He’s got two days left in office, of course he won’t. He’s got more important shit to focus his attention on.
Here is a list of the other 34 countries that have banned it and their reasons why: https://time.com/6971009/tiktok-banned-restrictions-worldwide-countries-united-states-law/
Most countries concerned about disinformation campaigns influencing politics, or brainwashing children (probably some adults too)
It’s literally all bans on government devices. Which is totally reasonable. Ban it from govt devices.
That’s not fair. It’s totally banned in at least Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea.
India too iirc
Bad title. Biden won’t enforce it because “Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday”. Trump takes office literally the next day, so he’s going to have to enforce it (or not).
Nah, midnight orders are a thing. But the event isn’t on the 20th, it’s on the 19th. The administration could absolutely shut it down.
I understand the “but I like TikTok” crowd, but China bans US companies from operating in China all the time. Why is it all of a sudden a problem when we do it to them?
So is the argument now we should act like China? Thought this was America, land of freedom of speech or whatever.
So is the argument now we should act like China?
Unironically, I think most people who are going to Red Note might think so.
Facebook had less than a million users in China before it was banned in 2009. It was struggling against domestic platforms like Webo.
TikTok has 150 million active monthly users and is one of the largest social media apps in the US.
Number of users is not a valid argument on this type of debate
The fact that a counter-intelligence campaign has so many users is exactly why it needs to be banned
A. Counter-Intelligence is when you are countering intelligence gathering activities.
B. Nobody has released any evidence that TikTok is an intelligence gathering tool.
C. This law is unconstitutional by the plain text of the Constitution. SCOTUS has truly gone over the edge.
Where’s the evidence that it’s “counter intelligence” I hear a lot of completely unverified claims that sound like 1950s reds under the bed nationalist hysteria
Misinformation is counter-intelligence, lots of evidence out there, search “TikTok misinformation”
Sorry, I meant disinformation : Disinformation is a form of offensive counterintelligence via deception and neutralization in order to strategically manipulate an audience or create further fractures in existing divisions. Disinformation strategies include leaking, lying, seeding, and smearing.
Because US government is weak! Trump will show’em how it is done. If Trump lets Tik Tok to continue to exist then Trump is weak!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5CZNlaeZAtw John Oliver will describe it best
Whether or not this particular ban is enforced is irrelevant. The point was simply to establish the precedent that the government can restrict citizens’ access to social media.
The thing people aren’t getting about this law is it’s extremely broad, with no due process. The definition they use for organizations that are subject to this law could literally include the New York Times. And designating an organization as controlled by a foreign adversary is a declaration by the Secretary of Commerce.
There’s no court, no hearing, no public notice, no juries, and only one judge (the secretary).
The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone. That’s half the country that uses TikTok. If they can do that without protests then they can shut down anyone.
The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone.
Exactly.
They needed a pretense for taking down a social media site in spite of the fact that it’s not violating any existing laws and in spite of widespread opposition to the takedown,and TikTok served both of those purposes.
And now, armed with Supreme Court approval, they can set about barring access to pretty much any site they want, for whatever reason they want, regardless of public opinion.
Yes, yes it can. Ask pornhub
Pornhub is different though, because they could base it in existing laws barring minors from accessing pornography. It didn’t really establish any new precedents, but instead simply expanded enforcement of existing statutes to the internet.
That’s not to say it was a good thing - it just doesn’t pose the same sort of existential threat that this poses.
The difference here is that there are no existing laws that pertain to TikTok, so it’s not justvthe application of existing law to the internet. This is an entirely new power - the authority to simply pass a law decreeing that a particular site is to be banned in the US, entirely regardless of the legal standing of the site or its content, but solely because those with the authority to do so have decided that that’s what they want to do
