Montana becomes first state to completely ban TikTok

[struth]

It is different because predatory lending can be shown to cause harm to others. That is not the case with TikTok.

If a state outlawed all gambling services it would be different as they did not target one specific one. If they just outlawed one and allowed the rest that would be the same as what they are doing now.

well...not really....I don't have all the details but a bipartisan group in Congress, who have conducted hearings and investigations on the company believe it can be a threat and do harm. I have to say that in todays age when both parties can do together on a topic, there might be something to it.

 

[struth]

What is the threat exactly.

well a bipartisan group of legilatures believe the threat is that the Chinese Govt can harvest personal information from citizens phones or electronic device containing the app.

 

[jbrownson0831]

“Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill Wednesday banning TikTok in the state.”

Clearly un-Constitutional, conservatives will attempt to defend it regardless.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/tech/montana-governor-tiktok/index.html

Wow, slow down Mrs Jones, you are going to put a rip in your panty hose.

 

[struth]

Certainly am a fan of Black Sabbath...and Ozzy's first solo album...

 

[Blaster]

“Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill Wednesday banning TikTok in the state.”

 

[j-mac]

It is different because predatory lending can be shown to cause harm to others. That is not the case with TikTok.

If a state outlawed all gambling services it would be different as they did not target one specific one. If they just outlawed one and allowed the rest that would be the same as what they are doing now.

You’re wrong, why are you schilling for China

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have to say that in todays age when both parties can do together on a topic, there might be something to it.

I believe just the opposite. When they come together is when we get screwed the most.

Read up on what the RESTRICT Act does. It is not a good thing, it is a very bad thing that will give your nanny state way too much power

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You’re wrong,

Care to elaborate?

 

[struth]

I believe just the opposite. When they come together is when we get screwed the most.

Read up on what the RESTRICT Act does. It is not a good thing, it is a very bad thing that will give your nanny state way too much power

wow...it gives the Sec of Commerce the ability to review business transactions of foreign adversaries doing buisiness here...wow...just horrible idea

 

[Nostra]

I have faith the courts will disagree with you.

Would you support the Fed Govt banning Twitter in the US

There is a first amendment right to tik-tok?

 

[Independent thinker]

“Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill Wednesday banning TikTok in the state.”

Clearly un-Constitutional, conservatives will attempt to defend it regardless.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/tech/montana-governor-tiktok/index.html

What? Even Democrats are against Tik Tok.

 

[struth]

It is different because predatory lending can be shown to cause harm to others. That is not the case with TikTok.

If a state outlawed all gambling services it would be different as they did not target one specific one. If they just outlawed one and allowed the rest that would be the same as what they are doing now.

The RESTRICT Act doesn't target one specific entity or country

 

[Harpy Eagle]

wow...it gives the Sec of Commerce the ability to review business transactions of foreign adversaries doing buisiness here...wow...just horrible idea

It would also criminalize the use of VPNs among a whole list of other issues.

But hey, you would feel right at home with the Nanny State making sure you are safe

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hope this catches on.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The RESTRICT Act doesn't target one specific entity or country

Yes, I know. That is the problem. It can target any entity or country.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is a first amendment right to tik-tok?

Well, according to the courts it is a violation of the 1st for the POTUS to block someone on Twitter.

Seems that shows how wide the view of the 1st is.

 

[jbrownson0831]

A good start.

Montana to become first US state to ban TikTok

TikTok facing growing calls from some US lawmakers to ban the app nationwide over concerns about potential Chinese government influence over the platform.

www.reuters.com

The news gave Mrs Jones a wedgey.

 

[struth]

It would also criminalize the use of VPNs among a whole list of other issues.

But hey, you would feel right at home with the Nanny State making sure you are safe

you need to stop following crackpipe conspiracy theory memes....I thought you might learn that after all the Russian/Trump memes have been exposed as a hoax..

The claim: RESTRICT Act allows the government to monitor all devices, access Wi-Fi and criminalize VPN​

Our rating: False​

Fact check: No, RESTRICT Act doesn't give unfettered government access to personal devices

The RESTRICT Act doesn’t allow the government to monitor a person’s device, access their WIFI network or criminalize VPN, according to legal experts.

www.usatoday.com

Bill doesn't criminalize having VPN​

There is no specific language in the RESTRICT Act that mentions criminal punishment of any kind for using or having a virtual private network, or VPN, according to Ivory.

A VPN changes an individual's device’s IP address to ensure they can browse the internet anonymously, as USA TODAY reported.

Although VPNs are not mentioned anywhere in the bill, experts and organizations have raised concerns that the language in the bill is broad enough that it could possibly be applied to individuals, according to Ivory.

For instance, if an individual used a VPN through an internet service provider to other sites, services and individuals from a Chinese producer, that could be restricted, McKnight said.

But Warner and Thune rebutted these concerns in an opinion column they co-wrote for The Wall Street Journal, noting that "these criminal penalties are targeted at corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban – not everyday Americans."

 

[struth]

Yes, I know. That is the problem. It can target any entity or country.

well not any....it's limited to foreign adversaries, and certain technologies.

but I fall to see how that's a problem

 

[Harpy Eagle]

you need to stop following crackpipe conspiracy theory memes....I thought you might learn that after all the Russian/Trump memes have been exposed as a hoax..

The claim: RESTRICT Act allows the government to monitor all devices, access Wi-Fi and criminalize VPN​

Our rating: False​

Fact check: No, RESTRICT Act doesn't give unfettered government access to personal devices

The RESTRICT Act doesn’t allow the government to monitor a person’s device, access their WIFI network or criminalize VPN, according to legal experts.

www.usatoday.com

Bill doesn't criminalize having VPN​

There is no specific language in the RESTRICT Act that mentions criminal punishment of any kind for using or having a virtual private network, or VPN, according to Ivory.

A VPN changes an individual's device’s IP address to ensure they can browse the internet anonymously, as USA TODAY reported.

Although VPNs are not mentioned anywhere in the bill, experts and organizations have raised concerns that the language in the bill is broad enough that it could possibly be applied to individuals, according to Ivory.

For instance, if an individual used a VPN through an internet service provider to other sites, services and individuals from a Chinese producer, that could be restricted, McKnight said.

But Warner and Thune rebutted these concerns in an opinion column they co-wrote for The Wall Street Journal, noting that "these criminal penalties are targeted at corporations and executives who conspire to evade a mitigation order or ban – not everyday Americans."

You have far too much faith in the benevolence of the Fed Govt.

I bet you think the PATRIOT ACT is a great fucking bill also.