• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The thing people aren’t getting about this law is it’s extremely broad, with no due process. The definition they use for organizations that are subject to this law could literally include the New York Times. And designating an organization as controlled by a foreign adversary is a declaration by the Secretary of Commerce.

    There’s no court, no hearing, no public notice, no juries, and only one judge (the secretary).

    The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone. That’s half the country that uses TikTok. If they can do that without protests then they can shut down anyone.

    • WatDabney@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone.

      Exactly.

      They needed a pretense for taking down a social media site in spite of the fact that it’s not violating any existing laws and in spite of widespread opposition to the takedown,and TikTok served both of those purposes.

      And now, armed with Supreme Court approval, they can set about barring access to pretty much any site they want, for whatever reason they want, regardless of public opinion.