TikTok is finally being recognized as Chinese spyware, but the bill (named Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act) introduced to remove the platform from American hands seems a little reachy. The bill demands that CCP-owned ByteDance divest from TikTok for TikTok to remain available in the United States. The concerns are that the bill, which last night past the House, could give the executive branch the power to veto what apps the public can use, but others argue that the bill includes specificity to protect against such abuse.
TikTok came out swinging in defense, claiming that the proposal is a violation of the First Amendment, and that the government has no right to shut down a platform for free speech. The issue, however, isn’t over a disagreement over content but their behavior and who controls them. Carr pointed this out on X, explaining that TikTok, being owned by China, used TikTok as a spy tool. This makes TikTok a threat to national security. The bill’s wording has Republicans like Rep. Thomas Massie concerned over how broadly the powers given to the president could be applied, fearing a potential power grab. Because of this, both parties on either side of the aisle are split, making for some odd alliances.
Yesterday Dana spoke with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to address the good and bad about the bill.
“So one, the bill has no authority to go for any individual user that’s off the table. Unlike other bills, two, you have to be controlled by a foreign adversary and that’s defined by Congress already as only four entities. So it’s China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia. And then you have to go through an additional process including a public report on the concrete national security threat. Again, it’s not enough that you’re even controlled by a foreign adversary. It has to be also a national security threat Congress is involved with. So there’s four or five hoops you have to go through.”
Watch the full discussion below:
(From Dana: I like the comparison of illicit conduct to free speech, the latter which isn’t contested in the version of the bill I read. “Foreign adversary” is defined as either Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea. There are some portions of the bill too vague for my comfort, but I also don’t want to fall into the trap of the CCP weaponizing American patriotism for the incorrect narrative of free speech to empower or sanction its continued surveillance.)
L Grey is a researcher and Chapter and Verse contributor.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: L Grey
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://danaloesch.substack.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.