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.

You’re missing my point.

In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that’s the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it’s the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.

That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I’m wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn’t apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I’m not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there’s OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).

To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I’m saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it’s not an obvious slam dunk.

On what basis? The legal power of the US government to break up or otherwise force divestment of corporate assets is the basis upon which antitrust law is built. The only way this law could be overturned is it’s found unconstitutional, and if that happens, you can say goodbye to the FTC.

I don’t. Played with it a bit but as a capable writer and coder I don’t find it fills a need and just shifts the effort from composition (which I enjoy) to editing and review (which I don’t).

Oh please. The anti-TikTok hysteria has been going on much longer than the Israeli invasion of Gaza, and the narrative has largely been about national security concerns, particularly as they relate to election misinformation.

Agree or not with the anti-China rhetoric about TikTok, but at least argue about the facts and not inane conspiracy theories.

Not funny once you realize all doctors are actually lizard people in human skin suits performing experiments on us. QED sucker!

My Momentum 4s have 60 hours of battery life…

What?

Compiling quality datasets is enormously challenging and labour intensive. OpenAI absolutely knows the provenance of the data they train on as it’s part of their secret sauce. And there’s no damn way their CTO won’t have a broad strokes understanding of the origins of those datasets.

Ah, see, I’m Canadian so that only works like two months out of the year when we’re able to emerge from our igloos…

They could just as easily close ranks with support for Bibi galvanizing over perceived foreign influence in their politics. Nationalism is a powerful narcotic and the US making that move could just pump it into their veins.

Or burned out because they get pulled into every project that’s gone off the rails.

Times like this I’m glad I have not one but two friends who are backyard beekeepers. They are more than happy to give away the enormous amount of honey they collect each year…

Gentle heating in a hot water bath or the microwave will liquify that honey again.

Random turbulence that maims the flight crew just wouldn’t be practical as a “thing that just happens” on regular longhaul flights.

I never said it happens often but it absolutely does happen. Here was a particularly spectacular example that happened to folks a few years back on their way to Australia (and note, if you want more examples, the article lists a couple of other past incidents that also resulted in crew and passenger injuries):

https://apnews.com/article/49db2788d04d4e11bcbb1a63dbae4199

Passengers on a flight from Canada to Australia said they had no warning about turbulence that suddenly slammed people into the ceiling of the plane and injured more than three dozen — a phenomenon that experts say can be nearly impossible for pilots to see coming.

One passenger on that flight noted:

“The plane just dropped,” passenger Stephanie Beam said. “When we hit turbulence, I woke up and looked over to make sure my kids were buckled. The next thing I knew there’s just literally bodies on the ceiling of the plane.”

So again, I cannot emphasize this enough: wear your damn seatbelts, people.

Fair enough. Notably, that quote isn’t in the Reuters article, which is what I was commenting on.

No arguments about the need for an investigation, particularly if that quote from the pilot is genuine.