Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
TOMDM | on: TikTok goes dark in the US
It was explicitly written in this law specifically that the president can unilaterally decide that an affected platform has done enough to no longer qualify for the ban.
cluckindan | parent | next
America is looking more and more like a fascist dictatorship.
refurb | root | parent | next
Because a separate legislative power decided to give the President certain powers?

That’s the opposite of fascist.

alkonaut | root | parent | next
They are supposed to be separate. The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate".

You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.

loading story #42757591
Vampiero | root | parent | next
It's only fascism when the guy has a mustache
spacechild1 | root | parent
That's exactly how Hitler came to power. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
refurb | root | parent
No it's not.

The Enabling Act removed the power of the legislature. This is the exact opposite - the legislature still has power.

cluckindan | root | parent | next
Only superficially: the dictator cannot be subjected to any judicial control, but the dictator’s party has a two-thirds majority on the top rung of the judicial system.
spacechild1 | root | parent
When you give the president additional power, the legislative loses some of its own power. The Enabling Act is just the most extreme example.
refurb | root | parent
The President doesn't have additional powers in the Tiktok example.

The President has always been able to veto laws. Biden could have vetoed the bill if he wanted.

And a Congress that passes a bill that says the President has a say in it's execution isn't odd either. The administrative body always has powers of execution.

And Congress is free to pass a law to reverse the law and make Tiktok legal if they want.

nthingtohide | root | parent | next
America is a DeepState autocratic core with a veneer of Democracy.
luxuryballs | root | parent
it’s about to start looking significantly less fascist if Trump admin can pull off their various goals and shake off some of the entrenched regulatory capture
cluckindan | root | parent
Views centered on revolutionary nationalism. Using judicial means to remove opposition and replace holders of governmental positions with followers. Commanding paramilitary forces into an assault at the capital. Consolidation of power to close allies and financial supporters. Alienation of democratic powers. Foreign policy aimed at expanding the nation’s possessions.

The parallels to Mussolini are not nonexistent.

luxuryballs | root | parent
would love to see some citations on these… you work for the weather channel severe weather department by chance?
itfossil | parent | next
No it wasn't. The law specifically states that the president can only enact an extension in the event that TikTok is credibly attempting to negotiate a sale. They are not doing that, hence an extension will not happen.
loading story #42759057