zaphod
Ahh yes, the old "sticks and stones" defense that completely ignores human nature and basic decency. I use the same logic when I tell other people their babies are ugly. "Look, if you ask me your kid is an eyesore but it's just my opinion so I don't know why you're so mad right now..."
You probably didn't recently rewatch the whole show like I did!
It's one of the affectations she picked up while living in the Vulcan colony on earth. Part of her arc is she's not a particularly "good" Vulcan and the tea is one of the little tells.
Alright, since someone needs to be the canon pedant: akshully she drank chamomile and occasionally mint tea on the show.
Funny, I feel the same way about Fallout and The Witcher. Just... don't get the appeal. As always, to each their own. Hence why I generally try to avoid yucking other people's yums.
Why would a court be able to "easily find this was handled improperly"?
Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn't apply?
Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn't realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!
You wouldn't be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn't critical infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:
CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user's location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.
Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn't count as "critical infrastructure"?
(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).
(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.
So again. Not personal use.
LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.
So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.
Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.
But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.
The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.
Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It's incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don't trade on any US stock exchanges).
TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).
The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn't occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it's that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
In what way does that invalidate it as an example?
The executive cannot just declare something punitive.
CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.
Also, if there aren't rights for foreigners in the US then there aren't rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
Bytedance isn't inside your borders and the constitution doesn't protect extra-nationals. There's a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.
I couldn't agree more. IMO the right solution is to regulate data collection, mandate algorithmic transparency, and require opt out for algorithmic curation.
But the discussion isn't about whether this is the right remedy (IMO it's not) but about whether the remedy will be held up by the courts.
See my reply to your sibling comment. This is wishful thinking. You could be right, but it's just as likely (I'd argue more likely) you're wrong.
It's all about tone. The original comment was incredibly combative and hyperbolic ("I utterly loathe Mass Effect. I consider it one of the worst pieces of science-fiction ever created.") so much so that it would easily be mistaken for flamebait given the thread was likely to attract fans of the series.
It certainly didn't strike me as the start of an open-minded conversation.
But in hindsight I should've just downvoted and moved on rather than commenting as I did, so that's on me.