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.
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
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.
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