• AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yes, my point was this only affects one of them. It doesn’t fix the root of the problem, because that’s not the bill’s target.

    In fact, if TikTok remains, and does get banned, it just makes it so they no longer have to listen to the US government for anything.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The law affects social media apps based in North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. These four countries are already restricted from participating in sensitive areas of the US economy, with forced sale being an option. The only really novel part of this law is applying such restrictions to software.

      • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        You’re missing my point. The adversaries have many more avenues than just TikTok (like breaching the domestic companies that collect the data). The law is too specific and therefore does not actually protect us in any real way, at least not on a personal level.

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s not too specific, it’s narrowly tailored. Which is one of the things it needs to be in order to survive a 1st amendment challenge.

          • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Does it stop my data from getting to the CCP? Nope, so I would say it’s too specific. The problem is not TikTok exclusively, the problem is that the data is collected and sold in the first place. This doesn’t stop that.

            Also, it leaves a bad taste when you say it was crafted to narrowly skirt the 1st amendment. That’s not a good thing, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to imply that it is.

            • Melllvar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              No, but it does prohibit companies in those four sanctioned countries from operating social media apps in the US. The fact that it’s not a perfect protection is no good reason not to do it. The fact that it was written with an eye towards the first amendment is not a valid criticism.

            • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              It’s like people legit don’t want to understand your point.

              It’s kinda insane seeing people/the Overton window turn progressively more and more authoritarian