This part:
a desperate attempt to keep young people from discussing Joes pet genocide where they can’t be censored by the us govt.
suggests that users are being censored by the US government. Doesn't it?
charonn0
joined 2 years ago
require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired
That would be a very different kind of law from the one we're talking about.
That's the opposite of what the court said.
It's almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.
Well, no. The courts struck down Trump's Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.
What do you mean?
Tiktok has been a subject of national security concerns since at least 2020.
That's a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.
I've seen that too. But they're mistaken. "Censoring the internet" is not what this law does. That's hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.
Don't misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.
They could use their advertising platform to manipulate US public opinion and elections. And, again, this isn't to say it's fine for domestic companies to do this. But that's no argument against this law. In fact, I daresay the "gamer-to-far-right-radical pipeline" you identify is an example of this.
No, of course it's not fine.
But if it's not fine for domestic social media apps to do it, then it's even worse for a foreign adversary to do it. Right?
Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn't address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.
The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.