My take - if the US is still the "land of the free" then the government should not be banning citizens access to apps.
The idea of politicians in the house and senate (or president) deciding which apps to ban from the app stores will likely lead to similar actions against websites, from the article:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
"National security" is a nebulous term that feels like an excuse to ban competitors on behalf of lobbyists at Meta or elsewhere, this is not in the interest of the majority of citizens.
> My take - if the US is still the "land of the free" then the government should not be banning citizens access to apps.
That's nonsense when phrased so broadly. I mean, your condition would even include apps that, say, drained the user's bank account without authorization. A twee libertarian might insist on that, but practically it can't work (sort of like arachno-capitalism, the Ununoctium of political ideologies).
> As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
You've omitted the "foreign adversary controlled application" language from your quote, which is an important qualification and the omission is misleading and inflammatory.
danboarder|1 year ago
The idea of politicians in the house and senate (or president) deciding which apps to ban from the app stores will likely lead to similar actions against websites, from the article:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
"National security" is a nebulous term that feels like an excuse to ban competitors on behalf of lobbyists at Meta or elsewhere, this is not in the interest of the majority of citizens.
tivert|1 year ago
That's nonsense when phrased so broadly. I mean, your condition would even include apps that, say, drained the user's bank account without authorization. A twee libertarian might insist on that, but practically it can't work (sort of like arachno-capitalism, the Ununoctium of political ideologies).
> As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
You've omitted the "foreign adversary controlled application" language from your quote, which is an important qualification and the omission is misleading and inflammatory.