“Over the last eight months, the Trump administration has run roughshod over Congress and its constitutional prerogatives. Trump’s decision to ignore the TikTok ban on his first day in office may seem minor in the grand scheme of things, but it foreshadowed a series of far more aggressive moves to usurp much of lawmakers’ constitutional authority: dismantling congressionally-created agencies, redirecting congressionally appropriated funds and implementing a massive tax hike on the American public in the form of Trump’s chaotic tariff regime.
The vast majority of this was made possible by congressional Republicans, who have largely turned a blind eye to all of Trump’s gambits, and by the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, who have handed Trump a series of victories this year in his wide-ranging efforts to both unilaterally slash the federal government while dramatically expanding the powers of the presidency.
The acquiescence to Trump’s TikTok reprieve this year has been a far more bipartisan affair, but it has been a constitutional farce all the same, and it is not over yet.”
“the idea that people—especially young men—would not be radicalized if it weren’t for social media belies most of human history.
I’ve been listening recently to a podcast called A Twist of History. One episode details Adolf Hitler’s attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic in 1923. Another episode features a riot during a Shakespearean performance in New York City in 1849, fomented by Ned Buntline, a nativist newspaper pundit with ambitions of fame and notoriety. Both instances featured fringe political elements, violence, and deaths.
History is littered with examples like these: men driven to violence by people in close physical proximity, sometimes with the help of inflammatory political rhetoric printed in pamphlets and newspapers.
…
if he encountered bad ideas online, it’s because the internet is now where we encounter ideas. If he cloaked his violence in the language of internet memes, it’s because that’s where culture is these days.
In another era, he may have encountered bad ideas at a town hall and dressed up his horrific act in different slogans. But a man with a capacity for such premeditated and dramatic violence is a man with a capacity for such things in any era. And conversely, countless billions of people encounter the same online ecosystem without committing assassinations.”
Criminals can steal your car’s key fob’s signal and use that to steal your car. This is causing insurance rates to go up. Some kids do this because Tik Tok teaches them how to do it.
One through-line with many assassins and mass shooters beyond ideology is that they are young men with access and familiarity with guns who radicalized on the internet. This is happening with a variety of ideologies. The internet and access to guns are key causes in many of these tragedies.
Prominent people on the right are using this horrible murder to falsely blame Democrats and the entire left. They falsely claim all of the right is under attack, subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, encouraging more violence. While, of course, ignoring the times people on the left are attacked and murdered.
Gavin Newsom tweets in a manner that mirrors Trump’s tweets; Fox News calls it childish for a governor to tweet in such a way while not similarly criticizing the president of the United States. Ridiculous hypocrisy.
“”This case illustrates how the Section 230 precedent is fading, as courts keep chipping away at its edges to reach counterintuitive conclusions that should be clearly covered by Section 230,” writes law professor and First Amendment expert Eric Goldman on his Technology and Marketing Law Blog.
The case in question—Nazario v. Bytedance Ltd.—involves a tragedy turned into a cudgel against tech companies and free speech.
It was brought by Norma Nazario, a woman whose son died while “subway surfing”—that is, climbing on top of a moving subway train. She argues that her son, 15-year-old Zackery, and his girlfriend only did such a reckless thing because the boy “had
become addicted to” TikTok and Instagram and these apps had encouraged him to hop atop a subway car by showing him subway surfing videos.
Nazario is suing TikTok, its parent company (Bytedance), Instagram parent-company Meta, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the New York City Transit Authority, in a New York state court, with claims ranging from product liability and negligence to intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and wrongful death.
…
teenagers doing dangerous, reckless things is not some new and internet-created phenomenon. And the fact that a particular dangerous or reckless thing might be showcased on social media platforms doesn’t mean social media platforms caused or should be held liable for their death.”
“In 2024, Congress passed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which prohibited operating or hosting “a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok)” within the United States. The law required TikTok to find a buyer by January 19, 2025, or else shut down operations within the United States.
Ultimately, neither happened…Trump issued the executive order on his first day, “instructing the Attorney General not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today.” He has since issued two additional orders further extending the deadline
…
“But no president has the authority to simply postpone the enforcement of a law passed by Congress. The fact that Congress seems content to let Trump decline to enforce it does not obviate the law itself. And for that reason, if Congress will not repeal the law, then it should insist Trump enforce it.”
‘Social media like Twitter/X isn’t free speech. It’s ultra-processed speech. It’s speech like how Doritos is food. It is toxic and designed as such.’
‘Conspiracy believers are not just asking questions. They question the narrative but not the counter narrative. Their questioning isn’t the problem, but their certainty.’
“President Donald Trump will extend the deadline for TikTok to divest its U.S. assets by another 90 days, the White House said Tuesday, marking the third time enforcement of the 2024 law has been punted.”
…
“In Congress, Republicans are increasingly frustrated by the repeated extensions, but are still granting Trump space to negotiate a deal.
“We voted that it should be banned, and I look forward to the day that they can’t continue to propagate Chinese talking points,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) on Tuesday before the announcement.
Few lawmakers have been willing to voice their frustrations publicly, wary of crossing the president, even as they’re frustrated by a TikTok negotiation that shows little sign of movement.
One exception is Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), the head of the House select committee on China, who warned in a public op-ed in March that nothing short of complete divestment from Beijing would suffice.”