a potential TikTok ban, including how unconstitutional it clearly is, how pointless it clearly is, and how even those who back it don’t seem to have a good explanation of why, beyond some vague handwaving about “China.”
The bill isn't nearly as bad as they want you to think. It bans companies in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from operating social media apps in US markets, forcing them to sell if they already do. These four countries are already restricted from accessing sensitive parts of the US economy, with forced sale being a legal option. Really, the only novel part of the bill is applying these kinds of restrictions to software.
And the bill doesn't actually punish or restrain users' speech. It does restrain the social media company's speech, but that may not be enough to overturn the bill on 1st amendment grounds. If you understand that social media exists to collect vast amounts of user data then you must also understand how the government has a legitimate interest in keeping that data out of an adversary's hands. The only real question is whether the government has a compelling interest, because that's the standard that a court would apply to this bill. And I daresay it might.
She's not being attacked for the crimes of her son, though. She's being criticized as a hypocrite.
Or else what?