Dr. Casey FieslerMar 23, 2023
As your resident TikTok micro-celebrity + tech ethics/policy professor, I have a lot of feelings about the proposed TikTok ban. I think that this statement from Evan Greer of Fight for the Future articulates some points well. If the sole argument is "but China" I would very much like to see something beyond speculation. And if it's just not that, then go after Meta too. And either way maybe you could pass LITERALLY ANY DATA PRIVACY LAWS.
Show threadElizabethMar 23, 2023
@cfiesler seems like this is just about protecting trade secrets. We are the trade secrets.
Show threadWoozle HypertwinMar 23, 2023

@Elizabeth3 @cfiesler

What do they even mean by "ban", though? (I haven't gone hunting for the text of the bill, but I'm not sure I'd be able to parse out the relevant bits even if I did.)

Show threadDr. Casey FieslerMar 23, 2023
@woozle @Elizabeth3 The bill itself doesn't do anything directly; it gives the secretary of Commerce the power to ban foreign technologies and companies from operating in the US if they present a threat to national security.
Show threadWoozle HypertwinMar 23, 2023

@cfiesler @Elizabeth3

Ok. So it wouldn't stop anyone from using TikTok. (Still not sure it's a good idea, but it doesn't imply some of the things that a lot of people seem to think it implies.)

Might "operating" include, for example, using a US-based hosting service, do you think?

Show threadDr. Casey FieslerMar 23, 2023
@woozle @Elizabeth3 If under this bill it IS banned then yes it would stop people from using TikTok. That's the point of this hearing. Not sure about the specifics though.
Show threadEdward L PlattMar 23, 2023
@cfiesler @woozle @Elizabeth3 These are some really interesting questions. If it included the web client, that would mean a state-mandate for private ISPs to block internet traffic based on IP or DNS, which as far as I know is unprecedented in the US
Show threadWoozle HypertwinMar 23, 2023

@elplatt

That would indeed be bad and, I think, a First Amendment violation.

@cfiesler @Elizabeth3

Show threadDr. Casey FieslerMar 23, 2023
@woozle @elplatt @Elizabeth3 A number of digital rights groups have pointed out that there would be a high bar to survive first amendment scrutiny.
Show threadAnti-Fatalist
@cfiesler @woozle @elplatt @Elizabeth3 Except if the Supreme Court justices are all super anti-communists, which they are (even though China isn't even a communist society), in which case they'll happily make an exception to the First Amendment for this bill. The idea that the Supreme Court actually acts according to any actually logical principle rather than the interests of the class that put them where they are, is laughable.
Mar 24, 2023 at 4:00amTusky