this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
105 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

34889 readers
256 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sept 18 (Reuters) - A group of 18 state attorneys general said on Monday they backed Montana's effort to ban Chinese-owned short video app TikTok, urging a U.S. judge to reject legal challenges ahead of the Jan. 1 effective date.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (17 children)

I'm trying to think of another example where a US government entity prevented a private US company (Apple or Google) from distributing software within the US.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Bytedance is not a US company.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes but the owners of the OS and app stores are, which is I believe the original commenter’s point. And the text of the bill is not “TikTok you shall pull your app”, it’s “Apple you shall disable the App Store listing”.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Oh, I see. But not just downloads, it also prohibits operation. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf

But not only do they have an argument on first amendment grounds, given that the company and product are specifically named and targeted, I think this would be considered a bill of a attainder, and explicitly unconstitutional.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems more like “These substances are now illegal to sell, possess, or use.” Right or wrong, they made it stick for a very long time.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Data gets a lot closer to "speech" than a substance does. This will be interesting to watch, for sure.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)