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.

And I 1000% Believe my mom and her mom can take partial credit for my achievements.

And I’ll all but guarantee you they did those things simply because they love you, not because of some grandiose idea of a “legacy” or a desperate need to live beyond their death.

Planning for the future in order to care for your family and friends is an expression of love, not ambition.

Never had any ambition or dreams that was greater than 1 life time

Nope. That way lies delusions of grandeur. Life is short and I’d rather focus on living it today rather than worrying about a “legacy” I’ll never experience.

If you want any part of you to achieve something past the one life you have, children are the only way ambition can continue

And that way lies the kind of entitlement that leads parents to think their children’s lives are their own.

You aren’t achieving anything past your life. Your kids are. Their ambition is theirs, not yours. Stop thinking you can take credit for it.

No, being “impartial” would be highlighting both the number of covered and not covered so the reader appreciates just how many people the UCP wants to leave behind. “Big number is bigger” is not how impartiality is measured.

My favourite was this bit:

Poilievre said many Canadians already have access to drug coverage through workplace plans that may offer better benefits than those the NDP-backed Liberal plan eventually could offer.

A 2022 Conference Board of Canada report found that about 24.6 million Canadians are already enrolled in private drug plans.

Disappointed in the CBC here. What they should’ve said is that over 15 million people are not enrolled in a private drug plan, as most people won’t do the math and 24.6M people seems like a big number.

Moreover, many of the people most in need of drugs–the elderly, disabled, and those dealing with chronic health conditions–are far less likely to be employed and have access to coverage.

deleted by creator

But you gotta love the next paragraph:

Two episodes before we shot Hugh’s death [scene], they called me in. They were kind of cagey about it. They said, “Listen, this is Star Trek. Nobody really dies.”

🖖

Didn’t actually read the whole piece did ya? Just stopped at the first paragraph and then reacted?

It’s fine, at this point I’m sure you’ll go find something else to pick apart to protect your ego, meanwhile allowing the point to escape you entirely.

I just hope if/when you get scammed, the people around you are less of a dick about it.

It can happen to anyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/05/cyber-dunning-kruger/

Cory Doctorow didn’t just fall off the back of a turnip truck. If it can happen to him, odds are it can happen to you.

when taxes have increased dramatically since then too

No they haven’t:

https://policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/have-taxes-changed-all-much-over-past-half-century

In 1961, families paid 33.5% of their income on taxes, but by 1969 they were paying 39% and in 1974 they paid 43.4% of their income. So, if you compare the 2009 effective family tax rate to 1961, you will find a 25% increase, but you will only report a 7% increase since 1969 and an actual decrease since 1974.

(Note this analysis is circa 2010, but things haven’t changed substantially since then aside from the post COVID inflation spike that’s still subsiding).

But enjoy the alternate reality brought to you by your “friends” at the Fraser Institute™️.

But spending cuts in the 1980s and 1990s, along with a move to put more responsibility for economic and social well-being on the shoulders of individuals, caused low-income Canadians to fall further behind, the report says.

So neoliberalism. Neoliberalism happened.

Who could’ve guessed.