Biden Signs TikTok 'Divest or Ban' Bill Into Law (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0173627300
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/04/24/1514216/biden-signs-tiktok-divest-or-ban-bill-into-law
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/24/24139036/biden-signs-tiktok-ban-bill-divest-foreign-aid-package
> The [1]divest-or-ban bill is now law , starting the clock for ByteDance to make its move. The company has an initial nine months to sort out a deal, though the president could extend that another three months if he sees progress. While just recently the legislation seemed like it would stall out in the Senate after being passed as a standalone bill in the House, political maneuvering helped usher it through to Biden's desk. The House packaged the TikTok bill -- which upped the timeline for divestment from the six months allowed in the earlier version -- with foreign aid to US allies, which effectively forced the Senate to consider the measures together. The longer divestment period also seemed to get some lawmakers who were on the fence on board.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/24/24139036/biden-signs-tiktok-ban-bill-divest-foreign-aid-package
Nation of Origin: Carolina (Score:4)
In general, I'm skeptical of legislative statutes that name individuals or companies. Even the fig leaf of generalizing it to "social media companies with foreign ownership grossing over umpteen jillion dollars per year" provides some value, in my view. Because otherwise your law books end up referencing a bunch of transient cultural phenomena like, say, the Charleston, and thus looking like they were written not by serious statespeople but by crazy demagogues bent on scoring points in a culture war to the expense of good policy. Ahem.
Re: (Score:3)
I am more skeptical of legislation that specifies conditions that political appointees can interpret differently such that they can force the shutdown of any sites they don't like. I really don't care which side of the aisle you are on... the point of free speech is that you are able to speak your thoughts and put your ideas out there for others to debate (an art we seem to have lost), giving people the ability to prove or disprove what you said.
Hey, credit due... (Score:1)
Hey, credit where credit is due.
We actually got both houses to pass this attempt and Biden actually signed it.
It is at least a start.
The problem is....this gives WAY too much time....TT will still be fully able to affect and sway this years election.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, what an odd coincidence, with a completely unexpected side effect.
Rebecca Watson on YouTube made a good point (Score:3)
which is that this doesn't solve anything. If China wants to manipulate us they can do it like Russia does with troll & bot farms. And it's probably not a good precedence to set that our government can block off an app from a nation that isn't formally sanctioned.
Re: (Score:2)
The precedent is already there. The legislation is just behind the times. There were laws relating to foreign ownership of radio stations, then tv stations, and now it's social media. I'm surprised it took this long to happen given that the precedent is so clear.
While I find the security argument sufficient to justify a divestiture, the fair trade argument is even more compelling. The security argument is about what might happen, whereas the fair trade argument is based around already established fact.
Stupid way to run a country (Score:2)
> which effectively forced the Senate to consider the measures together
What a stupid way to legislate. Every bill ought to gave a single, specified purpose.
Still has to pass court (Score:2)
Courts may rule evidence is needed before "punishing" Tik Tok, otherwise could be considered unequal treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are a problem, as is Google. Unfortunately they are in bed with the blob, so nothing will happen.
Re: (Score:1)
> Courts may rule evidence is needed before "punishing" Tik Tok, otherwise could be considered unequal treatment.
I believe the "National Security" ban hammer still holds a lot of sway in instances like this.
TT is held closely by an enemy/antagonistic foreign country...giving them the ability to sway discourse and public sentiment via their algorithms.
This is a bit of new ground granted....
But, the US constitution protects the US and it's people, not hostile foreign countries.....right?
Re: Still has to pass court (Score:1)
That's a great point, US constitution is meant to protect and apply to US citizens. The platform gives foreign influence leverage to spread disinformation under the same protections as a US citizen. This distinction is likely to be overlooked by those benefitting from the platform.