• News Categories
    ▼
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

T-Room

The Best in Alternative News

  • News Categories
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

March 11, 2024 at 7:50 pm

Once More with Feeling: Banning TikTok Doesn’t Do Much If We Don’t Regulate Data Brokers and Pass a Privacy Law…

exclamation_mark
ParlerGabTruth Social

by Karl Bode at TechDirt

While it seemed like our national policy hysteria over TikTok had waned slightly in 2024, it bubbled up once again last week upon rumors that the White House is supporting a “welcome and important” new bill that would effectively ban TikTok from operating in the United States.

The bipartisan bill (full text) — which moved forward last week in spite of TikTok’s ham-fisted attempt to overload Congress with phone calls from users — sponsored by Reps Mike Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi, prevents all ByteDance-controlled applications from enjoying app store availability or web hosting services in the U.S., unless TikTok “severs ties to entities like ByteDance that are subject to the control of a foreign adversary.” Basically, the bill wants ByteDance to divest TikTok, preferably to an American company.

You’ll recall the Trump administration’s big “solution” for TikTok was basically cronyism: to force the company to sell itself to Walmart and Oracle. That is: companies controlled by Trump’s cronies, with their own track records of bad behavior and privacy violations. You’ll also recall that Facebook has been very busy sowing congressional angst for years about TikTok for purely anti-competitive reasons.

The bill applies to any company owned by ByteDance, whether or not anybody has actually proven any sort of meaningful connection to Chinese intelligence (we’re working off of vibes here, man). There’s also some murky language in the legislation that curiously excludes companies that deal in reviews, a nice treat for whatever company successfully lobbied for that exemption:

EXCLUSION: The term ‘‘covered company’’ does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.

To be very clear:…

ParlerGabTruth Social
Continue Reading
This website lives off the kindness of your donations. If you would like to support The T-Room please visit our PayPal.

Editor’s Picks

One Survivor Found: Air India Flight Bound for London Crashes Minutes After Take-off with 242 Aboard…

RFK Jr. Announces 8 New Members to CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel…

The Supreme Court Swats Down Discrimination Double Standards…

Secretary Howard Lutnick Outlines U.S. – China Trade Discussion Outcome…

U.S. Begins Evacuating Mideast Embassies, Army Bases as Iran Nuclear Talks Come to a Head…

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.

Twitter Icon

View Old Archives

Copyright © 2025 T-Room

Site by Creative Visual Design