I've seen that too. But they're mistaken. "Censoring the internet" is not what this law does. That's hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.
Don't misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.
They could use their advertising platform to manipulate US public opinion and elections. And, again, this isn't to say it's fine for domestic companies to do this. But that's no argument against this law. In fact, I daresay the "gamer-to-far-right-radical pipeline" you identify is an example of this.
“If lawmakers want to rein in the harms of social-media platforms, targeting just one under the guise of national security ignores an entire industry predicated on surveillance capitalism. Like all popular platforms — including those that Meta and Google own — TikTok collects far too much user data. But banning a single platform will not address the privacy problem that’s rotting the core of the entire tech industry.
If domestic social media is collecting dangerous amounts of personal info about Americans, then foreign social media under who are subject to the laws of adversarial nation-states should be seriously concerning.
The matter of domestic social media will have to be addressed by a completely different law because it cannot be addressed by a law similar to this new one. People who bring up domestic social media in discussions of this law are completely missing the point.
Chew responded to the latest moves in a video posted by the official TikTok account. "Make no mistake, this is a ban," Chew said in the video. "A ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice."
If social media apps exist to slurp up as much user info as possible, and they do, then it makes sense to be concerned about the government that they're subject to.
US, China, Russia, France, and the UK have veto power over Security Council resolutions because they are the ones who are called upon to actually enforce Security Council resolutions.
Although Shupe’s limited copyright registration is notable, she originally asked the USCO to open a more significant path to copyright recognition for AI-generated material. “I seek to copyright the AI-assisted and AI-generated material under an ADA exemption for my many disabilities,” she wrote in her original copyright application.
Shupe believes fervently that she was only able to complete her book with the assistance of generative AI tools. She says she has been assessed as 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs and struggles to write due to cognitive impairment related to conditions including bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and a brain stem malformation.
I'm sympathetic, but writing a book is not something most people do regardless of their disabilities. Writing is a talent, and most people don't have it. So it makes no sense to invoke the ADA here.
Well, no. The courts struck down Trump's Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.