There’s compelling arguments either way. On one hand, this is a pretty naked attempt to hit at China and control the flow of the US government’s desired information.
On the other hand, the legislation isn’t technically a ban, but a forced divestment of a corporate asset. The power of the government to force the breakup, dissolution, or divestment of corporate entities is the basis of US antitrust law, and is well established.
The power of the government to force the breakup, dissolution, or divestment of corporate entities is the basis of US antitrust law, and is well established.
Unless of course the monopoly holder is an american corporation. Then it’s a good monopoly.
We’re living in the next gilded age simply because people “forgot” monopolies are bad and those laws remain unused against giants like google, amazon, meta and many many more.
Are you forgetting that there are currently antitrust lawsuits going against both Amazon and Google? The current administration is absolutely in favor of breaking up monopolies, regardless of where the company is.
the current administration will go and somehow big corpos will prevail. The politicians only do what the rich allow them to do. The US even has legal corruption.
I imagine that our (U.S.) government’s case resides primarily on the premise that the state may exercise the ability to force divestment of a company with foreign ownership.
These powers are granted by the National Defense Authorization Act which seeks to prevent imminent national and private security vulnerabilities being exploited by foreign adversaries and agents; the actors here would be specifically the CCP and their intelligence and military apparatus’ shell companies and PMCs.
The precedents set by U.S. Anti-Trust laws support their position, but the primary argument in the state’s defense are the powers granted by the NDAA.
There’s compelling arguments either way. On one hand, this is a pretty naked attempt to hit at China and control the flow of the US government’s desired information.
On the other hand, the legislation isn’t technically a ban, but a forced divestment of a corporate asset. The power of the government to force the breakup, dissolution, or divestment of corporate entities is the basis of US antitrust law, and is well established.
It’s an interesting case.
Unless of course the monopoly holder is an american corporation. Then it’s a good monopoly. We’re living in the next gilded age simply because people “forgot” monopolies are bad and those laws remain unused against giants like google, amazon, meta and many many more.
Are you forgetting that there are currently antitrust lawsuits going against both Amazon and Google? The current administration is absolutely in favor of breaking up monopolies, regardless of where the company is.
And Apple.
the current administration will go and somehow big corpos will prevail. The politicians only do what the rich allow them to do. The US even has legal corruption.
It’s at least a positive step that an attempt is being made. We need antitrust to have teeth again.
If the current administration loses in November, then yeah, it’s pretty likely that Apple, Google, and Amazon will continue to amass more power.
Sounds like a pretty solid reason to vote for retaining the current administration, yeah? Some check on power v. no check on power?
They literally said they want tiktok gone cz they can’t control the narrative: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/07/israel-al-jazeera-us-tiktok-ban
I imagine that our (U.S.) government’s case resides primarily on the premise that the state may exercise the ability to force divestment of a company with foreign ownership.
These powers are granted by the National Defense Authorization Act which seeks to prevent imminent national and private security vulnerabilities being exploited by foreign adversaries and agents; the actors here would be specifically the CCP and their intelligence and military apparatus’ shell companies and PMCs.
The precedents set by U.S. Anti-Trust laws support their position, but the primary argument in the state’s defense are the powers granted by the NDAA.
I’m only speculating.
deleted by creator