Here's the top comment at the Times: "I might suggest that the Montana State House tech gurus contact their counterparts in China. They are far more experienced in throttling apps, prosecuting developers and penalizing users of consumer software offerings."
The ACLU notes the free speech violation, and Apple and Google — saying that they can't stop downloads in a single state — are setting up the argument that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
I think Governor Gianforte has the background to see multiple reasons to veto this bill. Wikipedia:
During his high school years in the 1970s, Gianforte started a software business.... Gianforte graduated in 1983 from his father's alma mater, Stevens Institute of Technology, with a BS in electrical engineering and a master's degree in computer science. He directed a computer lab with 12 programmers...
Gianforte began his career in 1983 at Bell Laboratories, working in product acquisition. Frustrated by the bureaucratic corporate hierarchy at Bell Labs, Gianforte departed to co-found Brightwork Development Inc., a developer of server-based LAN management software for the banking industry....
Gianforte and his wife, Susan, a mechanical engineer by trade, co-founded RightNow Technologies in 1997. Part of Gianforte's strategy was to leverage the internet as a means to overcome geographic barriers to building a globalized business....
Perfect.
But strangely:
Gianforte believes in Young Earth creationism. He has donated at least $290,000 to the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, a Montana creationist museum that teaches visitors that the theory of evolution is false, that the Earth is about 6,000–6,400 years old, and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted during the same period. The museum claims dinosaurs were aboard Noah's Ark....
That's as far as I'm going into the mind of Greg Gianforte. At least for now.
Mga Post
43 komento:
Put a state tax on its use. Make using it expensive. If Amazon can be expected to collect state sales taxes all across the country, there must be a way for Montana to tax TikTok access. Get creative.
This is the kind of boneheaded policy push, among others, that makes me fume at the GOP. This is a straight up loser issue. It's red meat to the "chants slogans" wing of the base. It isolates the next generation.
Is titschlok poison? Yeah, but this stuff has to be addresses on an individually ethical basis. Keeping kids away from it has to be about empowering them with the knowledge for why it should be avoided, not coming the other direction with heavy-handed bans that are constitutionally dubious.
This is the razors edge of politics. It's so easy for some of these guys to get confused between banning gay porn books in school, which is sound, with banning titcock because it's a vapid and shallow timwasting ap owned by a strategic adversary that wants our kids wasting time instead of studying like their kids do (the ap is severely throttled in their own country).
Teach the kids why it's dangerous. Empower them to make good choices.
The danger posed by TikTok is not abundantly clear. If someone “yells fire in a crowded theater” observers at this hypothetical theater can accept or decline the warning based on their own observations. TikTok detractors owe the public clear and convincing evidence that TikTok is dangerous.
Banning TikTok is like banning covid with masks. It’s performative. It's a laboratory. Can the TikTok scare be enough to raise the kind of alarm bells needed to "do things you thought you could not do before". In other words, it's an opportunity.
Before TikTok, a crisis had to be real. If you can convincingly make a crisis on here say and get people on command to perform in response... I'm having a hard time imagining a fully functioning self-propelled marionette reality. It's not what can AI do... it's what can't AI do.
Here's the top comment at the Times: "I might suggest that the Montana State House tech gurus contact their counterparts in China
I’d suggest they contact their counterparts in California as they are experienced in using state law to manipulate snd coerce national policy.
RideSpaceMountain, you speak the truth with your comment.
And this is a good example of why many independent voters reflexively recoil from voting for Republicans.
Wilbur never votes for anyone. Wilbur always votes against.
This recent development comes as expected given that the government of Montana has long been in the pocket of Big Dental Floss.
Of California can set national policy with their crazy laws, why not Montana?
Well, Greg has a dilemma on his hands doesn't he? He ought to know better, even if his geological knowledge is off in some different faith-silo.
This is as stupid as the bill to ban yoga pants. (I assume Pornhub has already been banned?)
He'd be doing the legislature a favor by vetoing.
If Montana is truly concerned with China you'd think they'd invest in anti-weather balloon ground defense systems.
"Blogger Eric the Fruit Bat said...
This recent development comes as expected given that the government of Montana has long been in the pocket of Big Dental Floss."
Yippe-yi-yo Kai-yay!
Montana is a paradise. But don’t tell anyone.
Massachusetts has legalized sports betting and we are now inundated with advertisements for various apps. They are all careful to point out that you have to be within the physical borders of the state to use them. And my health insurance will no longer allow any remote medical appointments unless the patient is "within the physical borders of the state".
If these are possible, I don't see why there would be any practical problems to distinguishing between people inside or outside Montana when it comes to using Tik-Tok.
So, the Dormant Commerce Clause...that's the one that says they can't pass laws to stop me from taking a vampire across state lines as long as he's in his coffin and the sun is still up, right?
My first thought here was "Who do they think they are? California?"
I see others have the same mindset.
This is yet another example that lawmakers generally should be sent home to their day jobs as there appears to be little need for law making.
Lots of States ban gambling apps.
This is not unplowed ground.
“ Put a state tax on its use. Make using it expensive. If Amazon can be expected to collect state sales taxes all across the country, there must be a way for Montana to tax TikTok access. Get creative.”
Do some background work before unleashing your creativity or you will run headlong into the dormant Commerce Clause.
I suppose this reduces the odds of the Biden administration imposing a national ban.
I'm sure there's way around the Dormant Commerce Clause. State sales taxes are not uniform across state lines. Products taxed in one state are not taxed in other states. They just have to find a way to make downloading "free apps" a "sale". If the federal government can classify pot belly pigs as "dogs", the government in Montana can find a way to do it. Maybe they can tax a few more 'free apps' while they're at it.
https://www.deseret.com/1994/12/6/19146455/holy-cow-gore-makes-pig-an-honorary-dog
People who hate free speech and Tick Tock should get the ADL on board. Then Ticktock will be gone in ten seconds.
Its hilarious that Republicans will do zero to punish BIg Tech for censoring conservatives, but will destroy Tick Tock, which average people don't care about.
Big Donors rule!
Teach the kids why it's dangerous. Empower them to make good choices.
75% of Black kids and 25% of White kids are being raised in single parent homes.
TikTok detractors owe the public clear and convincing evidence that TikTok is dangerous.
How about the fact that the government that created, owns and runs TikTok severely restricts its use in China?
If Montana bans native Montana harmful apps then they should be able to ban Chinese apps as well, under the dormant commerce clause.
How does this help the people of Montana?
Seems we have reached the point where a legislature is no longer necessary.
So on the one hand, it's perfectly fine for Biden to ban TikTok on all federal devices for national security reasons, but it's totally unconstitutional for Montana to extend the exact same rule to all residents for the exact same reasons? That's a pretty subtle distinction, IMHO.
As a wise man once said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
While I agree that the dangers of TikTok have not been made to my satisfaction, I think that Republicans get to abide by Democrat rules when it's convenient.
Here in Tennessee the use of TikTok on state wifi networks (i.e. from university campuses) or on state-owned devices has been banned.
I have no idea if it's right or workable, but it doesn't bother me.
Of course, I don't use TikTok or state-owned devices, so . . .
P.S. China is asshoe.
I see TikTok and many other digital apps and games as digital alcohol. Like alcohol, digital intake is on a spectrum of possibilities from fun to intoxicating to dangerously delusional and addictive. It's understood that there can be age limits on alcohol use and, where there are no age limits as in France and Italy, parents understand their obligation to teach children how to handle alcohol. With respect to digital alcohol and how to handle the dangers we now recognize, we should take the French approach where children are trained by their parents to appreciate good wine and to limit their intake as a natural part of learning to grow up. There are good blogs and other good apps.
I see TikTok and many other digital apps and games as digital alcohol. Like alcohol, digital intake is on a spectrum of possibilities from fun to intoxicating to dangerously delusional and addictive. It's understood that there can be age limits on alcohol use and, where there are no age limits as in France and Italy, parents understand their obligation to teach children how to handle alcohol. With respect to digital alcohol and how to handle the dangers we now recognize, we should take the French approach where children are trained by their parents to appreciate good wine and to limit their intake as a natural part of learning to grow up. There are good blogs and other good apps. Twitter can be good.
"I have no idea if it's right or workable, but it doesn't bother me.
Of course, I don't use TikTok or state-owned devices, so . . .
P.S. China is asshoe."
Same here. Meh.
"I have no idea if it's right or workable, but it doesn't bother me.
Of course, I don't use TikTok or state-owned devices, so . . .
P.S. China is asshoe."
Same here. Meh.
Explain how much TikTok contributes to global warming and let the kids argue for and against the ban.
Hilarity ensues.
Silly, stupid idea. A slippery slope that could be used against any app.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
And yet Apple has threatened in the past to remove Twitter from the App Store.
If Apple or Google don't like your app and you company is dependent upon that app, then your company is dead.
That's the power they have that people rarely talk about.
There is no free and open market in this regard.
This isn't just about controlling state-owned devices. It's trying to control what ordinary citizens can have on their own devices.
"I’d suggest they contact their counterparts in California as they are experienced in using state law to manipulate snd coerce national policy.
Try international. I purchased a wood cutting board from Thailand at an Asian grocer. When I got it home I noticed a very small sticker that said it may cause cancer. A closer look revealed it's because of California's Proposition 65.
So I went to the Internet. Turns out that Wood dust is on the Proposition 65 list because it can cause cancer. Exposure to wood dust in significant amounts on a recurring basis can cause cancers of the nose, throat, and sinuses.
So how much wood dust does a cutting board emit? Trust me, not enough to cause cancer.
But here's the thing. Just to be safe, California requires that sticker to be on every wood product sold in California. All of them. So what's the actual impact?
Well for starters, no cutting board manufacturer in Thailand is going to establish one distribution network for the World and another one for just California. So the manufacturer puts the sticker on every cutting board it sells, irrespective of its destination.
It also means that when a guy in my state (not California) buys a cutting board that says it causes cancer, they are going to ask themselves why and then go ask Google about it.
So, California passes a proposition and its primary outcome is to waste the time and resources of both manufactures around the world and every non-Californian who buys anything made from wood.
"This isn't just about controlling state-owned devices. It's trying to control what ordinary citizens can have on their own devices."
They're just following the lead of the feds who are trying to criminalize the use of VPNs if the TikTok ban passes in congress.
Ann Althouse said...
This isn't just about controlling state-owned devices. It's trying to control what ordinary citizens can have on their own devices.
WOW! this IS new territory!
so, time for Serious Questions
What about Child Porn? Can a government try to control THAT, on ordinary citizens devices?
What about State Secrets? Can a government try to control THAT, on ordinary citizens devices?
What about copy righted material? Can a government try to control THAT, on ordinary citizens devices?
or, don't Those matter? since YOU wouldn't have them, on YOU devices?
Teach the kids why it's dangerous. Empower them to make good choices.
RideSpaceMountain is absolutely correct.
Q: how is TikTok different from Twitter ?
or is it ?
Just label it as "disinformation", "misinformation", perhaps a source of "diversity" (e.g. racism, sexism) and all manner of phobia. There are precedents with Democrats, civil rights organizations, Alphabet/Google/YouTube, Twitter 1.0, NYT, etc.
Pay your kids to stay off TikTok.
This isn't just about controlling state-owned devices. It's trying to control what ordinary citizens can have on their own devices.
The U.S. government already regulates what can sent through the mail, heard on the radio and seen on TV.
Would you argue that people should be allowed to traffic in child porn on their cell phones?
I can see the constitutional problems with "banning" TikTok. One approach that would pass constitutional muster would be a law obligating all Chinese controlled companies to disclose the fact that Chinese law obliges them to cooperate fully in providing any or all of their data to the CCP and to the Chinese intelligence services. All users should be entitled to actual disclosure of those facts, and must explicitly consent to disclosure of all data that TikTok has the technical capacity to collect (contacts, emails, geodata, files in the documents directory, etc.). In a peacetime setting, Americans have the right to choose to give the Chinese every bit of data pertaining to themselves, but they should understand precisely what they are doing.
BTW, Facebook sells its users' data to foreign commercial entities that use the data to target the interests and vulnerabilities of particular identified Facebook users. So it's not just Chinese social platforms you need to be careful about.
The pending federal law aimed at TikTok is a civil liberties disaster. Patriot Act Redux.
I'm a Montana resident. The many consequences of passing the TikTok ban here are not fully understood by the legislature. The Republicans here may think they are doing a good and noble thing for the people. I know some of them. They are not bad people. But the outfall of this particular legislation may devolve into chaos. Greek tragedy level chaos. The Founders thought that the Constitution would only work if the majority of the people were "moral and religious". If we've lost those characteristics in our society, no government can legislate them back into existence.
Mag-post ng isang Komento
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.