Specifically, TikTok says that it has already gone to “great lengths” to show a commitment to the US market, noting that its key personnel are all Americans based in the US, thus not subject to Chinese law. Furthermore, the company stores data not in China but in servers located in the US and Singapore. Finally, TikTok also has built “software barriers” that the company says keeps TikTok user data separate from other products from ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company.

TikTok also outlines the concern that the executive order bans activities that are not “an unusual and extraordinary threat,” something that’s required by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). TikTok says that the IEEPA has been cited by the administration for justification of the ban.

The company says that it has spent nearly a year working in good faith to give the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States requested details and information about TikTok’s business — information it says is being completely disregarded. Ultimately, it sounds like TikTok is claiming it has worked closely to provide the US government plenty of details on how it works to show it isn’t a threat and that all that information hasn’t been taken into account with the August 6th executive order.

TikTok has been preparing for this day since the executive order went public. At the time, the company said it was “shocked” by the move and that it would explore “all remedies available” to fight the White House ban on the app. The question now is whether the US courts will give a stay on the ban and whether they’ll side with TikTok over the White House.

The justification for the ban given by the White House was a “national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain.” The administration is also concerned that TikTok “automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories.”

We have made clear that TikTok has never shared user data with the Chinese government, nor censored content at its request. In fact, we make our moderation guidelines and algorithm source code available in our Transparency Center, which is a level of accountability no peer company has committed to. We even expressed our willingness to pursue a full sale of the US business to an American company. 

However, TikTok countered that its attempts to address those concerns were stymied by the government. “What we encountered instead was that the Administration paid no attention to facts, dictated terms of an agreement without going through standard legal processes, and tried to insert itself into negotiations between private businesses,” it wrote. The latter part likely refers to Trump’s comments about Microsoft’s potential purchase of TikTok and that a chunk of the proceeds should go to the US treasury.

TikTok gave what could be a preview of its legal case, saying that the order relies on unnamed “reports” with no specific citations. It also noted that the administration said the app “may be” used for misinformation with no proof to back that up.

The company restated that “TikTok has never shared user data with the Chinese government, nor censored content at its request.” It added that it’s one of the few social media companies to make its moderation guidelines and algorithm source code available to the public, and noted that it even offered to sell its US business to an American company.

TikTok’s response was widely expected, as is a possible protracted court fight. The White House has also threatened to ban the Chinese app WeChat, which is run by TenCent. However, it said that it wouldn’t take action against other Tencent properties, most notably gaming companies and games like the popular battle royale title PUBG.

A week ago Donald Trump said that he could and would ban the video sharing app Tiktok, and on Thursday night he issued an executive order to block transactions with its parent company, Bytedance. It’s set to take effect in 45 days, which is just beyond the September 15th deadline Microsoft publicly announced for its negotiations to buy the company.

At same time, Trump also issued an executive order pushing the same ban for WeChat and its parent company Tencent. These orders will certainly be challenged in court, but Tencent has investments in many US companies, while WeChat allows communication for people inside and outside China. In the orders, the reason given for the ban is “national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain.”

According to Donald Trump, he believes he has the power to do that via executive order or emergency economic powers, but was not specific about how such a ban would work. Per Bloomberg, he told reporters he will sign a document tomorrow. On Twitter, the president said “We have more Cases because we do more Testing. It’s Lamestream Media Gold!,” referencing the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 150,000 people in the US.

Two days ago, TikTok CEO and former Disney exec Kevin Mayer published an open letter saying his company is “not the enemy,” and “We are willing to take all necessary steps to ensure the long-term availability and success of TikTok. The one thing that will not change is our commitment to ensuring that TikTok remains a safe and secure platform for the tens of millions of American families that derive joy from it.”

We’ve contact TikTok for a comment, and will update this post when more information is available.

BREAKING: Trump tells reporters aboard Air Force One he is banning TikTok

— Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) August 1, 2020

Per pool, Trump said, “Well, I have that authority. I can do it with an executive order or that.” The pool says Trump made clear he was not in favor of a deal to let a U.S. company buy TikTok’s American operations.

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) August 1, 2020

Pool report via main print pooler David Cloud/LAT pic.twitter.com/RDV8LjnLLQ

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 1, 2020

“The Order would circumvent the role of Congress and of the courts in enacting and interpreting [Section 230] …and purport to empower multiple government agencies to pass judgment on companies’ content moderation practices,” its lawsuit states. “The Order clouds the legal landscape in which the hosts of third-party content operate and puts them all on notice that content moderation decisions with which the government disagrees could produce penalties and retributive actions, including stripping them of Section 230’s protections.”

So yeah, here we go with Section 230 (again). If you’re unfamiliar, Section 230 is what came out of the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, an amendment to update the Communications Act of 1934 for the internet era. Or rather, Ye Olde Internet Era, as 230 hails from 1996. It has a strange and storied history that’s deeply entangled with a certain set of puritanical family values, entrenched in forcing broadcast art and communications to adhere to a specific worldview. It was known as The Communications Decency Act of 1996, which had hoped to censor porn on the internet but instead ended up protecting free speech online. Because it turns out that sexual expression is protected speech. Let’s hope someone tells Facebook and Tumblr. 

Anyway. Section 230 basically makes it so that platforms like Twitter and Facebook can have user-generated content (what we say on their platforms) without the companies getting hosed by a range of laws that would make them legally responsible for what we say and do. So if we say something stupid, and someone wants to sue, that’s on us. Section 230 is such a surprisingly robust, pro-free speech thing that it is pretty much universally regarded as a core protection of free speech on the internet.

Pool via Getty Images

The “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship” is quite a twisty bit of doublespeak in that regard. Yet what it does — or vaguely intends to do — is pretty chilling.

The order wants the FCC — currently run by the guy who killed net neutrality, Ajit Pai — to come up with regulations that stop section 230’s protections for internet platforms’ liability for what’s posted there. “In addition,” explained Forbes, “the order also directs the FTC to consider taking action in cases of complaints received by the White House of political bias on social media, and then to take action for deceptive acts or practices in such cases. The order also asks the FTC to consider complaints against Twitter as violations of the law.”

Further, there are directives for the Attorney General to seek regulation and enforcement against online platforms at the state level and with federal legislation.

The order is being described, dismissively, as being so vague as to be ridiculous. “Trump’s executive order on social media is a silly distraction from a serious debate,” said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the Economic Liberties Project. “This executive order is basically a request to independent agencies, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, to act in some vague manner. The President cannot single-handedly change a law, he cannot order independent agencies to act, and his executive order reflects that.”

Miller is someone I usually agree with, but definitely not on this. I think this minimizing stance, and articles saying “Forget Trump’s Executive Order” (“Trump’s executive order may not do much”) are pushing some dangerous thinking. Or, they are perspectives coming from people who were in no way affected by FOSTA-SESTA.

Because one horrible thing we learned about freedom of speech and internet companies is that it doesn’t matter if the marching orders coming from lawmakers and the White House look like they won’t do much. FOSTA was vague and sought to neuter Section 230, too. What matters is how companies like Facebook et al decide to change their policies and guess how to implement whatever will make them safe from legal consequences.

FOSTA, as you may recall, was implemented as overbroad, compulsory censorship, ultimately encouraging discriminatory practices against sex workers (or anyone perceived to be a sex worker) everywhere. Some companies, like Facebook who lobbied for FOSTA, acted on the order before its ink dried, as it was (apparently) eagerly seeking a way to punish and exclude users whose sexual morality and professions as performers were not in line with its puritanical values. 

Sexual speech is protected speech, and yet companies like Facebook and Tumblr leveraged the similarly vague FOSTA to aggressively censor users who even just talked about sex. It gave bad actors like Facebook the juice to use its “Sexual Solicitation” policy to ban “sexual slang,” “sex chat or conversations,” “mentioning sexual roles, sexual preference, commonly sexualized areas of the body” and more.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images

I like to imagine where we might be if these companies had treated hate groups, Holocauset deniers, and violent extremists with the same zeal for censorship and eradication from platforms, had given them no place to organize and recruit, or to plan and network. I imagine this because it makes me very mad, and it shows me very clearly why these vague White House directives affecting online speech are harmful to both the internet and democratic society.

FOSTA forced countless communities out of places where they once could participate with society, and it stifled speech in ways we have yet to fully comprehend. Tumblr’s censorship of gender expression communities and the resultant exodus is just one terrible example. People died in FOSTA’s wake because of the ways it was interpreted and implemented.

To characterize the “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship” as just another of the Mad King’s follies is to ignore the disastrous previous lessons at our own peril. We must accept that everyone is going to be a bad actor and act accordingly. Companies like Facebook and toadies like Ajait Pai are proven bad actors. FOSTA, the last vague order to target Section 230, traded sex for Nazis. FOSTA killed the internet we loved. We must never ever forget that most internet companies and startups embraced it.

This is especially true in a moment of extreme change, and doubly so in one where the fire of accountability lights our path to survival.

Huawei isn’t about to get a reprieve from the US trade ban any time soon. President Trump has extended until May 2021 the executive order barring American companies from buying and using telecom equipment that represents an “unacceptable” national security risk. The order was key to the Commerce Department adding Huawei to its Entity List and effectively banning the tech giant (along with rivals like ZTE) from operating in the country.

It’s not shocking that the order would carry on for a while longer. Trump and legislators have continued to kick Huawei out of US networks whenever possible, and tensions with China remain high. However, this still leaves Huawei and peers without many options. They’ll have to avoid dealing with US companies, of course, but this will also force them to go without Google apps on newer phones and otherwise jump through hoops to maintain some of their business. In short: don’t expect to buy a Huawei phone stateside any time soon.

“After discussions with the US government, we’ve been granted a license to provide all of our Digital Media products and services in Venezuela,” Adobe’s Chris Hall said in a blog post. “With this update, we’re sharing that users can continue to access the Creative Cloud and Document Cloud portfolio, and all of their content, as they did before.”

When Adobe first announced the ban there was some debate over whether it was over-interpreting the executive order, which was intended to target the Venezuelan government and not regular Venezuelan citizens. The company also took flack for saying that it would not be able reimburse paid subscribers, but it later clarified that it would be offering refunds.

With so many people using Adobe products like Photoshop and Premiere for their work and entertainment, cutting off an entire country did not go down well. According to Reuters, many Venezuelans said they were resorting to pirating the software.

In its FAQ about the issue, Adobe says that paid subscribers who had their accounts canceled will receive 90 days of free access to all the products and services they had before by way of an apology. Anyone who lost access to paid services should find their access restored within one week.

The statement from the major Chinese tech firm comes just one day after some sweeping changes issued by the Trump administration. Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency to ban sales and use of telecommunications equipment from companies that pose “unacceptable” risks to national security. The President posited that “foreign adversaries” have been exploiting security holes in communications technology the behavior demanded a response before “potentially catastrophic effects” took hold.

In addition to the executive order, the Department of Commerce took the additional step of adding Huawei and 70 of its affiliates to its “Entity List.” The move signifies the government believes Huawei may be undermining American interests. It also makes the company ineligible to receive items or funding without government approval.

The order tasked the Commerce Department with drafting enforcement plans within 150 days. All US government agencies were expected to take “all appropriate measures” to follow the order.

While the emergency declaration doesn’t mention China by name, there’s no doubt that the country is the primary target. The US government has repeatedly deterred companies and institutions from working with firms like Huawei and ZTE over surveillance fears and has accused Huawei of receiving direct funding from Chinese state security. Its charges against Huawei for alleged trade secret and sanction violations were well-timed, too. There hasn’t been public evidence of Huawei facilitating Chinese government espionage, but that hasn’t stopped US officials from applying pressure to allies like Canada and the UK.

In some ways, the order is a formality. American carriers have generally shied away from using Chinese equipment for their network upgrades, and Chinese phones are rare to non-existent in their lineups. All the same, the order is a significant move — if and when China is singled out, it would bar companies from using the country’s telecom hardware no matter how limited the actual danger might be.

Update 5/15 6:18PM ET: Sure enough, the Commerce Department has added Huawei to its Entity List, signaling that it believes the company is doing things contrary to the “national security or foreign policy interest” (including its alleged trade sanction violations). In other words, it’s going to count as an adversary under the emergency order.