Summary

TikTok faces a U.S. shutdown by Jan. 19 unless the Supreme Court delays or blocks a law requiring its Chinese parent, ByteDance, to divest.

The Biden administration defends the law as a national security measure, citing potential risks of Chinese government influence. Content creators argue it violates free speech.

Donald Trump, once a supporter of the ban, seeks a delay to reach a “political resolution.”

A shutdown could cost TikTok millions of users and revenue. The court’s decision, due soon, could reshape U.S. digital speech policy.

  • IamAnonymous@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    That’s not how freedom is defined in the constitution though. We are not in China or North Korea but are heading in that direction.

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I don’t think the government has the right to control what you do in your private time on your private device.

        1st amendment is right to free press and right to free speech. Several amendments imply a right to privacy from the government, such as the 3rd 4th and 9th.

        The government should not regulate how I make my speech. That’s ridiculous to give them the right to remove how people are allowed to speak.

        Good to know people are willing to give themselves more chains to a fascist Trump government if they don’t like the UI of an app.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          I don’t think the government has the right to control what you do in your private time on your private device.

          [Laughs in War in Drugs.]

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that restricting what people can do in their own homes has been deemed constitutional under the interstate commerce clause art least since Wickard v. Filburn.

        • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          20 hours ago

          There are already government regulations on what you can do on your ‘private’ device and what you can do on your private time.

          • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Cool, so why stop there! Just make it so they always have access to my phone! Why would I need the right to use anything I want?

            The government now needs needs me to get court approval to speak my mind to Trump. Require paperwork just to develop an app.

            Surely nothing bad will happen if we just let this pot of water rise with frogs advocating it to get hotter.

            • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              18 hours ago

              I don’t think the government has the right to control what you do in your private time on your private device.

              You’re still acting like they don’t do this already.

                  • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 hour ago

                    Giving up sure solves matters.

                    Stonewall should have complied. Why resist the cops arresting you for who you love? It’s already status quo.

                    MLK? Should have stayed quiet and not marched. He should have just stayed where he was and never be a figure people look up to.

                    Women’s right to vote? Don’t make me laugh! Women were always expected to just have babies and do the housework, anyone saying otherwise is a fool!

                    When the patriot act was passed, was it good and ethical because the FBI wiretapped anyone Hoover didn’t like, and Nixon had tabs on every single person he hated?

        • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          19 hours ago

          What is it, the sixty-ninth amendment?

          ‘An unregulated internet, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear apps, shall not be infringed’?

          • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            This just in, nothing ever changes. Black people are still 3/5th of a person, women don’t have the right to vote, the vice president is 2nd place winner, and people don’t elect senators.