Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 07 2020, @01:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the Bytedance-bit-flipped dept.

From The Verge:

President Trump has signed a new executive order which will block all transactions with Bytedance, TikTok's parent corporation, in an effort to "address the national emergency with respect to the information and communication technology supply chain."

The move comes after months of escalating tensions, which saw Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others at the White House warn that TikTok presented a national security threat because of its Chinese ownership. Microsoft is currently in talks to acquire portions of the app, aimed to be complete by September 15th.

A parallel order banned transactions with WeChat, a popular texting app in China that maintains a small user base in the US.

[...] The executive branch has the power to levy sanctions against individuals and corporations by placing them on the "entity list," as the US did against Huawei and ZTE last year. But such sanctions are typically put in place by the Commerce Department rather than the White House, and subject to a specific rule-making procedure that seems to have been short-circuited by the surprise executive order.

See also: Tencent stock plummets after Trump announces plan to ban WeChat in the US

Previously:
(2020-08-01) President Trump Threatens TikTok Ban, Microsoft Considers Buying TikTok's U.S. Operations[Updated 2]
(2020-07-07) Reddit and LinkedIn Stop Copying iPhone Clipboard Contents
(2020-06-30) India Bans TikTok, WeChat, and Other Chinese-Owned Apps
(2020-06-28) TikTok and 53 Other iOS Apps Still Snoop Your Sensitive Clipboard Data
(2019-12-27) Investigation Claims United Arab Emirates Uses The ToTok App To Spy
(2019-10-26) Lawmakers Ask US Intelligence to Assess If TikTok is a Security Threat


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday August 07 2020, @10:33PM (3 children)

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday August 07 2020, @10:33PM (#1033221)

    What I've been doing for the past 40 years: stay at home on voting day.

    You are part of the problem then. You can claim your vote doesn't matter, that the political parties don't represent you, etc. They don't have to, because too many people don't vote. Nothing would shake up the system more than to have close to 100% turnout of voters.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 08 2020, @01:19AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 08 2020, @01:19AM (#1033269)

    I disagree. Nothing would change if the viable "choices" remained a right-leaning corporate Democrat or a far-right corporate Republican.

    What would change things is if the largest portion of votes went to third parties, regardless of how large the pool of voters is.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 08 2020, @01:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 08 2020, @01:56PM (#1033443)

      If the nonvoters showed up, any candidate could be viable.

    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday August 14 2020, @10:54PM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday August 14 2020, @10:54PM (#1036807)

      I disagree. Nothing would change if the viable "choices" remained a right-leaning corporate Democrat or a far-right corporate Republican.

      The reason they are the only choices is because so many voters stay home. They have no reason to care about the "people". We couldn't change things in a single election, and perhaps even in several elections, but if everyone always showed up to vote it would be noticed, and the established parties would become less and less viable as time goes on.