It’s wild. Libertarian heads are exploding all over social media. They are claiming this bill is a Trojan Horse for mass censorship by executive order.
I really hope they are wrong, and Erick is right, but I can’t help but wonder what language is actually in the bill.
Has anyone read it on here that can read legalise?
The problem I have is that Beijing and the Democrats share an ideological attraction to top-down authoritarian (totalitarian) control. So if banning TikTok, we should do the same with Facebook and Google and any other big tech company with any history of collecting data on users without their expressed consent and implementing information filtering to bias political opinions.
But there is another idea. Just remove Section 230 protections for these companies that do business in the US. Then they become open for civil lawsuits for libel, slander and other harm generated from their content, algorithms, data scraping, etc. That might do the trick as they would all have to clean up their act.
Erick if this bill is over 4 pages long then I don’t trust it. If this does pass will there be things in there that we didn’t know about like a new library in Bedford MA, Ski hill in Mississippi.just asking
I am one of those who is sick of this issue, but I appreciate EE continuing to beat the drum. Thats why I'm a subscriber here, this really is that big a of a deal and EE makes us take the medicine (politely, succinctly written and fairly witty) whereas other media would jump to the next dopamine hit story.
I'm guessing I'm on the younger end of the spectrum in here as a millennial, but let me tell you, I feel a massive generational gap when interacting with Gen Z. They use TikTok and nothing else, and they all do it, they have a faux culture of their own that is curated and distributed to them by the editorialists at the CCP. They are unaware of other opinions because they never leave TikTok. In their minds, Facebook is akin to the fax machine and if you even tried to explain to them that we were posting comments on an email newsletter/substack, they couldn't comprehend it.
This issue is a really big deal, and it looks to me (I spent 12 years working on the Hill) that Congress tripped and fell into actually doing some quality legislating for once.
My kids are 20 and 17, and they're not on TikTok. Let me assure you, though, that Instagram and YouTube are also toxic. The algorithms suck kids (and adults) down a rabbit hole that's usually destructive. Parents need to man up and keep their kids off social media.
Funny (not really) how politics has warped this country's ability to see real enemies. While I believe that liberalism will eventually destroy everything it infects, there can be no doubt that Communist China will burn us to the ground if circumstances allow. Literally. It used to be surprising when Americans even voiced some tacit support for socialism or it's offspring, Communism. Not anymore. Not only are the Communists apparently NOT our enemies...they supposedly have the worldview that America should be striving for. Ronald Reagan just lost another fingernail trying to dig himself out of the grave. He's way past just turning over in it.
Erick, if your friend Chip Roy has thoroughly inspected this bill for imbedded traps and found none, along with your own inspection, then I'm behind the divestment, for whatever that matters. I've never been a fond promoter of 'conspiracies', but since the years of Clinton moving forward, I've been astounded in the ability of maybe 75% of democrats to lie, obfuscate, then project like there's no tomorrow. Maybe 30% wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in their rear quarters. So, I get it when people question bipartisan bills made with the hyper-disingenuous left.
After this legislation is passed, our country should swiftly move to regulate the other social media companies. They have been allowed to act with impunity for long enough already.
"TikTok is in a category by itself." Then ban TikTok. Don't give the executive branch the unilateral, unchecked power to ban any foreign app or website deemed a security threat. I could support this ban if it only applied to TikTok, and the next time an app was considered it threat, it went before Congress. Have we learned nothing from the executive branch's gross abuse of power?
"But the legislation very carefully and clearly only applies to apps and websites whose server content is controlled by Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran." All of these are sworn enemies of the United States intent on our destruction.
Is that exact language in the legislation, or are you taking Erickson's word for it? I'm asking sincerely, because the language I saw was was "foreign adversary controlled applications" and it included websites, not just apps. Are Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran specifically mentioned, or does the bill apply to any "foreign adversary"?
Would you like your children to taught by Hezbollah ,Hamas , Houthi all are evil Nazis who are financed by Iran and who is financed by Biden as he works to release 10 billion dollars to them.
Foreign adversary, yes. Listing our foreign adversaries: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. There are others; Cuba, Venezuela etc. but those are the big 4 who seek our demise. Below is the beginning of the legislation the format won't allow me to print the whole thing:
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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act”.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.—
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
(2) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply—
(A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the relevant determination of the President under such subsection.
(b) Data And Information Portability To Alternative Applications.—Before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to a foreign adversary controlled application, the entity that owns or controls such application shall provide, upon request by a user of such application within the land or maritime borders of United States, to such user all the available data related to the account of such user with respect to such application. Such data shall be provided in a machine readable format and shall include any data maintained by such application with respect to the account of such user, including content (including posts, photos, and videos) and all other account information.
(c) Exemptions.—
(1) EXEMPTIONS FOR QUALIFIED DIVESTITURES.—Subsection (a)—
(A) does not apply to a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) would begin to apply to such application; and
(B) shall cease to apply in the case of a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed after the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to such application.
(2) EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN NECESSARY SERVICES.—Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to services provided with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that are necessary for an entity to attain compliance with such subsections.
(d) Enforcement.—
(1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—
(A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation.
(B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation.
(2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General—
(A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and
(B) may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States for appropriate relief, including civil penalties under paragraph (1) or declaratory and injunctive relief.
(e) Severability.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If any provision of this section or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
(2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.—If the application of any provision of this section is held invalid with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that satisfies the definition of such term pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), such invalidity shall not affect or preclude the application of the same provision of this section to such foreign adversary controlled application by means of a subsequent determination pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B).
(f) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this Act may be construed—
(1) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforcement, under this section, other than enforcement of subsection (a) or (b);
(2) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforcement, under this section, against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application; or
(3) except as expressly provided herein, to alter or affect any other authority provided by or established under another provision of Federal law.
I appreciate it, Mark. I'm in and out of board meetings all day, but I was able to find the bill earlier this morning. The bill doesn't list the adversaries. Instead, this is how it reads:
"The term 'foreign adversary country' means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code."
I looked up that code, and it does, in fact, list the four countries you and Erick mentioned. Forgive me for being skeptical, but what's to prevent the Congress from adding to the list of adversaries in that code?
And, like I've written in other posts, if the goal is to ban TikTok, why not just ban TikTok? What is the problem with bringing a future problematic app before Congress? Why give this authority now?
Yes: (2) The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yes, any permanent United States code law can be overturned by legislative action or court ruling. I don't know, but I imagine the Committee used existing law because it was in place, clearly understood, and enforceable.
the reason it had to say websites is that these apps are run on the backend as a website, just saying "app" would have left a loophole equivalent to the current congressional insider trading loophole
While I do not trust in the least our governments reasons for banning it unless it is sold, I still want this to be done. Then we can address any nefarious underlying reasons we got a bipartisan agreement to do it. So, I hope it gets done, because it is toxic and dangerous. Never used it, never will.
I may not be seeing the whole picture in the right way, but, I have great grandchildren that have some of the most junk ideas about what should be done in school and how things should be covered in school and they said it ALL came from TikTok. I have never used it and will NOT use it. So I don't know what is on it. But with that in mind, there is NO doubt in my mind that is should be taken OFF the net if china does not turn loose of it. Our young children are suffering enough today with so many of them growing up without Fathers. Especially our Sons. We have enough troubles in the US without China interference. When you touched on the land purchase by China, we should STOP that right now as well. They will be setting up spy stations all over the U.S.A and fill them with the young people they have brought across the boarder so easy with the administration. I am so glad you covered this again today as it needed to be repeated. Blessings to you Erick
I’m always leery of the left. But the US version of TikTok has to be taken from Chinese control. When one compares the differences between what Chinese kids see and what our US kids see, the story is complete. We can’t have our kids being indoctrinated. That should also hold for our schools, another item for the freedom agenda.
It’s wild. Libertarian heads are exploding all over social media. They are claiming this bill is a Trojan Horse for mass censorship by executive order.
I really hope they are wrong, and Erick is right, but I can’t help but wonder what language is actually in the bill.
Has anyone read it on here that can read legalise?
The problem I have is that Beijing and the Democrats share an ideological attraction to top-down authoritarian (totalitarian) control. So if banning TikTok, we should do the same with Facebook and Google and any other big tech company with any history of collecting data on users without their expressed consent and implementing information filtering to bias political opinions.
But there is another idea. Just remove Section 230 protections for these companies that do business in the US. Then they become open for civil lawsuits for libel, slander and other harm generated from their content, algorithms, data scraping, etc. That might do the trick as they would all have to clean up their act.
Thanks, I’m contacting my senators today to support this bill. I read that Biden says he’ll sign it, only need 51.
Erick if this bill is over 4 pages long then I don’t trust it. If this does pass will there be things in there that we didn’t know about like a new library in Bedford MA, Ski hill in Mississippi.just asking
Here's the bill. It doesn't just ban TikTok.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text
I am one of those who is sick of this issue, but I appreciate EE continuing to beat the drum. Thats why I'm a subscriber here, this really is that big a of a deal and EE makes us take the medicine (politely, succinctly written and fairly witty) whereas other media would jump to the next dopamine hit story.
I'm guessing I'm on the younger end of the spectrum in here as a millennial, but let me tell you, I feel a massive generational gap when interacting with Gen Z. They use TikTok and nothing else, and they all do it, they have a faux culture of their own that is curated and distributed to them by the editorialists at the CCP. They are unaware of other opinions because they never leave TikTok. In their minds, Facebook is akin to the fax machine and if you even tried to explain to them that we were posting comments on an email newsletter/substack, they couldn't comprehend it.
This issue is a really big deal, and it looks to me (I spent 12 years working on the Hill) that Congress tripped and fell into actually doing some quality legislating for once.
My kids are 20 and 17, and they're not on TikTok. Let me assure you, though, that Instagram and YouTube are also toxic. The algorithms suck kids (and adults) down a rabbit hole that's usually destructive. Parents need to man up and keep their kids off social media.
Funny (not really) how politics has warped this country's ability to see real enemies. While I believe that liberalism will eventually destroy everything it infects, there can be no doubt that Communist China will burn us to the ground if circumstances allow. Literally. It used to be surprising when Americans even voiced some tacit support for socialism or it's offspring, Communism. Not anymore. Not only are the Communists apparently NOT our enemies...they supposedly have the worldview that America should be striving for. Ronald Reagan just lost another fingernail trying to dig himself out of the grave. He's way past just turning over in it.
Erick, if your friend Chip Roy has thoroughly inspected this bill for imbedded traps and found none, along with your own inspection, then I'm behind the divestment, for whatever that matters. I've never been a fond promoter of 'conspiracies', but since the years of Clinton moving forward, I've been astounded in the ability of maybe 75% of democrats to lie, obfuscate, then project like there's no tomorrow. Maybe 30% wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in their rear quarters. So, I get it when people question bipartisan bills made with the hyper-disingenuous left.
I don’t want Big Brother in Beijing or Big Brother in Washington to data mine my online activity.
It's all for sale. Big Brother doesn't need to mine it. He can buy it.
After this legislation is passed, our country should swiftly move to regulate the other social media companies. They have been allowed to act with impunity for long enough already.
"TikTok is in a category by itself." Then ban TikTok. Don't give the executive branch the unilateral, unchecked power to ban any foreign app or website deemed a security threat. I could support this ban if it only applied to TikTok, and the next time an app was considered it threat, it went before Congress. Have we learned nothing from the executive branch's gross abuse of power?
"But the legislation very carefully and clearly only applies to apps and websites whose server content is controlled by Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran." All of these are sworn enemies of the United States intent on our destruction.
Is that exact language in the legislation, or are you taking Erickson's word for it? I'm asking sincerely, because the language I saw was was "foreign adversary controlled applications" and it included websites, not just apps. Are Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran specifically mentioned, or does the bill apply to any "foreign adversary"?
Would you like your children to taught by Hezbollah ,Hamas , Houthi all are evil Nazis who are financed by Iran and who is financed by Biden as he works to release 10 billion dollars to them.
No. That's why they're not on TikTok.
Foreign adversary, yes. Listing our foreign adversaries: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. There are others; Cuba, Venezuela etc. but those are the big 4 who seek our demise. Below is the beginning of the legislation the format won't allow me to print the whole thing:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text
H. R. 7521
AN ACT
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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act”.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.—
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
(2) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply—
(A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the relevant determination of the President under such subsection.
(b) Data And Information Portability To Alternative Applications.—Before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to a foreign adversary controlled application, the entity that owns or controls such application shall provide, upon request by a user of such application within the land or maritime borders of United States, to such user all the available data related to the account of such user with respect to such application. Such data shall be provided in a machine readable format and shall include any data maintained by such application with respect to the account of such user, including content (including posts, photos, and videos) and all other account information.
(c) Exemptions.—
(1) EXEMPTIONS FOR QUALIFIED DIVESTITURES.—Subsection (a)—
(A) does not apply to a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) would begin to apply to such application; and
(B) shall cease to apply in the case of a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed after the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to such application.
(2) EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN NECESSARY SERVICES.—Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to services provided with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that are necessary for an entity to attain compliance with such subsections.
(d) Enforcement.—
(1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—
(A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation.
(B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation.
(2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General—
(A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and
(B) may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States for appropriate relief, including civil penalties under paragraph (1) or declaratory and injunctive relief.
(e) Severability.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If any provision of this section or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
(2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.—If the application of any provision of this section is held invalid with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that satisfies the definition of such term pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), such invalidity shall not affect or preclude the application of the same provision of this section to such foreign adversary controlled application by means of a subsequent determination pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B).
(f) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this Act may be construed—
(1) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforcement, under this section, other than enforcement of subsection (a) or (b);
(2) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforcement, under this section, against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application; or
(3) except as expressly provided herein, to alter or affect any other authority provided by or established under another provision of Federal law.
I appreciate it, Mark. I'm in and out of board meetings all day, but I was able to find the bill earlier this morning. The bill doesn't list the adversaries. Instead, this is how it reads:
"The term 'foreign adversary country' means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code."
I looked up that code, and it does, in fact, list the four countries you and Erick mentioned. Forgive me for being skeptical, but what's to prevent the Congress from adding to the list of adversaries in that code?
And, like I've written in other posts, if the goal is to ban TikTok, why not just ban TikTok? What is the problem with bringing a future problematic app before Congress? Why give this authority now?
Yes: (2) The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yes, any permanent United States code law can be overturned by legislative action or court ruling. I don't know, but I imagine the Committee used existing law because it was in place, clearly understood, and enforceable.
the reason it had to say websites is that these apps are run on the backend as a website, just saying "app" would have left a loophole equivalent to the current congressional insider trading loophole
I get that, but what about a website that isn't an app? Can they ban that?
If that website is "owned" by a "foreign adversary," then yes- i used quotations on these terms because they are legal terms defined in the bill
Thanks.
Well stated! Thank you.
While I do not trust in the least our governments reasons for banning it unless it is sold, I still want this to be done. Then we can address any nefarious underlying reasons we got a bipartisan agreement to do it. So, I hope it gets done, because it is toxic and dangerous. Never used it, never will.
I may not be seeing the whole picture in the right way, but, I have great grandchildren that have some of the most junk ideas about what should be done in school and how things should be covered in school and they said it ALL came from TikTok. I have never used it and will NOT use it. So I don't know what is on it. But with that in mind, there is NO doubt in my mind that is should be taken OFF the net if china does not turn loose of it. Our young children are suffering enough today with so many of them growing up without Fathers. Especially our Sons. We have enough troubles in the US without China interference. When you touched on the land purchase by China, we should STOP that right now as well. They will be setting up spy stations all over the U.S.A and fill them with the young people they have brought across the boarder so easy with the administration. I am so glad you covered this again today as it needed to be repeated. Blessings to you Erick
I see the only two no votes from Ga came from the #1 crazy of the “right” and the #2 crazy of the “left.” Note: Hank Johnson is #1 crazy period.
All of the Michigan delegation except one voted yes. Rashida Tlaib didn’t vote.
We are Americans 1st. Regardless of who we fight alongside of, the choice must be National Security over Communist China.
I’m always leery of the left. But the US version of TikTok has to be taken from Chinese control. When one compares the differences between what Chinese kids see and what our US kids see, the story is complete. We can’t have our kids being indoctrinated. That should also hold for our schools, another item for the freedom agenda.