[awuji]

Banning TikTok wouldn't take your free speech away, but the Restrict Act doesn't even directly ban Tiktok. It gives the government broad rights to censor any content it deems "undermining the democratic process" among other things, and gives it the power to enforce large fines and long prison time against people who help get around the ban (like providing a VPN).

The Restrict Act basically allows the US to impose Chinese-level censorship across the "Western" internet and persecute any one in the US who helps circumvent the censorship.

Sure it may be used to ban Tiktok, but what do you think will happen when the next whistleblower posts content online? What happens when the US finds cryptography for us normal people a threat to US democratic process? Ect ect...

Calling it the TikTok ban is just clever marketing sugar to make the censorship go down...

[tmaly]

I thought it gives the Gov the power to fine and jail you if you install an app on your device that they decide you should not have?

I don't recall it saying anything about banning specific apps.

Correct me if I read the summary of the Restrict Act wrong.

[cheriot]

> The Restrict Act basically allows the US to impose Chinese-level censorship across the "Western" internet and persecute any one in the US who helps circumvent the censorship.

This statement is at least as misleading as the "Tiktok ban" rhetoric you're criticizing.

[awuji]

How? They could declare everything and anything as antidemocratic. There is legitimately no oversight to the Secretary of Commerce, which is an appointed position.

If the act is passed, the only thing stopping the government from taking it to such an extreme is the self-control of the government itself. That isn't very reassuring.

[cheriot]

My understanding is that it only applies to foreign entities. Still overly broad, but a far cry from the claims of censorship.