this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
521 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

58150 readers
4303 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemm.ee
fry@fry.gs
L3s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
521
ByteDance prefers TikTok shutdown in US if legal options fail, sources say (www.reuters.com)
submitted 4 months ago by kinther@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
191 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

While true, it also includes any US (or other county) company that is owned at least 20% by someone in one of those adversary countries.

The President can't just name any country an "adversary country," but it's not just companies in those countries either. So something like Epic Games could qualify since TenCent (owned by a Chinese national) owns >20% stake.

However, the law also restricts how a company or product is subject to the rule. Basically, unless they are TikTok or ByteDance (or directly affiliated with either in a legal sense), the President must:

  1. Publicly notify Congress of the intent to classify them as an adversary company (assuming they meet the rest of the rules) at least 30 days prior to any further action
  2. Notify the public of the change

Then the company has 90 days to appeal before the statute of limitations is up, and 270 days to comply (i.e. divest from the adversary country).

So the bill is pretty decent in preventing abuse, so I'm more worried about the precedent it's setting. We generally don't ban things here in the US, so this is a pretty big step IMO.