Not that the government would ever do this, but it is technically feasible for them to distribute anonymous digital IDs that verify age without allowing the user to be tracked or identified.
Once the government is issuing digital IDs to grant access to speech you can split that hair however you want I think it's a pretty uncomfortable idea for a lot of people.
Social networks in general should be nation-specific, to ensure that only domestic enemies of the people and similar bad actors can take advantage of them.
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country, or harvest data from it invites nothing but trouble.
It’s sad that people think this way. As a young child growing up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able to access the “speech” of people around the world via internet forums was a revelation.
Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?
I think there is an aspect of foreign interference that Americans might be particularly blind to.
Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X, Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We definitely influence and interfere in their domestic affairs whether anyone likes it or not.
If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social media should be legally barred from crossing borders regardless if that even makes internet sense.
If foreign interference in domestic politics is a concern, you absolutely do not want foreign-owned communication channels operating within you. They have every reason to manipulate discourse within them towards specific foreign ends in defiance to domestic interests.
TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere towards American ends.
This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls, which with the way you posited it might as well be a strawman.
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country is protected by the First Amendment. It's exactly why every American can consume 24/7 PressTV if they choose to
IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.
You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity).
It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections.
> The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.
Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it.
Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient.
> The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly
owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First
Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open
Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that
“foreign organizations operating abroad have no First
Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic
entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at
2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi-
ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate
structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government
does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated
speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811–
12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by
a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S.
entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that
the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari-
ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the
United States”).
> Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the
corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the
fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for
Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a
foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage
of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the
Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention-
ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35
(describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its
exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations).
Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the
TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment
scrutiny.
Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed.
Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.
If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?