‘Your argument just confuses me’: judge questions Montana TikTok ban
theguardian.com
Federal judge seems to side with ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation that ban is unenforceable and unconstitutional
A federal judge appeared skeptical about Montana’s TikTok ban in a hearing on Thursday, telling representatives of the state that their argument for restrictions on the app “just confuses me”.
US district judge Donald Molloy heard arguments in a case filed by TikTok and five Montana content creators who want the court to block the state’s ban on the video-sharing app before it takes effect 1 January.
Molloy called the impending ban “paternalistic”, according to the Washington Post. After an hour, Molloy ended the hearing without ruling on the request for an injunction on the digital prohibition.
You are viewing a single comment
I’m NOT saying I disagree with the conclusion, but the judge’s reasoning would negate all sorts of consumer protections as paternalistic. You agreed to join Facebook, so you “voluntarily” allow them to track you, manipulate you, and sell your information without any limits. It’s a kind of deeply libertarian argument, just like how you “voluntarily” agreed to work a job, so why would you get worker protections? If you don’t like it, just quit!
Some “paternalistic” laws function under the reasoning that markets don’t always work. Not all consent is informed. Not all choices have sufficient alternatives that allow consumers to choose otherwise. Busy consumers may not have the information or energy to understand all the ways corporations abuse their power.
Well yeah, the ruling would effect all places that take your data then, not just tiktok.
The law only specified apps that share data with foreign governments (as a way to target TikTok by it's China links) so the ruling would not go beyond that. The judge could rule the law is invalid, but could not expand it to include domestic companies. That would be up to the legislature.