• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    No. It literally says TikTok in the text of the bill. It also has a super broad description of other covered companies. But then also bans TikTok by name. The law is Public Law 118-50. The stuff in Congress is not the end of a bill. It has to go through reconciliation, where it can change, and then it goes to the desk of the president.

    Foreign adversary controlled application.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—

    (A) any of—

    (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;

    (ii) TikTok; …

    If you care to find it in the statutes at large or USC then have at it. But this is what Biden signed.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I missed that part. Thanks for the correction.

      Looking at the court’s opinion (PDF), it appears this case did not raise that issue. I think it’s unlikely it would be considered a bill of attainder because what it does is technically not punishment, but that’s a question for people who know more about law than I do.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        A forced sale below market value is absolutely punishment. And being banned is 100% punitive.