- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why the Tik Tok ban is so dangerous.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:01 pm
quote:
The bill passed in the House that’s likely to win the Senate and be swiftly signed into law by the White House’s dynamic Biden hologram is at best tangentially about TikTok.
You’ll find the real issue in the fine print. There, the “technical assistance” the drafters of the bill reportedly received from the White House shines through, Look particularly at the first highlighted portion, and sections (i) and (ii) of (3)B:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
Currently, the definition of “foreign adversary” includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.
The definition of “controlled,” meanwhile, turns out to be a word salad, applying to:
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
A “foreign adversary controlled application,” in other words, can be any company founded or run by someone living at the wrong foreign address, or containing a small minority ownership stake. Or it can be any company run by someone “subject to the direction” of either of those entities. Or, it’s anything the president says it is. Vague enough?
quote:
Just ahead of Monday’s oral arguments in Murtha v. Missouri, formerly Missouri v. Biden — the case so many of us hoped would see the First Amendment reinvigorated by the Supreme Court — this TikTok bill has allowed the intelligence community to re-capture the legislative branch. Just a few principled speech defenders are left now. Fifty Democrats voted against the bill, which is heartening, although virtually none argued against it on First Amendment grounds, whis is infurating. Pramila Jayapal had a typical take, saying the ban would “harm users who rely on TikTok for their livelihoods, many of whom are people of color.”
Contrast that with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who went after members of his own party, singling out Republicans encouraging a governmental power grab after years of fighting big tech abuses not just at TikTok but other platforms. These people claim to be horrified, he said, but actions speak louder than words.
“Look at their legislative proposals,” he said, noting many want to “set up government agencies and panels” on speech, effectively saying “If you’re not putting enough conservatives on there, by golly we’re going to have a government commission that’s going to determine what kind of content gets on there.”
These, he said, are “scary ideas.”
He’s right, and shame on papers like the New York Post that are going after Paul for having donors connected to TikTok. Paul has been consistent in his defense of speech throughout his career, so the idea that his opinion on this matter is bought is ludicrous. It’s a relief to be able to expect at least some adherence to principle on this topic from him or fellow Kentuckian Thomas Massie, just as we once could expect it from Democrats like Paul Wellstone or Dennis Kucinich.
I don’t often do this, but as Walter pointed out in today’s podcast, this bill is so dangerous, the moment so suddenly and unexpectedly grave, that we both recommend anyone who can find the time to call or write their Senators to express opposition to any coming Senate vote. It might help. Yes, collection of personal information and content manipulation by the Chinese government (or Russia’s, or ours) are serious problems, but the wider view is the speech emergency. As the cliché goes, forget the furniture. The house is on fire. Let’s hope we’re not too late.
LINK
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:02 pm to Bunk Moreland
There’s no law against propaganda algorithms, even if they are Chinese.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:07 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:Yeah that’s pretty fricking vague.
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
Could be used against any app or website the regime deems “a threat to national security.”
X will be shut down because they can’t control Musk.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:08 pm to Bunk Moreland
Come on man, our benevolent, government overlords are just looking out for our best interests... No way they would ever overstep their bounds and abuse a law like this...
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:15 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:FALSE!
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
quote:
Any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered if it is CONTROLLED by a foreign ADVERSARY.
This post was edited on 3/15/24 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
FALSE!
how are they defining "foreign adversary"? that's the kicker
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:30 pm to Northshore Aggie
quote:
how are they defining "foreign adversary"? that's the kicker
quote:
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
FALSE!
You don’t think the dems will consider Elon a foreign adversary? Or any other “insurrectionist” they deem a threat?
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:45 pm to NC_Tigah
thanks
so, for those of you who think this is particularly dangerous, what will be the workaround from this clause? seems pretty cut and dry from the wording here. of course it's not like our government follows its own laws anyways.
quote:
(2)Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means—
(A)the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea;
(B)the People’s Republic of China;
(C)the Russian Federation; and
(D)the Islamic Republic of Iran.
so, for those of you who think this is particularly dangerous, what will be the workaround from this clause? seems pretty cut and dry from the wording here. of course it's not like our government follows its own laws anyways.
This post was edited on 3/15/24 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:46 pm to Bunk Moreland
Yeah the people saying “it only applies to TikToc are lying. It thst was the case it would be a bill of attainder, and thus unconstitutional.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:47 pm to Bunk Moreland
This ban is only happening so tik tok will get sold and the us can harvest your data from tik tok instead of china
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:51 pm to Northshore Aggie
quote:Whats the definition of controlled.
what will be the workaround from this clause?
Posted on 3/15/24 at 12:53 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:You missed part (i) "is controlled by a foreign adversary, and.."quote:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
Yeah that’s pretty fricking vague.
Could be used against any app or website the regime deems “a threat to national security.”
X will be shut down because they can’t control Musk.
So you have to have part (i) before you can get to Part (ii).
Posted on 3/15/24 at 1:16 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:It won’t stop China. Data is an open market.
This ban is only happening so tik tok will get sold and the us can harvest your data from tik tok instead of china
This is signal to tell platforms “comply or we’ll get you”. It’s what authortarian regimes do.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 1:21 pm to Bunk Moreland
Allowing an adversary to buy up our farm land, food processing, and land around military installations is okay, but then letting people post twerking videos is not okay.
Our high functioning government folks!
Our high functioning government folks!
Posted on 3/15/24 at 1:23 pm to Bunk Moreland
All GOP Congressmen and women should be rated based on what Rand represents. He should be the barometer for voting.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 1:24 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
Allowing an adversary to buy up our farm land, food processing, and land around military installations is okay, but then letting people post twerking videos is not okay.
i get what you're saying, and i agree with you about the buying up of the land, but the issue with tiktok wasnt "letting people post twerking videos", which you can still do all day long on any number of other social media sites. at least be intellectually honest with your snark.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 1:24 pm to Bunk Moreland
This board is proof itself that TikTok and X both need to be banned. Both are doing massive mental damage to Americans.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 1:58 pm to Buffalobill86
tiktok is essentially a Chinese psyop used to influence behaviors, stir up discontent, and gather information on Americans.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News