Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TikTok Facing U.S. Ban on January 19 After Supreme Court Upholds Law

JPack said:
President indeed has final say, just read the text of the law. He has the sole discretion to determine whether a "qualified divestiture" has occurred.

The law has an out. It comes down to whether Trump uses it.

Can Trump Save TikTok?

Trump will have to convince companies like Apple and Oracle that he can protect them from the law.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org
Click to expand...

TikTok already said they are not selling, so that's not a variable, and the only one who is trying to buy is Kevin O'Leary of all people, who is dangling $20bn, which is a pitiful offer.
 
dannyyankou said:
For the longest time, I had issues with a TikTok ban from a first amendment perspective. But I thought of an analogy that kinda made me change my mind.

Let’s say there was a bar in the United States, and a lot of people hang out at this bar with friends and socialize and have a good time. But then, you find out this bar is owned and operated by China. On top of that, you find out this bar is filled with Chinese spies who are eavesdropping on you and collecting your information.

The US government would have a right to shut this bar down. Right?
Click to expand...

Well, aside from the part where the government merely claimed, but didn't actually prove, that it was "filled with spies." Their argument was "trust me bro, there may be a bunch in there" and we all know how the whole WMD yellow cake thing turned out.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Krizoitz and trellus
WarmWinterHat said:
I don't use TikTok, or X (or ever used twitter) or threads, or mastodon, or blue sky...so don't really care.

What I do care about is congress saying it's unsafe with a "trust me bro" instead of presenting, for everyone to see, exactly what the specific issues are, in detail.

That's all.
Click to expand...
National Security briefs aren't and never will part of public transparency. A public that a large minority invents alternative facts to counter actual facts is an obvious reason you'll never be privy to covert operations on all sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krizoitz, subjonas, CEmajr and 2 others
Saturn007 said:
This is the most disturbing aspect of this entire affair:

In a statement to CNN, Trump said "It ultimately goes up to me, so you're going to see what I'm going to do."​
​
He went on to say "Congress has given me the decision, so I'll be making the decision."​
​
None of that is true and all of it represents a disturbing descent into autocracy….
Click to expand...

Why on earth does this incoming president think he can make the claim that “it ultimately goes up to me” when that appears to be manifestly and straightforwardly untruthful, and known to be so by the population as a whole. It appears to be an outright, blatant, lie.

If it were true, the great and wonderful democracy of the USA that has for so long been admired by most of the western world, including me here in the UK, would vanish in an autocratic instant.

Baffling to me. Also fascinating. Trump may represent many things to many people and might yet do some useful things. I fully respect the right of those who voted for him to have voted for him. It is their country, after all. But to us outsiders, looking on, it sure seems strange. The never ending stream of lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FellaMeLad, charlesdayton and trellus
DENZIE said:
Foreign adversary. What a load of nonsense.

Either way this will be good for the world - social media is a curse and should be binned as a failed experiment.
Click to expand...

Including this forum? Perhaps we should also toss out Youtube and Substack?
 
erthquake said:
Not when that "something" is owned and operated by a foreign adversary.
Click to expand...

Watch out, those pesky Reds are hiding behind every bush and tree! Duck and cover! Good grief. And no, tacking on the term "foreign adversary" doesn't work, any more than it does when cops claim they were "fearing for their life" under the most ridiculous circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6, JPack and Chuckeee
CapitalIdea said:
Watch out, those pesky Reds are hiding behind every bush and tree! Duck and cover! Good grief. And no, tacking on the term "foreign adversary" doesn't work, any more than it does when cops claim they were "fearing for their life" under the most ridiculous circumstances.
Click to expand...
Enjoy your potato, Comrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timo_Existencia
CapitalIdea said:
TikTok already said they are not selling, so that's not a variable, and the only one who is trying to buy is Kevin O'Leary of all people, who is dangling $20bn, which is a pitiful offer.
Click to expand...

The key word in the law is "qualified divestiture." What is qualified?

The law says it's ultimately and solely dependent on Trump's determination. Several law experts have chimed in on this path.

If TikTok sells a bunch of physical assets a gives a seat to Musk on the board, it can qualify. It's all up to the man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus and Chuckeee
erthquake said:
Enjoy your potato, Comrade.
Click to expand...

Lazy and ignorant retort, which means on some level you know you lost this argument. As least you didn't call me a Marxist or some other nonsense.

Screenshot 2025-01-17 at 1.49.24 PM.png
 
JPack said:
The key word in the law is "qualified divestiture." What is qualified?

The law says it's ultimately and solely dependent on Trump's determination. Several law experts have chimed in on this path.

If TikTok sells a bunch of physical assets a gives a seat to Musk on the board, it can qualify. It's all up to the man.
Click to expand...
I mean -- kind of but not really, since Trump's determination can be challenged in court -- so it's not as if his executive actions and decisions are immune from legal review. He could decide it "is a qualified divestiture", a competitor with legal standing might disagree and challenge that claim in court, and could prevail.

Basically, there is very little that a president does that cannot be challenged in Court -- for the most part, it would be explicitly enumerated constitutional powers that are essentially not challengeable -- but laws can be challenged, executive judgements based on laws can be challenged, executive orders can be challenged.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: erthquake
JPack said:
The key word in the law is "qualified divestiture." What is qualified?

The law says it's ultimately and solely dependent on Trump's determination. Several law experts have chimed in on this path.

If TikTok sells a bunch of physical assets a gives a seat to Musk on the board, it can qualify. It's all up to the man.
Click to expand...
It's more restrictive than that. Here's the text from that section:

(6) Qualified divestiture.--
<<NOTE: President. Determinations.>> The term ``qualified
divestiture'' means a divestiture or similar transaction that--
(A) the President determines, through an interagency
process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary
controlled application no longer being controlled by a
foreign adversary; and
(B) the President determines, through an interagency
process, precludes the establishment or maintenance of
any operational relationship between the United States
operations of the relevant foreign adversary controlled
application and any formerly affiliated entities that
are controlled by a foreign adversary, including any
cooperation with respect to the operation of a content
recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to
data sharing.
Click to expand...

From https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th...ext?s=4&r=1#H57DED9B1744D4B8AB0ED5B3A611E0469
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
Chuckeee said:
But they will sell the same data to anyone, including “totalitarian foreign adversaries”. So it is functionally equivalent.
Click to expand...
You can at least enact legislation that further governs American companies, and we do (see ITAR, CISA, FISMA). While imperfect, it's better than letting the horse out of the barn and straight up giving that data directly to foreign adversaries.
 
trellus said:
I mean -- kind of but not really, since Trump's determination can be challenged in court -- so it's not as if his executive actions and decisions are immune from legal review. He could decide it "is a qualified divestiture", a competitor with legal standing might disagree and challenge that claim in court, and could prevail.

Basically, there is very little that a president does that cannot be challenged in Court -- for the most part, it would be explicitly enumerated constitutional powers that are essentially not challengeable -- but laws can be challenged, executive judgements based on laws can be challenged, executive orders can be challenged.
Click to expand...

You can challenge anything, but the law is written in plain language. Given there is no definition of "qualified divestiture," and the fact that it's up the President's determination, there's no real challenge in court.

Blame the original law for being so ambiguous.

What competitor is going to challenge this? The ones who donated $1M to his inauguration fund? They know Trump can do anything to make their lives very difficult. So who's going to poke the bear?
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
erthquake said:
You can at least enact legislation that further governs American companies, and we do (see ITAR, CISA, FISMA). While imperfect, it's better than letting the horse out of the barn and straight up giving that data directly to foreign adversaries.
Click to expand...
“Can” is the operative word. While the US could and should, currently they don’t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back