Comment by mplanchard
16 hours ago
You could have read either the law or the decision, linked in the comments here, to get the answer to this question.
From the decision:
> Second, the Act establishes a general designa-
> tion framework for any application that is both (1) operated
> by a “covered company” that is “controlled by a foreign ad-
> versary,” and (2) “determined by the President to present a
> significant threat to the national security of the United
> States,” following a public notice and reporting process.
> §2(g)(3)(B). In broad terms, the Act defines “covered com-
> pany” to include a company that operates an application
> that enables users to generate, share, and view content and
> has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. §2(g)(2)(A).
> The Act excludes from that definition a company that oper-
> ates an application “whose primary purpose is to allow us-
> ers to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel in-
> formation and reviews.” §2(g)(2)(B).
This still doesn't really directly answer the question in plain English.
So would that mean Red Note would get banned as well?
If it gains more than 1 million active users and the president deems it to represent a potential threat, yes
Edit: assuming they, like tiktok, refuse to divest to a company based in the US
Edit: also assuming it is a foreign company. I’ve never even heard of it prior to this comment section
Is there an official list of "foreign adversary"? Or is that something that gets determined by the president?
By this reading, and since Trump is sworn in on the 20th, it is really up to his discretion as to whether the tiktok ban remains.
He probably should let it stand for a day or two, and then drop an executive order to make it not banned and thus be a hero to all those who use it.
That's not quite correct, b/c the above only applies to companies other than TikTok/ByteDance, which are called out explicitly in the Act.
However, there is an open question as to whether Trump will choose to enforce the law.
Surprised Supreme Court let that through. Passing laws directed at particular individuals is not kosher under the article 1 Section 9. Clause 3.
>No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Then again, the bill is creating a framework to allow a President to essentially ignore that particular enjoinder and SCOTUS has already shown themselves willing to let a President run rampant.