The Restrict Act / TikTok (excuse?)

[temporal1]

AwakenWithJP / The Restrict Act! Totalitarianism is Good For You / -11min


“The RESTRICT Act Would Restrict a Lot More Than TikTok”
Once again, politicians use popular fears to push for open-ended power.
https://reason.com/2023/03/31/the-restr ... an-tiktok/

“The Broad, Vague RESTRICT Act Is a Dangerous Substitute for Comprehensive Data Privacy Legislation”
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/b ... ta-privacy

ExpressVPN / “The U.S. Restrict Act explained“
https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/the-u-s ... explained/

WHITE HOUSE / “Statement from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on the Introduction of the RESTRICT Act”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... trict-act/

RESTRICT Act / Text: S.686 — 118th Congress (2023-2024)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... l/686/text

- - - - - - -

My starting place is: Acknowledge the EXPERIMENTAL factor in proposals
1) New proposals for (gov EXPERIMENTS) need to have strict parameters, honorably avoid open-ended legal language that tempts expansion and exploitation;
2) Likewise, include expiration dates; honorably allow for and demand review for results.
Negative results = allow experiments to die a natural death.

[temporal1]

9/11/2001 was used to pass The PATROIT Act.
TikTok is being used to pass The RESTRICT Act?

HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW
The primary function of Congress, as the Legislative Branch of our government, is to create and modify laws. In addition, under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, Congress has authority over financial and budgetary policy by levying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts and excises, and, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Here is the legislative process, from introduction to enactment into law:
http://norton.house.gov/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law

[Josh]

It’s a terrible law. Great job, Republicans.

[temporal1]

It’s a terrible law. Great job, Republicans.

interesting you would say this, i did not sense a partisan aspect. my guess would be: career politicians.

throughout my life, most of it not following politics or current events, when it comes to various big decisions, esp the use of the MIC, and over reaching laws targeting legal citizens, like The Patriot Act, this is where career politicians/legacy politicians/uniparty politicians “shine.” (i.e., show their true colors.)

these moves are so carefully swaddeled in patriotism so deep, so nuanced (as well as overt) so as to catch up most citizens, including unsuspecting COs. the magnetic pull of it is terrific.

steeping fear in words of do-gooding, usually wins the day for the uniparty.

i can’t speak for this act, in particular. i don’t know who is doing what with it.

i’m not aware of any politicians pressing to 1) label proposed laws as GOV EXPERIMENTS,
2) with strict parameters, 3) and expiration dates (for accountability of experiments).

Example: Imagine!
House Bill 2020 would be relabeled: House Experiment 2020

It would be specific to whatever single point, no bundling, no open-ended invitations to expand.
It would have an expiration date, a period for review of results, negative or positive, then approved for another period, or efficiently ended without political drama.

Imagine if Roe versus Wade had been structured so. How many lives saved? Conventional families intact? .. ..
The majority of proposed bills are untested, unknown GOV EXPERIMENTS. They should be recognized as such.

Drop the pretense secular political ideologues know what they’re doing. Reports are, many sign bills without reading!

[temporal1]

My interest in this proposal comes from an earlier one that Robert discussed.
He was saying, if passed, he would likely have to shut down MennoNet. (i haven’t found his posts.)
Please correct where needed!

The Supreme Court takes up Section 230
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank ... ction-230/

P.22 / Elon Musk thread:

.. Anyway, it is Section 230 that enabled the current abuse of power. Without Section 230, Twitter would have to choose between being a platform or a publisher. If they are a publisher, then they could regulate content but would be liable for content. To avoid being liable, they would have to be a platform in which case they couldn't regulate legal speech. That is how the phone works. The phone companies can't disconnect phone calls with content they don't like just because they are private companies, and that is because they have declared themselves to be platforms to avoid liability for the content of phone calls.

???

[Josh]

I realise this isn’t the politics forum, but it’s a terrible, like the Patriot act, which was also passed by Republicans and signed by a Republican President.

[temporal1]

I realise this isn’t the politics forum, but it’s a terrible, like the Patriot act, which was also passed by Republicans and signed by a Republican President.

At the time, my sense was, in response to 9-11-2001, highly unpopular W had bipartsan support to do about anything he wanted (and, this was mostly typical Congress response to disaster, regardless of party in office)? People were shaken about 9-11. Vulnerable.

After the fact, some denied support of Iraq (and The Patriot Act)? That’s typical, too. After the fact.

With that in mind, i don’t see the RESTRICT Act as a true partisan matter, but the-uniparty-at-work.
Trying to use fear to remove rights of legal citizens.

My interest is in how this affects everyday users, esp following exposures of government pressing platforms to do their bidding.
Like, FB, Twitter.

Public use, and technical implications. Tech Talk.

[Soloist]

I don’t personally care what they do, but I don’t see TikTok as useful or good.

[temporal1]

I don’t personally care what they do, but I don’t see TikTok as useful or good.

As with Twitter, i do not go there. i do not recommend. at all. TikTok, evenmoreso.
a lot of this stuff makes me ill.

In this case, the RESTRICT Act is being sold as an popular action against TikTok, but, TikTok is not mentioned in the proposal!
This is a giveaway about the underlying goal of allowing increased general powers to government - representing UNDESERVED trust.

Lawmakers have become overly cunning.

[ohio jones]

I realise this isn’t the politics forum

It is now.