• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Not really. They word it like that because laws need to look broad, but the purpose is to target TikTok.

    One thing I’m absolutely worried about is the definition of “adversary” is too broad, and it could potentially be broadened to include any foreign country that doesn’t do whatever the US wants.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The “purpose” is to target TikTok, sure. But that doesn’t really matter as it could be used to enforce laws against any other company / country doing something similar. Laws are often used beyond the original intent.

      Though if it’s not written broadly enough I believe it could be ruled unconstitutional.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I’m not Constitutional lawyer, but that’s my impression as well. I’m guessing they’ll just adjust the definition of “adversary” to match their political aims though.