TikTok may suddenly be banned in the US. I tried to do this before, but now everything has changed

Recently, US authorities have been actively fighting TikTok, trying to achieve victory from competitors in order to continue operating in the country. So, recently in the USA he put the service under blocking blocking.

But the entire processing process is long before the latest events. Rep. Gallagher, who chairs the Chinese Communist Party Select Committee and is the lead sponsor of the bill, said he worked with colleagues including Raja Krishnamoorthi for eight months to prepare it.

Senate approval is now awaited.

What is this law that everyone is talking about?

The Protecting American Citizens from Hostile Countries Controlled Apps Act includes implications for app stores and hosting companies that host TikTok services. It itself is directed against the ByteDance network and criticizes all applications, social networks and other platforms created in countries that are adversaries of the United States.

352 congressmen voted for the adoption of the document, 56 people opposed it.

We’ve been thinking about banning TikTok for a long time.

The new law is not the first time Gallagher and Krishnamurthy have tried to ban or try to sell TikTok. They introduced the Anti-Social CCP Act with Senator Mark Rubio.

The authors worked with concerned businesses, the White House and the Department of Justice for several months to resolve the issue. There were even discussions that clarified that legislation could violate the constitution. No one expected Congress to get 352 votes to pass the law.

Some members expressed concern about the speed with which the bill was passed. Rep. Ro Khanna voted against it and called the process “urgent” in statements.

Congress should listen to the people and instead work toward a clearer understanding of data privacy to address real concerns without prohibition.

– Ro Hannah

Gallagher, responding to allegations that my report was too fast, said:

It was a 12-page bill. I mean, it wasn’t visible at the certification, we just threw it into the crowd. Even a member of Congress could read 12 pages in a matter of hours.

— Mike Gallagher

TikTok began all sorts of fight against the adoption of legislation

TikTok tried to activate its successful user base in the US to fight the legislation. The app introduced a full-screen prompt for users where they could enter their zip codes and get their congressman’s number. So they could call and urge a vote against the TikTok ban.

Lawmakers’ phones began ringing shortly before the committee vote.

A member of the Democratic House Energy and Commerce Committee said their office has seen little to no involvement from TikTok since the CEO’s show last year.

The onslaught of calls took them by surprise. All phones were literally ringing off the hook with the number of people calling not to pass the law. Employees even have to turn off their phones. It is noted that the callers did not have any script for the conversation with the congressmen; many of them sounded 14-15 years old. Some callers hung up immediately after connecting.

However, TikTok said that this message was only sent to users over 18 years of age.

The proven action proved to Congress that TikTok has too much influence over the minds of its users and this should not be allowed to happen.

This was a preview of what could be said if the PDA (approx. Communist Party of China) it is advisable to use the application to encourage Congress to act, say, in a debate over sanctions to protect Taiwan. Or from replacing the permanent normal outcome of trade relations with China. The potential for dangerous propaganda is too great to allow even one of our major adversaries to have control over what is increasingly becoming a news platform reality in America.

— Mike Gallagher

In a letter to Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi on Monday, TikTok’s vice president of public policy, Michael Beckerman, wrote: “It is insulting that you complain about hearing your constituents and seek to deny them their constitutional rights. One would hope that the clerk would observe that you would be well versed in constitutional law and would apply it before the permit issue is resolved.”

Many people changed their minds before listening.

Members of Congress had access to secret ballots before voting to better understand the risks.

Some of them from these sessions expressed their views on the final decision. Immediately before the hearing, they watched speeches from representatives of the FBI, the Department of Justice and the Director of Intelligence of the Office of National Reconnaissance. Many noted that my opinion changed after the briefings.

Members who opposed the legislation said they either believed it was a hearing too hastyor wrong approach to problem solving.

In this, Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes was one of those who opposed the lawyer.

In his statements, he said: “I have more information about online threats than most. But one of the symbols of the signals between us and supernatural beings is the fact that they are revealed by newspapers, broadcast stations and social media platforms. We don’t do that. We believe that our citizens are worthy of their democracy. We don’t trust our government to decide what information they can see and what they can’t see.”

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone also expressed concern about the speed of the process. He said he wanted to hear from experts before making a decision. After leaving the secret hearing he joined contact colleagues in the commission for voting on the adoption of the law. Later, in the hall, he directly included the bill, and then voted for its adoption.

Now it’s up to the Senate, but there are obstacles

The process of passing the law may slow down significantly in the Senate, notes The Vegre.

Supreme Senate Commerce President Maria Cantwell should push through legislation through her commission. But in the past, it has prevented the propaganda of what was popular among mass politicians. Her committee was the only one to reject the Privacy and Data Protection Act, the highest privacy law.

On TikTok, Cantwell said he is trying to find “a path forward that is constitutional and constitutional for civil liberties.”

I am very concerned about foreign exploitation of Americans’ sensitive data and their attempts to create backdoors in our information and communications technology and services supply chains. This puts national security at risk, and it is good that Members of this House are taking it seriously.

– Maria Cantwell

Another slowing factor is the adoption of Donald Trump’s law. He opposed it and said that only Facebook, which, according to him, is the “enemy of the people,” will help ban TikTok.

Gallagher attempted to respond to Trump’s statements: “If you actually read what Trump said, the goal is not to shut down TikTok and force its users to go to Facebook. That would be a bad result.” [The Verge]