• Melllvar
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 months ago

    The law affects social media apps based in North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. These four countries are already restricted from participating in sensitive areas of the US economy, with forced sale being an option. The only really novel part of this law is applying such restrictions to software.

    • AmbiguousProps
      link
      English
      42 months ago

      You’re missing my point. The adversaries have many more avenues than just TikTok (like breaching the domestic companies that collect the data). The law is too specific and therefore does not actually protect us in any real way, at least not on a personal level.

      • Melllvar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 months ago

        It’s not too specific, it’s narrowly tailored. Which is one of the things it needs to be in order to survive a 1st amendment challenge.

        • AmbiguousProps
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Does it stop my data from getting to the CCP? Nope, so I would say it’s too specific. The problem is not TikTok exclusively, the problem is that the data is collected and sold in the first place. This doesn’t stop that.

          Also, it leaves a bad taste when you say it was crafted to narrowly skirt the 1st amendment. That’s not a good thing, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to imply that it is.

          • @Psychodelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            It’s like people legit don’t want to understand your point.

            It’s kinda insane seeing people/the Overton window turn progressively more and more authoritarian

          • Melllvar
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            No, but it does prohibit companies in those four sanctioned countries from operating social media apps in the US. The fact that it’s not a perfect protection is no good reason not to do it. The fact that it was written with an eye towards the first amendment is not a valid criticism.