TikTok to challenge U.S. order banning transactions with the video app
reuters.com
reuters.com
CFIUS is the governing body who decides which foreign investments are a threat to the U.S., not the president, and they have been investigating TikTok for two years without finding anything despite the recent executive order. It makes the executive order look more like political headline bait than having actual teeth, especially considering IEEPA prohibits executive power from being used to block speech or media.
At first glance it would appear that Trump has authority under the IEEPA do take the actions he has. Tiktok is most likely going to base their legal action on challenging the constitutionality of the IEEPA. Tiktok's argument of violating due process alludes to this being the case.
Congress specifically limited presidential authority when passing the act, and TikTok is protected under IEEPA 50 U.S. Code § 1702(b):
> The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly - (1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value; ... (3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
Since there is data collected and something of value, it seems that although parallels can be drawn between the content on TikTok and the list of explicitly allowed items, the whole of TikTok is something different than the items listed in #3.
(And if those are the only exceptions the powers are quite broad.)
#3 is actually an interesting one. Would it prevent the President from being able to stop a ship owned by a foreign national if it was carrying a single CD-ROM of informational materials? What if it was full of such CD-ROMs? What if part of a frozen bank account was going to be used to facilitate the transfer of information? Would not some hindrance of the free flow of information be an inevitable side effect of ANY action under IEEPA? Of course, one imagines it was not the intention of the drafters of the law to let a single CD-ROM neuter the entire presidential power. My non-lawyer understanding is that courts normally establish some kind of "balancing test" in these scenarios that can be used to draw a line in the sand. But from e.g. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45618.pdf it's unclear whether there's any case law that specifically establishes the boundaries. Regardless, this will be a very interesting saga.
Since the order only blocks transfers of value last I checked this exception does not seem on point at all.
>The article stated that the U.S. has known that the staff members at the consulate were conducting suspicious activities, but, for a while, it did not take any action. The Second Department of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which is the PLA’s intelligence unit, sent staff members from a large network company, with fake IDs, to China’s Consulate in Houston. Those technicians used a large video platform’s backend data to identify people who might participate in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and ANTIFA’s protests and then created and sent them customized videos on how to organize riots and how to do promotions.
>The purpose was to “weaponize” big data technology. It delivered relevant materials precisely to those people who were most likely to participate in the protests, while other people could not even find those videos.
>RFA did not spell out the company names. A Twitter account said the technicians were from Huawei and the video platform they used to identify candidates and push videos to was TikTok.
http://chinascope.org/archives/24225?doing_wp_cron=159809560...
Are you implying that presidential elections have any effects on foreign policy?That seems unlikely. Source?
Why the past tense? Seems to me like someone is still "sponsoring" racial tensions in the US. This has been in the works for quite some time, and it's paying dividends now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI. The entirety of the US media apparatus, as well as the entirety of the political establishment is happy to play along.
Because the Mueller report did not contain any information from the future as far as I am aware. :)
But yes, I don’t think we have any reason to believe that Russia is acting any differently today.
We're literally talking about a company which, by virtue of being a Chinese company with significant footprint in the US, has Chinese intelligence agents on staff and can _easily_ swing the elections in ways the alleged "Russian troll farms" couldn't even dream of. Is it wise to allow such a company to operate in the US?
> We're literally talking about a company which ... can _easily_ swing the elections in ways the alleged "Russian troll farms" couldn't even dream of.
If you have actual evidence that shows that's what they're doing, please feel free to present it. I'm generally wary of anything connected or potentially connected to the Chinese government, but I think we should have at least some baseline evidentiary standards.
It's possible that Trump does have evidence of this, and if that's the case, I'd (for once) stand behind what he's doing. But the CIA at least claims they have been unable to find any evidence of wrongdoing.
Secondly, what are the laws about private organizations promoting candidates? If TikTok wants to promote a candidate they should follow those laws. If they obey the laws, that should be fine. If they don't, they should be punished according to those existing laws. If the laws aren't restrictive enough, the laws should be changed.
World needs to reciprocate to China in like India did recently. If China is a closed garden with entry gates controlling the inflow into China, World needs to build exit gates controlling the outflow from China. No other justification is required.
Would saying that genocide is bad be political? What about if a country's government and people believed in genocide of a specific race -- would saying that said country is committing genocide be political? If it is political, is it bad to be politically against that?
What is the actual problem with being political, especially when being 'political' means being on the right side of morality?
And I do believe the authoritarianism it's a kind of protectionism, a strategy that allows them to grow economically and politically while defending from foreign intervention, and find likely that they will reduce the authoritarian policy to US levels if they achieve the kind of hegemony that US has... But I might be wrong. So there's real danger.
WoW, lots of angry words. West has its problems but they don't compare to China. But to the current point if Google is restricted in China why should TikTok have free reign ?
And to elaborate on threat to the world:
1. Who caused current pandemic and why?
2. How many died in Wuhan any why there is no honest disclose despite entire world suffering?
3. Why China is engaged in border conflict with every single neighbor on some pretext or other?
4. How do you justify oppressive social credit system?
2. I cannot believe you're arguing mishandling of the pandemic => threat to the world when we can all see that Western countries are struggling so much more to muster a proper response. China is open again.
3. How much prosperity and development did the US cost South America? Vietnam? Iraq? How do border squabbles compare to the damage the UK inflicted on India?
4. This is a threat to the world..how? And we've arrived at the same place with credit rating, social pressure, woke culture, so what do I care whether it's the government imposing it or the people?
> West has its problems but they don't compare to China
You don't get to just assert this as an obvious truth. It's decidedly non-obvious to anyone not drunk on Western Kool-Aid. My position is that they are closer than you think, and that you prefer the West because you are part of the West. Which is understandable - but let's drop the pretenses.
3. How Western imprelism are a justification for Chinese incursions into their neighbor's territories? How exactly China is going to bring development by accquiring territories of neighbors?
4. They aren't comparable. In China you just vanish the moment like the Wuhan Whistle blowers vanished.
I understand you love CCP so good luck.
Your point of view---responding to a perceived "threat" by abandoning our principles and freedoms---is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11.
How responding back by blocking companies is tyranny? Who had oppressed if TikTok it's blocked?
> is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11
How ??
Millions of Americans who use TikTok. Thousands of Americans who work at TikTok. American investors in ByteDance.
And, when anyone's rights are violated, everyone's rights are violated.
> is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11
Massive curtailment of freedom and massive growth of the police state in the aftermath of 9/11. This has caused far more harm to Americans than the attack itself. Bin Laden achieved what he wanted, which was to cripple our freedom and cause us to lose confidence in ourselves.
But to the current point if Google is restricted in China why should TikTok have free reign ?
And to elaborate on threat to the world:
1. Who caused current pandemic and why?
2. How many died in Wuhan any why there is no honest disclose despite entire world suffering?
3. Why China is engaged in border conflict with every single neighbor on some pretext or other?
4. How do you justify oppressive social credit system?
It amazes me that such incorrect assertions get so mindlessly upvoted on Hacker News.
You've written that elsewhere that "Bytedance is a Cayman Islands company, not Chinese. Despite having offices in Beijing, Bytedance and Tiktok are not beholden to the Chinese National Intelligence law", so it seems you might be unknowingly (or knowingly) spreading incorrect information.
The HN community deserves a lot of blame for being unable to filter out such falsehoods.
[1] https://securitytoday.com/articles/2019/11/04/tiktok-nationa...
The cynic in me thinks that HN is not immune to astroturfing by foreign or domestic actors anymore than Reddit or Facebook are.
I doubt the app would continue to be successful without the original creative minds behind it.
Last I checked, American companies can’t challenge Beijing in court the way Tik Tok is here.
The existence of an independent judiciary makes the two incomparable. The American executive is constrained in his actions by the law. That gives the landscape a degree of predictability (albeit less than I’d like).
Comparing this to China, where the law begins and ends with the party’s whims, is a slippery slope fallacy.
But the the two US parties and sometimes even one party alone can totally make anything legal. The judiciary is independent only instantenaousely, not long term.
Mind you, this is because the US political system is not made to deal with parties. When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down.
That, makes the two comparable.
In the same way, Xi Jinping doesn't have total control over China - the National People's Congress has the authority to remove the President at any time. But because the CCP is by far the most popular party in China, the party is truly in charge, and the checks and balances do not really work.
Both China and the US, are in theory democracies with an unlimited amount of parties and separation of power! And actually, 20% of congressional representatives in China are independent. But in practice, it's mathematically unlikely that another party would achieve a majority. In the US, too, it's mathematically unlikely that either of the two parties get replaced by a third party.
So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic.
But, in practice, the US has more diversity between the two parties, while in China there is more diversity inside one party. In both cases, the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties.
That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one.
the CCP is by far the most popular party in China
The CCP is the only party in china.
Both China and the US, are in theory democracies
No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level.
So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic.
I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it.
the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties.
And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges.
The CCP controls China to the extent that China doesn't even have its own military, the party does.
If your parents could swap your identity out for any of their choosing every decade or so, I would make the case, yes.
>SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one.
They rarely do, and party affiliation is by far the strongest predictor of voting. And even when they do vote against their proponents, they do so in points of ideological heterogeneity. In any case, there are also times when Chinese judges vote against the dominant will of the CCP, it is just quite rare, and is among points of ideological heterogeneity.
>The CCP is the only party in china.
Only in practice. There are multiple registered parties in China you can vote for, though the vast majority are under CCP control. About 20% of the congressional seats are held by independents, not members of the CCP nor any other party.
>No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level.
This is completely besides the point. China, in theory, is a democracy. In that, there are elections every so often, and you can run as a representative, and then vote for the president. So far, there have not been any reports of violation of electoral process. This is because the Chinese electoral system is flawed to confer massive amounts of power to the incumbent. In the same way, the US electoral system is flawed in that it completely destroys any power outside the two parties. Analysis of US political decisions show that popular will has a very slim influence on policy : https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi....
>I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it.
Good thesis, now let's try to prove it, shall we? If this was true, it should be possible for you to give me recent (last 100 years) examples of major decisions that were outside the control of both the DNC and RNC in both process and outcome.
>And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges.
Please evaluate claims on their merits. Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly?
The structure of the US government naturally creates a two-party system; but the reason why those two parties are the Democrats and Republicans (and not the Whigs and Libertarians or whatever) is that those two parties outcompeted all the others for votes. Minor parties are constantly trying to break through. They usually fail, though not always--we don't have Whigs anymore. But even when they fail, the major parties are constantly watching for this threat, and adjusting their positions in an effort to keep their dominance. The dominance of the DNC and RNC doesn't mean the people who control those two parties can do whatever they want; it just means those people want to keep their jobs, know the only way to do so is to behave in a way that wins elections, and are pretty good at figuring out what those behaviors are.
That's probably not the best imaginable way to translate the will of the people into a government, but the path is clearly there. No remotely comparable path exists in the PRC.
Finally, I believe you've misunderstood the paper you linked. Quoting:
> As noted, our evidence does not indicate that in U.S. policy making the average citizen always loses out. Since the preferences of ordinary citizens tend to be positively correlated with the preferences of economic elites, ordinary citizens often win the policies they want, even if they are more or less coincidental beneficiaries rather than causes of the victory.
In other words, let's say the elites want A, B, C, and D, and the average citizens want A, B, C, and not D. We actually get A, B, C, and D. Then the will of the elites has perfect explanatory power (which they've described using the word "cause", though obviously nothing here shows causality), and the will of the average citizens contributes no further information; but the average citizens are still getting most of what they want. It can't be otherwise, or else the average citizens would vote a third party in. That doesn't need to actually happen to affect policy--if the current major parties are run by skilled politicians who want to keep their dominance, then the threat is enough.
At the margin, I do agree the two-party system gives the two incumbents considerable independent power--there's a coordination problem in choosing what third party to vote for, so an incumbent has to diverge significantly from the will of the people to lose. This is in no way comparable to the absolute power that the CCP enjoys over China, though.
Yeah, but so what? That reduces to approximately "the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches are dependent on the aggregate of the American people"... which is exactly how it should be.
Yes, I know that there are other minor parties, and I know that there are many, many people in the US who do not identify as Democrat or Republican (I'm one of them, even though I will generally only vote Democrat in national races). But it is true that the two major parties, when put together, represent the political desires of the vast majority of voters, to whatever order of approximation is realistically possible.
The Chinese government, on the contrary, is controlled by the CCP, which is controlled by party leadership, which does not take any meaningful input from those who are not party leadership, inasmuch as the military and law enforcement apparatus supports them. You know, like any other authoritarian dictatorship.
Straw man. Power is always several amongst elites. The question is one of degree and checks. Xi’s China has no rule of law. In America, no person nor public servant is reliably above the law.
Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court.
> When you add a duopoly of power every single check and balance of the US political system breaks down
Judges are not loyal to their parties. Almost every nominee has prominent cases where they rule against their party (e.g. Gorsuch on gay rights).
> Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court.
>>>>>>>>>>>>one person doesn't have total power means nothing >>>>>>>>>>Straw man >>>>>>>>>>no person or public servant is reliably above the law
First, I don't think you can call my argument a straw man then restate the argument I was arguing in the very same sentence.
Second, Xi Jinping can easily lose in a CCP court, he just has to go against the will of the party members of the CCP enough. Xi Jinping is below the Politburo as well as the National People's Congress. He simply is kindly advised not to act in ways that would lead to his removal, just as other Chinese presidents often had their hands tied. He is not reliably above the law.
Also, the Department of Justice in the US de facto affirmed that the US president is above federal law.
> Moreover, rulers can be challenged in fair courts. The U.S. government loses in court. Xi never loses in a CCP court.
This absurd conflation. Xi <=!=> the US government. An apt comparison is to claim that the Chinese State never loses in court.
Now, to the core of the claim, the US State cannot lose in courts, because the US State is the courts.
More so, the US government can only ever, ever be sued with its agreement. Indeed, as Wikipedia puts it:
>In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
In conclusion, the U.S. government only ever loses to a non-state entity in court when it consents to, and even then liability is severely restrained.
This is, ironically, exactly the same standard as in China. The Chinese Basic Law forbids the state from legal liability unless it specifically agrees to it and states it's liability, which is stated under the Administative Litigation Law : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_in_China#Ad...
In practice, this means that you can sue the Chinese State, the CCP, Xi Jinping, or any other administrative body in China, and win, as long as the Chinese State agrees to the litigation. So, yes, Xi Jinping's government can, and does lose in Chinese courts (which technically are not affiliated with the CCP or any party, in theory). In fact, there have been many cases of such loses, which can be easily googled.
However, if the government ever loses, both in China and the US!, under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, they can simply change the law and absolve themselves of liability.
>Judges are not loyal to their parties. Almost every nominee has prominent cases where they rule against their party (e.g. Gorsuch on gay rights).
Cases of Federal judges ruling against their parties are few and far between, judges nominated by the same party vote together the vast majority of the time, especially Republican judges. As for the cases where they do, they almost always differ on points of heterogeneity in their party. Which you'd be surprised to hear, is also the case in China - there is massive heterogeneity within the party and judges sometimes go against the dominant position and are protected because are amongst a large faction.
In conclusion, there is still no real difference that can discerned.
Incorrect. DoJ have an administrative rule that a sitting President cannot be charged by them. As for official acts by the government, they’re subject to judicial review. No analogous process exists in China.
> the US State cannot lose in courts, because the US State is the courts
This betrays ignorance of the American Constitutional system. The U.S. government routinely loses in court. Prior rulings are overturned. The legislature is checked. The President stayed.
> under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
Sovereign immunity is a courtesy granted to other nations under common law. It does not exist per se and makes no sense to be invoked with respect to a state without the rule of law.
With respect to American courts, the U.S. government has broadly consented to being sued by virtue of the Constitution. To claim sovereign immunity, a creature of the law, limits the legal system is to misunderstand one of the basic tenets of the system.
Judicial review is simply enforcement of laws that are found to have primacy. Chinese retired officials have been charged, found guilty, and found liable hundreds of times. As for the analogous process of "judicial review" in China, it's called... Judicial Review. It has many flaws in practice due to partisanship of the judges, they are all also present in the US. The procedure for Chinese judicial review is codified under the Administrative Procedure Law I mentioned in my previous comment. The main difference is that Chinese judicial review applies only to acts and not to laws, because the Chinese constitution mandates primacy of the National People's Congress, therefore any power to strike laws would ironically enough be unconstitutional.
Moreover, former officials frequently get sued in China for crimes performed during their tenure.
>This betrays ignorance of the American Constitutional system. The U.S. government routinely loses in court. Prior rulings are overturned. The legislature is checked. The President stayed.
The legislative is checked, but not the State. I don't understand why you keep confusing the U.S. Government sometimes with the US legislative branch and sometimes with the US executive branch. Courts are part of the State. This should be evident after an analysis of the US Constitution, not just a cursory reading, and is indeed the interpretation taken by the Supreme Court as well as the basis for Sovereign immunity. See the last paragraph pf the next quotation of ever-helpful Wikipedia.
>Sovereign immunity is a courtesy granted to other nations under common law. It does not exist per se
Incorrect :
In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9]
The principle was not mentioned in the original United States Constitution. The courts have recognized it both as a principle that was inherited from English common law, and as a practical, logical inference (that the government cannot be compelled by the courts because it is the power of the government that creates the courts in the first place).[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
You seem to be confusing Sovereign Immunity, which only applies to the Federal and Local governments of the United States, with State Immunity, which is much weaker than Sovereign Immunity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_immunity
> makes no sense to be invoked with respect to a state without the rule of law
This is a circular argument as it the conclusion is also a premise.
>With respect to American courts, the U.S. government has broadly consented to being sued by virtue of the Constitution. To claim sovereign immunity, a creature of the law, limits the legal system is to misunderstand one of the basic tenets of the system.
Incorrect. See, The Eleventh Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
This is the core difference. No single body can exercise the U.S. state’s power with such primacy.
There are a lot of other errors in this comment, but your sources should are good and are worth reading together with their references.
Incorrect. A ratifying convention of the states has the power to amend the US constitution.
If you believe that I made a factual error, it is reasonable to point it out with quoted or at least sourced references.
No, it does not. Article V allows two-thirds of the state to call for a convention of the states to be assembled to propose amendments; three-fourths of the state legislatures, or three-fourths of state conventions assembled for the purpose, must ratify any proposals made.
So in the current setup, 67 legislative bodies are required to call for the assembly of a single body that can write up amendment proposals, but then 75 legislative bodies (or 75 conventions) then have to vote to ratify those proposals.
That is a far cry from a single body ratifying amendments.
The full text of Article V, for reference (emphasis mine):
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Sovereign immunity is recognized in the US (and all Western countries). However, the gov't has intentionally waived that immunity in most circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Stat...
Xi can certainly lose power, but the actions that would cause this lack much relationship to the stuff written down in books labeled "Chinese Law". Xi's power is a bit less absolute than a traditional dictator's (and that dictator still answers to the will of the military, of the business elites, of the citizens overall, or of anyone else who with sufficient motivation might assemble a coup), but not by much and with similar form.
The limits on Xi's power are primarily from that informal consensus of people capable of directing and exercising hard power, not any expectation that those people will behave according to their best, good-faith interpretation of written law. That written law always has ambiguities, and the need for judges to resolve those ambiguities creates a political element in any judicial system; but if you think the extent of that political influence is in any way comparable between the USA and PRC, then you're simply mistaken.
What is your experience with China and the USA? Have you dealt practically with either legal system, or business at a level that involves political considerations? I've seen lots of people develop views like yours based on stuff they've read on the Internet, but I've never seen such views survive actual contact with the respective systems.
If the DNC and the RNC decided that they really wanted it to be passed, they have to power to solely elect judges to the Supreme Court which would uphold it.
If your standard is that a single act of minor importance refused by the judiciary is enough to mean indépendance of judiciary, an equal application of the standard results in the conclusion that the Chinese judiciary and judicial review process is independent. Which is a conclusion I disagree with, not only because I disagree with the standard.
Considering most judicial positions (with some exceptions where they are locally elected) are life time positions, yes, theoretically the gov't could nominate judges that are aligned with their view, that would be almost impossible to execute.
In addition, they are nominated by the party in power, but need to be approved by a committee comprised of both parties.
That's a bit of a stretch. First off, SCOTUS justices are appointed (through a nomination and confirmation process), not elected.
In order for either the DNC or RNC, or both of them surprisingly working together, to pull this off, it'd wouldn't be trivial. Let's assume for a moment the "easy" case: out of 9 justices, 4 of them are in favor of this thing, 5 against. The DNC+RNC then have to get one of those 5 justices to retire, or they have to get lucky, and one of them dies. Then they have to get that appointee to the president. Next we have to assume that the president agrees with this thing they want. If so, cool, the president makes the nomination. Then it goes to the Senate. Does the DNC+RNC have 51 senators that agree? Ok, cool, justice gets confirmed.
Issue goes to court, makes its way up to SCOTUS, and the ruling is 5-4 in favor of whatever the DNC+RNC wants... unless someone has changed their mind and switched sides during all this. I feel like that's already happened! If you believe that the RNC alone has managed to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court in order to do nefarious things, they've largely failed. Both justices have been reasonably moderate (so far, at least), when compared to what Trump and McConnell wanted.
Now, this isn't a completely implausible scenario. I'll grant you that, certainly. But: if the DNC+RNC really want something this much, then they presumably have the support of a bunch of constituents and, critically, state legislatures. It would seem to maybe be a better idea to go for a constitutional amendment. In reality, I'd say that's crazy; the three-fourths of the states agreeing on something of constitutional importance is pretty unlikely. But if we're in this bizarro world where the DNC and RNC agree that something unconstitutional really needs to get passed, this is probably a better path to take than trying to engineer some light judicial subversion.
So while I think your hypothetical is an interesting thought experiment, it's not really important in practice. SCOTUS is independent in the ways that actually matter. If there's bi-partisan support among government and citizens for something, it probably should be law. Yes, there's the possibility that this hypothetical unconstitutional thing they want to make into law is tyranny of the majority of the worst sort. But at the end of the day you can only make the system so robust, and I think our system is decently ok in that regard, the past 3.5 years notwithstanding.
He probably doesn't, but the CCP does. One entity having the ultimate powers, just like the Supreme leader of Iran, makes them incomparable to the US where Congress/Judiciary can take actions against the President.
Legal counsel.
(Nothing about retaliating against China has anything to do with TikTok’s “ban” which is just a paroxysm from a deranged moron)
I think the US can toe this line successfully, with care[0]. Countries that don't give us meaningful access to their internal markets should just not get meaningful access to ours. Simple to implement ahead of the fact, but unfortunately too many US interests are tied up in China to simply unravel it all right now.
[0] Care that I do not trust the current administration to wield, but also sadly do not expect the hopefully-next administration to want to wield at all. A fear of mine is that Biden will choose to bend over backward to appease China after Trump's ham-fisted trade war, and things will go back to the way they were, with China's interests running roughshod over the US's.
The well-known book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins has an interesting chapter titled Nice Guys Finish First giving a good illustration relevant to this idea.
Please do not intentionally mix 2 entities. There is law forced upon TikTok to abide by US law (or any local laws where TikTok operates).
Protecting TikTok is fighting the abuses forced onto the US and other international corps by CCP and the Chinese government.
China’s no saint but the level you have been brainwashed to think America is such the great protector of democracy and freedom is typical global-unaware American ignorance.
Even inside China. They need to learn and study other nation's policies and laws to make sure they can continue maintain a society of 1.4 Billion people.
Both US and China would benefit from open competition, in general.
Of cuz, in certain scenarios & times, the discussion is much more nuanced. Like the TikTok discussion here.
Study, yes. Copy or follow, no. China should stay China. We have enough countries trying to dance after the US tune already.
>Both US and China would benefit from open competition, in general.
Absolutely, but not under US rules or law outside the US. Tiktok should be allowed to collect just as much information as Facebook and Google or more if they want to as as long as it legal. This whole trying to make different rules in the US for foreign businesses is worse than what China is blamed of doing. Chinese businesses have more rules to follow in China than foreign businesses. Exactly the opposite than what the US is doing.
If the US won't do business with Chinese businesses because they are sometimes mixed in with the state they are playing favourites because lots and lots of trade is done with state owned and run businesses from other countries, like Scandinavia. The problem here isn't what China is or isn't doing. It is the colour of their skin and that it isn't the capitalist system the US wants everyone to be.
It's not about control, it's about national security. Allowing a company to operate in the US that is practically under control by a hostile authoritarian system is a national security risk.
What I was saying is that China and CCP, in terms of respecting international laws, are behind US.
So here US has the opportunity to continue setting the example.
I of course do not fantasizing US government being purely good.
Only because the US unilaterally decides what international law means. China has not committed any offence of international law anywhere even near that of the Iraq War in the last half-century.
The US only seems good because they set the example. The US literally has the Hague invasion act. It has absolutely no care in the world about international law, international law retroactively changes to suit the US.
That would be news to Mike Pompeo who just lost a big UNSC vote this week.
International law only matters as far as the narrative it sets.
Oh, and China is Facebook's second largest market (Despite the app itself being banned, Facebook does a ton of business there.) It's a huge market for Microsoft, Apple, and even Google makes billions of dollars from it.
The Great Firewall doesn't seem to be doing a great job of keeping any of them out.
The reason is we don’t want a Chinese company which can be compelled by the Chinese government to hand over the data to operate a social network used by so many Americans. Trump even said as much so.
If the US government can do national security letters, force Apple to make modified devices for covert operations, And monitor/log metadata, China is able to do so to their domestic companies as well.
Really so long as China challenges the US for superiority there is no way to avoid conflicts like this and no real way for China to comply except to maintain a clear #2 position. Inventing and speculating on nonsensical rationale doesn't really help in any way.
TaoTiao, on the other hand, is a subsidiary in China and is beholden to CNI, but the executive order has nothing to do with that company and there is no evidence that it receives data from TikTok.
https://chinamediaproject.org/2018/04/11/tech-shame-in-the-n...
Apple has forked over the same with it's subsidiary in China: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy...
https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/china-national...
https://www.mannheimerswartling.se/globalassets/nyhetsbrev/m...
Do we really believe because, "legally", the company is not in China, is not subject to CCP control? It's not the law that binds them, it's party lines.
If Bytedance is not subject to said control, why do they ban content critical with China, knowing the possible backlash?
https://www.vox.com/open-sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-...
US politicians’ concern over TikTok began with an investigation the Guardian published on September 25, which revealed leaked documents that showed TikTok instructing its moderators to censor videos that mentioned topics sensitive to the Communist Party of China: Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the religious group Falun Gong, for instance. The Guardian’s investigation came after the Washington Post noted that a search for Hong Kong-related topics on TikTok showed virtually zero content about the ongoing and widely publicized pro-democracy protests, which were a major topic on other social media sites at the time.
> In addition, ByteDance on April 25, 2019, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau (公安部新聞宣傳局) in Beijing. The agreement was billed as "aiming to give full play to the professional technology and platform advantages of Toutiao and Tiktok in big data analysis," strengthen the creation and production of "public security new media works," boost "network influence and online discourse power," and enhance "public security propaganda, guidance, influence, and credibility," among other aspects.
It's just before now they were wielded with restraint and mostly ignored. This should be a wake up call.
Part of the issue is there is now a real discussion over whether or not this is allowed. In a previous United States that this discussion would have existed would have been ludicrous. The basic premise of the IEEPA seems valid, but there seems to be very little effective check by congress.
When did the last American company manage to challenge being banned or forced to take on a local "slightly more than equal" partner in china?
THE MICROSOFT POLICE STATE: MASS SURVEILLANCE, FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND THE AZURE CLOUD https://theintercept.com/2020/07/14/microsoft-police-state-m...
How do you get that from the article? The only mention of China in the article is the photo caption "Microsoft’s MAPP patrol vehicle in Durban sports a facial recognition camera from China-based Hikvision."
Not defending MS. Just stating the obvious with ByteDance.
But for that matter, privacy laws are stronger in the US too.
The question is: which regulators do the social media companies answer to?
Don’t forget that that national security includes other concerns outside of your personal privacy, for example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/18/repor...
That's not the question I posed, kube-system. I asked, "How would Americans be better off with TikTok in Microsoft's hands?"
The issue you raise, about which regulators social media companies answer to, dismisses the conflict of interest that occurs when those regulators' align with the police departments that contract Microsoft to surveil citizens. When that happens, are American citizens better off? Clearly not, when they are being targeted by unconstitutional police actions, e.g. actions that violate the first amendment.
There are tons of fake people on tinder, who never show up. Payment will act as deterrent for these con people.
And dating app makes money as % of the transaction that occurs on the app.
And it never charges you without actually getting a "meeting" out of the app so experience is fair.
And if women are looking to meet man, they can also initiate and offer to pay.
Tinder sucks you can pay for Tinder Gold but it doesn't guarantee even a single date.