Back to Vine.
Nobody in Lemmy cares until they come for Lemmy I guess
Um, actually that’s one perk of federation. It’s much harder to take down networks that are run on dozens or hundreds of servers across the globe… In other words, we already solved this problem, at least in large part.
If you base your livelihood on a platform owned by a private company, you’re not really justified if you complain about it being changed or blocked.
Lemmy users aren’t making money from it, so your argument is irrelevant.
They’ll have no choice but to go into the mountains and become guerilla fighters.
The same as what happened when vine shut down.
Take their follows as best as they can to another platform. Continue on.
There won’t be a ban. TikTok will probably end up making a U.S. only version that will satisfy congress.
The data will be sold to a 3rd party broker who will then keep sending it to China, so nothing will change in the end.
I don’t think this is correct.
They wont reveal their code and leaders in the US are too uncomfortable. With a conservative court, a ban will be not found unconstitutional.
Other platforms exist. I’m sure they’ll be fine.
I was under the impression that the TT creator fund was very minimal anyway. Or at least it was gutted recently and used to be somewhat okay.
Better question: Will the world rejoice in having a social media network without Americans?
It’s already banned in Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Taiwan, Denmark, European Union, France, India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Somalia, and United Kingdom.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/these-countries-have-already-banned-tiktok
deleted by creator
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Who cares. Imagine what will happen to those freed from this mental prison
Nothing. The law is unconstitutional.
How is the law unconstitutional?
Restrict first amendment rights.
The right for a business to operate is not protected by the first amendment, though.
I could use that argument to stop the government from closing/dismantling any physical space because I might use their walls to express my first amendment rights. But the argument just doesn’t hold up.
1A protects us against censorship, and this law is precisely that. If I have TikTok and I use it to communicate, the government is censoring my speech by taking it down. There is a lot of case law on when the government can legally censor speech, and I’m not going to repeat it here, but the government’s lawyers have a massive hill to climb on this one. Maybe they can succeed, maybe not.
There’s other precedent about “making a specific business illegal”. Essentially, legislatures can make conduct illegal, but courts don’t like it when they make businesses illegal, because it’s a violation of due process. But this is complicated and detail-specific.
Anyway, there’s a lot of great information online about these two legal arguments. I encourage you to look it up.
But again, you can make that argument about any platform or medium where speech can be posted or displayed. If the department of public health condemns a local movie theater where I host indie movie screenings, that is not a violation of my first amendment rights because they are not prohibiting my ability to make or share content, they are simply removing the space it is currently shared. If that comes out to the same effect for some people who are all-in on TikTok to the exclusion of any other short-form video sharing service, sure, maybe there are grievances. But that still ends up being a self-imposition made by the individual at the end of the day.
Not to mention, the US government is not trying to close down TikTok. They are prohibiting the owners of TikTok from doing business in the US. The company itself would be the one to make the decision to close the service rather than sell it off, so unless the fed is going to force a private business to keep itself open to placate the masses, it’s a decision made by a private company outside of any constitutional law.
Exactly. All censorship could be a violation of 1A. The bar is high on this one. The government has to jump through difficult hoops to legally suppress most speech. The courts have long since ruled against the “but they have other channels” argument that you propose.
As for the latter point, again you miss the legal argument. The government is targeting a company, and not conduct. That could easily be a Due Process violation.
Of course we don’t know. The courts will rule. But what you wrote ignores basic legal precedent.
Government censorship will cause TikTok’s services in the US to shut down, which will result in most users moving to another social media platform.
I think most people already use multiple platforms, so the only difference will be the time they put into their new main social media.
Start using a VPN…
Damn crazy that you’re in favor of regulating porn but are also telling people to use a VPN.
