this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
611 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

59565 readers
3379 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
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
611
US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
152 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3

The bill doesn't target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.

unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down

A rule that applies exclusively to the US subsidiary of TikTok.

It would be akin to passing a law that says @finitebanjo must have all of his possessions seized in the next nine months, because he took money from the Canadian government. Canada isn't the target of the legislation and the scope of the legislation isn't universal - it's only assigning a punishment to a single domestic resident - and entirely on the grounds that the current chief executive doesn't like Justin Trudeau.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo's friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose's friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.

The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.