[BizarroLand]

If the first amendment goes, so does the rest of the amendments and probably the constitution with it.

This isn't the America of 1776. We have turned from a handful of somewhat consolidated groups that could be treated with a broad brush into 360 million screaming individuals with no leader and no cohesive American dream for the next 30 years to shoot for.

I don't use tiktok, I don't care for it.

But I don't think that congress should have the right to take away their ability to operate, only that they should have the ability to not allow exfiltration of American PII to other nations.

[corimaith]

Whelp, this is a bi-partisan congress who voted for it, the House representative and Senator you voted for probably supported this act too. And it's not a narrow majority, it's an overwhelming one. And the courts fully support it to.

When you were voting for your representative, would it not have been probable to know they likely would have supported the act? This bill and backlash has been building for years. It's unambiguously clear that America has made her choice here. There is no risk of "authoritarianism" because the overwhelming political plurality is in consensus. Nor is there any concrete political opposition or protests.

Thankfully, the internet isn't real life, and I'm hard pressed to know of the majority complaining here really are Americans with the best interests of America at heart or if they're mad because the interests of a certain country gets harmed here.

[pizza]

> There is no risk of "authoritarianism" because the overwhelming political plurality is in consensus. Nor is there any concrete political opposition or protests.

You could write three books on those two sentences

[xcrunner529]

Repubs put it in with Ukraine aid to force it through.

And a consensus doesn’t mean it isn’t against the principle of the country and the first amendment. Literally. Banning. Speech.

[corimaith]

>Repubs put it in with Ukraine aid to force it through.

The bill passed with the House with 352-65, which I recall this forum often says is more representative of the population than the Senate. You're implying that Republicans bundled it against the opinions of the Democrats when it reality it was more of matter of expendiency for a bipartisan addition with the foreign aid bill. Biden obviously signed it off, the Democrats overwhelmingly support this bill, it's the Republicans who care more about free speech anyways.

>And a consensus doesn’t mean it isn’t against the principle of the country and the first amendment. Literally. Banning. Speech.

That's just your individual interpretation that the divestment bill conflicts with the "principles" and the first amendment, clearly the house, the senate, the courts do not. America dosen't share your opinion on that matter. A more obvious principle of American Principles is respecting the democratic process even if you don't personally agree with the conclusion.

[xcrunner529]

No he couldn’t have not signed it because that would mean aid was not passed. I literally spelled it out for you.

America and any citizen can want a dictatorship. That doesn’t mean it was part of the founding principles. That’s a logical fallacy you’re making.

[corimaith]

>No he couldn’t have not signed it because that would mean aid was not passed.

Biden literally said if they passed it in the House, he would sign it. You're trying to insinuate that this is not what the Democrats or Biden wanted when all indications of their statements and actions show the exact opposite.

>America and any citizen can want a dictatorship. That doesn’t mean it was part of the founding principles. That’s a logical fallacy you’re making.

No, the logical fallacy you are making is that you are placing your interpretation that this is a violation of the first amendment as an objective fact, when it's just an opinion that the House, Senate, Courts and the Presidents disagree with you on.

[xcrunner529]

No, I am arguing just against your point that something can’t be against the first amendment/constitution etc just because the majority of Americans are for it.

[smt88]

TikTok said it wasn't exfiltrating data and turned out to be lying.

I don't really understand the argument that this is a First Amendment issue. TikTok was asked to protect its users from CCP surveillance. It didn't. Now the US is forcing it to cut ties with the CCP.

TikTok can continue to operate if it complies. Its owners and users have lost no freedom to speak either way.

[pizza]

> TikTok said it wasn't exfiltrating data and turned out to be lying.

Is there a source for that?

The Wikipedia article [0] states "There has been no public evidence of American TikTok user data being accessed by the Chinese government" backed by three sources (124-126) from earlier this year.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_...

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/05/06/for...

> A former TikTok executive suing the platform alleged Monday that ByteDance, TikTok’s China-based parent company, has far more extensive control over the social media platform than it has claimed

[in-pursuit]

The argument against TikTok has little to do with PII.