Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks

Executive Order Delays TikTok Ban For 75 Days 47

Posted by BeauHD from the extended-deadline dept.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order today delaying the TikTok ban for 75 days. The Verge reports: The order, issued on Trump's first day of office, is meant to effectively extend the deadline established by The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act for ByteDance to sell its stake by undercutting penalties on American companies like Apple and Google working with TikTok. It directs the Attorney General "not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today to allow my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward in an orderly way." The AG is supposed to "issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred."

The order furthermore instructs the Department of Justice to "take no action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act" and says they should be barred from doing so "for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period or any period prior to the issuance of this order, including the period of time from January 19, 2025, to the signing of this order." It remains unclear whether Trump can legally pause the ban. It's also unclear how he plans to enforce a 50 percent "joint venture" ownership with the company, a move he announced on Sunday.

Executive Order Delays TikTok Ban For 75 Days More | Reply

Executive Order Delays TikTok Ban For 75 Days

Comments Filter:

  • So justice, real freedom. Totally no deep state.

    • Just say no to vertical videos.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 )

      I'm sure the courts will figure out if there's been some executive overreach.

      I can hear it now, "But Trump appointed three justices to SCOTUS, and might potentially appoint a 4th or 5th justice before his term ends, there's no liberty in a system where the judged has hand picked their judges!"

      I have a few points to deal with such a complaint. First is that elections have consequences and we got here from a series of events that go back more than 200 years, if the system is broken then maybe someone should

      • Yes, the courts in a Nazi state are totally independent and free. Happened in all of them.

      • The government in the USA isn't perfect but I'm thinking that life in America is about as good as it gets on Earth.

        Yeah, if you're cisgender, straight, white, Christian, male, can afford health insurance, and aren't reliant upon TikTok for earning a living, America is the bee's knees.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

        All the Trump administration is doing is strategically failing to enforce a law, which is no different than what the Obama administration did with DACA (for example). DACA set a horrible precedent for future Presidential administrations.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        You forget the Federalist Society which is devoted to seeing as many Fascists in the courts as they can cram. These judges do not care one whit about the Constitution or the American People.

  • So...who gets it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2025 @02:06AM (#65105191)
    Trump, Musk, or Zuckerberg ???

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 )

      Trump, but not directly.

      I predict TikTok will bend to his will and effectively become a Trump media company without a sale.

      They'll agree to stop sending data to China, some audits n such, and tilt the algorithms in his favor.

      That's my prediction based on the delay and TikTok being invited to the inauguration.

      • Trump, but not directly.

        I predict TikTok will bend to his will and effectively become a Trump media company without a sale.

        They'll agree to stop sending data to China, some audits n such, and tilt the algorithms in his favor.

        Will tilt the algorithms in his favour? They are already doing that. Trump thrives on adulation, he will not starve.

    • Re:So...who gets it (Score:5, Funny)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2025 @02:53AM (#65105243)

      Trump, Musk, or Zuckerberg ???

      If Elon gets it, he'll probably rename it "TiXToX" or "XicXoc" ... :-)

      • If Elon gets it, he'll probably rename it "TiXToX" or "XicXoc" ... :-)

        And if he wants to waste more of his money buying yet another platform I don't use*, more power to him. He'll probably end up ruining it like he did to Twitter, but death by enshitification has become almost an internet tradition at this point.

        * Seriously, even for all the bitching I've done recently about the ban, I don't even have a TikTok account. It's entirely the concept that the US government deplatformed 170 million Americans by attaching the ban as a rider to a foreign aid bill that really trouble

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          The only argument I've heard that made sense of a Tik-Tok ban was made (repeated?) by Jimmy Kimmel. The argument is that China plays a long game and youngins using it now will eventually become the people who populate industries and government in years to come, and that China will then have plenty of information on them to use as it sees fit.

          • We keep guns around, devices which are literally intended for killing, because it says so in the constitution. Just like we've learned to live with all the problems caused by guns, we were supposed to either work around or just come to accept the problems inherent to allowing Americans to venture out onto the global internet. That's how freedom works. There is no sensible argument for banning TikTok, only a vain attempt at justifying a loss of freedom.

            "A foreign adversary is going to use their influence

  • Trump's not pausing the ban (Score:5, Interesting)

    by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2025 @02:09AM (#65105193)

    Trump's not pausing the ban. He's technically (temporarily) refusing to enforce the ban, which is still in effect. The impact is the same, but the executive branch doesn't have the constitutional power to repeal or pausing the ban, but they can ignore it. The only two responses to this presidential action are that (1) certain parties can sue to force the executive branch to enforce the law (but the executive branch can still refused to obey the court order) and (2) Congress can impeach and remove the President. Neither response is likely.

    • Option 2 is not likely. A "pause" over a social media platform ban is largely trivial matter, a mere 75 day pause is even more trivial. To err on the side of caution and free speech would be to not ban the app. An impeachment process in this moment would likely raise tensions, unnecessarily. The people have raised levels of awareness of "Tide Pod" type challenges, which may reduce the immediacy of concern of lax moderation on a social media platform.

      However, could you provide more clarification on the Cer

      • The due process for the courts to rule that the ban violated constitutional rights like free speech has come and gone. It does not and there is no appeal process to be invoked.

        • It has come and gone, but of what grace should be extended to an international party that may be less familiar with due process? Such allowing that they might get their house in order for a sale.

          I'm trying to imply that the due process may be used as a justification for an extension. I'm not personally convinced it does so, not even sufficiently to ward off a charge of treason leveled against Trump on his first day in office.

          • All interested parties had the time and ability to hire the best lawyers they could and fully participate in the legal process. They did and it is over. Either their arguments or their money was unpersuasive.

            • Irrelevant. My focus is on the disregard for the rule of law, of sending an Executive Order of pausing a law for 75 days. I don't care one iota about tiktok one way or the other, TikTok is a trivial irrelevant red herring element to the discussion.

              The President of the United States of America (POTUS) is entirely the central focus, and on whether he has the authority, and diplomatic urgency, to issue leniency towards an international company, or shall it be established here and now that it was done by ove

    • The impact is the same, but the executive branch doesn't have the constitutional power to repeal or pausing the ban, but they can ignore it.

      Do they though? I read some extensive analysis on this beforehand and the consensus legal opinion seemed to be that the delay of a ban can only come prior to it going into effect.

      i.e.: Congress signs law, then you have the following options:
      President Vetos - law doesn't go into effect.
      President does nothing - law goes into effect on the day listed in legislation
      President delays before law is in effect - delay is valid and still within the power of the executive branch.
      President delays after law is in effect

      • That is the start of a basis for impeachment under the charge of treason.

        The disorder of not knowing whether a law is in effect or not in effect, and the potential liability either way is disorder amounting to treason of the oath of office.

        • It may be grounds for impeachment, but it isn't treason. The US Constitution defines treason as

          "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

          • They missed a definition in my assessment. Whether legally defined in the U.S. Constitution or not, I say treason.

    • I mean, it's doubtful it would even make it onto a lower court's docket by the time the 75 days is up even were a lawsuit filed today.

  • watching dancing and cat vidoes. Have you ended the war in Ukraine yet?

  • It remains unclear whether Trump can legally pause the ban. It's also unclear how he plans to enforce a 50 percent "joint venture" ownership with the company, a move he announced on Sunday.

    Trump is the God Emperor, his word is law.

Slashdot Top Deals

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission

Close