Montana’s TikTok Ban Was to Protect Free Speech and the United States' First Amendment
THIS is just a quick, relatively terse statement. Seeing that Koch-funded sites (e.g. [1, 2]) rush to talk about the First Amendment in relation to a judge's decision against a TikTok ban, we ought to at least say something. The EFF, which was supposed to foster Free Speech (capitalised), called this "Victory". Maybe not entirely shocking though; the "free speech" people at the EFF don't grasp this concept, they view it similarly to Elon Musk.
We've written a great deal about TikTok. We also mentioned this about 20-30 times earlier today in IRC (see the scrollback). But to avoid repetition and to keep the argument concise, one must remember what TikTok is and what it does. Not what it says it does but what it does, in practice, strive to accomplish.
TikTok does not embrace free speech. TikTok comes from a country that does not recognise this concept. TikTok actively undermines free speech and does many other negative things. To claim that TikTok being allowed to carry on with its weaponised influence operations constitutes a "VICTORY!" (to quote the EFF) is to challenge the very mission of the EFF.
Shame on the EFF and shame on "deregulation"-centric Koch-funded sites. The ruling is an own goal for the United States. Other countries should not take this 'precedent' and instead assess Montana’s legislation as a blueprint. If TikTok was made by and controlled by Iran, and the same thing happened, would the EFF issue a similar press release? █