Odds of US TikTok Ban Increase After House Fast-Tracks Revised Bill, Picking Up Key Senate Support (variety.com) 63
U.S. lawmakers have moved closer to enacting a countrywide ban on TikTok. From a report: Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill by a wide margin that would ban distribution of TikTok in U.S. unless TikTok's Chinese parent, ByteDance, sells its ownership in the app within 165 days of the law's enactment. On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson issued a new proposal that would extend the sale requirement deadline to nine months, with a potential for a 90-day extension -- addressing a key concern of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, that the divestiture timeline was too short.
The revised TikTok ban proposal is tied to a broader bill providing emergency aid for Ukraine and Israel; the House is expected to vote on the measure Saturday, and if it passes would move to the Senate. President Biden has said he will sign the TikTok divest-or-ban legislation into law. On Wednesday evening, Cantwell said she supported the revised TikTok ban bill. "I'm very happy that Speaker Johnson and House leaders incorporated my recommendation to extend the ByteDance divestment period from six months to a year," she said in a statement. "As I've said, extending the divestment period is necessary to ensure there is enough time for a new buyer to get a deal done. I support this updated legislation."
The revised TikTok ban proposal is tied to a broader bill providing emergency aid for Ukraine and Israel; the House is expected to vote on the measure Saturday, and if it passes would move to the Senate. President Biden has said he will sign the TikTok divest-or-ban legislation into law. On Wednesday evening, Cantwell said she supported the revised TikTok ban bill. "I'm very happy that Speaker Johnson and House leaders incorporated my recommendation to extend the ByteDance divestment period from six months to a year," she said in a statement. "As I've said, extending the divestment period is necessary to ensure there is enough time for a new buyer to get a deal done. I support this updated legislation."
It isn't a ban, it's a cash grab (Score:4, Insightful)
The Feds are trying to confiscate a large part of TikTok's business by a forced sale to American businessmen. I gather this is because TikTok appears to be successful, whereas ex-Twitter and Pravda Social are going down in flames.
It's not a ban and was never intended to be a ban. It's a direct threat based on, "nice company you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
It would be a shame if something happened to it
This would imply that ByteDance has an option.
Third party is irrelevant in bicameral system (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Britain has the parliamentary system. 2 parties.
All parliamentary systems do is change how the executive powers are distributed, which isn't a fix for this problem.
Destruction of the two-party system, to be replaced with a multi-party system, would require legislative overhauls for election law in all 50 states. That's the barrier. And that's not going to happen.
Re:It isn't a ban, it's a cash grab (Score:4, Interesting)
It's also a nice distraction from the border crisis,
I'll make a wager with you.
Travel to Mexico. Mail your passport and identification back to the USA. Try crossing at any of the "open" areas and report on your difficulty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a nice distraction from the border crisis,
I'll make a wager with you.
Travel to Mexico. Mail your passport and identification back to the USA. Try crossing at any of the "open" areas and report on your difficulty.
Ill make a wager with you. Look at the numbers a lying Myorkas is reporting himself and find anyone who will agree with you who claims the border is “secure” and there’s nothing to cross there.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the guy who just had all charges against him dropped?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't regurgitate shit Trump says, it can only result in one thing- you looking like a fucking moron.
Just google it first, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, there isn't even a crisis at the border. The crisis is entirely internal. Someone is paying those illegal immigrants for work. Find them and prosecute them and illegal border crossings go to almost nil.
But then, who will work the agricultural jobs and other low level jobs for less than subsistence wages?
Re:It isn't a ban, it's a cash grab (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean this [newsweek.com] border "crisis" [youtube.com]?
crumbling infrastructure,
Republicans, almost to a one, voted against [go.com] a wide-ranging infrastructure bill, then bragged about all the money [msnbc.com] their districts were getting for infrastructure.
and general loss of civil rights
Yes, Republicans have been working hard to take away people's civil rights. From taking away one's right to control their own body to bannning books so you can't read them, to trying to prevent entire groups from voting [apnews.com], they are working as hard as they can to impose an iron grip on people's lives and destroy our freedoms.
Re:It isn't a ban, it's a cash grab (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really odd a ban like this didn't happen a long time ago. I think there is valid criticism that the US shouldn't allow private businesses to control media (including social media) to the extent they do without more regulation, but not allowing a foreign geopolitical adversary to do it should be a no-brainer. YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook are all banned in China. The fact TikTok has been allowed in the US for as long as it has is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook are all banned in China. The fact TikTok has been allowed in the US for as long as it has is ridiculous.
Banning a foreign social media company makes us more like China, not less. I'm truly surprised how many Americans have jumped on the "China BAD! Let's beat them by emulating them!" bandwagon.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. And I've got a newsflash for you... there are other things [wikipedia.org] that China does better than we do in the US.
Personally, I don't think a TikTok ban will happen or would even be productive if it passes. It will undoubtedly be challenged in court more or less instantly. I would be astounded if it will get all the way through all of the appeals in less than half a decade. And by then the kids who are on TikTok now will have moved on to whatever the next cool thing turn
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook are all banned in China.
This is a stupid fucking bit of logic right here.
You know what else is banned in China? Speaking ill of their fucking dictator.
Seek a better fucking benchmark, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that reasoning is that it would seem China needs to ban Apple products, Microsoft products including Bing, American movies... But they don't, they just require that anyone doing business there sticks to their laws, which is what most countries do.
The real reason why the US wants to force the sale of TikTok is because it is politically quite left leaning. Lots of stuff about unions and worker's rights, how unfair the real-estate/rental market is, socialism and other left leaning politics...
Re: (Score:2)
The Feds are trying to confiscate a large part of TikTok's business by a forced sale to American businessmen. I gather this is because TikTok appears to be successful, whereas ex-Twitter and Pravda Social are going down in flames.
It's not a ban and was never intended to be a ban. It's a direct threat based on, "nice company you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it."
You really think they care that much about that tiny bit of cash?
The real reason is that the Feds (and legislators) are cluing into how powerful AI and analytics are and they're scared over what China is doing with the giant masses of data it's collecting from TikTok.
What kinda stuff goes viral? How does info spread through networks? What's spreading right now? Legislator X is authoring a bill that touches our interests, what do we know about that legislator in specific?
For a country looking to meddle in We
Fingers crossed (Score:3)
Hope it passes!!
Re: (Score:2)
You hope warmongering passes to fund a foreign war between two non-NATO countries, at taxpayers expense?
Are you talking about Russia and Ukraine or Israel and Palestine?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about Russia and Ukraine or Israel and Palestine?
Both would cease if US did not pour resources on it.
Re: (Score:2)
They tied the bill to a MASSIVE Ukraine/Israel funding bill.
Re: (Score:1)
Stop bundling! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea: prohibit the practice of bundling separate issues into a single vote. Why is it important to allow Mnuchin and related cronies to purchase TikTok before we vote to provide aid to Ukraine? Why are we linking Ukraine's fight for independence from tyranny to support for apartheid Israel's genocidal campaign against Palestine? Goddamn ridiculous. The United States is no beacon on a hill - it is a morally repugnant cesspool of incompetence and grift.
Amend the Constitution with a single statement: Every law or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and it shall be expressed in the title. In short, no riders.
Just remember that this is a double-edged sword, because it will affect legislation you like as well as legislation you despise. Me? I'm willing to let it work that way, because then we'll know just where these politicians actually stand on an issue. Many riders are added to bills specifically to get the minority part
Re:Stop bundling! (Score:5, Informative)
Yet if you dig deeper, the reason that congress critter voted against the bill was because of a rider, not because of the main subject.
This is true but we also have to acknowledge that the only reason the rider tends to be there is pull someone elses vote to the bill in question.
Riders are a result of negotiations to get things passed. The prevalence of them is a response to gridlock.
If this was 20-30 years ago you are not complaining about "riders" but about "earmarks" (this "one bill per topic" argument isn't new, i've heard it all my life) but yet when Republicans banned earmarks in 2011 it actually worsened the problem:
In December 2015, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) claimed in their 2016 Congressional Pig Book,[25] that all the FY2016 earmarks were contained in the December 2016 omnibus 2000-page Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 which authorized $1.15 trillion in appropriations.[26] The CAGW argued that "Throwing all earmarks into one large bill makes it more difficult to identify and eliminate earmarks than if Congress adhered to regular order and considered the 12 appropriations bills individually."
Horse trading is part of politics. If you outright ban it then effectively much like any other product the problem will be worked around either in the open or more likely just done in secret, a black market for legislations as it were.
If you really want to move closer to the goal you prescribe then you have to attack the root cause, not the symptom and the cause is gridlock. Nobody wants to pass 10 smaller bills because that'll just never get anywhere so one giant bill it is. If you want people to vote 10 times instead of one we need people in Congress who actually believe in the process and legislation.
Right now when half the legislators have it as their goal to not legislate and specifically talk about gumming up the systems, well, you get gridlock, giant riders and massive omnibus style bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Horse trading is part of politics. If you outright ban it then effectively much like any other product the problem will be worked around either in the open or more likely just done in secret, a black market for legislations as it were.
If you really want to move closer to the goal you prescribe then you have to attack the root cause, not the symptom and the cause is gridlock. Nobody wants to pass 10 smaller bills because that'll just never get anywhere so one giant bill it is. If you want people to vote 10 times instead of one we need people in Congress who actually believe in the process and legislation.
Right now when half the legislators have it as their goal to not legislate and specifically talk about gumming up the systems, well, you get gridlock, giant riders and massive omnibus style bills.
I'm not saying that it isn't part of politics... what I am saying is that we keep hearing these bold statements about "needing transparency," yet riders or earmarks are clearly attempts to add opacity when someone tries to say, "That party is against X," because someone voted a certain way because of the riders (or earmarks). My issue is more the reason for why no riders... that being that if it is so important that it must be added as a rider to something, then it is important enough to have a standalone
Re: (Score:2)
Well I mean, it' transparent in that it's negotiated out in the open, the items in the bill are that it is in the bill. So while the process is opaque in ways since the negotiations are sorta in the backrooms but the outcomes are right out in front. The fact that bills are long and can be difficult to read, well, those are separate questions (Thinking of the Daily Show bit about Herman Cain "all treaties must fit on the back of a cereal box!") that happens with or without riders and earmarks.
that being that if it is so important that it must be added as a rider to something, then it is important enough to have a standalone vote
It's not a ma
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea: prohibit the practice of bundling separate issues into a single vote. Why is it important to allow Mnuchin and related cronies to purchase TikTok before we vote to provide aid to Ukraine? Why are we linking Ukraine's fight for independence from tyranny to support for apartheid Israel's genocidal campaign against Palestine? Goddamn ridiculous. The United States is no beacon on a hill - it is a morally repugnant cesspool of incompetence and grift.
Because this is the only way the outside players can ever get the most egregious things to pass.
WE'RE HANDING OUT LOLLIPOPS!
But every third one is laced with cyanide.
Then when someone balks, the proponents of the second half can scream at the top of their lungs to the press that their opponents are against handing out free lollipops! HOW DARE THEY NOT WANT FREE LOLLIPOPS FOR EVERYONE! HOW ANTI-AMERICAN!
We need to clear our our government and start over. It's too filled with shitbags, and the shitbags ha
They aren't banning it (Score:1)
Anyone that thinks that this will protect children and/or increase national security is an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Does this make it through SCOTUS? (Score:2)
I mean, this is basically passing a law saying that company A cannot own something. Yes, it is China nd Bytedance, but if this stands, is there anything saying they couldn't do the exact same thing to another company. Could the dems pass a bill saying Trump must sell off all his ownership of Trump Media? I mean, this seems like a REALLY bad idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on how many free vacations https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org] and motor homes https://apnews.com/article/sup... [apnews.com] Bytedance is willing to gift.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they handle it like they have done with other foreign media moguls? I think they just made Rupert Murdoch become a US citizen or something like that.
Just have Liang Rubo become a US Citizen... What's with the double standard?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they handle it like they have done with other foreign media moguls? I think they just made Rupert Murdoch become a US citizen or something like that.
Separate thing.
The US is able to impose domestic ownership requirements on broadcasting licenses, because they are the sole grantor of license for use of the airwaves.
There is no issue with his ownership of News Corp.
Restriction of corporate ownership is a bit more murky in the constitutional waters. The Equal Protection Clause comes into play (as TikTok is a legally incorporated US entity, it therefor has rights), as well as the constitutional restrictions on Bills of Attainder.
Passing a bill specifi
Re: (Score:1)
When I was a kid, there was no social media but for some of us into electronics, there was radio Moscow, Cuba, et al spewing lies about US government and so forth. Personally, I was smart enough not to listen to them, I mean I listened, but just thinking to myself as I listened, "That's bullshit, and that, and that..."
Dunno what to think of people that believe there are toxic liquids to leak from solar panels or that wind turbines are coated with toxic substances. Outright brain-dead comes to mind. Oh,
Re: (Score:2)
If you honestly believe that a change in ownership will have any effect on if (China, Russia, Al Quaeda, Boogeyman du jour) can access data through the app, I have a slightly used bridge that I can sell you really cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I'm including 2 ground wars in there.
You gloss over the real problem- how do "the commies" get your house from your IP?
Easy- a US corp sold it to them with no questions asked.
And therein lies the problem with the proposed fix.
The case of the dog catching the car (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Seize domains that host apks, threaten Apple and Google with big fines, etc.
NOT A BAN! (Score:1)
The U.S. does censorship better than China (Score:1)
How to beat China (Score:2)