• hedgehog@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    If that were truly the issue, why not instead pass a law that prohibits transferring that kind of information to entities that could potentially share it without foreign powers?

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      They mention tiktok a lot but the text of the bill reads “any foreign adversary controlled applications.” So I think it is more broad.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Not really. They word it like that because laws need to look broad, but the purpose is to target TikTok.

        One thing I’m absolutely worried about is the definition of “adversary” is too broad, and it could potentially be broadened to include any foreign country that doesn’t do whatever the US wants.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The “purpose” is to target TikTok, sure. But that doesn’t really matter as it could be used to enforce laws against any other company / country doing something similar. Laws are often used beyond the original intent.

          Though if it’s not written broadly enough I believe it could be ruled unconstitutional.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, I’m not Constitutional lawyer, but that’s my impression as well. I’m guessing they’ll just adjust the definition of “adversary” to match their political aims though.