All the same data that TikTok allegedly "steals' is being collected by American companies and sold to anyone willing to pay for it --- including law enforcement and governmental organizations both domestic and foreign.
If Montana really cares about consumers, they should focus on privacy subversion in general instead of banning only one company.
It isn't clear to me how this is a first amendment issue.
If the federals are concerned, maybe they should actually do something instead of progressing into extremism and leaving it completely to states to rule but then stepping in when they do? Social media is a wild west of unregulated harm being bestowed upon children and adults. In addition, all of them are indeed national security threats.
The district judge's explanations seem naive. And TikTok's reasoning shows misunderstanding as well. The first amendment guarantees free speech, not the transmission of free speech through the medium of TikTok.
TikTok Inc. is a US corporation. You can't make a law that limits the speech of just one company, any more than you can make a law that targets a single individual by name in general.
So the restrictions would have to be more generic yet narrow enough that they only hit TikTok in practice. The administration of Florida had this problem recently when they wanted to punish Disney for criticism, but couldn't write that into law. They ended up with a law that includes a set of criteria which combined leave Disney as the only affected party.
In this case, they'd presumably want to come up with criteria that cover TikTok but exclude Meta, Google and X. It's not very easy because the actual products and audiences are very similar. The foreign ownership angle is the one they should be looking at, IMO.
I’m not weighing in on the right or wrong of people using TikTok or where, but let’s not fuck around on ByteDance being the social media arm of the PRC?
I did years at IG, we knew who we were competing with.
But constitutionally they can't be targeted just because "everyone knows who they are." It's an American corporation on paper, employs thousands of people in the US, and must be treated equally.
AFAIK, the legal structure includes several parent companies in the Caymans (TikTok Inc. in America is owned by TikTok Ltd in the Caymans, which is owned by ByteDance also registered in the Caymans but controlled by Chinese interests - maybe via some Singapore routing too, I forget). Legislators probably need to do their homework to find the smoking gun in that structure.
Generally or in this specific case? Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. Similarly, TikTok is allowed to say what it feels is appropriate even if the US government disagrees. If the US polity thinks this is a mistake, they're going to have to persuade their fellows instead of clubbing them into submission. In the worst case scenario we'll be relying on left- and right- wingers to agree on basic facts which should be entertaining viewing.
Compromising either of those principles gives a clear in to some people about as evil and even more capable than the Chinese intelligence agencies.
> Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not.
This argument holds no water when corporations are running platforms that are used to spread disinformation and propaganda, which is tearing the fabric of society apart, and becoming a matter of national security.
The effects of propaganda and information warfare are well known[1], and I'm in constant disbelief that these platforms weren't heavily regulated years ago. Practically speaking, there is no difference from US and foreign companies in this matter, as they're all used for this purpose, and should be regulated equally. Though, obviously, it's easier to regulate foreign companies with ties to political adversaries, than local ones the US government is in a symbiotic relationship with.
I'm also in disbelief that this is such a controversial matter, and that politicans and the general public (especially on this forum) can't put two and two together and realize that the extreme sociopolitical polarization in the West is a direct consequence of information warfare.
I am not sure that extending the first amendment to what could be foreign adversaries isn't a bit different from a domestic application of the first amendment. I don't know enough of the history, but, for example, did Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan enjoy first amendment rights during WWII in the US? Was that a "thing"?
If you examine the core of that argument you realise that the theory underlying it is that US citizens are more truthful than foreigners. That is a belief that is profoundly at stake with liberal ideals. Not the modern ones, but the whole free-speech-be-good principle.
There is absolutely no reason that foreigners should be denied free speech. The point of speech is the more of it happens before we act, the better the results. There is no race or national aspect to that. If Us citizens would listen to foreigners from time to time they might waste less time killing them. I mean, help us all the whole non-English-speaking world doesn't have to be as US enemy. The Chinese are suspicious but they are actually pretty responsible in terms of how they act. People can listen to them and profit from it. Maybe copy some of their ideas around how to run Shenzhen and the other industrial districts. Or, as mentioned, the trade-not-bomb approach to securing oil.
Take the USSR. Did it help the USSR citizens if their government stopped them listening to the US? No. And the US remains to this day a staunch enemy of the USSR remnants.
Is it still free speech if it may be a campaign by an enemy? China may prefer to send the West into disarray rather than teach their ways. We need to study China's approach rather than eat up propaganda and twisted media.
During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. Although the late sexual revolution results does remind of 1920s in USSR.
> OK, so no censorship ever? No treason for telling an enemy secrets in war?
Those two aren't equivalent. And just because you cannot make a law to prevent someone to speak, you can punish him afterward, with prison or fines. Diffamation, hate speech, inciting violence, treason are all examples.
I do not hold private companies to the same standards.
I'm not sure it was a great idea either. Look at how Ukrainian civilians manifested against a corrupt mayor who tried to use money/production to cater to voters instead of supporting soldiers? This would never have happened in France or in UK during WW1, mostly because news from the front were always "good". Despite being a _lot_ of corruption case and of rerouted production.
Wartime censorship actually was a huge burden on French soldiers, especially French-speaking one, because they couldn't really explain the war to their families (it was easier on my family because they did not speak French but Breton, and censorship let more information pass through, even though it was written... extremely phonetically.). According from "all is well on the western front", it was the same on the German side. The soldiers _HATED_ civilian, because of wartime censorship, and oftentime whished for civilian to be bombed and understand, even sightly, their own suffering.
The last time the US was at war was WWII - tough to say if "was" is correct in that sense. Also, not sure the censorship then is widely considered as detrimental.
Sure. I would not be very pleased if e.g. my doctor shared my medical record with whoever would pay for it. I am not arguing for outlawing enforcing secrets.
Something like 10% of US people I've talked to seemed to have a genuine belief that the Trump presidency was a campaign by a foreign enemy. So yes, free speech should be encouraged even then.
> During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either.
During WWII they rounded up the Japanese. During the cold war they nearly got everyone nuked at least twice. During the wars from 1990->2020 there have been patterns of lies in the justification. Just because something was done doesn't make it a good idea.
The cold war would have been safer and led to better outcomes if the US listened to the USSR, and vice versa, at the popular scale. We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power. And had the US had been positioned to step in and help Russia after the fall of the Soviets instead of being caught by surprise mid-war we'd all be in much better shape today. They fumbled the collapse of the Soviet empire pretty badly because they hadn't managed to figure out what was going on on the ground. We're still fighting wars because the US never managed to sit down and make friends with the Russians. If the Saudis were an option, everyone is.
The upside of the honest speech is much bigger than whatever downside the propaganda has. The largely unproven and examined downside, I might add; I'm not drawing a case to mind where it was effective and crippling unless there was a superpower using it against someone much smaller.
How would the US have had more access to people on the ground in the USSR? More spies in country?
The reason people "fumbled" after the USSR disintegrated wasn't because the collapse came as a surprise but because the split between using functioning liberal (not in the US political meaning) legal systems outside of Russia for protection while internally in Russia profiting from the lack thereof - I don't think anyone had that split really in their minds when thinking about a new structure there - it was a new phenomenon. People saw what was happening but didn't understand it and the average person on the street there didn't either.
Btw., Russia or the USSR made little friends in Europe throughout history, either.
I think bold claims that US cold war posture was wrong need a lot more evidence.
> We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power.
Living in a country that is at war with Duchy of Muscovy (AKA Russia) for the last 500 years... There's plenty of reasons keeping them at bay. Industrialisation of USSR by American capital was one of the grave mistakes that brought WWII. Please don't do that again.
yeah, russophobia... No one cared about russians until they started doing shit.
Like personally, I don't hate russians because they're russians, I hate them for what they've done & keep doing.
If russians would have put their money where their mouth is, lots of people would have immigrated there and not even listened to the rest of the world.
It's important to separate Duchy of Muscovy which is philosophical successor of Golden horde from Russians as in Kievan Rus and Ruthenian people who live(d) in western part of modern Russia.
In case of Duchy of Moscow - it keeps repeating same stuff over and over again. Duchy of Moscow, tsarist Russian empire, USSR, Russian federation... different label, but same behaviour.
To make a separation between many tribes/states of Rus/Ruthenian/East slavic people and Muscovites. As in people who support war in Ukraine.
Duchy of Moscow took over many other Rus states which were much closer to West/democracy/whatever you want to call them. While Muscovites themselves stuck to tactics they learned while being occupied by Golden horde. What happened in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine was the usual Muscovite tactics 500 years ago and it still is. Some things seem to never change.
Yeah, well today's tribes/states also participates in what happened. So unless they condemn, stop doing what they're doing and separate it's all the same people.
I get they may come from various backgrounds centuries ago, but today it makes no difference.
IMO it still makes some difference. E.g. Belarus is practically just another Russian oblast nowadays. But the people ain't fully culturally incorporated yet. Over 200 years later if we start counting by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth partitions.
Another distinction that I want to make is that it's not Putin/Kremlin/Elite issue. The masses of the duchy of Moscow do support those policies.
I don't remember americans telling me that we deserve what's coming and I haven't seen them bullets shot in my apartment building. But there were very real ex-work-acquaintances of mine from russia told me that we deserve what's coming.
There are a lot of people doing shit and calling themselves russians. What does west has to do w/ increased russophobia?
IDK. Personally I don’t like the term Russophobia. When I hear it, I think of a vatnik claiming it’s all irrational fear of the saint nth Rome. It is very rational to steer away from anything Russia-related. And prepare for the inevitable which comes sooner or later.
Yeah, I'd say anyone individually should be free to go to times square and do a fortnite dance parody or some other tiktok degenerative stuff. Heck, let them travel the country and do their tiktok stuff in every state or city. People who see they see.
But then allowing a platform for millions of people to watch pretty much anything put on tiktok? Like as if we don't know that tiktok shows different type content in different countries? Like as if tiktok cannot influence a lot of people by slightly curating content?
I'd argue it's not denying a free speech, it's denying a corrupt content sharing platform.
The first amendment isn't a privilege granted to citizens by the government that can be extended to non-citizens. It is a restriction on the powers of the government. The government has no constitutional power to restrict free speech of anybody.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's the entire text of the first ammendment.
No law abridging freedom of speech, period. No law that applies domestically, no law that applies internationally, no law that applies to citizens, no law that applies to non-citizens. No law, at all.
TikTok is not Chinese propaganda - it is a social media with random stuff like YouTube or Instagram.
You want to ban it simply because it is succesful and has Chinese owners; not because of some concrete expression of speech that is outside of what it is legal or reasonable.
The Office of War Information censored all news during 1942-1945. It’s notable that it was during a declared war. If China and the US were in a war, then TikTok would be blocked in a heartbeat.
Ostensibly the United States Constitution does not grant rights, but only recognizes natural rights, therefore in theory they should apply to any living human, not just Americans.
It doesn't matter specifically who in this specific context. I replied to a comment worrying about this leading to entertainment being controlled by smallish groups when that's actually already the case.
There are just a handful of corporations cntrolling all media in the U.S. Hollywood's nepotism is infamous and keeps on taking foreign money and shooting for foreign markets.
I mean, I answered. What are you wanting to know, exactly? What are you getting at?
And bluntly, a discussion is a discussion, meaning I can make an argument. If you disagree, then you can make a counter argument instead of arguing meta principles.
So are you claiming that U.S. media is not controlled by a small amount of corporations and thus their executives, and that these companies aren't taking on foreign investment and thus looking to appease said foreign investors? What does it matter what the corporation names are in the context of the comment I replied to?
How extremists are using free speech to undermine democracy and turn the West into an authoritarian regime.
"The Jihadi next door" is a good documentary exemplifying this, how ISIS supporters in UK are using UK's freedom of expression to recruit people for ISIS while openly stating in public in front of the police "the ISIS flag will be flown over 10 Downing street and UK will implement Sharia law".
The UK doesn't have freedom of speech or expression.
> sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, [0]
> Backing the Montana law were 18 mostly Republican-led states that were eyeing similar bans of TikTok.
> President Trump clamped down on TikTok and attempted to outlaw the app, but his efforts were twice struck down in the courts.
This is pretty clearly a partisan issue. Can anyone tell me why? It know the national security and think of the children talking points, as if the left doesn't care about national security and children.. What are the real reasons?
If Montana really cares about consumers, they should focus on privacy subversion in general instead of banning only one company.