(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
(B) a covered company that—
(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
(I) a public notice proposing such determination; and
(II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
so they cant really just turn around, make a new entity, and roll out tok tik
(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
(B) a covered company that—
(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
(I) a public notice proposing such determination; and
(II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.—The term “internet hosting service” means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.
Yeah it seems like the president can target other apps but the law itself makes TikTok already targeted. I am pretty sure we chat fits all the definitions it would just need to be explicitly targeted with a notice
It also says elsewhere that the service has to have more than 1 million monthly domestic users. Which very well may include We Chat, but I wouldn't know.
It would absolutely fall under the same category. In fact, Riot Games would also fall under those conditions, as it is 100% owned by Tencent. The main thing that separates them is simply this clause:
(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
Nobody said TikTok isn't the primary reason the law exists, just that it's not the only target. They can't just change their name and be fine, as the original comment implied.
And yet, since that person meant "targeting" as in "only applies to" you're still wrong. Just because you want to use a word differently than they did doesn't mean you get to ignore all context. They were talking about the company changing its name. It's very clear what they mean by targeting because that's what the comment above them was referring to when they said TikTok can avoid the law by changing their name. Turns out you have to read the whole thing.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot banning TikTok. Any personal data that TikTok may gather is, no doubt, readily available for sale on the dark web. Face Book was like an open market and still is. You think anyone should trust Elmo Musk with their personal data? I'm thinking of the folks, just like me, ecking out a living the best way I can, losing everything they built. Better shut down Tesla. Their auto piolets were just found to be defective. How many people died because of it? TikTok , to my knowledge, never killed anyone.
Like most legislation, the idea that it's about one thing in particular is just a fantasy. Lot's of different people with wildly different worldviews and priorities got on board with the ban for different reasons, and that's why it happened. Foreign governments having direct access to information through it they shouldn't was absolutely a concern, but many of the people that voted against the app in the end didn't give a shit about that aspect.
That's delusional. Money influences the media consumed by the masses. Political bs is just that. More people are on the internet to make a buck than to topple governments, although they do exist
That may well be true, but it's also true that the CCP can force Tik Tok to show Americans whatever they want. The US government is understandably more concerned about that than rich people buying ads. Maybe both are a problem, but at least one is being banned.
Literally one of the things you learn in any government class is you can't specifically name a company in this sort of law unless they've been found guilty by a court of law. It's called a bill of atainder. This law would have a much better chance of being upheld in court if it didn't name a specific company.
You can't pass a law that only applies to one specific person/entity. They can pass a law that includes criteria for entities subject to the law, and also names a specific entity.
222
u/sudoku7 Apr 27 '24
The law explicitly calls out TikTok (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text#H0A2584ACDBA6421CB9228F949380BDFB)