On Tuesday, the Senate passed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to divest its holdings of the popular social-media site or face an effective ban in the United States. The White House has indicated that President Biden will sign the legislation, which – after failing to move ...
From what I have seen, most people who object to a federal tiktok ban oppose it because they do not want the US government to censor the internet. I think privacy is brought up as a justification of the ban, and so opponents of the ban argue that it is selective to only focus on the app that is controlled by an adversarial country. I see the ban as addressing a symptom of weak privacy laws instead of addressing the root issue/cause. If privacy were actually taken serious by our government and not enforced selectively, then objections would be a lot less.
I’ve seen that too. But they’re mistaken. “Censoring the internet” is not what this law does. That’s hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.
Don’t misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.
From what I have seen, most people who object to a federal tiktok ban oppose it because they do not want the US government to censor the internet. I think privacy is brought up as a justification of the ban, and so opponents of the ban argue that it is selective to only focus on the app that is controlled by an adversarial country. I see the ban as addressing a symptom of weak privacy laws instead of addressing the root issue/cause. If privacy were actually taken serious by our government and not enforced selectively, then objections would be a lot less.
I’ve seen that too. But they’re mistaken. “Censoring the internet” is not what this law does. That’s hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.
Don’t misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.