You must log in or register to comment.

WaitingForNormal t1_jec3hsp wrote

“We hate china, but we want to be exactly like china.”


Much_Schedule_9431 t1_jeclxt2 wrote

“First we tried to build the physical wall, now we’re gonna try to build the cyber wall as well!”


ron_fendo t1_jedq0r3 wrote

More like "We refuse to build the physical wall, but we want to build a cyber wall."


Jorycle t1_jefnm7q wrote

This is unironically what many people seem to have argued when defending TikTok bans and this bill.

Protip guys, "So? China bans our apps" is not the winning argument you seem to think it is.

I didn't even see there are already at least 3 guys in here saying almost exactly that before I hit post.


dogegunate t1_jeg3hsm wrote

I saw a fairly upvoted comment on /r/worldnews about wanting to basically balkanize the internet into "west vs east" and cutting off complete access to Russia and China. It's amazing how people are so ready to punish millions of innocent people and adopt very authoritarian measures just because they hate Russia and China.

It really makes me think of when Reagan made a speech saying "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". But nowadays, it's the West that wants to put up walls. So much for the ideas of freedom and liberty.


hw_convo t1_jecr4ol wrote

Yeah it does sound a lot like overreach


Rombom t1_jeemgn2 wrote

We call that feeling "envy".


VelveteenAmbush t1_jed4ffv wrote

Not sure why reciprocating protectionism is such a bad thing. We do that in trade all the time. But in apps specifically, China can ban all of ours but we can't ban theirs?


bigflamingtaco t1_jed69c1 wrote

If you think the bill is about banning security threats. I've got some ocean front property for you in Arizona.


VelveteenAmbush t1_jegt3yf wrote

Is that your actual objection or just an excuse? If there were a clean bill that banned TikTok but didn't do whatever other bad things you're worried about, you'd support it?


dragonmp93 t1_jedfilg wrote

Well, that's why we have to learn to leave with Facebook and TikTok despite their effects.


UsecMyNuts t1_jeddzdm wrote

The bill allows a punishment of 20 years prison and a $250k-$1m fine for posting anything, and I mean anything the government finds unsavoury online.

By this law it’s possible that playing a video game and talking about guns/bombs could land you in jail for 20 years and all of your property is seized by the government.

Once you’re labelled a threat to national security they can search any of your computers, phones, notebooks, social media’s for anything that they deem unsavoury and take quite literally anything out of context and use it against you.

Tweeted a meme about 9/11? Jail

Called a politician an asshole? Jail

Watching YouTube videos about Islam? Believe it or not straight to jail.


SpiritualOrangutan t1_jedvmxn wrote

Source? Saw nothing indicating that when I looked the law up


Bannon9k t1_jeeoldm wrote

Same source as all redditors... He made it up.

The law is shitty for sure, but not how this guy is thinking. It's shitty because it was written poorly, not because the "guvment comin to get ya"


ms1711 t1_jeevwkt wrote

Because it's definitely not written "badly" and vague on purpose! The government never oversteps its bounds!

Well-written laws are narrow and clear. Any room for "interpretation" is room for abuse.


atwegotsidetrekked t1_jee0h7a wrote

Because in a free society, the citizens can decide for themselves to use or not. You are welcome to boycott any app you want.

The biggest issue is that all the worries would be solved with mirroring the GDRP in Europe. Instead of passing a bill that protects its citizens from all the awful privacy issues from both Chinese and American apps, they chose to mirror China in a police state authoritarian approach.


VelveteenAmbush t1_jefpifg wrote

The biggest issue is programming, not privacy.

Should we have allowed the USSR to operate a major television broadcasting network in the US at the height of the Cold War?

The GDPR has nothing to do with that concern.

Anyway, "citizens can decide for themselves" is not how we usually handle trade disputes. If Country X tariffs or bans our widgets, we usually respond by tariffing or banning their doohickeys. It isn't up to our citizens to decide for themselves whether to use Country X's doohickeys.


atwegotsidetrekked t1_jefw86i wrote

Yes we had access to Soviet TV. I am GenX and grew up in the 80s. We even studied Soviet culture in Social Studies in High Schools. Because we are supposed to be the better system and not in fear of lesser authoritarian regimes.

But you obviously would rather live in China


VelveteenAmbush t1_jefz923 wrote

> Yes we had access to Soviet TV.

That isn't what I asked.


atwegotsidetrekked t1_jeg261s wrote

Obviously you have Fascist tendencies. You want to restrict freedom in some weird (and not true) attempt of safety.

But, the only social media that has actually been successful in supporting the overthrow of the United States was Facebook. The only social media that used personal data to manipulate an election was Facebook.

It’s absolutely absurd


dogegunate t1_jeg3ryj wrote

The West is supposed to be championing ideas of freedom and liberty. So yes, we should be allowing that because we have decided as a society that it is up to the people to decide what they want to think and not what the government dictates them to think. Or do you want to be like authoritarian China where we put up a Great Firewall to block anything that government deems a "threat"?


VelveteenAmbush t1_jegezam wrote

If your conception of freedom and liberty means that the US would have been required to allow the USSR to own and operate CBS during the Cold War, then you're living in another universe.


dogegunate t1_jegn7xs wrote

What the fuck are you talking about? You're talking about the Soviets acquiring and operating a major US news station, not that the Soviets have their own news station they operate that we can view if we want to in the US.

Go strawman someone else.

Also, allow doesn't mean required. But I guess you're so neck deep in straw that you can't read a dictionary.


VelveteenAmbush t1_jegos18 wrote

> acquiring

No, just owning would be enough

Cool it with the insults, they only make you sound fragile


MargretTatchersParty t1_jebavgz wrote

These are the senators that are sponsoring and cosponsoring the bill:


Contact your representatives now:


[deleted] t1_jebyqx2 wrote



Ominusone t1_jecnr0i wrote

I'm just shocked Fox News is covering it and making it look like a bad idea instead of praising it.


jayRIOT t1_jed0yqo wrote

No worries, they've already moved on to telling their audience about the leftist, socialist, politically motivated conspiracy that got Trump indicted today.


MargretTatchersParty t1_jec0x9d wrote

His name is signed to it. Doesn't matter. If you're a constituent to him. Email and let him know you're disappointed in is actions.


Jedi_Outcast t1_jed0vm3 wrote

And that guy keeps getting elected too.


Zelstrom t1_jee5uly wrote

Half the country thinks religious "freedom" laws that allow bigots to bully anything they don't like are a good idea. Of course he keeps getting re-elected.


ShawnyMcKnight t1_jebelan wrote

Don't have my state.... don't have my state.... don't have my state


Fucking Deb Fischer....


MargretTatchersParty t1_jebfu5b wrote

Make it known that she will be unwelcome in your state and not voted for again. Even if this doesn't pass.. they'll try to pass a similar bill later.


I have "I vote for America" but when it comes to rights it's "I blew off my legs so I can break your encryption" Duckworth.


ShawnyMcKnight t1_jebg2s5 wrote

But she is welcome, she is very welcome. Outside of the two big cities in NE she pretty much gets all the votes.


MargretTatchersParty t1_jebkeoc wrote

The only way to get your point across to these people is to get the people who they rely on for support to understand how bad it would be for them. Communicate that the effects of the Liconianians will have on their lives and the threats created under this bil to them.


Patient_Commentary t1_jecpdu9 wrote

CA.. not on the list. Phew.


Ulpian02 t1_jee0gls wrote

Reasons I am so glad I didn’t wind up having to intern with a particular congressman from my state 101


Shartshooter01 t1_jede4f8 wrote

Here's a template you can use if you can't be bothered to write your own.

Subject: Urgent: Please Oppose the Restrict Act - Protect Our Freedoms

Dear [Representative's Name],

I hope this email finds you in good health and high spirits. My name is [Your Name], and I am a concerned citizen residing in [Your City/Town], [Your State]. I am writing to you today to express my deep concern regarding the Restrict Act, which is currently under consideration. I implore you not to support this legislation and to actively oppose it to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of our citizens.

The Restrict Act, as it stands, presents a number of troubling implications for our society:

Infringement on Privacy: The Act would grant extensive surveillance powers to government agencies, eroding the privacy rights of millions of Americans. This sets a dangerous precedent, as it further encroaches upon our Fourth Amendment rights.

Suppression of Free Speech: The broad scope of the legislation may lead to the suppression of free speech and expression, both online and offline. The Act's vague language could be interpreted in ways that stifle dissenting opinions and penalize lawful protest, undermining our First Amendment rights.

Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities: The Restrict Act is likely to disproportionately affect marginalized communities, who have historically been subjected to greater scrutiny and surveillance. This would further perpetuate social inequity and injustice in our society.

Misallocation of Resources: The resources allocated to enforce the Restrict Act could be better spent addressing pressing issues in our state, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. These areas are in dire need of attention and funding, and would benefit our citizens far more than the implementation of a repressive law.

I strongly urge you to take these concerns into account and to stand up for the rights and freedoms of your constituents by opposing the Restrict Act. As an elected representative, your primary duty is to protect and uphold the best interests of the people you serve. By opposing this legislation, you would be demonstrating a commitment to preserving the democratic values that make our nation great.


[Your Full Name] [Your Address] [City, State, ZIP Code] [Your Email Address] [Your Phone Number]

Disclaimer: text generated by ChatGPT.


rumtiki t1_jeco1fk wrote

This bill is written very vaguely giving unilateral control to the government to pivot and do more without having to draft or justify their actions.

It’s akin to the patriot act and mark my words if this passes we will see a scale back in freedom of speech all in the name of National interests.

Just like the fight for net neutrality this needs to be fought just as hard if not harder


Flashy_Night9268 t1_jee3ale wrote

Bipartisan support from the octogenarians that legislate the internet- something that didn't exist until they were retirement age.


E_Snap t1_jeefv27 wrote

They’ve been plenty evil for decades. Don’t give them a pass and call it stupidity.


Flashy_Night9268 t1_jeei90g wrote

Evil and stupid are not mutually exclusive. Someone said ignorance is the great evil.


kumarei t1_jeb54nq wrote

Sigh. This article has some legitimate criticism of the bill, such as the jingo-ism animating it and the first amendment implications of banning TikTok.

Alongside that, though, is the same sky-is-falling rhetoric. It's justified by linking another article which uses as its source... not joking... "Internet Rumors". Maybe just ask a lawyer before saying what the bill does or doesn't do?

Possibly one from the EFF, for example? They'd even be on your side in opposing the bill.


MC68328 t1_jebvt2v wrote

>It's justified by linking another article which uses as its source... not joking... "Internet Rumors".

This is the article he's vague-commenting about:

> Maybe just ask a lawyer before saying what the bill does or doesn't do?

What a weird thing to say when there are idiots in Congress with law degrees who don't understand the law, the Constitution, or the consequences of what they write or vote on.


soad2237 t1_jecj3x1 wrote

The one criticism I've seen about this bill regarding VPNs just grinds my gears. People don't understand that VPNs are absolutely critical and are not going anywhere.


Dauvis t1_jecml39 wrote

Yes, while there is some exaggeration, I can see at some point in the future that personal use of VPN could be used as probable cause to issue a warrant.

Given how some ostensibly written laws have been abused in the past, please understand my cynicism.


masstransience t1_jed2n7a wrote

Then you’d be happy to know that that’s all rumor and not mentioned at all in the bill.

Ironically, the spread of that rumor shows precisely the undue influence TikTok and unchecked social media can have over a populace.

Don’t get me wrong, the bill is shit and gives too many broad powers to the executive branch, but you don’t have to make fear mongering accusations to say so.

The real problem is data protection and Congress should be passing something akin to the GDPR in Europe or the CCPA in California to get closer to solving the actual problem.


soad2237 t1_jed9h4d wrote

Yeah it seems like the fact that the bill might restrict service providers from offering services from certain countries that are considered bad actors is what is causing the rumor. I agree, there's a bunch of shit to talk about regarding the bill but everyone is focusing on the fear mongering rumors.


Xifihas t1_jed7vcg wrote

Once again the nation that crows incessantly about freedom moves to strip freedom from its citizens.


Head-Ad4770 t1_jedet06 wrote

And then China is going to be angry that we copied their Great Firewall without their consent, and WW3 possibly happens. 🙄


wonderfulworld99 t1_jecak93 wrote

Firewall? Not even the most despotic tyranny have had such power as the one the government will get with this bill. Bye bye all freedoms.


oldsaxman t1_jed33pa wrote

Completely unworkable and fascists


Rougescholar76 t1_jebu3li wrote

This shit wont pass


masstransience t1_jed2r3p wrote

Can you imagine the GOP just handing those powers over to a Democratic President? Not in a million years.


Disastrous_Ball2542 t1_jedzft5 wrote

The RESTRICT act is disguised as an attack on tiktok but it is really an attack on all Americans freedom of internet and privacy... the real motive is to ban VPNs and moderate content


Slave2theGrind t1_jed67ot wrote

Bonus points for the first one to get a member of congress to break it by clicking a email link. Double points for the senator.


InvisibleEar t1_jedp2e7 wrote

He's my senator so I guess complaining to my senator will do even more nothing than usual


frickin_moron t1_jeeyvee wrote

Ditto. I was thinking about writing, but it's not like Warner is going to change his mind about a bill he created.


atwegotsidetrekked t1_jedzn3k wrote


What the RESTRICT Act creates, in a massive overreaction to concerns about Chinese-based companies, is a system for the US to create its own Great Firewall. Our attempt at pushing back on China only serves to make the US more like China, and stupidly bless their repressive and illiberal approach to banning foreign companies. Warner, in fact, more or less admits all of this in an interview he gave to Russell Brandom at Rest of World. Brandom highlights just how anti-open internet and illiberal all of this is, and Warner’s response is basically “but China made us do it”:

  • But for me, it comes back to the hypocrisy of the Chinese government. China has prohibited American apps like Facebook and Google from their market for years. The Chinese version of Twitter is completely censored by the Chinese government.

So, because China takes a dictatorial, authoritarian, illiberal approach to the internet, so must the US?


hatebyte t1_jee7qcl wrote

How incompetent are these people. We know the patriotic is insufferably tyrannical and yet, they still try to rule you more.

And the French are yet again, doing what Americans should be doing.


iRedditonFacebook t1_jed4dhq wrote

Just rename it to something like "Internet PATRIOT Act" or some feel-good bullshit so the brainwashed people think they're being patriotic.


hivemind_disruptor t1_jed6owc wrote

That is a pretty name for an Iron Curtain. Ant website whose content the US is unable to control will be banned. Just wait for it.


TriggeredXL t1_jedfnon wrote

Lol @ the contact your senators comment. Yes please do and watch them not give a fuck and reply with a cut and paste response that basically says go fuck yourself.

Repeat it with me, we are living under feudalism with extra steps. Now move along peasants.


Aggravating-Goat1073 t1_jedmlla wrote

Sometimes they respond but one email won’t usually won’t work. Send multiple emails and call multiple times until they take you seriously.


council2022 t1_jee7nh9 wrote

They are obligated to have your correspondence reviewed by federal & state homeland security Intel. It all goes into your dossier.


TriggeredXL t1_jeeq1f6 wrote

At this point it’s safe to say everything we’re typing, messaging, communicating is being stored in some form and loaded into a database of sorts.


council2022 t1_jefhc58 wrote

Maybe work on laws discouraging that. The way modern computers work you can't oulaw database interaction, but building a Dossier is different. The World Council's Dossier Act compels open dialog between those doing it on all sides. In the US with its current nonsense portrayed as Congress, it'll be too late, already is, to fix the mess they make. Good luck into meltdown.


Zeduca t1_jedhs7l wrote

So Warner doesn’t know what is a firewall, much less what it does.


CyberAsura t1_jedoqia wrote

Strip away America freedom little by little until they are in total power. Deep down America just want to be like China.


QueenOfQuok t1_jee56b3 wrote

At least the name of the bill is honest this time, unlike the PATRIOT act


Ent_Soviet t1_jedmju0 wrote

Is this what freedom tastes like?


cryptosupercar t1_jedvdij wrote

She's out of her tiny little mind. What a full blown fascist. Sheesh.


MotorballPlayer99 t1_jee27b1 wrote

Except it’s probably more about blocking out competitors which certainly was also a consideration in China


ReturnOfSeq t1_jeefqyo wrote

The RESTRICT act is going to make our internet look more like china’s or Russia’s.


JubalHarshaw23 t1_jeft529 wrote

Why is Warner even bothering? SCOTUS is well on it's way to bench legislating something far more destructive.


zam0th t1_jedhzbo wrote

If that digital wall holds all the crazy US stuff from reaching us in other countries, i'd say it's a win.


whoamvv t1_jedg63y wrote

I fucking double dog dare them to do this. Can you even imagine the power of every hacker, hobbyist, and hat in the nation directed against the federal government? They are truly starting a fight they cannot possibly win.


lanahci t1_jecp0dp wrote

Was bound to happen. If not now, then by the time we end up at war with China.