Content Creators File Lawsuit Against Montana Over TikTok Ban (apnews.com) 213
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Five TikTok content creators have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Montana's first-in-the-nation ban on the video sharing app, arguing the law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights. The Montana residents also argued in the complaint, filed in federal court late Wednesday without public notice, that the state doesn't have any authority over matters of national security. Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the bill into law Wednesday and said it would protect Montana residents' private data and personal information from being harvested by the Chinese government. The ban is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
"The law takes the broadest possible approach to its objectives, restricting and banning the protected speech of all TikTok users in Montana to prevent the speculative and unsubstantiated possibility that the Chinese government might direct TikTok Inc., or its parent, to spy on some Montana users," the complaint states. "We expected a legal challenge and are fully prepared to defend the law," said Emily Flower, spokeswoman for the Montana Department of Justice. TikTok has argued the law infringes on people's First Amendment rights. However, spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter declined to comment on the lawsuit Thursday. She also declined to say whether the company helped coordinate the complaint.
The plaintiffs are Montana residents who use the video-sharing app for things like promoting a business, connecting with military veterans, sharing outdoor adventures or expressing their sense of humor. Two of them have more than 200,000 followers. One content creator, Carly Ann Goddard, shares videos about living on a ranch, parenting, recipes and home decor. Her account has 97,000 followers and has allowed her to roughly triple her family's household income, the complaint states. TikTok creators can make money in several ways, including by being paid to advertise products to their followers. The lawsuit -- filed just hours after Gianforte signed the measure into law -- states the ban would "immediately and permanently deprive Plaintiffs of their ability to express themselves and communicate with others." "Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote.
"The law takes the broadest possible approach to its objectives, restricting and banning the protected speech of all TikTok users in Montana to prevent the speculative and unsubstantiated possibility that the Chinese government might direct TikTok Inc., or its parent, to spy on some Montana users," the complaint states. "We expected a legal challenge and are fully prepared to defend the law," said Emily Flower, spokeswoman for the Montana Department of Justice. TikTok has argued the law infringes on people's First Amendment rights. However, spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter declined to comment on the lawsuit Thursday. She also declined to say whether the company helped coordinate the complaint.
The plaintiffs are Montana residents who use the video-sharing app for things like promoting a business, connecting with military veterans, sharing outdoor adventures or expressing their sense of humor. Two of them have more than 200,000 followers. One content creator, Carly Ann Goddard, shares videos about living on a ranch, parenting, recipes and home decor. Her account has 97,000 followers and has allowed her to roughly triple her family's household income, the complaint states. TikTok creators can make money in several ways, including by being paid to advertise products to their followers. The lawsuit -- filed just hours after Gianforte signed the measure into law -- states the ban would "immediately and permanently deprive Plaintiffs of their ability to express themselves and communicate with others." "Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote.
Lol. (Score:4, Interesting)
protected speech of all TikTok users in Montana to prevent the speculative and unsubstantiated possibility that the Chinese government might direct TikTok Inc., or its parent, to spy on some Montana users
This is not speculation. [forbes.com] TikTok is a subsidiary of Bytedance which has direct ties to the CCP - as all big Chinese companies do.
TikTok is BANNED IN CHINA (their allowed version with all the CCP approved messaging is called Douyin - they are NOT the same thing) because it's programmed to promote negative shit to foreign kids.
As always, the kids defending this shit because money are free to take their shitty 20 second videos to a different platform. This doesn't have fuck all to do with free speech.
Re:Lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
are free to take their shitty 20 second videos to a different platform.
1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - this also includes states.
2. The quality of their content is irrelevant. Their ability to avail themselves of a venue that allows it is protected from the government. All US government. From the President, Congress, the court, the states, the regions, the counties, the cities, even the dog catcher is prohibited from this sort of tyranny. SCotUS not only hasn't defined what a woman is, neither have the defined what porn is because Justice Stewart's "Casa Blanca" test failed to survive scrutiny under the 1st. I'm sure that frustrates all the folks that can't understand anything more than a binary answer.
3. I've noted the tendency for those with Fascist leanings to pepper their comments with "LOL". Why is that? Nervous tick?
4. If you like laws like this, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in another country, say, NKPR or CCP. Meanwhile, see my sig and contemplate that.
Counterpoint? (Score:5, Interesting)
This law is almost certainly unenforceable anyway, and feels more like a political, virtue-signaling stunt than anything.
That said, I'm wondering aloud if this could not be compared to the federal government shutting down darknet marketplaces? Those often have a mix of legal and illegal activities. TikTok and Hydra Marketplace may be different in spirit, but perhaps not in terms of the the letter of the law. Are the content creators on TikTok not the same as vendors selling legal wares and services on a place like Hydra Marketplace? Are the content creators (state-sponsored or otherwise) who illegally promote dangerous and illegal activities on TikTok not the same as those selling illegal wares and services on Hydra Marketplace? The government did not go after individual vendors but rather shut down Hydra Marketplace. Vendors of legal goods were prevented from selling their wares on that particular marketplace, but not from selling in general.
Could Montana's empty threat of a law not be viewed in a similar light? They aren't saying you cannot do it, just that you cannot do it on TikTok due to the many, and incontrovertible threats to the health and safety of people inside and outside the US. I did put the word "illegal" in italics above though because while TikTok definitely has harmful content on it, I do not know if promoting harmful actions is illegal in and of itself. If it is not, then I'm not sure my comparison really applies.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar or even a legal wonk, and I'm definitely not stating what Montana did is correct or legal. I'm just wondering if there is legal support or precedent for this new law.
Re: (Score:2)
This law is almost certainly unenforceable anyway, and feels more like a political, virtue-signaling stunt than anything.
The law prohibits Google from offering TikTok to users in that state. It doesn't require them to block it from running on Android. It doesn't prohibit running it on your device. Users who want it are free to go to their website and download it. (I don't know if they offer the APK there or not, but if they don't, that's their own stupid fault.) It also prohibits Apple from offering it, and Apple devices don't offer sideloading of third party apps (only software you build) but that's Apple's fault, not Montan
Re:Lol. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am very skeptical when any act of government attempts to encroach upon a constitutional right, but in this case, we're talking about a platform that is provided by a foreign entity and is, possibly, directly in the control of a foreign power. I realize this is not a very good analogy, but do you think that the first amendment would require the government to allow e.g. Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, or Hannoi Hannah to set up shop in a studio in Los Angeles? Or, maybe a better fit, if a (at best neutral, more likely nominally hostile) foreign power bought WNBC TV in NYC, would the FCC revoking their broadcast license fall afoul of the first amendment?
Re: (Score:3)
also the ban is not on an ideology, faith or content, it is basically a reaction (correct?) to an adversary deployed vector.
We're not at war with Britain (Score:2)
do you think that the first amendment would require the government to allow e.g. Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, or Hannoi Hannah to set up shop in a studio in Los Angeles? Or
BBC America is, in fact, a foreign power who set up shop in NYC. Revoking their license on the basis of the studios being majority owned by a foreign government would, in fact, violate the first amendment.
One difference between the BBC and 1940s Radio Tokyo is that the US hasn't been at war with Britain as long as the BBC has existed. The US Constitution explicitly weakens some enumerated rights in wartime, such as habeas corpus. I agree that China hasn't done much to authorize use of US military force yet. But if Air Force General Mike Minihan's fear of war with China in 2025 [nbcnews.com] comes to pass, would it pass First Amendment scrutiny to revoke the broadcasting license of a firm linked to a hostile foreign govern
Re: (Score:2)
The US Constitution explicitly weakens some enumerated rights in wartime, such as habeas corpus.
Then first declare war on China.
After that we can talk about whether Tiktok should be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
BBC America is, in fact, a foreign power who set up shop in NYC
BBC America is majority owned by a subsidiary of the BBC (certainly a foreign company, though this one is statutorily exempt from interference by the British government), but it is also 49.99% owned by an American Company (AMC Networks), so, as you put it, bad analogy. With that said, let's imagine it is a good analogue for Tik Tok, a foreign company possibly controlled by a foreign power.
Revoking their license on the basis of the studios being majority owned by a foreign government would, in fact, violate the first amendment.
Does it? Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020) hel
Re: (Score:2)
just a comment on Point1
should blocking an enemy (?) propaganda (?) delivery mechanism which the country of origin will not even allow their own people to use because of the harm it causes, count as restricting speech when countless other venues are available. No speech itself is being restricted here.
Re: (Score:2)
1.) If I have a platform that lets anyone say anything they want but it also gives everyone who uses it AIDS, and it is not possible to separate one from the other, does it make it a violation of free speech to take it down - despite the fact that you can still say the same thing anywhere else without getting AIDS for doing so?
TikTok is tailor made for fomenting infighting and using our own laws against us. But, it's okay for the CCP to remove content they don't want from a company they control [theguardian.com] because th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With thousands of ways to still communicate no one is taking away free speech by banning Tik Tok. There's message and there's medium. The mediums used to convey message are not protected, just the message.
Whoa, slow down there. In the case of the specific platform we are discussing, its protection under the constitution is not necessarily assured (indeed, it is likely not). On the other hand, "medium" is general would probably enjoy protections just as much as message. I expect that if you tried to ban, say, paper (look at the environmental impact! All the trees cut down to make it, how much goes into landfill rather than being recycled, the unsightly scraps that people litter instead of properly disposi
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a good analogy either. This isn't like taking away paper, this is like taking away one particular magazine. And oh yeah, the company publishing the magazine is required by the laws of their country to do basically anything in the name of national interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Few if any analogies are good. I said that elsewhere in this thread.
I did not say "this" is like taking away paper, and I am not talking about Tik Tok with my broader statement (you may note that when it comes to Tik Tok in particular, I agreed that its protection was not assured). I am talking specifically about the statement that "mediums used to convey a message are not protected," They may not be, and as you point out with your example, that would be a narrow exclusion. GP made a broad statement. I
Re: (Score:2)
The people suing should get tossed out of court for standing. They are not prevented from using tiktok or even unless its on a government device. They are not prevented from having tiktok you just can distribute it in MT.
They are not prevented from expressing in specific view or option, they just have to either already have tiktok or do it elsewhere. Its not different than saying you can't distribute pamphlets because they are printed on toxic asbestos! Tiktok is a danager, there is enough evidence its h
Re:Lol. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, your readiness to label someone "fascist" doesn't speak to your maturity either.
If they don't like being called Fascist, then perhaps they should stop acting as if they were.
I would rather look forward to not being able to legitimately point out someone is acting as a Fascist.
Until then, I will continue to call a Fascist a Fascist, and leave you the freedom to still tell me I'm immature at my age.
That's how freedom works, you see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lol. (Score:4, Insightful)
That misleading. The tracking they were considering, but didn't implement, is actually a lot less than what Facebook used to do before Google and Apple made it difficult for apps to get background location information. Of course, Facebook still harvests location data from things like photos that you upload. Oh, and the US government, via the NSA and law enforcement deals with Facebook, has access to that data.
TikTok is "banned" in China because the global version does not implement CCP mandated censorship of certain topics. That's not a bad thing, we want our apps to not be censored by the CCP.
Just because you don't like TikTok's content, doesn't mean you get to deny others access to it without a damn good reason. "They are not as bad as Facebook" isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
That misleading.
What misleading?
The tracking they were considering, but didn't implement, is actually a lot less than what Facebook used to do
Bro, I'm only saying this because I care, fuck your fucking whataboutism.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to whatabout, I'm saying that it's misleading to suggest that what TikTok considered, but didn't do, is in any way unusual or exceptionally bad. It's actually restrained, by US standards. Of course, they can't do it in the EU because of GDPR.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that it's misleading to suggest that what TikTok considered, but didn't do, is in any way unusual or exceptionally bad.
Great, show us the sources, or a free and independent analysis of such, so we know they didn't do what they said they didn't do. Your naivete is ridiculous, which is why you're being ridiculed so broadly. They lied multiple times about ceasing spying on users' clipboards with the app, and you don't believe they're collecting any data that can be used to locate them? And you don't understand why people find that to be an absurd position? You may in fact actually be insane.
Re: (Score:2)
You know perfectly well you could google "Tiktok Tracking" and find all the sources you want.
You [should] know that nothing I find on Google is going to let me know whether TikTok is lying about the extent of their server-side tracking.
I wonder if there's anyone left on /. who's not savvy enough to know about that trick?
I'm savvy enough to know that what you just said was bullshit. If it's not OSS and I can't verify that they're running the code they say they're running, then they fundamentally cannot be trusted. It doesn't matter who they are. That's why basically no website (or pretty much anything really) is trustworthy. All the companies we know are part of PRISM denied it (as t
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the source that the OP posted to back up their claim that TikTok gathers location data and gives it to the CCP actually says that they thought about it and decided not to. I.e. their source doesn't say what they claim it does, it backs up my statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they can't do it in the EU because of GDPR.
Of course they shouldn't do it in the EU because of GDPR. Enforcement is pretty haphazard and the EU hasn't been very successful about enforcing rules at scale on large companies. I trust the GDPR to raise the average standards, but in this case no the hell way I'd trust Bytedance.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how you can craft a law to ban a single company just because. If they break the law that's one thing. But there are no laws being broken here and rather than create actual privacy laws it looks like they all just want to virtue signal.
There is a huge economic impact tiktok provides as well. Love it or hate it, many products get sold out when they are promoted there. I was looking for a dog bed for my truck that has an extended platform where legs of humans would go but just restrict room
Ban? (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way are they banning "free speech"?
They're still free to stand on street corners and say whatever they want to. They're free to use other apps, they're even free to write their own broadcast apps and use them to connect with their army of followers.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the usual saying is that the First Amendment doesnâ(TM)t guarantee a platform [dailytrojan.com] or that you don't have a right to free speech on social media [wtsp.com].
Funny how the shoe ends up on the other foot.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court that basically gave corporations the same rights as citizens, including the right to freedom of speech? Congress loved that verdict because it also declared money to be speech and opened the flood gates for dark money to be channeled through PACs.
Now, however, we have some butt-hurt state politicians who are going directly against that verdict and attempting to take away a company's freedom of speech. Based on the Supreme Court's decision in 201
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court that basically gave corporations the same rights as citizens, including the right to freedom of speech?
That's the correct ruling. Hint: finding otherwise would deny the New York Times the protection of the first amendment.
I don't recall that Citizens United, the First Amendment, or any other constitutional construct requires the government to allow foreign powers to operate inside the US, though.
Re: Ban? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Founding fathers rolling in their graves when a citizen thinks the government gives rights.
Yes, agreed. I didn't say it, I only quoted it. I could have corrected the GP and pointed out that the constitution only protects rights, it does not bestow them, but that would have taken focus off of the point I was trying to make.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court that basically gave corporations the same rights as citizens, including the right to freedom of speech?
That's the correct ruling. Hint: finding otherwise would deny the New York Times the protection of the first amendment.
Fuck, that's ignorant. The NYT doesn't need 1A protection because the humans who write for the NYT have 1A protection, and the humans who own it do too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The NYT doesn't need 1A protection because the humans who write for the NYT have 1A protection, and the humans who own it do too.
Yes, exactly. People have rights, and just because those people are acting in concert with each other does not strip them of those rights. With your insult of me, labelling me as ignorant, I'll ask: exactly how is what I said incompatible with what you said? When people complain about "corporations having rights," they are typically trying to restrict the actions of those people who compose the corporate entities. It is a distinction without difference in this context.
Re:Ban? (Score:4, Informative)
That's the correct ruling. Hint: finding otherwise would deny the New York Times the protection of the first amendment.
The NYT doesn't need 1A protection because the humans who write for the NYT have 1A protection, and the humans who own it do too.
Yes, exactly.
No, you don't get to completely miss the point of what I said and then say "Yes, exactly."
Corporations aren't people, so they don't need rights. The people who own and work for the corporations need rights, and to the extent that they do, they don't give them up when they go to work.
When people complain about "corporations having rights," they are typically trying to restrict the actions of those people who compose the corporate entities.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Giving corporations rights makes a mockery of the whole idea of rights, and the whole idea of humanity at the same time.
exactly how is what I said incompatible with what you said?
Giving rights to a legal fiction is done only to enable other legal fictions... ultimately, for the purpose of infringing on human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Before I try to debate you, are you simply being pedantic here? Because I am in complete agreement with (almost) everything you are saying. I'll say it again: "people have rights. They do not lose those rights when acting in concert with each other." I agree with you in principle that "corporations do not need to have rights" but only insofar as the rights of the people that compose them remain protected.
Giving rights to a legal fiction is done only to enable other legal fictions... ultimately, for the purpose of infringing on human rights.
This suggests that you aren't simply being pedantic, and that we have a legitimate disagreement. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
When someone goes down the road of saying "$CORPORATE_ENTITY doesn't have the right to do $ACTIVITY" and tries to prevent said entity from engaging in such activity, they are ultimately trying to prevent the people who compose that entity from exercising their own personal rights.
No, that is fundamentally incorrect, and it's an opinion which has been promoted specifically for the purpose of protecting rich people doing shitty things. You can exercise your own personal rights with your own personal money, on which you paid your own personal taxes, and which donations are subject to campaign finance laws that make it clear who made donations over a specific amount. Campaign contributions over $100 cannot be anonymous, but campaign donations made by a corporation not strictly controlle
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is fundamentally incorrect
On this, we disagree. It is absolutely attempting to restrict the rights of people acting in concert with each other, and is an example of "rights are good, until they verge on something I don't like." This is, fundamentally, what DeSantis is trying to do in Florida to DIsney. How dare the Mouse involve itself in politics and do so in an area that is opposed to those in power in the state, they must be punished. Note that I disagree with Disney in this case and think the law in question is not only reas
Re: (Score:2)
they are typically trying to restrict the actions of those people who compose the corporate entities.
No, not the people, but the people acting under the umbrella of the immortal, un-jailable corporation with protections of the corporate veil, limited liability and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not the people, but the people acting under the umbrella of the immortal, un-jailable corporation with protections of the corporate veil, limited liability and so on.
"Limited liability" is exclusively financial. A corporation is also not immune to punishment. It can be dissolved if it engages in unlawful behavior. The people that compose it can be jailed for unlawful behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is because corporations do *not* have birthright citizenship. They are not "born". They're created out of whole cloth by our legal system.
I never said, nor implied, otherwise.
Specifically a corporation shields it's owners and workers from liability in nearly all cases.
That's entirely untrue. A corporation shields its owners from most financial liability related to its operations. Certainly not all, or "nearly all" liability. A corporation offers any workers some possible protections (depending on jurisdiction) but again, certainly not all, or "nearly all" liability.
Owners can be held financially liable in the event that they are not sufficiently distinct from the corporation (you could not form rsilvergun, Inc, keep all of your pers
Re: Ban? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You only have constitutional rights if you are a citizen.
That's not true. The US Constitution protects some existing rights against infringement by government (freedom of speech), and grants others (right to a jury trial, with conditions). In both cases, non-citizens (whether aliens or US nationals) are typically protected as well.
What is not protected is the ability to offer a service that trades private data for a video platform, especially when an entity acts as an agent of a foreign power.
Re: (Score:2)
You only have constitutional rights if you are a citizen.
That is a lie. [maniatislawoffice.com] The Constitution uses both "persons" and "citizens" to signify different rights. Citizens can vote while the people's right to assembly is explicitly mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as a non-citizen feel free to try to purchase a firearm
Another lie? [atf.gov] The ATF themselves say aliens may purchase firearms unless there is a condition why they may not. I read the restrictions as tourists cannot purchase firearms but legal residents can.
Re: Ban? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ban? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You tried to claim the constitution applies to everyone regardless of citizenship.
I said: "The Constitution uses both "persons" and "citizens" to signify different rights. Citizens can vote while the people's right to assembly is explicitly mentioned."
It seems you are either refusing to read or are continuing to be dishonest about what you can scroll up.
There is no caveat written into the constitution that implies varying degrees of application.
You mean besides the fact that different places specifically list rights for "persons" and "citizens". And hundreds years of court cases detailing which rights citizens have and which rights noncitizens have?
Simply renouncing your citizenship (clearly not illegal or a felony) prohibits you from purchasing a firearm according to the ATF form.
Citation needed.
You keep using the words some and may. Those are privilege words, not words describing rights.
You do unde
Re: (Score:2)
I certify that my answers in Section B are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 21.a. if I am not the actual transferee/buyer is a crime punishable as a
Re: (Score:2)
As I have posted information from the ATF that says otherwise, I would say this is an another example of a lie.
its clear youre a fucking retard on this topic at this point, or at least illiterate in the world of firearm laws. I suggest you read the entire form 4473 so you dont find yourself a felon doing something stupid like buying a weapon as a gift for someone else. As far as the ATF opinion letters, they are not worth the ink they are printed on. Millions of letters the ATF sent out saying a pistol support brace is NOT a shoulder stock and is perfectly acceptable to attach to a pistol to stabilize the pistol fo
Re: Ban? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Citizen United is going out, boy do I have a bridge for sale in Brooklin.
Citizen United is the bedrock of contemporary US politics. But what it has to do with free speech is really approached from the mistaken end in our public discourse. Free speech is just the legal weaseling that is used to achieve the aim of legalizing uncontrolled corruption money flow into DC. And boy is that a landslide success if there ever was one...
And since it is already there, Citizens United is also used to take aw
Different issues (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In what way are they banning "free speech"?
They're still free to stand on street corners and say whatever they want to. They're free to use other apps, they're even free to write their own broadcast apps and use them to connect with their army of followers.
The constitution doesn't say congress may pass one law abridging the freedom of speech in some ways as long as there are other ways.
The constitution says congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech.
That there are other street corners not banned is absolutely irrelevant. Banning just one is one above the number they are allowed to ban.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution doesn't say congress may pass one law abridging the freedom of speech in some ways as long as there are other ways.
It's nothing to do with "freedom of speech". Nobody's been censored because of what they were saying. It's not targeted an anybody other than Tiktok.
It's about banning one particular means of speech dissemination because it belongs to a foreign power. Tiktok isn't allowed in China, why should it be allowed here? Why would you want a hostile application which is free to distort the truth to be installed on the phones of your country, especially during their formative years?
Re: (Score:2)
Look into prior rulings on things like pornographic magazines. Just because you still have some avenues to speak, doesn't mean the government can block others.
"Free speech zones" are another interesting example. I haven't kept up, are they constitutional?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The default is not the government gets to decide what platform they choose,
This is no different than banning Hauwei modems. I don't see you getting worked up over that one.
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different than banning Hauwei modems. I don't see you getting worked up over that one.
By "no different" you mean that the Constitution specifically grants Congress the ability restrict trade into the US? It seems you want to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you apply.
Re: (Score:2)
How is TikTok not trade into the US? It's a foreign company doing business in the USA, and the country they're in doesn't even permit any of their competitors to do business in that country because they are concerned that such a business could be harmful there. But we're supposed to be upset about prohibiting them from doing business in ours on the same basis? Ha ha no.
Re: (Score:2)
The "no tiktok" law to me seems stupid. A much better law would be a reciprocal agreement law: foreign companies can only operate here (for some value of here) when domestic companies can broadly speaking operate there. That would rule out tiktok just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
How is TikTok not trade into the US?
The ban on Huawei is a ban on importing their products into the US. The Constitution grants Congress the ability to restrict trade into the US. That is different than a state limiting TikTok is a limitation of free speech only in their state which the First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from doing. That is a difference the OP was not acknowledging.
Re: (Score:2)
Writing your own or using small, unknown apps to reach the same audience isn't practical. Unless you can prove that they aren't being _effectively_ silenced by shutting them out of a large market (tiktok users), you are censoring their message. Doing so is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that Twitter, Facebook, Spotify, Instagram, etc., are small?
Re: Ban? (Score:2)
They're still free to stand on street corners and say whatever they want to.
Except that Montana has moved the public off of your favorite street corner. So there's no one left there to listen. Even if they want to. They've been headed over to the corner of Facebook and YouTube.
Governments do have the right to manage their sidewalks so long as there is a legitimate public need. Not to repress speech or scare away your audience. In this case, Montana claims to be protecting the identity and privacy of the audience. Who knows what foreign agents might be sitting there, observing the
Re: (Score:2)
They can associate in dozens of other ways. American-made ways like Facebook or Twitter.
Land of the free, home of the brave (Score:2)
Vine (Score:3)
You can thank Twitter for killing Vine which created the vacuum that was filled by TikTok. Obviously a massive market was there for the taking, and they had the momentum and early adoption. It takes some serious mismanagement and bad decision making to destroy opportunities like that.
Brought to you courtesy (Score:5, Insightful)
Of the party of personal responsibility and small government. Except of course it's something that annoys them, then it's please wield the heavy hand of government.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, let's look into the NRA accepting money from Russian sources.
paranoia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about tracking, it's about controlling the hearts and minds of the people.
A hostile foreign power has the ultimate say over what gets promoted and seen on the phones of the nation.
How can you not think that's a problem?
IANAL, but this lawsuit will fail (Score:2, Informative)
Everyone is jumping at shadows with this - the law only bans government employees of Montana from having social media on their state-provided phones.
According to Google, there are a max of 89K government employees in Montana. Assuming they are all state (and there are no federal ones mixed in there) that's less than - and likely WAY less than - 90K phones banned from having Tik-Tok. Oh, the horror!
And since the state of Montana can do whatever the heck they want (banning apps and whatnot) on the phones th
Re: (Score:2)
That is not true. It also bans Google and Apple from making the TikTok app available to Montana residents via their app stores.
Mixed feelings (Score:2)
I'm really uncomfortable with Government telling people what they can/can't do in a context that doesn't present a clear hazard.
OTOH I'm glad that someone in officialdom, somewhere, seems to recognize the pernicious and dangerous shit on social media IS AS TOXIC AS INDUSTRIAL WASTE.
I saw some tiktoks on Twitter yesterday that talked about new 'challenges the kids are doing':
- walking into people's homes. Just walking in, sitting on their couch, ignoring their protestations - HILARIOUS!
- filling a small han
Re: I can't help but think (Score:2, Insightful)
Content creators depends on certain channels like YouTube and tiktok today, it's just a sign of the times that services do grow larger and larger until they implode for one reason or another.
Content creators are just slaves under the system unless they have enough resources to create their own streaming platform.
Re: I can't help but think (Score:5, Insightful)
Content creators are just slaves under the system unless they have enough resources to create their own streaming platform.
Content creators are literally nothing like slaves under this system. They are not forced to create content, Google doesn't tell them what to create when they do create content, Google doesn't tell them when to create content, Google doesn't tell them how to create content, Google can't sell them to another service, etc etc. Are you deliberately trying to water down the meaning of the word?
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't tell them what to create when they do create content [...] Google doesn't tell them how to create content
Except as specified in the Community Guidelines, of course, including Google's definition of what it considers advertiser-friendly for the YouTube service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except as specified in the Community Guidelines, of course, including Google's definition of what it considers advertiser-friendly for the YouTube service.
That is NOT google telling ANYONE what content to make. That is Google telling everyone what content they are willing to monetize, and what content they will remove.
Being upset that Google has guidelines is daft, since everyone has guidelines.
If we want to be upset that Google has an effective monopoly over video on the internet, that's cool. But if you replaced Google with 15 other sites, they would all have guidelines similar to Google's, because their goal would also be to make money. What people are rea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're confusing monetization and speech. Even if you don't get paid because YouTube demonetized* your video, you still retained the ability to speak to your audience. Not to mention even if they deleted your video, it's still within their rights as a private party to do so. Perhaps a future law could extend free speech protections to platforms that are large enough to silence you in practice (think ISPs, utilities or credit agencies), but that law doesn't exist today.
* It's actually called limited monetiza
Re: (Score:2)
Every employer has explicit and implied standards for workplace behavior, typically much stricter than YouTube. If employees are slaves, social media stars are the house negroes. They have it comparatively good.
If your concern is about stifling the arts, edgy or avant-garde entertainers have always had to ply their craft on the margins of the industry.
Re: Google absolutely tells them what to do and sa (Score:2)
"an extensive system of dashboards, data points and statistics that tell them exactly what will and will not get promoted enough for them to make a living."
Nothing is forcing them to stay on the platform. Nothing about the agreement is illegally one sided or discriminatory. You're literally inverting the fact that they're giving them tools which _aid them in adhering to the ToS and letting them know which of their videos makes money_ and trying to pass this off as making demands.
Look, I think Google/Alpha
Antitrust violations are forcing them (Score:2)
You're like those people who say you're not a slave if you sold yourself into slavery because you chose to be a slave. You're ignoring the fact that if the system you live in put you in a position to sell yours
Re: (Score:2)
Content creators are just slaves under the system
I don't think I'd call them "slaves", since they have some self-determinism and sometimes make a lot of money. However they absolutely are indentured and beholden to whatever platform they're on.
But this shouldn't be a surprise - it's in the very double-speak euphemism of a name they call themselves (a title assigned to them by Google) -- "content creator". They have no rights, they have no independence, no real ownership or control. They have one role: to create "content" to fill Google's platform, at t
Re: I can't help but think (Score:4, Informative)
If the creators dont live in montana they likely wont have standing. They have to prove they are harmed by this ban.
You contradicted yourself in the first sentence with your second. Standing [wikipedia.org] does not necessarily require they live in Montana; it requires that they can demonstrate harm.
Montana isnt exactly hemorrhaging in population. Its hard to claim if harms their revenue by blocking viewers when the city is 200 people and 60,000 cows.
The population of Montana is over a million not 200 so your exaggerations aside, that does not factor in establishing standing; it is a factor in damages.
Could Montana plead the Eleventh? (Score:2)
Standing does not necessarily require they live in Montana; it requires that they can demonstrate harm.
You may be correct that standing and states' immunity to suit by nonresidents under the Eleventh Amendment are separate issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I can't help but think (Score:4, Interesting)
The plaintiffs are all from Montana. They have standing.
The federal ban is a weird one. First Trump threatened to ban it as an executive order, though that would have had no legal weight outside of federal government employees. Trump suggestion that the Chinese owners just needed to sell their stake was an odd one legally. There is a ban on the apps for federal employees, and several states have similar bans. But this isn't a ban on speech via TikTok, those federal employees can use TikTok on their private phones on their own personal time. If there were a general ban for the population as a whole i dont think this is possible to survive a legal constitutional challenge - even with the current Trump-heavy SCOTUS.
As for Montana... They're very much overreaching. This is not just a ban on state employee devices. This is the typical GOP state legislators getting in on the game of trying to prove that they trump the federal government. We've fought a civil war to repudiate that idea and there is a constitutional amendment stating clearly that the individual states are required to uphold the rights stated in the US constitution and its amendments, no matter how distateful such rights seem to their voters. Too many of these state legislators are out of touch with the actual law, constitutions, and reality itself.
Montana legislators know this law will be overturned, and they don't care. They just want to send a message to a segment of their voters.
Re: 0.33% (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep that was my point. If they dont live in montana they have no standing outside revenue loss. And your population remark proves there isnt one. Only creators in montana have a standing that affects them with the ban.
Again that is not how standing is defined. By your logic no one in Montana could ever be sued by anyone outside Montana. Think about that. For example if I have a contract with a Montana ranch for some cattle every year and they stopped shipping me cattle, according to you, I have no "standing" to sue because I do not live in Montana.
Re: 0.33% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be harmed to bring a suit.
Yes but residence in Montana is not a part of standing which you seem to tie to standing every single post.
If you dont live in montana you are not prohibited from access to tik tok. Your speech is not being restricted.
And you have contradicted yourself immediately. A person has standing if they can show this law harms them whether they live in Montana or not. If a content creator has 1 follower in Montana, their speech has been restricted.
This is no different than states prohibiting certain gambling sites
By "no different" are you ignoring that speech is codified as protected in the Constitution but gambling is not considered a right? You seem to be ignoring that major difference.
The entire state is only 1 million before discounting those under 13, those that dont use tik tok, and those who dont watch the specific channels outlined by the plaintiff.
An
Re: 0.33% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is wrong. You cannot sue the state of montana over a cow contract.
Again think about your post. By your logic no one could ever sue that state of Montana or anyone in Montana if they do not live in Montana; that is illogical at best. Residence in Montana is not a necessary part of establishing standing.
You sue the company you had a contract with as financial harm.
You seem not to understand the concept of tortious interference [wikipedia.org].
That is standing. Claiming you cannot post on tik tok from NYC because of montana passed this law has no standing. You cant even claim financial losses because there isnt enough viewers to qualify for monetization.
Again you contradict yourself. Your second sentence says there could be financial losses (harm) but your first sentence says there is no potential for harm. The minimum of TikTok monetization [searchenginejournal.com] is 1000 followers
Re: 0.33% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore the creator must prove there are at least 1000 viewers of THEIR CONTENT to claim harm based on your math.
1) So a creator could have been harmed? Why are all your posts trying desperately to ignore this? 2) All lawsuits require the plaintiffs demonstrate standing to the court. You have seemingly dismissed the suit before the plaintiffs before they have demonstrated this. Unless you know the creators data, you cannot know this data.
Re: (Score:2)