The bill that will force a sale or ban of TikTok in the United States is now law. President Joe Biden signed a package of foreign aid bills that included the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” one day after the legislation was approved by the Senate.

In a statement, TikTok said it would challenge the law in court, which could delay an eventual sale or ban. “This unconstitutional law is a TikTok ban, and we will challenge it in court,” the company said. “We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail. The fact is, we have invested billions of dollars to keep U.S. data safe and our platform free from outside influence and manipulation. This ban would devastate seven million businesses and silence 170 million Americans.”

The law gives TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, which is based in China, up to a year to sell the app to a new owner. If the company fails to divest, then TikTok will be banned from US app stores and web hosting services.

Unlike previous attempts to force a sale or ban of the app, the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” had overwhelming bipartisan support and was able to move through Congress with remarkable speed. The original version of the bill, which called for a six-month window to divest, passed the House in March, just days after it was introduced. An updated version, which allows up to 12 months for a divestment, passed over the weekend.

In a video shared on TikTok, CEO Shou Chew called it a “disappointing moment” for the company. “Make no mistake, this is a ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,” he said. “It's actually ironic because the freedom of expression on TikTok reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom.”

Developing...

A bill that could ban TikTok is now all but certain to become law. The Senate approved a measure that requires ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban, in a vote of 79 - 18. The “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” will next head to President Joe Biden, who has said he would sign the bill into law.

While it’s far from the first effort to force a ban or divestment of the social media app, the bill managed to draw far more support than previous attempts. The bill was introduced in March and sailed through the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan agreement. A slightly revised version was approved as part of a package of foreign aid legislation on Saturday.

Under the updated terms, TikTok would have up to 12 months to divest from parent company ByteDance or face a ban in US app stores and web hosting services. The company has called the bill unconstitutional and indicated it would mount a legal challenge to such a law, which could further delay an eventual sale or ban.

The company didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

TikTok has long been viewed with suspicion by lawmakers and the intelligence community. Ahead of votes in the House and Senate, members of Congress were briefed by intelligence officials on the alleged national security threat posed by the app. The exact nature of those concerns is still unclear, though some members of Congress have asked for details from the briefings to be declassified.

At the same time, some lawmakers have expressed skepticism, saying that the alleged threat posed by TikTok is largely hypothetical. Free speech and digital rights groups also oppose the bill, noting that comprehensive privacy legislation would be a more effective way of protecting Americans’ personal data. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has made a similar argument, telling Congress last year that a forced sale wouldn’t resolve data concerns about the app.

But TikTok’s recent efforts to muster opposition to the bill may have backfired. Lawmakers rebuked the company for sending in-app notifications to users about the bill after the alerts resulted in a flood of calls to Congressional offices. And the app may have drawn even more suspicion when Politico reported last week that Chinese diplomats were lobbying Congressional staffers to oppose the bill. Officials in China have condemned the measure. A Chinese law, passed in 2020, could prevent ByteDance from including TikTok’s recommendation algorithm in a sale of the app.

A Russian military court sentenced Meta spokesperson Andy Stone in absentia to six years in prison for "publicly defending terrorism," Reuters reports. Stone's lawyer reportedly asked for an acquittal and there are plans to appeal the sentence. 

A few months after Russian officials placed him on a wanted list and started a criminal investigation, a Moscow court issued an arrest warrant for Stone on several terrorism-related charges in February. It cited Stone's alleged "promotion of terrorist activities, public calls for terrorist activities, public justification of terrorism or propaganda of terrorism and public calls for extremist activities."

The measure follows Russia's investigative committee opening a probe into Meta in March 2022. It claimed that Stone had incited extremist activity after lifting "a ban on calls for violence against the Russian military on its platforms." Around that time, Stone said Meta was "temporarily" allowing some posts that would have previously been taken down for inciting violence to stay on its platforms, but noted that the company would still outlaw “credible calls for violence against Russian civilians.”

In any case, it seems unlikely that Stone will actually spend time behind bars in Russia, unless he were to travel there or to a country that has an extradition treaty with the nation. It's not uncommon for a person to be charged or sentenced (often for spying- or hacking-related crimes) in another country and never actually have to deal with those consequences.

Russia has designated Meta as an extremist organization. It blocked access to Facebook and Instagram soon after commencing its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Engadget has contacted Meta for comment.

President Biden this weekend signed into law a bill that reauthorizes a controversial spying program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Section 702 of FISA, which has now been extended for two more years, allows for warrantless intelligence gathering on foreign targets. While its focus is on the communications of targets located outside the US, that includes any exchanges with people stateside, meaning Americans’ records can get swept up in these collections too.

The Senate vote on reauthorizing Section 702 came down to the wire. It was set to expire on Friday at midnight, but was recently given an extension until April 2025, according to The New York Times, lest it lapse while disagreements over proposed amendments dragged on. Section 702’s extension period was also shortened, cutting it down to two years instead of the previous five. Congress did ultimately miss the deadline on Friday, but it passed with a 60-34 vote, CBS News reported. The White House issued a statement not long after saying the president “will swiftly sign the bill into law.”

Section 702 was first signed into law in 2008 and has been renewed twice already, allowing US intelligence agencies to use data from internet and cell phone providers without a warrant to keep tabs on foreign targets’ communications.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Saturday that could either see TikTok banned in the country or force its sale. A revised version of the bill, which previously passed the House in March but later stalled in Senate, was roped in with a foreign aid package this time around, likely meaning it will now be treated as a higher priority item. The bill originally gave TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, six months to sell the app or it would be banned from US app stores. Under the revised version, ByteDance would have up to a year to divest.

The bill passed with a vote of 360-58 in the House, according to AP. It’ll now move on to the Senate, which could vote on it as soon as days from now. President Joe Biden has previously said he would support the bill if Congress passes it.

Apple users in China won't be able to find and download WhatsApp and Threads from the App Store anymore, according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. The company said it pulled the apps from the store to comply with orders it received from Cyberspace Administration, China's internet regulator, "based on [its] national security concerns." It explained to the publications that it's "obligated to follow the laws in the countries where [it operates], even when [it disagrees]."

The Great Firewall of China blocks a lot of non-domestic apps and technologies in the country, prompting locals to use VPN if they want to access any of them. Meta's Facebook and Instagram are two of those applications, but WhatsApp and Threads have been available for download until now. The Chinese regulator's order comes shortly before the Senate is set to vote on a bill that could lead to a TikTok ban in the US. Cyberspace Administration's reasoning — that the apps are a national security concern — even echoes American lawmakers' argument for blocking TikTok in the country. 

In the current version of the bill, ByteDance will have a year to divest TikTok, or else the short form video-sharing platform will be banned from app stores. The House is expected to pass the bill, which is part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel. President Joe Biden previously said that he supports the package and will immediately sign the bills into law. 

The bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States appears to be much closer to becoming law. The legislation sailed through the House of Representatives last month, but faced an uncertain future in the Senate due to opposition from a few prominent lawmakers.

But momentum for the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” seems to once again be growing. The House is set to vote on a package of bills this weekend, which includes a slightly revised version of the TikTok bill. In the latest version of the bill, ByteDance would have up to 12 months to divest TikTok, instead of the six-month period stipulated in the original measure.

That change, as NBC News notes, was apparently key to winning over support from some skeptical members of the Senate, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. So with the House expected to pass the revised bill Saturday — it’s part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel — its path forward is starting to look much more certain, with a Senate vote coming “as early as next week,” according to NBC. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill if it’s passed by Congress.

If passed into law, TikTok (and potentially other apps "controlled by a foreign adversary" and deemed to be a national security threat) would face a ban in US app stores if it declined to sell to a new owner. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has suggested the company would likely mount a legal challenge to the law.

“It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually,” TikTok said in a statement.

The News/Media Alliance, formerly the Newspaper Association of America, asked US federal agencies to investigate Google’s removal of links to California news media outlets. Google’s tactic is in response to the proposed California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA), which would require it and other tech companies to pay for links to California-based publishers’ news content.

The News/Media Alliance, which represents over 2,200 publishers, sent letters to the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission and California State Attorney General on Tuesday. It says the removal “appears to be either coercive or retaliatory, driven by Google’s opposition to a pending legislative measure in Sacramento.”

The CJPA would require Google and other tech platforms to pay California media outlets in exchange for links. The proposed bill passed the state Assembly last year.

In a blog post last week announcing the removal, Google VP of Global News Partnerships Jaffer Zaidi warned that the CJPA is “the wrong approach to supporting journalism” (because Google’s current approach totally hasn’t left the industry in smoldering ruins!). Zaidi said the CJPA “would also put small publishers at a disadvantage and limit consumers’ access to a diverse local media ecosystem.” Nothing to see here, folks: just your friendly neighborhood multi-trillion-dollar company looking out for the little guy!

Google described its link removal as a test to see how the bill would impact its platform:

“To prepare for possible CJPA implications, we are beginning a short-term test for a small percentage of California users,” Zaidi wrote. “The testing process involves removing links to California news websites, potentially covered by CJPA, to measure the impact of the legislation on our product experience. Until there’s clarity on California’s regulatory environment, we’re also pausing further investments in the California news ecosystem, including new partnerships through Google News Showcase, our product and licensing program for news organizations, and planned expansions of the Google News Initiative.”

In its letters, The News/Media Alliance lists several laws it believes Google may be breaking with the “short-term” removal. Potential federal violations include the Lanham Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The letter to California’s AG cites the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, regulations against false advertising and misrepresentation, the California Consumer Privacy Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

“Importantly, Google released no further details on how many Californians will be affected, how the Californians who will be denied news access were chosen, what publications will be affected, how long the compelled news blackouts will persist, and whether access will be blocked entirely or just to content Google particularly disfavors,” News/Media Alliance President / CEO Danielle Coffey wrote in the letter to the DOJ and FTC. “Because of these unknowns, there are many ways Google’s unilateral decision to turn off access to news websites for Californians could violate laws.”

Google has a mixed track record in dealing with similar legislation. It pulled Google News from Spain for seven years in response to local copyright laws that would have required licensing fees to publishers. However, it signed deals worth around $150 million to pay Australian publishers and retreated from threats to pull news from search results in Canada, instead spending the $74 million required by the Online News Act.

Google made more than $73 billion in profits in 2023. The company currently has a $1.94 trillion market cap.

Starlink satellite internet terminals are being widely used by Russian forces in Ukraine, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. The publication indicates that the terminals, which were developed by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, are being used to coordinate attacks in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Additionally, Starlink terminals can be used on the battlefield to control drones and other forms of military tech.

The terminals are reaching Russian forces via a complex network of black market sellers. This is despite the fact that Starlink devices are banned in the country. WSJ followed some of these sellers as they smuggled the terminals into Russia and even made sure deliveries got to the front lines. Reporting also indicates that some of the terminals were originally purchased on eBay.

This black market for Starlink terminals allegedly stretches beyond occupied Ukraine and into Sudan. Many of these Sudanese dealers are reselling units to the Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group that’s been accused of committing atrocities like ethnically motivated killings, targeted abuse of human rights activists, sexual violence and the burning of entire communities. WSJ notes that hundreds of terminals have found their way to members of the Rapid Support Forces.

Back in February, Elon Musk addressed earlier reports that Starlink terminals were being used by Russian soldiers in the war against Ukraine. “To the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia,” he wrote on X. The Kremlin also denied the reports, according to Reuters. Despite these proclamations, WSJ says that “thousands of the white pizza-box-sized devices” have landed with “some American adversaries and accused war criminals.”

After those February reports, House Democrats have demanded that Musk take action, according to Business Insider, noting that Russian military use of the tech is “potentially in violation of US sanctions and export controls.” Starlink actually has the ability to disable individual terminals and each item includes geofencing technology that is supposed to prevent use in unauthorized countries, though it's unclear if black market sellers can get around these hurdles.

AHouse Democrats have demanded that Musk take action, ar. He took steps to limit Ukraine’s use of the technology on the grounds that the terminals were never intended for use in military conflicts. According to his biography, Musk also blocked Ukraine’s use of Starlink near Crimea early in the conflict, ending the country’s plans for an attack on Russia’s naval fleet. Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, wrote on X that “civilians, children are being killed” as a result of Musk’s decision. He further dinged the billionaire by writing “this is the price of a cocktail of ignorance and a big ego.”

However, Musk fired back and said that Starlink was never active in the area near Crimea, so there was nothing to disable. He also said that the policy in question was decided upon before Ukraine’s planned attack on the naval fleet. Ukraine did lose access to more than 1,300 Starlink terminals in the early days of the conflict due to a payment issue. SpaceX reportedly charged Ukraine $2,500 per month to keep each unit operational, which ballooned to $3.25 million per month. This pricing aligns with the company’s high cost premium plan. It’s worth noting that SpaceX has donated more than 3,600 terminals to Ukraine.

SpaceX has yet to comment on the WSJ report regarding the blackmarket proliferation of Starlink terminals. We’ll update this post when it does.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to vote to restore net neutrality later this month. With Democrats finally holding an FCC majority in the final year of President Biden’s first term, the agency can fulfill a 2021 executive order from the President and bring back the Obama-era rules that the Trump administration’s FCC gutted in 2017.

The FCC plans to hold the vote during a meeting on April 25. Net neutrality treats broadband services as an essential resource under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the FCC greater authority to regulate the industry. It lets the agency prevent ISPs from anti-consumer behavior like unfair pricing, blocking or throttling content and providing pay-to-play “fast lanes” to internet access.

Democrats had to wait three years to enact Biden’s 2021 executive order to reinstate the net neutrality rules passed in 2015 by President Obama’s FCC. The confirmation process of Biden FCC nominee Gigi Sohn for telecommunications regulator played no small part. She withdrew her nomination in March 2023 following what she called “unrelenting, dishonest and cruel attacks.”

Republicans (and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin) opposed her confirmation through a lengthy 16-month process. During that period, telecom lobbying dollars flowed freely and Republicans cited past Sohn tweets critical of Fox News, along with vocal opposition from law enforcement, as justification for blocking the confirmation. Democrats finally regained an FCC majority with the swearing-in of Anna Gomez in late September, near the end of Biden’s third year in office.

“The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential,” FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel wrote in a press release. “After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair. A return to the FCC’s overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet.”