TikTok officially set to be banned in the US on January 19, 2025 pending

[bnew]

Also, @bnew our largest trading partner is Canada and then Mexico.

Be loud and wrong brehs.

the value of goods we import from china far exceeds the value of what we import from canada or mexico.

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

The ban should be extended to ALL social media. Throw reddit in there too.

co-sign

 

[Ozymandeas]

the value of goods we import from china far exceeds the value of what we import from canada or mexico.

Be loud and wrong brehs. You thought NAFTA was a video game console huh?

The United States' largest trading partner is Canada, with the two countries sharing the world's most comprehensive trading relationship. In 2022, Canada was the largest purchaser of U.S. goods exports, accounting for 17.3% of total U.S. exports.

The top five purchasers of U.S. goods exports in 2022 were:

• Canada: $356.5 billion
• Mexico: $324.3 billion
• China: $150.4 billion
• Japan: $80.2 billion
• United Kingdom: $76.2 billion

 

[$cam-U-Well_Jack$on]

Some of y'all act like you would die if you didn't have access to some of these social media apps.

 

[bnew]

Be loud and wrong brehs. You thought NAFTA was a video game console huh?

The United States' largest trading partner is Canada, with the two countries sharing the world's most comprehensive trading relationship. In 2022, Canada was the largest purchaser of U.S. goods exports, accounting for 17.3% of total U.S. exports.

The top five purchasers of U.S. goods exports in 2022 were:

• Canada: $356.5 billion
• Mexico: $324.3 billion
• China: $150.4 billion
• Japan: $80.2 billion
• United Kingdom: $76.2 billion

i say imports you say exports.

Countries & Regions

The United States has trade relations with more than 75 countries around the world. The top five export markets for U.S. goods in 2013 were: Canada, $300.3 billion Mexico, $226.2 billion China, $122 billion Japan, $65.1 billion Germany, $47.4 billion At USTR, trade with countries is coordinated...

ustr.gov

Goods Imports

The United States is the largest goods importer in the world. U.S. goods imports from the world totaled $3.2 trillion in 2022, up 14.6 percent ($413.7 billion) from 2021. China was the top supplier of goods to the United States, accounting for 16.5 percent of total goods imports. The top five suppliers of U.S. goods imports in 2022 were: China ($536.3 billion), Mexico ($454.8 billion), Canada ($436.6 billion), Japan ($148.1 billion), and Germany ($146.6 billion). U.S. goods imports from the European Union 27 were $553.3 billion.

but it seems the information I used before is dated and we now import more goods in terms of value from mexico and china 2nd.

 

[bnew]

Some of y'all act like you would die if you didn't have access to some of these social media apps.

I've never used or installed social media apps. I've only ever interacted with them in the web browser right up until they ask for login information to continue. I'm against online censorship and the bs pretext they are using to build their legal precedent for more stringent censorship policies. they failed with the Restrict Act and SOPA and this is just their latest attempt.

 

[Jesus H. Christ]

@Pazzy
@Hip-Hop-Bulls

How does the bottom of the boot taste like?

Stan fascism brehs

 

[Pazzy]

@Pazzy
@Hip-Hop-Bulls

How does the bottom of the boot taste like?

Stan fascism brehs

Log into your regular screenname and say this with your chest. Stop this speaking through your alt accounts shyt. You sounding like a bytch.

 

[sayyestothis]

Good. Meta stock bout to hit new highs....run it!!!

 

[dj-method-x]

How you feel about social media aside, the government outright banning an app should scare people. This feels like gross overreach and a blow to free speech.

 

[bnew]

Bobby Allyn (@bobbyallyn.bsky.social)

TikTok says if the US was really interested in mitigating the national security issues in the least restrictive way possible, they could've suggest, for instance, a warning label that would essentially say when you open up the app: the US government thinks the CCP might be pulling the levers here...

bsky.app

Spoiler: full text & large images

1/14
Bobby Allyn

TikTok says if the US was really interested in mitigating the national security issues in the least restrictive way possible, they could've suggest, for instance, a warning label that would essentially say when you open up the app: the US government thinks the CCP might be pulling the levers here...

2/14
‪Bobby Allyn‬ ‪@bobbyallyn.bsky.social‬

After bringing this up, TikTok's lawyers write that such a warning "would be unwarranted in this context," but that it's an example of a remedy far less restrictive

3/14
‪Bobby Allyn‬ ‪@bobbyallyn.bsky.social‬

The way the DC federal appeals court viewed the case, through a type of First Amendment review known as "strict scrutiny," addressing a government interest must be done in a narrowly tailored way, and TikTok argues the divest-or-ban option is the opposite of narrowly tailored

4/14
‪Tap & Roll Games‬ ‪@tapandrollgames.bsky.social‬

Americans are great at heeding warnings and doing what's in their best interest. Just ask tobacco, alcohol, and gambling companies.

5/14
‪kristopher‬ ‪@kristopherwhat.bsky.social‬

Or maybe letting 13 year olds opt into a CCP spying program is just flat out insane?

6/14
‪Asher‬ ‪@uchusky23.bsky.social‬

lol that’s wild

7/14
‪kirktos.bsky.social‬ ‪@kirktos.bsky.social‬

USA leaders are stupid enough to believe this would work. Watch traitor trump flip-flop and stop the TikTok ban.

8/14
‪Sen. Brant Feldman‬ ‪@agmsports.bsky.social‬

TikTok needs to divest or go away.

9/14
‪Mellowghost‬ ‪@mellowghost.bsky.social‬

The disingenuousness of this whole thing is that most social media sites are designed to drive behavior. This is all about who gets to control people… unfortunately.

10/14
‪Geezus‬ ‪@gee-zus.bsky.social‬

It’s cute that a CCP-controlled company uses the first amendment as a defense when it has no respect for freedom of speech … and doesn’t even allow its own citizens to use TikTok

11/14
‪pogo2.bsky.social‬ ‪@pogo2.bsky.social‬

How stupid is tictac . All you have to do is open up an office in the United States and call it headquarters. Ta Daaaa

12/14
‪Ryan Mack‬ ‪@ryan-mack.dev‬

TikTok is a multinational company with headquarters in a variety of nations around the world including the US.

13/14
‪Quinn Reed‬ ‪@quinnreed.bsky.social‬

... because we're so good at reading warning labels BEFORE things go awry?

14/14
‪Mathew Michaud‬ ‪@dopplerinc.bsky.social‬

That and a bit of bitcoin in the correct hand may turn the trick. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196

 

[bnew]

I tried getting more general info from chatgpt:

The internet infrastructure in China is significantly different from the United States due to the "Great Firewall" (GFW), which is a set of tools and policies used by the Chinese government to control and filter internet access. The key difference is the level of government control over internet access and the specific technical measures used to block content.

How the Great Firewall Works (China):​

1. Government Control: The Chinese government has full control over internet infrastructure within the country. It mandates that internet traffic passing through the country must go through government-controlled systems.
2. Content Filtering: The government uses sophisticated methods to filter, block, and censor content. This includes blocking foreign websites (like Google, Facebook, Twitter) and even controlling search results within China.
3. DNS Manipulation: The government can manipulate Domain Name System (DNS) queries, redirecting users trying to access blocked websites to fake or error pages.
4. IP Blocking: Specific websites or services can be completely blocked by preventing users from connecting to their IP addresses.
5. Deep Packet Inspection (DPI): This technology allows the government to inspect internet traffic in real-time and block specific content or services.

U.S. Internet Infrastructure:​

In contrast, the U.S. internet infrastructure is much more decentralized, and the government does not have the same level of direct control over internet traffic. However, blocking a website in the U.S. would require legal and technical actions:

Scenario: How the U.S. Would Block a Website​

Let's go through the steps it would take for the U.S. to block access to a website in a way similar to the Great Firewall:

Step 1:​

• The U.S. government would need to pass a law or court order (e.g., for national security or illegal content) that mandates the blocking of a specific website. This is different from China, where censorship is top-down and happens much more automatically.

Step 2:​

• In the U.S., internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast or Verizon would be required to enforce the block. Unlike in China, where this happens directly at the infrastructure level, in the U.S. the ISPs would need to follow government orders.

Step 3:​

• The government could ask ISPs to block the DNS resolution for that website. For example, if someone tries to access "example.com," the DNS servers used by the ISPs would return an error message or a page that tells the user the site is unavailable.

Step 4:​

• Another approach is to block the website's IP address entirely. This means that when users in the U.S. try to connect to that IP address, their requests are blocked.

Step 5:​

• If the website uses a CDN (a service that distributes website content to make it load faster), the U.S. could also block access to the CDN's servers or network, making the website inaccessible even if its IP changes or uses multiple locations to host content.

Step 6:​

• Though less commonly used in the U.S., ISPs could use DPI to detect and block traffic going to the specific website. This method inspects the data in real-time and blocks anything related to the targeted website.

Challenges and Comprehensive Changes:​

For the U.S. to replicate the control China has over internet access, several significant changes would be needed:

1. Legal Framework: The government would need to pass laws that give it the power to censor the internet to a greater degree. This would likely raise concerns about freedom of speech and privacy rights.
2. Increased ISP Cooperation: ISPs would have to be legally bound to comply with government orders, which might face resistance on privacy grounds.
3. Infrastructure Overhaul: The U.S. would need to implement more centralized control of internet traffic (like China has), potentially creating a system of state-controlled DNS servers and other filtering tools.
4. Public Pushback: Many U.S. citizens would likely protest such measures, arguing that they infringe on personal freedoms and privacy.

Summary:​

• In China, internet control is centralized, and the government actively filters and blocks content using tools like DNS blocking, IP blocking, and deep packet inspection.
• In the U.S., while the government can block websites through legal and technical means (e.g., DNS or IP blocking), there is no centralized control over the internet, and any action to block a website would require legal processes, cooperation from ISPs, and potential changes to the infrastructure.

In short, while blocking a website is technically possible in both countries, it would be much more complex and challenging for the U.S. to implement the level of control seen in China, where censorship is deeply integrated into the country’s internet infrastructure.

---

If there were no criminal wrongdoing by the website, the U.S. government (either federal or state) would face significant constitutional and legal obstacles in trying to ban or block access to a website due to First Amendment protections and other rights related to free speech and access to information. Here’s a breakdown of the key free speech arguments and related legal considerations:

1.​

• Key Obstacle: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, which extends to the internet. Blocking or banning a website would be seen as government censorship, which violates the principle that the government cannot restrict speech unless it meets specific criteria.
• Why it Matters: The U.S. government is prohibited from infringing on individuals' rights to access information and express themselves freely, except in very limited circumstances (e.g., incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity, national security threats).
• Case Precedent: In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot broadly ban access to the internet or social media platforms because the internet is a modern public forum essential for communication, political participation, and free expression.

2.​

• Key Obstacle: In addition to protecting freedom of speech, the First Amendment also protects the right to receive information. This means individuals have a right to access information from various sources, including websites, without interference from the government.
• Why it Matters: Any attempt to ban a website would infringe on individuals’ ability to receive information freely. The government cannot restrict access to information on the grounds of its content unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
• Case Precedent: In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), the Supreme Court recognized that citizens have a right to access information and that the government cannot prevent individuals from seeking or receiving information from the media.

3.​

• Key Obstacle: A law or government action attempting to ban a website could be challenged as overbroad or vague. If the action is too general or does not clearly define what is considered inappropriate or unlawful, it could violate the constitutional principle of not limiting speech beyond what is necessary.
• Why it Matters: Laws that are overly broad can inadvertently censor legitimate speech, which is unconstitutional. For example, a law that bans websites for vague reasons could end up restricting political speech, journalism, or social media that is protected under the First Amendment.
• Case Precedent: In Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), the Supreme Court held that laws restricting speech must be clear and specific, otherwise they risk infringing on constitutionally protected freedoms.

4.​

• Key Obstacle: The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments, which means the government cannot take actions that unfairly or arbitrarily affect people's rights, including the right to free expression and access to information.
• Why it Matters: If the U.S. government were to ban a website without following due process — such as a clear, transparent legal process or judicial oversight — it could be seen as a violation of these constitutional protections.
• Case Precedent: In Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), the Supreme Court established a framework to determine when the government must provide due process before taking certain actions, such as restricting access to certain freedoms or information.

5.​

• Key Obstacle: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides significant legal protections to websites and online platforms. It essentially shields internet companies from being held liable for user-generated content. This provision has been critical in enabling free speech online.
• Why it Matters: Any attempt to ban a website that is hosting content that the government finds objectionable (but not criminal) might run afoul of Section 230, which protects platforms from government action unless there is a specific violation (e.g., illegal content like child exploitation or terrorism). The law encourages free expression by limiting government interference with online content.
• Implications: Although Section 230 mainly protects internet companies from lawsuits, it also serves as an obstacle to broad government censorship. Attempts to block a website would likely trigger legal challenges based on the argument that such censorship is inconsistent with the protections afforded by Section 230.

6.​

• Key Obstacle: U.S. free speech principles are grounded in the idea of a "marketplace of ideas," where ideas — even controversial or unpopular ones — are allowed to flourish without government interference. Blocking a website could limit this marketplace.
• Why it Matters: A central concept in First Amendment jurisprudence is that the government should not decide which ideas are acceptable. Censoring websites risks limiting the free flow of ideas, which is essential to democracy.
• Case Precedent: In Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Brandeis famously argued that the "best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Any effort to block access to websites contradicts this principle.

7.​

• Key Obstacle: The internet has been increasingly recognized as a modern public forum for free speech, where individuals and groups can express themselves, communicate, and access diverse viewpoints. Blocking websites could undermine this concept.
• Why it Matters: The U.S. legal system views the internet as an essential space for free expression and democratic participation, making government actions to restrict access to certain websites particularly problematic.
• Case Precedent: In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot restrict access to social media platforms, affirming that the internet serves as a key space for public discourse.

---

Conclusion:​

In the U.S., any attempt by the government to ban a website (without criminal wrongdoing) would likely face serious legal challenges based on constitutional principles, especially the First Amendment's protection of free speech, the right to receive information, due process, and the legal framework that protects the internet as a public forum. While there are exceptions to free speech (e.g., national security or illegal content), the broad restriction of access to websites — especially for non-criminal reasons — would raise significant obstacles from both legal and public policy standpoints.

Spoiler: screenshot

.

 

[bnew]

TikTok could shut down unless Supreme Court blocks or delays U.S. ban

Court to hear arguments Friday on law forcing TikTok sale by Chinese parent company that takes effect in Jan. 19.

www.cbsnews.com

TikTok could shut down unless Supreme Court blocks or delays U.S. ban​

Updated on: January 9, 2025 / 7:47 PM EST / CBS/AP



In one of the most important cases of the social media age, free speech and national security collide at the Supreme Court on Friday in arguments over the fate of TikTok, a wildly popular digital platform that roughly half the people in the United States use for entertainment and information.

TikTok could shut down the social media site in the U.S. by Jan. 19 unless the Supreme Court strikes down or otherwise delays the effective date of a law aimed at forcing TikTok's sale by its Chinese parent company.

"Absent such relief, the Act will take effect on January 19, 2025," TikTok said in a Dec. 9 legal filing. "That would shut down TikTok—one of the Nation's most popular speech platforms — for its more than 170 million domestic monthly users on the eve of a presidential inauguration."

• The TikTok ban heads to the Supreme Court tomorrow. Here's what to know about the case.
  

Working on a tight deadline, the justices also have before them a plea from President-elect Donald Trump, who has dropped his earlier support for a ban, to give him and his new administration time to reach a "political resolution" and avoid deciding the case. It's unclear if the court will take the Republican president-elect's views — a highly unusual attempt to influence a case — into account.

TikTok and China-based ByteDance, as well as content creators and users, argue the law is a dramatic violation of the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

"Rarely if ever has the court confronted a free-speech case that matters to so many people," lawyers for the users and content creators wrote. Content creators are anxiously awaiting a decision that could upend their livelihoods and are eyeing other platforms.



The case represents another example of the court being asked to rule about a medium with which the justices have acknowledged they have little familiarity or expertise, though they often weigh in on meaty issues involving restrictions on speech.

How TikTok could avoid a ban​

TikTok has several pathways to avoid a ban outside of Supreme Court intervention, experts told CBS News.

Trump could take action once he's in office and ask the Justice Department not to enforce the law or prosecute tech companies, like Apple and Google, who host TikTok in their app stores. Trump also has the authority to issue a 90-day delay of the law after Jan. 19, though he would have to certify to Congress that "evidence of significant progress" toward a divestiture has taken place.

TikTok won't disappear from Americans' phones on Jan. 19 if the law takes effect. However, users would not be able to update the app and those who don't already have it would not be able to download it.

The Biden administration, defending the law that President Joe Biden signed in April after it was approved by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress, contends that "no one can seriously dispute that (China's) control of TikTok through ByteDance represents a grave threat to national security."

Officials say Chinese authorities can compel ByteDance to hand over information on TikTok's U.S. patrons or use the platform to spread or suppress information.

But the government "concedes that it has no evidence China has ever attempted to do so," TikTok told the justices, adding that limits on speech should not be sustained when they stem from fears that are predicated on future risks.

In December, a panel of three appellate judges, two appointed by Republicans and one by a Democrat, unanimously upheld the law and rejected the First Amendment speech claims.

Trump urges court to pause​

Adding to the tension, the court is hearing arguments just nine days before the law is supposed to take effect and 10 days before a new administration takes office.

In language typically seen in a campaign ad rather than a legal brief, lawyers for Trump have called on the court to temporarily prevent the TikTok ban from going into effect but refrain from a definitive resolution.

"President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government — concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged," D. John Sauer, Trump's choice to be his administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote in a legal brief filed with the court.

Trump took no position on the underlying merits of the case, Sauer wrote. Trump's campaign team used TikTok to connect with younger voters, especially male voters, and Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, in December. He has 14.7 million followers on TikTok.

The justices have set aside two hours for arguments, and the session likely will extend well beyond that. Three highly experienced Supreme Court lawyers will be making arguments. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will present the Biden administration's defense of the law, while Trump's solicitor general in his first administration, Noel Francisco, will argue on behalf of TikTok and ByteDance. Stanford Law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing content creators and users, will be making his 50th high court argument.

If the law takes effect, Trump's Justice Department will be charged with enforcing it. Lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance have argued that the new administration could seek to mitigate the law's most severe consequences.

But they also said that a shutdown of just a month would cause TikTok to lose about one-third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.

As it weighs the case, the court will have to decide what level of review it applies to the law. Under the most searching review, strict scrutiny, laws almost always fail. But two judges on the appellate court that upheld the law said it would be the rare exception that could withstand strict scrutiny.

TikTok, the app's users and many briefs supporting them urge the court to apply strict scrutiny to strike down the law.

But the Democratic administration and some of its supporters cite restrictions on foreign ownership of radio stations and other sectors of the economy to justify the effort to counter Chinese influence in the TikTok ban.

A decision could come within days.

Editor's note: This story has been changed to clarify that TikTok could shut down on Jan. 19 if the Supreme Court rules against its request for a temporary injunction that would overturn or delay a law that could lead to a U.S. ban.

 

[bnew]

https://archive.is/myvD6

https://archive.is/5HGch

 

[bnew]

Mitt Romney says the quiet part out loud about banning TikTok