• zaphod@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.

    I’m sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:

    CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user’s location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.

    Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn’t count as “critical infrastructure”?

    (BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).

    (CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.

    So again. Not personal use.

    LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:

    To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.

    So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.

    Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.

    But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.

    The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.

    Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It’s incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don’t trade on any US stock exchanges).

    TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).

    The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn’t occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it’s that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh no the government said it was for national security! That’s it folks pack it up. As everyone knows nobody has any rights once the President mentions the words National and Security together!

      Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn’t apply?

      Stop justifying Unconstitutional shit just because someone said the scary words.

      • zaphod@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn’t apply?

        Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn’t realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!