US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues
US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues
TikTok's survival in the US may depend on an appeals court ruling this December.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm surprised so many people think this is a good argument. TikTok is a social media platform. Temu is an online marketplace. The potential to cause disruption within US society is completely different.
Legally it is a very good argument. A law targeting a single company in name or effect is literally unconstitutional. It's called a "Bill of Attainder".
The counter argument is indicting Facebook because they never stopped selling information directly to the CCP.
Cool, let's ban Temu then. Nothing of value will be lost.
In all honesty though, I disagree with banning software, and that includes TikTok. I think it's a terrible platform and I refuse to use it, but I think we need to solve the underlying problem another way, otherwise we're just picking and choosing what speech is allowed in this country. The Constitution doesn't only protect American citizens, it protects everyone.
That said, if we're going to ban one, let's ban them all. These apps haven't provided any tangible value IMO and they've arguably caused a fair amount of harm, so I'm not going to die on a hill defending them.
I said Facebook because we know they're doing it and you'd still have to actually prove that case.
Sure, and we should absolutely indict Facebook. And ideally our government wouldn't be so corrupt that it could indict our own government agencies from buying information from them in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments (and probably the 14th).
How about making data collection other than necessary to operate a website illegal, then making the sale of that data illegal, and absolutely require a warrant to collect it, including from FISA court?
I disagree, especially because "other than necessary" is a pretty squishy concept (i.e. selling tailored ads could be considered "necessary to operate a website"). Instead of that, I think selling or providing any form of data collected without the customer's explicit consent (and to consent, the customer must know what data is being s hared) or without a warrant (and only the data in the warrant) should be illegal.
That should be sufficient and actually enforceable, since it has very clear boundaries on what's included.
I think we're in agreement. I could have said "technologically necessary" to have been more clear, but I don't agree sale or sharing should be by consent. I think it should be illegal, full stop.
I think it should be illegal, full stop.
Then we're certainly not in agreement. And that's fine.
I think sale of data should be 100% allowed, provided the customer consents (and gets fair compensation). The customer, however, needs to be aware of what data is being sold, to whom, and what they're getting in return. Burying that 20 pages deep in a TOS doesn't count, it needs to be in a format that an average person could reasonably be expected to fully understand. The service provider and the company receiving the data should have strict legal requirements to keep that data safe, so if there's a breach of any variety, the consequences would be a lot steeper than a few dollars per person affected.
So essentially what I'm after here is transparency to the customer, and actual consequences for companies that fail to protect customer data.
The reason I didn't agree with that is because desperate people do desperate things, despite how clear and concise information available is. With every person had guaranteed, decent housing, food, comprehensive medical, decent clothing and other needs met, I may reconsider.
A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
- The law inflicts punishment.
- The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
- Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.
Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.
You mean the CCP is not an "individual or group"?
#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.
The parent company don't have judicial protections. They're based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn't being punished, they're explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.
The parent company don’t have judicial protections.
But the subsidiary does.
And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.
But explicit prohibition on continued operation if they don't. ByteDance is not affected outside of the US. Only US employees are being threatened.
Only US employees are being threatened.
Lmao, that's quite the stretch. The way I see it, US employees AND citizens would be protected from foreign spyware.
if the XI's China could stop trying to interfere with the world beyond its border they could also probably stop themselves from being targeted by legislature aimed at protecting citizens of countries outside China.
ByteDance employees chose to work for a Chinese PsyOp parent company who refuses to sell ByteDance. If anything, those employees are suffering because the CCP were given too many rights and protections for owning a business in the USA.
So you're agreeing this is a Bill of Attainder limited to a single group of American citizens?
Thanks.
The single group of American Citizens are facing no repercussions from the US Government. They're being thrown under the bus by the Chinese.
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3
The bill doesn't target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.
unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down
A rule that applies exclusively to the US subsidiary of TikTok.
It would be akin to passing a law that says @finitebanjo must have all of his possessions seized in the next nine months, because he took money from the Canadian government. Canada isn't the target of the legislation and the scope of the legislation isn't universal - it's only assigning a punishment to a single domestic resident - and entirely on the grounds that the current chief executive doesn't like Justin Trudeau.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo's friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose's friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.
The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose
Except, again, the business being penalized is the American subsidiary.
The fact that you think you can remove all context
The context is that the commercial assets and employees being threatened by the US government are all within US territory.
Not environmentally...
I thought we like disruption.