this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
192 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

60499 readers
4636 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Oh they also put TikTok's name directly in the legislation. Which is unconstitutional. Not even by interpretation. The Constitution directly, and in plain English, bans the practice.

This entire thing is a giant cesspool of constitutional fuckery.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Wait, what about that is unconstitutional?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It's called a bill of attainder.

Merriam Webster is literally using TikTok as an example definition.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

That is interesting, I didn't realize that was how it was being argued.

In response to the other constitutional argument TikTok is making, DOJ said the law is not a bill of attainder because addressing national security concerns is not a form of punishment and bills of attainder apply to people, not corporations. (via Merriam Webster)

It does sound like there's some contention about that, and although the national security bit is as cringingly craven as usual, the applicability of the restriction to corporate entities is going to be an interesting decision to see ruled on.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Yeah well I like my rights well protected.

Did you know they defined this to cover any organization running a website that allows you to create an account, has a million users, at least 1 person can share content, and at least 1 person can view that shared content?

With the exception of product, business, and travel reviews.

Does that sound an awful lot like a news organization to anyone else?

Furthermore we already decided that companies have first amendment rights when we let Hobby Lobby have a religion.

If they decide this is good enough then we open the path to any organization in that incredibly broad description being banned. Daily Kos certainly falls under it too. People think Meta dropping fact checkers and going anti immigration just in the US is because Zuckerberg went MAGA? No, he sees the writing on the wall.

This kind of law is how Authoritarian states lock down media in their country.