Comment Re:What a Crock (Score 1) 90
> I don't see any "except for foreign corporations" clause in there,
The word "corporation" here is disengenuous. We're talking about a genocidal government that has materially subsidized the platform's growth specifically so they can use it for propaganda purposes, not some kind of normal for-profit company. (In fact, converting TikTok _into_ a normal for-profit company is the entire point of the bill. That's why the Chinese government hates it so much. They don't want to give up control.)
And I challenge you to find an example of any federal court ruling wherein it has been decided that foreign governments, have the rights granted in the US constitution. They don't.
> not to mention all the users who are going to have their speech unconstitutionally
> abridged by this bill if it becomes law.
How does requiring a foreign government to divest their controlling share in a company, abridge the free speech rights of individuals? Have you even read a short *summary* of what the bill does? The bill does not in any way shape or form attempt to limit what opinions can be published. (It's the other side in the debate that wants to do that, by having the executive branch tell tech companies what "misinformation" they need to curtail.) It just requires ByteDance to sell the platform to a genuinely private company that's *not* run by the CCP. That's all.
But they really, really, really don't want to do that, because as far as they're concerned that would defeat the whole entire purpose of developing the thing in the first place.
The word "corporation" here is disengenuous. We're talking about a genocidal government that has materially subsidized the platform's growth specifically so they can use it for propaganda purposes, not some kind of normal for-profit company. (In fact, converting TikTok _into_ a normal for-profit company is the entire point of the bill. That's why the Chinese government hates it so much. They don't want to give up control.)
And I challenge you to find an example of any federal court ruling wherein it has been decided that foreign governments, have the rights granted in the US constitution. They don't.
> not to mention all the users who are going to have their speech unconstitutionally
> abridged by this bill if it becomes law.
How does requiring a foreign government to divest their controlling share in a company, abridge the free speech rights of individuals? Have you even read a short *summary* of what the bill does? The bill does not in any way shape or form attempt to limit what opinions can be published. (It's the other side in the debate that wants to do that, by having the executive branch tell tech companies what "misinformation" they need to curtail.) It just requires ByteDance to sell the platform to a genuinely private company that's *not* run by the CCP. That's all.
But they really, really, really don't want to do that, because as far as they're concerned that would defeat the whole entire purpose of developing the thing in the first place.