Selection of quotes:
This is despite the fact that it has been well-established law for almost 60 years that U.S. people have a First Amendment right to receive foreign propaganda.
The law limits liability to intermediaries—entities that “provide services to distribute, maintain, or update” TikTok by means of a marketplace, or that provide internet hosting services to enable the app’s distribution, maintenance, or updating. The law also makes intermediaries responsible for its implementation.
The law explicitly denies to the Attorney General the authority to enforce it against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application, so users themselves cannot be held liable for continuing to use the application, if they can access it.
Enacting this legislation has undermined this long standing, democratic principle. It has also undermined the U.S. government’s moral authority to call out other nations for when they shut down internet access or ban social media apps and other online communications tools.
Our lawmakers should work to protect data privacy, but this was the wrong approach. They should prevent any company—regardless of where it is based—from collecting massive amounts of our detailed personal data, which is then made available to data brokers, U.S. government agencies, and even foreign adversaries.
Thoughts?
I'll break down my thoughts into several related blurbs. This is a complicated topic, so I'll be as direct and intentional as I can be with the knowledge I have.
I do not agree that propaganda should be freely distributed by people or governments outside of the US. Propaganda is a weapon and should be treated as such. It needs effective countermeasures and if that means completely blocking the operation of a foreign company, so be it.
I do agree that data protection laws need to be expanded which will help limit what any company, foreign or domestic, can collect about individuals. That is a no-brainer.
Data protection laws are great, but we have seen time and time again that many companies give zero fucks and it's still more profitable to pay any associated fines while still selling or misusing data. Foreign governments really don't give a fuck what our laws are, either.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems Lamont v. Postmaster General needs to be revised. A letter is not a cellphone. Cellphones can send, as well as receive information. Your data can be used to instantly craft propaganda specific to an individual. That is not good.
Normally, I am a fairly staunch backer of the EFF, but I disagree with their stance on this one. Lamont v. Postmaster General simply doesn't take into account modern technology.
However, I have no problems with US citizens spreading messages to other US citizens, regardless of the subject, and as long as it's not for the express purpose of restricting my personal rights in an extreme way. (A example of communication that should be restricted: US citizen-to-US citizen communication in regards to planning a coordinated terror attack would possibly be in direct violation of my rights or the rights of any intended victims so that wouldn't be acceptable, IMHO.)
It's not that complicated.
Sure, if you exclude that this situation is extremely conditional, may involve years of legal precedent after similar cases went to the supreme court and impacts millions of Americans.
But yeah. Just ignore those small things and a baby could figure this out.
It's a foreign state owned social media app. Try again.
Yeah, I pointed that out.
I am curious though. Do you know what the word "precedent' means? Have you had any exposure to any legal system?
It's not the first app banned by the US
What others were banned?
You're joking, right?
https://cmmcinfo.org/list-of-hardware-software-and-services-banned-by-us-government/
Hardware is not an app and executive orders are not laws that affect everyone in the US.
You really don't understand any of the context around this, do you?
Oh you read all of that in five minutes, did you?
You seriously think tick-tock is the only app to ever be banned? Are you in middle school or something?
You couldn't? It's a couple of tables.
Again, you aren't seeing the context of the problem and the entire scope of what is going on. It's the nature of the software that is in question and what it does for the end user. (The last time I checked, Kaspersky didn't make communications software.)
This discussion is pointless. Goodbye.
The context is it's a piece of software owned by another government that isn't an ally. That has a history of spying on any and everything it can.