Bill to Ban TikTok

[SolidStateSurvivor]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text

The more I read into this, the worse it gets. And it all makes perfect sense now why the media on all sides have been shilling this "TikTok Ban" so hard, yet I haven't heard a single outlet/politician refer specifically to this piece of legislation. That TikTok ban is just the front for this monstrosity of a bill, much like the vague threat of terrorism being what got us the Patriot Act.

Spoiler: Breakdown of Bill Sponsors

Had a hunch and was bored. unsurprisingly nearly everyone mentioned in this bill glows. This bill has overwhelming White House approval as well from what I've read.

• Senator Mark R. Warner (WEF 2016)
• Senator John R. Thune (WEF 2016, page 4)
• Senator Debra Fischer (WEF 2022)
• Senator Joe Manchin (WEF 2023)
• Senator Jerry Moran (Sponsored .Res.1148 - Expressing support for the mission and goals of the World Economic Forum in 2010)
• Senator Michael Bennet (WEF 2023)
• Senator Dan Sullivan (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (WEF 2021)
• Senator Susan Collins (WEF 2012)
• Senator Martin Heinrich (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Mitt Romney (Couldn't find any WEF attendance, but it's fucking Mitt Romney sooo)
• Senator Shelley Moore Capito (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)

That's 2/3rds of the people sponsoring this that I could definitively pull up with quick searches. Seriously is there an easy to browse complete list of WEF attendees/figures out there yet?
WEF involvement is merely surface level stuff though, you gotta be involved in some nasty business prior to even get the invite. But should give a good idea of where this sort of nonsensical legislation is coming from.

This "Restrict Act" not only a gateway for the US to justify erecting its own "Great Firewall" of sorts, but it's the Patriot Act 2.0, with pre-emptive legislation targeting the newly developing fields of quantum encryption as well as biometrics.

Here's the main highlights/breakdowns of the RESTRICT Act:

• The RESTRICT Act is not limited to just TikTok. It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad
• It will give the Secretary of Commerce the power to censor and/or ban any service with over 1 million users that they consider a threat to the US government
  
  • These services includes apps, websites, video games, even surveillance cameras/devices. Basically anything with Internet communication capabilities
    • Grants govt increased access to surveillance of these services
  • Allows the US government the authority to enforce any action deemed necessary to mitigate the threat, with no real legislative due process for doing so
  • If you try to bypass the censor/ban in any way you can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for up to 20 years
    • It will allow US government to arrest people using things like VPN to access these services that they do not deem to be "safe"
• Gives power to ban any social media influencers from all social media access whom they fit as national security threat
  • (Hopefully I am misinterpreting this one, but it sounds like the foundation for a blacklist?)
• Heavy restriction of cryptocurrency
• Freedom of Information requests regarding this entire operation are forbidden

tl;dr: The "Restrict Act" gives the Executive Branch/DOJ broad control with little legislative oversight over anything related to Internet communications and infrastructure. Be it apps, websites, home security services, "smart" cars, you name it, the govt will be granted to ability to not only to surveil it, but also ban/censor it, and punish anyone who attempts to circumnavigate said bans to access/share restricted content.

Needless to say this is really, really bad. Every media outlet is essentially misrepresenting this purposed law. Please don't fall for the propaganda. This isn't just about the government trying to get control over the digital narrative, this isn't just American companies trying to legislate a major competitor out of their market, and there is absolutely zero moral standing from our legislators against the spying accusations of the TikTok app when Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (all of them!) do it to an even greater extent and no one on Capitol Hill bats an eye. What this truly is, is an invitation to relinquish control over the access of digital information and the right to privacy to unchecked bureaucrats. The slippery slope is NOT a logical fallacy, any one who as paid attention long enough to this sort of thing knows that already, the potential is there with this legislation.

If you can, please get the word out about this.

 

[№56]

If you can, please get the word out about this.

Is it still possible to organize something like the anti-SOPA movement from 10 years ago?

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Is it still possible to organize something like the anti-SOPA movement from 10 years ago?

I really don't know anymore, it's a different kind of landscape now. Purely grass root originated movements have a tendency of getting disrupted by bad faith actors/bots or just straight up shadow banned.
The most effective means I can think of would be getting "influencers" to speak up and spread the message with their audience. An acquaintance of mine runs a podcast on this sort of thing and pulls in a decent audience, I'll do my part and reach out to him tomorrow and see if this is a topic he'd be interested in. In the meantime, if anyone could share more information regarding the RESTRICT Bill it would be appreciated. I'm not a legal expert so the wording on the bill itself throws me for a loop at times.

 

[RealTomCruise]

The more I read into this, the worse it gets. And it all makes perfect sense now why the media on all sides have been shilling this "TikTok Ban" so hard, yet I haven't heard a single outlet/politician refer specifically to this piece of legislation. That TikTok ban is just the front for this monstrosity of a bill, much like the vague threat of terrorism being what got us the Patriot Act.

Spoiler: Breakdown of Bill Sponsors

View attachment 57888

Had a hunch and was bored. unsurprisingly nearly everyone mentioned in this bill glows. This bill has overwhelming White House approval as well from what I've read.

• Senator Mark R. Warner (WEF 2016)
• Senator John R. Thune (WEF 2016, page 4)
• Senator Debra Fischer (WEF 2022)
• Senator Joe Manchin (WEF 2023)
• Senator Jerry Moran (Sponsored .Res.1148 - Expressing support for the mission and goals of the World Economic Forum in 2010)
• Senator Michael Bennet (WEF 2023)
• Senator Dan Sullivan (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (WEF 2021)
• Senator Susan Collins (WEF 2012)
• Senator Martin Heinrich (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Mitt Romney (Couldn't find any WEF attendance, but it's fucking Mitt Romney sooo)
• Senator Shelley Moore Capito (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)

That's 2/3rds of the people sponsoring this that I could definitively pull up with quick searches. Seriously is there an easy to browse complete list of WEF attendees/figures out there yet?
WEF involvement is merely surface level stuff though, you gotta be involved in some nasty business prior to even get the invite. But should give a good idea of where this sort of nonsensical legislation is coming from.

This "Restrict Act" not only a gateway for the US to justify erecting its own "Great Firewall" of sorts, but it's the Patriot Act 2.0, with pre-emptive legislation targeting the newly developing fields of quantum encryption as well as biometrics.

Here's the main highlights/breakdowns of the RESTRICT Act:

• The RESTRICT Act is not limited to just TikTok. It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad
• It will give the Secretary of Commerce the power to censor and/or ban any service with over 1 million users that they consider a threat to the US government
  
  • These services includes apps, websites, video games, even surveillance cameras/devices. Basically anything with Internet communication capabilities
    • Grants govt increased access to surveillance of these services
  • Allows the US government the authority to enforce any action deemed necessary to mitigate the threat, with no real legislative due process for doing so
  • If you try to bypass the censor/ban in any way you can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for up to 20 years
    • It will allow US government to arrest people using things like VPN to access these services that they do not deem to be "safe"
• Gives power to ban any social media influencers from all social media access whom they fit as national security threat
  • (Hopefully I am misinterpreting this one, but it sounds like the foundation for a blacklist?)
• Heavy restriction of cryptocurrency
• Freedom of Information requests regarding this entire operation are forbidden

tl;dr: The "Restrict Act" gives the Executive Branch/DOJ broad control with little legislative oversight over anything related to Internet communications and infrastructure. Be it apps, websites, home security services, "smart" cars, you name it, the govt will be granted to ability to not only to surveil it, but also ban/censor it, and punish anyone who attempts to circumnavigate said bans to access/share restricted content.

Needless to say this is really, really bad. Every media outlet is essentially misrepresenting this purposed law. Please don't fall for the propaganda. This isn't just about the government trying to get control over the digital narrative, this isn't just American companies trying to legislate a major competitor out of their market, and there is absolutely zero moral standing from our legislators against the spying accusations of the TikTok app when Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (all of them!) do it to an even greater extent and no one on Capitol Hill bats an eye. What this truly is, is an invitation to relinquish control over the access of digital information and the right to privacy to unchecked bureaucrats. The slippery slope is NOT a logical fallacy, any one who as paid attention long enough to this sort of thing knows that already, the potential is there with this legislation.

If you can, please get the word out about this.

Thanks for sharing this knowledge of the act, I ended up just discussing the bill with a few friends and although being up to date with the debate about the TikTok ban, they had no clue about the bill itself or it's contents and were taken aback by the section detailing penalties. Typically I push most of these ridiculous bills aside as just a way to further make some moderate decisions seem reasonable but this one makes me nervous with the amount of theatrics around the TikTok aspect seemingly meant to distract from the bill itself. I'm not too good with legal documents however, so having a more knowledgeable poster put out their thoughts on it would be good. I'm not in the US itself but anything they do we follow pretty quickly here in leaf land if we don't jump the gun entirely.

 

[mydadiscar]

The more I read into this, the worse it gets. And it all makes perfect sense now why the media on all sides have been shilling this "TikTok Ban" so hard, yet I haven't heard a single outlet/politician refer specifically to this piece of legislation. That TikTok ban is just the front for this monstrosity of a bill, much like the vague threat of terrorism being what got us the Patriot Act.

Spoiler: Breakdown of Bill Sponsors

View attachment 57888

Had a hunch and was bored. unsurprisingly nearly everyone mentioned in this bill glows. This bill has overwhelming White House approval as well from what I've read.

• Senator Mark R. Warner (WEF 2016)
• Senator John R. Thune (WEF 2016, page 4)
• Senator Debra Fischer (WEF 2022)
• Senator Joe Manchin (WEF 2023)
• Senator Jerry Moran (Sponsored .Res.1148 - Expressing support for the mission and goals of the World Economic Forum in 2010)
• Senator Michael Bennet (WEF 2023)
• Senator Dan Sullivan (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (WEF 2021)
• Senator Susan Collins (WEF 2012)
• Senator Martin Heinrich (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Mitt Romney (Couldn't find any WEF attendance, but it's fucking Mitt Romney sooo)
• Senator Shelley Moore Capito (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)

That's 2/3rds of the people sponsoring this that I could definitively pull up with quick searches. Seriously is there an easy to browse complete list of WEF attendees/figures out there yet?
WEF involvement is merely surface level stuff though, you gotta be involved in some nasty business prior to even get the invite. But should give a good idea of where this sort of nonsensical legislation is coming from.

This "Restrict Act" not only a gateway for the US to justify erecting its own "Great Firewall" of sorts, but it's the Patriot Act 2.0, with pre-emptive legislation targeting the newly developing fields of quantum encryption as well as biometrics.

Here's the main highlights/breakdowns of the RESTRICT Act:

• The RESTRICT Act is not limited to just TikTok. It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad
• It will give the Secretary of Commerce the power to censor and/or ban any service with over 1 million users that they consider a threat to the US government
  
  • These services includes apps, websites, video games, even surveillance cameras/devices. Basically anything with Internet communication capabilities
    • Grants govt increased access to surveillance of these services
  • Allows the US government the authority to enforce any action deemed necessary to mitigate the threat, with no real legislative due process for doing so
  • If you try to bypass the censor/ban in any way you can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for up to 20 years
    • It will allow US government to arrest people using things like VPN to access these services that they do not deem to be "safe"
• Gives power to ban any social media influencers from all social media access whom they fit as national security threat
  • (Hopefully I am misinterpreting this one, but it sounds like the foundation for a blacklist?)
• Heavy restriction of cryptocurrency
• Freedom of Information requests regarding this entire operation are forbidden

tl;dr: The "Restrict Act" gives the Executive Branch/DOJ broad control with little legislative oversight over anything related to Internet communications and infrastructure. Be it apps, websites, home security services, "smart" cars, you name it, the govt will be granted to ability to not only to surveil it, but also ban/censor it, and punish anyone who attempts to circumnavigate said bans to access/share restricted content.

Needless to say this is really, really bad. Every media outlet is essentially misrepresenting this purposed law. Please don't fall for the propaganda. This isn't just about the government trying to get control over the digital narrative, this isn't just American companies trying to legislate a major competitor out of their market, and there is absolutely zero moral standing from our legislators against the spying accusations of the TikTok app when Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (all of them!) do it to an even greater extent and no one on Capitol Hill bats an eye. What this truly is, is an invitation to relinquish control over the access of digital information and the right to privacy to unchecked bureaucrats. The slippery slope is NOT a logical fallacy, any one who as paid attention long enough to this sort of thing knows that already, the potential is there with this legislation.

If you can, please get the word out about this.

Jesus Christ, how horrifying. Freedom is going down the shitter.

 

[Natalia Simp]

It will give the Secretary of Commerce the power to censor and/or ban any service with over 1 million users that they consider a threat to the US government

You correctly identified VPNs as a valid target for this, there is also one more problem that has to do with how the term 'service' is left vague in the definitions part of the proposal.

(11) INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.—The term "information and communications technology products or services" means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display.

This means that a service is not necessarily hosted in a server, it could also be an application that you self-host on your device and allow external access to: and the service is not only the local instance of the application, but the collective shared set of local instances that communicate with each other. A popular version of this is applications built on top of ActivityPub, like Mastodon, Pleroma, PeerTube, etc. Google themselves used to host an XMPP server they branded as Google Talk, it could talk with any XMPP server.

At the very core of the internet is the idea that it's a "network-of-networks". That means, even if you cannot host a service from a large datacenter/mainframe, you still have the ability to host it from your home/local network. Once a government defines a service as a software that is "intended to fulfill or enable the fuction of [...] communication by electronic means" it means that `telnet` can be defined as a valid target for this bill. That is NOT GOOD, it will DESTROY the internet.

The most effective means I can think of would be getting "influencers" to speak up and spread the message with their audience.

Influencer isn't a word I'd use as it implies ad money, which is what we should all want to stay away from. But yes, the best way is real grass roots: no protesting, no collective organizing, but spread the word. With your friends, co-workers, clients, everyone in your life. This effects everyone in a negative way. We could use some brainstorming to come up with a better way to explain this to normies.

I'm not in the US itself but anything they do we follow pretty quickly here in leaf land if we don't jump the gun entirely.

Leafland's C-13 (or 18) has a very similar effect. Harper couldn't do it for all his effort, and I don't think Trudeau can either. But you bet your funny monopoly dollars, the minute the C's get a majority, it's getting through.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Influencer isn't a word I'd use as it implies ad money, which is what we should all want to stay away from. But yes, the best way is real grass roots: no protesting, no collective organizing, but spread the word. With your friends, co-workers, clients, everyone in your life. This effects everyone in a negative way. We could use some brainstorming to come up with a better way to explain this to normies.

Perhaps influencer is the wrong word, but getting out to community leaders and anyone with the means of amplifying the message is important.

Going to use this post as a way to share some notes/particular bits. Please offer any corrections/revisions, better explanations, anything I missed. Particularly I need someone to tell me if this is just targeted at foreign entities or if it pretty much gives a go ahead for censoring domestic stuff because I have no idea how they plan to enforce that on community sites where posters may be from all over the world.

(D) coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

So "misinformation" is b&?

Who exactly decides and pulls the trigger on what gets banned? President? or the commerce secretary?

Is there anything else I am missing here that people should know?

I'm going to throw the spoiler'd webpage draft up on my Neocities after I get some more input/research from everyone here. Again please offer any suggestions/info. I want to ensure I am not over reacting about a nothing burger and that this is some serious shit to raise the alarm over.

Spoiler: Webpage draft

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <title>S.686 - RESTRICT Act</title>
 <style>
body {
  background-color: black;
 color: white;
padding: 5%;
}

h1 {
color: red;
}

h2 {
color: red;
}

</style>
  <body>
<h1>ATTENTION: S.686 - RESTRICT Act</h1>
<h2>AKA "The TikTok Ban"</h2>
Over the last few weeks, you may have heard of efforts by the US Government to push through legislation with the intent of banning of the video sharing app TikTok. The push to ban TikTok has recieved support from both Democrats and Republicans, and reportedly has overwhelming support in the Biden White House.
<br><br>
While the media is selling this favorably as a mere "TikTok ban," the legislation that would make this a reality, <b><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text">S.686 - RESTRICT Act</a></b>, is far more sinister than what is being reported on. This act gives the US Government (specifically the Secretary of Commerce, with little to no legislative safeguards) unprecedented ability to not only ban/censor TikTok, but also ban/censor <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idfb146fb9303a4846932778e31372b275"><i>any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display.</i></a> This includes websites, apps, video games, almost anything they wish relying on the Internet given the deliberately vague language used in defining "service."
<br><br>
<h2>What is included in this bill?</h2>

<ul>
<li><b>The RESTRICT Act is not limited to just TikTok. It gives the government authority over all forms of Information Technologies/Communication Technologies</b>

<ul>
<li>These services includes apps, websites, video games, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text#id90534e2815e642999acdaeb8ca41c1cf">even surveillance cameras/devices.</a> Basically anything with Internet communication capabilities
<ul>
<li>Grants govt increased access to surveillance of these services as well
</ul>
<li>Allows the US government the authority to enforce any action deemed necessary to mitigate the threat, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#id3d509e5397c849ba9ec6c2f72c43a72d">with no real legislative due process for doing so</a>
<li><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#idce63e8adbbf043b0baba5a74bf098ac6">If you try to bypass the censor/ban in any way you can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for up to 20 years</a>
<ul><li>It will allow US government to arrest people using VPNs to access these services that they do not deem to be "safe," and in essence put VPNs themselves at risk
</ul></ul>
<li><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text#id440ff64509024eb0af68bc4fce350065">Gives power to ban any social media influencers from all social media access whom they fit as national security threat.</a>
<ul>
<li>(Hopefully I am misinterpreting this one, but it sounds like the foundation for a blacklist?)
</ul>
<li>Any services with interests linked to <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#id19e21c10604441879f9df784e5767673">the following countries are at immediate risk of being banned:</a>
<ul>
<li>China
<li>Iran
<li>North Korea
<li>Russia
<li>Venezuela
</ul>
<li><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15#id4ee2978bff18422799d0b68a1f633b3f"> Freedom of Information requests regarding this entire operation <b>are forbidden</b></a>
</ul>

This "Restrict Act" is a gateway for the US to justify erecting its own "Great Firewall" of sorts. This is the most serious attempt at regulating the Internet seen in years, and no one seems to be talking about it.
<br><br>
tl;dr: The "Restrict Act" gives the Executive Branch/DOJ broad control with little legislative oversight over anything related to Internet communications and infrastructure. Be it apps, websites, home security services, "smart" cars, you name it, the govt will be granted to ability to not only to surveil it, but also ban/censor it, and punish anyone who attempts to circumnavigate said bans to access/share restricted content.
<br><br>
Needless to say this is really, really bad. Every media outlet is essentially misrepresenting this purposed law. Please don't fall for the propaganda. This isn't just about the government trying to get control over the digital narrative, this isn't just American companies trying to legislate a major competitor out of their market, and there is absolutely zero moral standing from our legislators against the spying accusations of the TikTok app when Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (all of them!) do it to an even greater extent and no one on Capitol Hill bats an eye. What this truly is, is an invitation to relinquish control over the access of digital information and the right to privacy to unchecked bureaucrats. The slippery slope is NOT a logical fallacy, any one who as paid attention long enough to this sort of thing knows that already, the potential is there with this legislation.
<br><br>
<h2>If you can, please get the word out about this.</h2>

<h2>Admittedly I am not a legal expert, so if anyone has anything worth adding or revising please email me.</h2>   
<br><br>
   <a href="https://youtuube.neocities.org/homepage">Return to homepage</a>
  </body>
</html>

 

[Natalia Simp]

Particularly I need someone to tell me if this is just targeted at foreign entities or if it pretty much gives a go ahead for censoring domestic stuff because I have no idea how they plan to enforce that on community sites where posters may be from all over the world.

It's already defined as such a few paragraphs above yours, emphasis mine:

(A) sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology products and services in the United States;

Mis/dis/mal-information is analogous to subversion of the institutions and services that make up the US, but IMO, it also extends to the products/services in the US. So it also covers hosted services like Twitter, FB, Tik Tok, etc.

Who exactly decides and pulls the trigger on what gets banned?

The first line of the bill has your answer, it's the Secretary of Commerce.

Is there anything else I am missing here that people should know?

There's a lot of combos with the Patriot Act that makes it worse, but that requires a LOT of reading. And the text of the bill will change over time as it passes through the various houses.

I'm going to throw the spoiler'd webpage draft up on my Neocities after I get some more input/research from everyone here.

It's a good start, and something is better than nothing. There's too much text IMO, it doesn't grab the attention of someone just browsing. I'm sure there's some movement out there that's on the internet working against this that has some artists; maybe team up?

I want to ensure I am not over reacting about a nothing burger and that this is some serious shit to raise the alarm over.

I'm obviously biased. My issue with this bill is the vague definitions that will allow it to be a political tool for the powerful, much like the Patriot Act.

Maybe someone like @IlluminatiPirate could come in and give light that cools our heads.

 

[LunarTrace]

This "Restrict Act" not only a gateway for the US to justify erecting its own "Great Firewall" of sorts, but it's the Patriot Act 2.0, with pre-emptive legislation targeting the newly developing fields of quantum encryption as well as biometrics.

Before I even knew anything about this Bill, I knew it'd be horrible based on the name alone. It's literally called the RESTRICT Act, as if it's completely unabashed about being an evil, Civil-Liberties sinkhole. Maybe that's the reason it has Bipartisan support in Congress and written support from the White House.
I swear, this shit is so tiring.

We could use some brainstorming to come up with a better way to explain this to normies.

If you want to reach the average normie, make a TikTok video explaining this Bill's consequences with Mr.Beast-esque subtitles and layer it over footage of Subway Surfers / Minecraft Parkour. It'll unironically spread like wildfire.

 

[LostintheCycle]

Here is Mr Rossman to help us out, I haven't watched it yet but Louis makes great videos every time, so it may be a good way to get the word out, which he's already doing promoting it to his subscribers, but word-of-mouth is good too.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Here is Mr Rossman to help us out, I haven't watched it yet but Louis makes great videos every time, so it may be a good way to get the word out, which he's already doing promoting it to his subscribers, but word-of-mouth is good too.

I'll give this a watch, started to see some news articles and prominent commentators start to dig into it the Restrict Act the last two days thankfully.

The funniest part is that even if this thing passes, that doesn't mean TikTok is banned from that point on, it just gives them the precedent to do so. They could just as easily say "psyche, TikTok isn't actually that bad, but fuck your VPNs and fringe websites that just so happen to have Russians using them"

 

[Pangolin]

I am happy to go to prison for using a VPN. They won't have a big enough prison for everyone. If you don't stand up to this cyber-dystopian world it will consume you, everyone you know and love, and ultimately destroy itself. Just like I refuse to participate in their wars of choice, I refuse to let go of my digital liberties as well.

RESTRICT Act Is Orwellian Censorship Grab Disguised As Anti-TikTok Legislation | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Its also the usual bad-actors hiding inside the Republican party supporting this bill. Don't get me wrong I understand the need to protect our nation from Chinese infiltration and influence, but these people have profiteered off Chinese influence for over 30 years. Where were they when all the jobs were shipped to China? Where were they when Chinese network equipment, telephony, security cameras, and computers and computer hardware flooded our nation for the past 20 years? I write this on a Chinese made keyboard, using a Chinese mouse, monitor, headphones, smartphone, desktop case etc.

Where were all these gov-boomers when china was flooding us with hardware and getting rich at our expense? Now they want to patch up their epic nation-ruining mistake with a dollar-store version of the great firewall. Today it'll be VPNs, tomorrow it'll be a mandatory spyware chip in your devices. Oh wait. Too late. The spyware chips are already included! Just like the failure of the patriot act, this restrict act will actually restrict internet liberties and offshore technology from America.

The Biden(Bidoofus) administration moves from blunder to blunder.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

but these people have profiteered off Chinese influence for over 30 years

As I said earlier, if they care so much about China getting a foothold within the US then why tf are the debating about an app rather than them buying up land here? I remember some theory a while back the Chinese were buying up homes near military bases as well but I don't know how true that is, but it's an interesting thought.

But I am not worried about China, I am not worried about the Middle East, nor I am I worried about Russia. The biggest threats are domestic originated and perpetuated by our oligarchs. Only an idiot thinks the same people who sold us out are going to be the ones to get us out of this mess.

 

[7Pebbles]

So what do you guys think the move is if this passes? I suppose they need to put out a list of banned software. Does one simply avoid using that software?
I guess the big question is, "What actually changes on a day-to-day scale?"

Do you guys think they'll ban things left and right, or just use the threat of it? Will we see an assault on things like VPNs or TOR? What about OSes that refuse to include a backdoor?

Would they even be able to enforce something on that scale? Would they be able to even detect it? TOR is pretty easy to stop, just get ISPs to ban it. Using a VPN could help you circumvent that, but what if they go for VPN companies? Could you set up a VPS in another country, connect to that, and then do what you want to do? TOR bridges are also an option.

I really hope they don't pass it, and that if they do, they don't ham-fistedly ban software left and right. But I can imagine a world in which it happens.

 

[RealTomCruise]

So what do you guys think the move is if this passes? I suppose they need to put out a list of banned software. Does one simply avoid using that software?
I guess the big question is, "What actually changes on a day-to-day scale?"

Do you guys think they'll ban things left and right, or just use the threat of it? Will we see an assault on things like VPNs or TOR? What about OSes that refuse to include a backdoor?

Would they even be able to enforce something on that scale? Would they be able to even detect it? TOR is pretty easy to stop, just get ISPs to ban it. Using a VPN could help you circumvent that, but what if they go for VPN companies? Could you set up a VPS in another country, connect to that, and then do what you want to do? TOR bridges are also an option.

I really hope they don't pass it, and that if they do, they don't ham-fistedly ban software left and right. But I can imagine a world in which it happens.

Here is my armchair speculations:

I think you'll really end up seeing things start to heat up around the bill when the next election cycle starts up, and accusations of foreign influence start to fly around as usual, I don't think the worry of foreign adversaries is very present in the American public conscience at the moment. Anything that gets remotely close to 9/11 levels of paranoia and division would go a long way.

As with most things of this nature, I think they'll use it quite sparingly at first on matters which the popular opinion agrees with, but you'll probably eventually see its use pick up. But that's sort of as initial public opinion would allow. Regulating ISPs would be a pretty easy means for most of the changes I'd imagine (although I'm quite tech illiterate in reality so I really couldn't tell you). I think the fines for circumvention will always remain mostly a threat more then anything though, I don't see them caring a whole lot about a few internet autists. It's hard to tell where this will go as I think we are just in the initial stages of them preparing the bill and making it palpable. The most important thing that could be done currently is to get the bill and it's contents even remotely within the public conscious.

 

[dorgon]

The more I read into this, the worse it gets. And it all makes perfect sense now why the media on all sides have been shilling this "TikTok Ban" so hard, yet I haven't heard a single outlet/politician refer specifically to this piece of legislation. That TikTok ban is just the front for this monstrosity of a bill, much like the vague threat of terrorism being what got us the Patriot Act.

Spoiler: Breakdown of Bill Sponsors

View attachment 57888

Had a hunch and was bored. unsurprisingly nearly everyone mentioned in this bill glows. This bill has overwhelming White House approval as well from what I've read.

• Senator Mark R. Warner (WEF 2016)
• Senator John R. Thune (WEF 2016, page 4)
• Senator Debra Fischer (WEF 2022)
• Senator Joe Manchin (WEF 2023)
• Senator Jerry Moran (Sponsored .Res.1148 - Expressing support for the mission and goals of the World Economic Forum in 2010)
• Senator Michael Bennet (WEF 2023)
• Senator Dan Sullivan (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (WEF 2021)
• Senator Susan Collins (WEF 2012)
• Senator Martin Heinrich (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)
• Senator Mitt Romney (Couldn't find any WEF attendance, but it's fucking Mitt Romney sooo)
• Senator Shelley Moore Capito (Couldn't find any record of WEF attendance)

That's 2/3rds of the people sponsoring this that I could definitively pull up with quick searches. Seriously is there an easy to browse complete list of WEF attendees/figures out there yet?
WEF involvement is merely surface level stuff though, you gotta be involved in some nasty business prior to even get the invite. But should give a good idea of where this sort of nonsensical legislation is coming from.

This "Restrict Act" not only a gateway for the US to justify erecting its own "Great Firewall" of sorts, but it's the Patriot Act 2.0, with pre-emptive legislation targeting the newly developing fields of quantum encryption as well as biometrics.

Here's the main highlights/breakdowns of the RESTRICT Act:

• The RESTRICT Act is not limited to just TikTok. It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad
• It will give the Secretary of Commerce the power to censor and/or ban any service with over 1 million users that they consider a threat to the US government
  
  • These services includes apps, websites, video games, even surveillance cameras/devices. Basically anything with Internet communication capabilities
    • Grants govt increased access to surveillance of these services
  • Allows the US government the authority to enforce any action deemed necessary to mitigate the threat, with no real legislative due process for doing so
  • If you try to bypass the censor/ban in any way you can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for up to 20 years
    • It will allow US government to arrest people using things like VPN to access these services that they do not deem to be "safe"
• Gives power to ban any social media influencers from all social media access whom they fit as national security threat
  • (Hopefully I am misinterpreting this one, but it sounds like the foundation for a blacklist?)
• Heavy restriction of cryptocurrency
• Freedom of Information requests regarding this entire operation are forbidden

tl;dr: The "Restrict Act" gives the Executive Branch/DOJ broad control with little legislative oversight over anything related to Internet communications and infrastructure. Be it apps, websites, home security services, "smart" cars, you name it, the govt will be granted to ability to not only to surveil it, but also ban/censor it, and punish anyone who attempts to circumnavigate said bans to access/share restricted content.

Needless to say this is really, really bad. Every media outlet is essentially misrepresenting this purposed law. Please don't fall for the propaganda. This isn't just about the government trying to get control over the digital narrative, this isn't just American companies trying to legislate a major competitor out of their market, and there is absolutely zero moral standing from our legislators against the spying accusations of the TikTok app when Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (all of them!) do it to an even greater extent and no one on Capitol Hill bats an eye. What this truly is, is an invitation to relinquish control over the access of digital information and the right to privacy to unchecked bureaucrats. The slippery slope is NOT a logical fallacy, any one who as paid attention long enough to this sort of thing knows that already, the potential is there with this legislation.

If you can, please get the word out about this.

uh oh, this is not good. I might actually post something similar to this on my blog site, so I might use this post as some inspiration for it, as my blog is probably the best way I can reach out to a larger audience.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

uh oh, this is not good. I might actually post something similar to this on my blog site, so I might use this post as some inspiration for it, as my blog is probably the best way I can reach out to a larger audience.

Yeah, it's bad, feel free. I got my page up with a QR code for anyone that wants to get the word out. As I have said, I am open to any suggestions to make this more palatable and accurate.

So what do you guys think the move is if this passes? I suppose they need to put out a list of banned software. Does one simply avoid using that software?

They won't need a list at first, even though the media labels this as "the TikTok ban" it doesn't even ensure TikTok specifically is banned when this gets passed. They can do a 180 and use this for whatever they want.

I guess the big question is, "What actually changes on a day-to-day scale?"

Hypothetically, if TikTok gets banned, people that crack and distribute the app on a noticeable scale will be punished.

Would they even be able to enforce something on that scale?

All they have to do is to make examples out of certain people, ie the people the crack that app, or it'd be similar to how they handled Napster/limewire piracy. Debt slave offenders to hell and back.
This will also give increased ammunition for feds to arrest dissenters as well. It gives a precedent to increase their sentences, because lord forbid they access a russian server to watch a shitpost outlawed by arbitrary copyright law.

Using a VPN could help you circumvent that, but what if they go for VPN companies?

Any VPN not working with glowies will be made a threat, guaranteed.

I really hope they don't pass it

Yeah me too, but has being an idealist ever done anything beyond wishing?

It's hard to tell where this will go as I think we are just in the initial stages of them preparing the bill and making it palpable.

You're mistaken, we're well passed that point, the propaganda on both sides has been thoroughly diffused. To the lesser informed they have already sold this as the "ban TikTok bill" rather effectively. In the US it appeals to the average joe because the MSM/journos said:

• China will go the route of Facebook/Google and datamine/exploit algorithms in an attempt to sway public consensus
  • The fringe press claims it will hack phones and wifi
• The hecking kids are falling for death cult viral challenges
  • ...that no one would have ever hear of if it werent for the news media seemingly promoting it

I don't see them caring a whole lot about a few internet autists

Depends on if said autists pick up traction as a voice of reason against the corporate press, if so they will absolutely weaponize this bill and do normal glowie tactics to shame them. Historically they've weaponized all the other 3 letter agencies against dissenters after all.

 

[RealTomCruise]

You're mistaken, we're well passed that point, the propaganda on both sides has been thoroughly diffused. To the lesser informed they have already sold this as the "ban TikTok bill" rather effectively. In the US it appeals to the average joe because the MSM/journos said:

• China will go the route of Facebook/Google and datamine/exploit algorithms in an attempt to sway public consensus
  • The fringe press claims it will hack phones and wifi
• The hecking kids are falling for death cult viral challenges
  • ...that no one would have ever hear of if it werent for the news media seemingly promoting

This is a good point, I haven't considered the sheer amount of build up involving TikTok as anything more malicious then clickbaiting, but whether initially intentional or not, we have had years of conditioning in the press, TikTok makes the perfect front.

Depends on if said autists pick up traction as a voice of reason against the corporate press, if so they will absolutely weaponize this bill and do normal glowie tactics to shame them. Historically they've weaponized all the other 3 letter agencies against dissenters after all.

This is also correct, of course if you gain any traction for dissenting it would be in their best interest to fully use the forces of the law to shut it down. I meant they wouldn't give a shit about the type of person who uses a VPN just to access banned services so long as they don't attempt to gather a traction against it.

What gives me some hope is how people I wouldn't expect, end up caring deeply about it. I think I may have accidentally redpilled one of my friends in a way when I mentioned it in passing, in the meantime he's brought up the contents of it numerous times with me and starting to realize the whole ban and similar legislation isn't some "ignorance of the boomer" like he's previously thought but a malicious force from the top for personal gain.

 

[Natalia Simp]

I guess the big question is, "What actually changes on a day-to-day scale?"

Remember no-fly lists? It's going to be that but with the internet. Hope you've got your 10th booster updated with your digital RealID, because you're not going to login to your ISPs network portal without that.

 

[dorgon]

Yeah, it's bad, feel free. I got my page up with a QR code for anyone that wants to get the word out. As I have said, I am open to any suggestions to make this more palatable and accurate.





They won't need a list at first, even though the media labels this as "the TikTok ban" it doesn't even ensure TikTok specifically is banned when this gets passed. They can do a 180 and use this for whatever they want.


Hypothetically, if TikTok gets banned, people that crack and distribute the app on a noticeable scale will be punished.


All they have to do is to make examples out of certain people, ie the people the crack that app, or it'd be similar to how they handled Napster/limewire piracy. Debt slave offenders to hell and back.
This will also give increased ammunition for feds to arrest dissenters as well. It gives a precedent to increase their sentences, because lord forbid they access a russian server to watch a shitpost outlawed by arbitrary copyright law.


Any VPN not working with glowies will be made a threat, guaranteed.


Yeah me too, but has being an idealist ever done anything beyond wishing?


You're mistaken, we're well passed that point, the propaganda on both sides has been thoroughly diffused. To the lesser informed they have already sold this as the "ban TikTok bill" rather effectively. In the US it appeals to the average joe because the MSM/journos said:

• China will go the route of Facebook/Google and datamine/exploit algorithms in an attempt to sway public consensus
  • The fringe press claims it will hack phones and wifi
• The hecking kids are falling for death cult viral challenges
  • ...that no one would have ever hear of if it werent for the news media seemingly promoting it

Depends on if said autists pick up traction as a voice of reason against the corporate press, if so they will absolutely weaponize this bill and do normal glowie tactics to shame them. Historically they've weaponized all the other 3 letter agencies against dissenters after all.

got done with the blog. It has a similar structure as your page but I changed some things around and added some more. We ought to share this to as much people as we can....