I dunno if app stores are gonna bring it back though.
The law stipulates like, ridiculously massive (seriously like $5k PER USER) fines for hosting it. I dunno if a legally-dubious pinky promise from Trump will be enough for them.
I dunno if app stores are gonna bring it back though.
The law stipulates like, ridiculously massive (seriously like $5k PER USER) fines for hosting it. I dunno if a legally-dubious pinky promise from Trump will be enough for them.
That's only really a problem for iOS users though. For Android users, you can just load the APK onto the phone and go.
Is this gonna turn out to be trumps version of the Iran hostage crisis sabotage
Um... I think Gaza is already that
How? The election is over.
But from what I recall, that's exactly what happened with the Iran hostage crisis too: they were freed on the day of Reagan's inauguration after he took over from Carter.
The hostage crisis is part of why Reagan won. This wasn't a campaign issue.
You mean TikTok wasn't a campaign issue? I agree. I think I understand your argument now.
fair point
How do I filter out every thread regarding a given string?
I'm way more interested in the reactions of Google, Apple, Oracle, and the dozens of other corporations ByteDance depends on.
The "90-day extension" Trump keeps talking about has no basis in law except to conclude an in-process divestment, which currently doesn't exist. He can order the law not to be enforced, but you're still breaking the law. It'll interesting to see if those companies are willing to along with an executive order their counsel knows is illegal or are willing to knowingly break the law under the promise they won't be prosecuted (for now).
edit: IANAL
I mean, they can get away with it. They own the government, if the next president threw a fit about them going along with something that they knew was illegal because Trump was OK with it, do you think their lawyers wouldn't be able to make it go away for a meager fine that's 0.001% of their annual revenue?
I'm curious whether "can probably get away with it" is enough for them. And whether they'll take the risk for no reward whatsoever in the case of Apple and Google.
has no basis in law
Wikipedia says, with a couple references:
The president may grant a one-time extension of the divestiture deadline by as long as 90 days if a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, "significant" progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place.
So I think he can do it.
as long as 90 days if a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, “significant” progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place.
My point is that no path has been identified, no progress has been made, and nothing is in place.
Point taken, but I'm just going to presume that all that will be declared satisfied in the EO in some token form or another.
I don't think that it can just be declared satisfied, though. I imagine Google and Apple's obscenely top-shelf representation will be like, "this has about this much legal merit":
But who knows! :)
What could Trump do? Anyone know? The law is the law. Lemme guess. He’s just gonna not enforce the law?
Well, it's a federal law, so yeah, basically. I mean, it's kind of up to the president if the DOJ actually prosecutes people for breaking federal law. Take Biden for example. He just pardoned a bunch of people who were in prison for federal drug charges. The laws they broke are still on the books, and what they did was still technically illegal, even if it's stupid to begin with.
Somebody at the DOJ could just go rogue and try to enforce the laws, but they would just be fired if the president didn't like it.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.