• slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    There’s compelling arguments either way. On one hand, this is a pretty naked attempt to hit at China and control the flow of the US government’s desired information.

    On the other hand, the legislation isn’t technically a ban, but a forced divestment of a corporate asset. The power of the government to force the breakup, dissolution, or divestment of corporate entities is the basis of US antitrust law, and is well established.

    It’s an interesting case.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The power of the government to force the breakup, dissolution, or divestment of corporate entities is the basis of US antitrust law, and is well established.

      Unless of course the monopoly holder is an american corporation. Then it’s a good monopoly. We’re living in the next gilded age simply because people “forgot” monopolies are bad and those laws remain unused against giants like google, amazon, meta and many many more.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        Are you forgetting that there are currently antitrust lawsuits going against both Amazon and Google? The current administration is absolutely in favor of breaking up monopolies, regardless of where the company is.

        • riodoro1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          the current administration will go and somehow big corpos will prevail. The politicians only do what the rich allow them to do. The US even has legal corruption.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            If the current administration loses in November, then yeah, it’s pretty likely that Apple, Google, and Amazon will continue to amass more power.

            Sounds like a pretty solid reason to vote for retaining the current administration, yeah? Some check on power v. no check on power?

    • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I imagine that our (U.S.) government’s case resides primarily on the premise that the state may exercise the ability to force divestment of a company with foreign ownership.

      These powers are granted by the National Defense Authorization Act which seeks to prevent imminent national and private security vulnerabilities being exploited by foreign adversaries and agents; the actors here would be specifically the CCP and their intelligence and military apparatus’ shell companies and PMCs.

      The precedents set by U.S. Anti-Trust laws support their position, but the primary argument in the state’s defense are the powers granted by the NDAA.

      I’m only speculating.

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Surely Tiktok will also be suing the Chinese government to be unbanned there as well, right guys?

    • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      We should not throw out our rights, just because China doesn’t have those same rights.

      China should be the example of a bad way to monitor the internet, not the end goal.

        • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is true for any social platform. They’re all advertisement platforms. Where is the line between censorship and moderation? The solution here isn’t to draw arbitrary lines in the sand of free speech, it’s to promote data transparency laws. Let everyone know what data is kept and how it’s used and let them decide where to go and how to put pressure on the platforms they care about for change.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Look, Tiktok has the backing of a corporation worth $225 billion. Not my problem.

            I’ve donated to the EFF. Why don’t we talk more about them? The two main people complaining about the Tiktok ban are “Influences” and dopamine addicts.

            • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Hi, I don’t use TikTok, I don’t really give a shit about that particular platform. I do, however, give a shit about the fact that this one platform is being targeted with some “think of the children” rhetoric while American companies get away with the same things (manipulation regarding current events, political propaganda, appeasing the almighty advertisers) without anyone batting an eye.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I was trying to be impartial. You can consider all propaganda to be a form of advertisement and all advertisement to be a form of propaganda. The same academic study goes into both.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Its just a ploy to avoid any sort of reasonable privacy regulation. Tiktok doesn’t do anything that facebook, reddit, instagram, tumbler, twitter etc don’t do.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      wouldn’t it be funny if tiktok ended up overturning citizens united. infinitesimally small chance of it happening, but it would be fucking hilarious.

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    The US banning apps is bad precedent period. Think of the damage [Your political nemesis’ party] could do if this was allowed

    Js

  • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    If the CCCP refuses to divest, then thats their choice. The ban only goes into effect if they refuse.

    The company hasnt sued the CCCP in China to make it sell its stake, I assume.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why does the US even have to hear a case where China wants to sue them? It seems like something where they should just be like “nah. No thanks”.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      And we know why they are censoring. They don’t like that certain politics are being spread.

      • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        You mean disinformation. Disinformation is being spread. Everywhere. All of the social media companies need to be policed or banned.

        • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Nah I’m talking about videos of genocide. They don’t want us to see that to the point that they are willing to take these drastic steps.