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.
I think those phrases are important when discussing any potential “slippery slope” aspects of this bill. It’s about companies/applications from specific adversary nations. It’s not about just any service that annoys a US politician. The bar here is much higher, and the scope is narrow. While it does identify ByteDance and TikTok by name, it will also apply to other companies from those nations, if they are determined to present a threat to US national security.
I haven’t read the entire bill, so please don’t take this as advice, but in principle, I think it seems like a sensible measure. A major communication platform like TikTok makes a very effective propaganda and misinformation tool. Exactly the sort of thing that an adversary nation would use to sway political discourse, influence elections, even undermine a democracy.
Of course, any law can be abused, so paying attention to how this one is applied and enforced will be important, just as with any other.
While true, it also includes any US (or other county) company that is owned at least 20% by someone in one of those adversary countries.
The President can’t just name any country an “adversary country,” but it’s not just companies in those countries either. So something like Epic Games could qualify since TenCent (owned by a Chinese national) owns >20% stake.
However, the law also restricts how a company or product is subject to the rule. Basically, unless they are TikTok or ByteDance (or directly affiliated with either in a legal sense), the President must:
Publicly notify Congress of the intent to classify them as an adversary company (assuming they meet the rest of the rules) at least 30 days prior to any further action
Notify the public of the change
Then the company has 90 days to appeal before the statute of limitations is up, and 270 days to comply (i.e. divest from the adversary country).
So the bill is pretty decent in preventing abuse, so I’m more worried about the precedent it’s setting. We generally don’t ban things here in the US, so this is a pretty big step IMO.
“Controlled by a foreign adversary” and “foreign adversary country” are the key phrases. The definitions are here.
It refers to United States Code title 10 section 4872(d)(2), which says:
I think those phrases are important when discussing any potential “slippery slope” aspects of this bill. It’s about companies/applications from specific adversary nations. It’s not about just any service that annoys a US politician. The bar here is much higher, and the scope is narrow. While it does identify ByteDance and TikTok by name, it will also apply to other companies from those nations, if they are determined to present a threat to US national security.
I haven’t read the entire bill, so please don’t take this as advice, but in principle, I think it seems like a sensible measure. A major communication platform like TikTok makes a very effective propaganda and misinformation tool. Exactly the sort of thing that an adversary nation would use to sway political discourse, influence elections, even undermine a democracy.
Of course, any law can be abused, so paying attention to how this one is applied and enforced will be important, just as with any other.
While true, it also includes any US (or other county) company that is owned at least 20% by someone in one of those adversary countries.
The President can’t just name any country an “adversary country,” but it’s not just companies in those countries either. So something like Epic Games could qualify since TenCent (owned by a Chinese national) owns >20% stake.
However, the law also restricts how a company or product is subject to the rule. Basically, unless they are TikTok or ByteDance (or directly affiliated with either in a legal sense), the President must:
Then the company has 90 days to appeal before the statute of limitations is up, and 270 days to comply (i.e. divest from the adversary country).
So the bill is pretty decent in preventing abuse, so I’m more worried about the precedent it’s setting. We generally don’t ban things here in the US, so this is a pretty big step IMO.