>>20565559

>>20565555

Ya, Brian seems to have no read the bill so he sounded like such an idiot in that interview. He said "Why don't we list the specific countries by name" that we would consider foreign adversaries, but that is exactly what the bill does. The bill defines "foreign adversary country" to mean a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. That section lists specifically North Korea, China. Russia and Iran. The bill is only 12 pages, embarrassing that Brian hasn't taken the time to read it.

https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521eh.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872

>>20565644

Waiting for someone to file a request under FOIA to get those police reports.

>>20565677

>Its not about banning TikTok, it is about banning X…

How so? have you read the bill?

>>20565727

Kek. Did you really just reply to a dig request with a copy-paste from a Wikipedia article? You might be lost, are you sure you're in the right place?

>>20565741

Oh my mistake. Didn't realize you were retarded. Carry on.

>>20565748

You actual retard. It DOES specifically name tiktok.

>>20565748

>>20565750

Read the bill if you want to form an opinion.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text?s=1&r=1

>>20565765

I never said it is ONLY tiktok, but the bill does specifically name TikTok, contray to what the anon was implying. Line 23 and 24 of page 10.

>>20565771

>>20565771

Thank you for recognizing your mistake. But not the scope is more limited than you are implying. Only would apply to companies operating from "foreign adversary countries" as defined in line 24, page 10. This is defined as a country specifed in secton 4872(d)(2) of title 10 in the United States Code. This section SPECIFICALLY lists 4 countries, CHINA, RUSSIA, NORTH KOREA and IRAN.

>>20565785

>>20565782

Read it in pdf form here.

https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521eh.pdf

The section it references from the United State Code is here

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872

>>20565792

>>20565771

>reading comprehension

I read it correctly. Maybe give it a re-read friend.

>>20565808

Right, so not "any social media company" as you claimed. The scope is more limited. I don't agree with the bill because in my opinion free speech should be absolute. However, contrary to what you claimed, this bill is not after X.

>>20565842

It only applies to the FOUR countries listed as foreign adversaries in 10 U.S. Code § 4872 .

>>20565842

>>20565850

You are implying that 8kun is owned by a company operating out of Russia, North Korea, China or Iran.

>>20565869

>I am not sure why the crying though FACEBOOK and TWITTER and other american companies are selling and fucking over everyone to other countries as well.

Yes that is a huge issue, but will be covered by congress in the next coming weeks under an amended Data Privacy Act.

>>20565888

>saying it will be covered by congress is gay.

What is your proposed system for developing bills into laws then?

>>20565888

>>20565895

And generally it is bad practice to introduce overreaching, vague bills covering multiple issues. Makes passing anything impossible. That;s why proposed bills cover more specific issues so those specific issues can be voted on. Maybe retake a civics class?

>>20565921

Ok friend.