Does the TikTok bill pave the way for a "Great Firewall of the USA"?

[max_sendfeld]

I'm not a lawyer, but there's something that really concerns me about H. R. 7521 - a.k.a. the "Tiktok bill" that I was hoping to get people’s thoughts on: The bill makes it “unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update a foreign adversary controlled application [...] within the [...] borders of the United States”.

However, “application” is defined as “a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application”.

This part deeply worries me. It is one thing to force Apple or Google Play not to offer a particular app on the app store. But in order to prevent a website from being “distributed” the government would need to create a large piece of technical infrastructure that filters and censors all web traffic coming to the US - akin to the “great firewall of China” or the separate internet that Russia is starting to build.

No one seems to be talking about this, but given the strangely eager 50:0 vote on the issue, I’m wondering if this might be the motivation behind it?

You can find the full text of the bill here:

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240311/HR%207521%20Updated.pdf

[tmaly]

I recall the Patriot Act was supposed to only apply to foreign terrorists.

But somehow law enforcement started using it on domestic targets.

Look at FISA 702, it again is supposed to target foreigners, but they use it as a way to snoop on Americans.

I fear this bill will be used the same way.

[cdwifi]

Apart from the the possibility of network filters, the whole thing also shows the fundamental issue with centralised and monopolised software respositories, as promoted by Google and Apple.

If you can download and install an application from any website (as was the standard approach in 90s and 2000s), such censorship (be it corporate of governmental) would not be possible.

[nabla9]

Read page 8 again.

There are three conditions (i) (ii) (iii).

It clearly prevents foreign adversaries from operating relatively large social media site, no matter how it is implemented.

[cdwifi → nabla9]

That is true, but unless they do not enforce the law, they will still need something to make sure such "relatively large sites" cannot be accessed. This is where the OP's comments come in.

[nabla9 → cdwifi]

The enforcement actions of the law are strictly limited to those listed in the law. AG is specially not authorized to use other enforcement mechanisms than what are listed.

This is not "by all means necessary" type issue. It the only enforcement is monetary penalties under civil law. AG has option to seek even more declaratory and injunctive reliefs if $500 per user is not enough.

[cdwifi → nabla9]

Fair enough, though that would suggest it won't be enforced as it cannot be enforced. As long as it is about a software repository (aka "app store") under US jurisdiction they can still force them to take the application offline.

What do they do with foreign "app stores"? What do they do with websites?

[nabla9 → cdwifi]

So you are trying to learn what the document says by making wild conjectures and hope that someone who has read it explains why you are wrong.

[cdwifi → nabla9]

It's a simple question: how do they enforce the law or do they not?

[krapp]

Potential decisions by the US Supreme Court about regulating speech on the web and the proliferation of AI-generated content are far greater threats to the openness of the web than the TikTok bill.

[austin-cheney]

Your concerns are misplaced. Its not about the technology, but the business model. TikTok is owned by ByteDance and ByteDance owns/stores TikTok's data in China.

[thiagoharry → austin-cheney]

Whichever data they store, they are not the data of US users as far as it is known. It is Oracle, an american company who stores Tik Tok data in the US, as required by current US regulations.

[beardyw]

> a foreign person

Once again ..

"It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad

It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!"

Flanders and Swann

[max_sendfeld → beardyw]

It speaks specifically about "Foreign Adversaries" which - to my knowledge - is limited to China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

[tmaly → max_sendfeld]

That list can be changed. It is all semantics.