Technology

60659 readers

4231 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

335

TikTok says it's restoring service to US users based on Trump's promised executive order (apnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It was a got damn stunt, offc

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I'm way more interested in the reactions of Google, Apple, Oracle, and the dozens of other corporations ByteDance depends on.

The "90-day extension" Trump keeps talking about has no basis in law except to conclude an in-process divestment, which currently doesn't exist. He can order the law not to be enforced, but you're still breaking the law. It'll interesting to see if those companies are willing to along with an executive order their counsel knows is illegal or are willing to knowingly break the law under the promise they won't be prosecuted (for now).

edit: IANAL

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean, they can get away with it. They own the government, if the next president threw a fit about them going along with something that they knew was illegal because Trump was OK with it, do you think their lawyers wouldn't be able to make it go away for a meager fine that's 0.001% of their annual revenue?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I'm curious whether "can probably get away with it" is enough for them. And whether they'll take the risk for no reward whatsoever in the case of Apple and Google.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

has no basis in law

Wikipedia says, with a couple references:

The president may grant a one-time extension of the divestiture deadline by as long as 90 days if a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, "significant" progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place.

So I think he can do it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

as long as 90 days if a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, “significant” progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place.

My point is that no path has been identified, no progress has been made, and nothing is in place.

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

Point taken, but I'm just going to presume that all that will be declared satisfied in the EO in some token form or another.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I don't think that it can just be declared satisfied, though. I imagine Google and Apple's obscenely top-shelf representation will be like, "this has about this much legal merit":

But who knows! :)