(03-17-2024, 10:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(03-14-2024, 08:39 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: It’s a CCP entity which doesn’t even attempt to conceal the fact they are using this platform to gather knowledge on users as well as leverage it to influence society, and you’re still in question about why it has been acted upon by Congress?

You’re outsmarting yourself.

How many times in your lifetime do you need to see a behavior repeated until you notice it's an intentional pattern? How many threats have been used by the government to curtail the power of private citizenry? How many bills have been passed that expand the power and reach of the government in the name of safety in your lifetime? How many times have you seen that power exploited and corrupted?

TikTok will not be the only company affected by this bill. TikTok isn't even mentioned in the bill. Did you read it? I did. It basically gives the President and the Secretary of Commerce the authority to divest or take measures against any company deemed to be connected to a foreign adversary. Even an accusation could bring about corrective measures from the state. 

The bill makes it seem like Congress can check this power, but it's just illusionary, of course. The Secretary of Commerce needs to notify congress when it's sanctioned a company or CEO. HOWEVER, it would take a joint resolution to override it (meaning both the House and Senate would need to agree), but even then, the President can veto the sanction, lol. If that were to happen, typical veto rules apply, which means two-thirds of both the House and Senate would need to oppose the veto. For all intents and purposes, Congress ceded its powers in this matter to the President. They left themselves room to grandstand, though. 

The only real protection in this bill is Judicial Review, which, as we are currently seeing, is only as strong as the courts overseeing the case. 

If you really believe this isn't going to be abused moving forward, you're deluding yourself. IF congress were interested in stopping TikTok, this bill would address that threat. It doesn't. It just gives more and more power to the executive branch of the government. 

At some point, you're going to have to start smarting yourself.

---

Every person on this board should read that post in its entirety.

I want to go back to this. Last night, I realized I read the Senate bill instead of the House bill that was passed (which sucks, since the Senate bill was 4x longer). 

A few things: The House bill does specifically mention TikTok and ByteDance, but it still uses language that is broad enough to encompass any company the President determines is dealing with a foreign adversary. While the bill focuses on the tech sector, it could easily be broadened to address any company or entity that is determined to be "covered" by a foreign adversary. 

The President gets to make that decision unilaterally, for both the company and the foreign adversary. The secretary of commerce has been dropped completely from the language and replaced with Attorney General, who has much more legal power. 

Congress removed themselves from oversight completely (unless a brand-new law is made). It's subject to judicial review, but the DC circuit court of appeals was exclusively appointed to oversee these cases. 

This is a joke. It's basically a dumbed down version of the Senate bill, that gives even more power to the President with less congressional and judicial oversight (unless you think the DC circuit is just the bee's knees, lol). It does at least mention the threat directly, but does not limit itself to those companies or entities within. 

I have zero problems with regulating foreign actors who are aggressively taking our information for potentially nefarious purposes, but it needs to be specific. These types of broad policies ALWAYS get abused.

---