IT'S OVER

Summary

The video script discusses the RESTRICT Act, which has been presented as a ban on the social media app TikTok but does not explicitly mention it. The speaker argues that the Act is a Trojan horse, granting the Commerce Department broad powers to regulate social media apps and access user data, ostensibly for national security. The Act is criticized for its vagueness and potential to infringe on civil liberties, drawing parallels with the Patriot Act. The speaker warns that the Act could lead to increased surveillance, criminalization of VPN use, and a chilling effect on free speech, urging viewers to scrutinize the legislation closely.

Takeaways

• 📜 The RESTRICT Act is portrayed as a ban on TikTok but does not specifically mention it in the bill, raising questions about its true intentions.
• 🛑 The Act grants the Commerce Department broad powers to regulate social media apps, potentially infringing on user privacy and freedom of speech.
• 🚫 It proposes to criminalize the use of VPNs with severe penalties, including fines up to one million dollars and imprisonment for 25 years.
• 👥 The Act has bipartisan support but some co-signers, like Lindsey Graham, may not fully understand its implications, indicating a lack of oversight.
• 🌐 It targets apps from countries deemed 'foreign adversaries,' which could include any nation the U.S. government chooses to label as such.
• 🔍 The Act is intentionally vague, allowing for broad interpretation and application, which could lead to unforeseen consequences.
• 📈 It could lead to increased surveillance of U.S. citizens' online activities, mirroring the concerns raised by the Patriot Act post-9/11.
• 🚫 The government could force companies like TikTok to share user data with them, which contradicts the concerns about Chinese data collection.
• 📖 The Act bypasses traditional judicial review, allowing the government to act without needing to justify their actions to the public.
• 💡 The discussion suggests that the U.S. government may not be against authoritarian measures, but rather seeks to control them domestically.
• 🕊️ The video ends with a call to be wary of legislation that uses fear to erode civil liberties and constitutional rights, drawing parallels to historical events like the Patriot Act.

Q & A

What is the primary concern raised about the RESTRICT Act in the transcript?

The primary concern is that the RESTRICT Act, while being marketed as a ban on TikTok, actually grants the Commerce Department broad and unfettered powers to regulate social media apps and access user data, potentially infringing on civil liberties and privacy.

Why is the comparison to the Patriot Act mentioned in the transcript?

The comparison is made because, like the Patriot Act, the RESTRICT Act is seen as an overreaching piece of legislation that expands government surveillance and control powers in the name of national security, potentially at the expense of individual freedoms.

What are the penalties for using a VPN to access TikTok if the RESTRICT Act passes and TikTok is banned?

The penalties could include a fine of up to one million dollars and imprisonment for up to 25 years.

What does the transcript suggest about the vagueness of the RESTRICT Act?

The transcript suggests that the vagueness of the act allows for broad interpretation and application, which could lead to the government banning any technology from foreign adversaries without clear justification.

How does the transcript describe the potential impact of the RESTRICT Act on free speech?

The transcript describes the potential impact as a threat to free speech, as the government could ban apps and technologies that facilitate communication, and even impose criminal penalties for evasion of such bans.

What is the concern regarding the Commerce Department's power under the RESTRICT Act?

The concern is that the Commerce Department would have the authority to review and prohibit transactions involving information and communication technology products or services from foreign adversaries, without clear definitions or limits on this power.

What is the potential consequence of the RESTRICT Act for companies like TikTok if they are found to be in violation?

Companies like TikTok could be forced to share user data with the U.S. government or be banned outright, and individuals associated with the company could face severe penalties for non-compliance.

How does the transcript address the issue of accountability under the RESTRICT Act?

The transcript points out that actions taken under the RESTRICT Act would not be subject to administrative or traditional review in federal courts, meaning there would be little accountability for the government's actions.

What is the implication of the RESTRICT Act for the digital economy mentioned in the transcript?

The implication is that the act could potentially be used to control or regulate aspects of the digital economy, including social media influence on markets, under the broad definition of 'critical infrastructure and digital economy'.

What is the broader concern about the RESTRICT Act beyond its immediate impact on TikTok?

The broader concern is that the act sets a precedent for the government to exert control over technology and communication platforms, potentially leading to a slippery slope of increasing surveillance and control over civil liberties.

Outlines

00:00

🚫 The Restrict Act: A Trojan Horse for Government Control

The script discusses the Restrict Act, which was promoted as a ban on the social media app Tick-Tock but does not explicitly mention it. The speaker argues that the act is a power grab, giving the Commerce Department unchecked authority to regulate social media apps, access user data, and criminalize the use of VPNs, all under the guise of national security. The act is likened to the Patriot Act, with the potential to infringe on civil liberties and constitutional rights without the ability to challenge these actions through the court system. The speaker emphasizes the importance of public vigilance against such legislation, which could be influenced by unelected officials and staffers rather than actual Senators.

05:00

📜 The Vagueness and Dangers of the Restrict Act

This paragraph delves into the intentionally vague language of the Restrict Act, which allows the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit transactions with foreign adversaries, targeting six specific countries initially. The act could lead to the banning of apps or forcing them to sell to American companies if they pose a risk. It raises concerns about increased government surveillance and the potential for the government to demand user data from companies like Tick-Tock. The act also includes harsh penalties for evading its measures, such as 25 years in prison for using a VPN to access banned apps. The speaker criticizes the lack of accountability and transparency in the act, as it exempts actions from administrative or judicial review, and likens it to the post-9/11 era's overreach in surveillance and power.

10:00

🌐 The Restrict Act's Broad Implications for Freedom of Speech and Fair Market Practices

The final paragraph examines the broader implications of the Restrict Act, questioning whether the threat posed by foreign adversaries justifies the sacrifice of freedom and the potential for abuse of power. The speaker points out that the act could be used to suppress free speech and target specific companies or individuals, violating constitutional protections. They also draw parallels to the Patriot Act, suggesting that crises are used to push through legislation that expands government power. The speaker warns of the dangers of fear-mongering and the erosion of liberties, urging the public to be aware of those who exploit fear to gain control over people's lives and rights.

Keywords

💡Restrict Act

The Restrict Act is a legislative proposal that has been discussed in the video script. It is purportedly aimed at addressing national security concerns related to certain foreign technologies, such as the social media app TikTok. The Act is significant in the video's narrative as it exemplifies the broader theme of government overreach and potential infringement on civil liberties. The script mentions that the Act does not specifically name TikTok but has implications for a wide range of apps and technologies.

💡TikTok

TikTok is a social media platform that has been at the center of debate due to its Chinese origins and potential data privacy concerns. In the video, TikTok is used as an example of how the Restrict Act could be used to ban or control the use of foreign apps in the U.S., raising questions about freedom of speech and government regulation.

💡National Security

National security is a central theme in the video, as it is the purported justification for the Restrict Act. The term refers to the protection of a nation against threats that could harm its citizens, economy, or political sovereignty. The video discusses how the Restrict Act is framed as a measure to protect national security, even though it may extend beyond the scope of addressing specific security threats.

💡Unfettered Power

Unfettered power in the context of the video refers to the broad and unrestricted authority that the Restrict Act would grant to unelected bureaucrats within the Commerce Department. The script argues that this power could be used to dictate which social media apps are allowed, access user data, and impose penalties, raising concerns about accountability and the potential abuse of authority.

💡VPNs

VPNs, or Virtual Private Networks, are tools that allow users to access the internet with privacy and anonymity. In the video, the use of VPNs is highlighted as an activity that could be criminalized under the Restrict Act, with severe penalties for circumventing bans on certain apps or technologies. This point underscores the video's broader discussion about the potential erosion of digital freedoms.

💡Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is a U.S. law enacted in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which expanded government surveillance powers. The video script draws a parallel between the Patriot Act and the Restrict Act, suggesting that both laws could be used to infringe on civil liberties in the name of security. The mention of the Patriot Act serves as a historical reference to the potential consequences of the Restrict Act.

💡Commerce Department

The Commerce Department is a U.S. government agency that, according to the video, would be granted significant authority under the Restrict Act. The script discusses how the department could dictate the use of social media apps, access user data, and enforce bans on certain technologies, highlighting the potential impact of the Act on both businesses and individual users.

💡Civil Liberties

Civil liberties are the rights and freedoms that individuals have, which are protected from government interference. The video script emphasizes the potential threat to civil liberties posed by the Restrict Act, suggesting that the legislation could be used to justify surveillance, data access, and penalties that infringe on these rights.

💡Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, outlining the framework of the government and protecting the rights of citizens. The video script argues that the Restrict Act could undermine constitutional protections, particularly the First Amendment rights to free speech and the prohibition of bills of attainder.

💡Surveillance

Surveillance in the video refers to the monitoring of individuals' activities, particularly online. The script suggests that the Restrict Act could enable increased government surveillance of U.S. citizens, echoing concerns raised in the context of the Patriot Act and highlighting the potential for privacy infringement.

💡First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, among other rights. The video script discusses how the Restrict Act could potentially limit this freedom by controlling the dissemination of information through the regulation of social media apps and other technologies.

Highlights

The RESTRICT Act is portrayed as a ban on TikTok but does not mention TikTok explicitly, raising questions about its true intent.

The Act grants the Commerce Department broad power to dictate which social media apps are allowed, accessing user data and browsing history.

It criminalizes the use of VPNs with severe penalties, reminiscent of the Patriot Act, under the guise of national security.

The Act prevents challenges to its actions through the court system, threatening democratic foundations and constitutional rights.

Political figures like Lindsey Graham were reportedly unaware of co-signing the bill, indicating decisions on civil liberties are made by staffers rather than Senators.

The Act imposes a $1 million fine and up to 25 years in prison for using a VPN to access banned apps like TikTok.

The legislation is a 'Trojan horse' that could be applied to any app from countries deemed as foreign adversaries by the government.

The White House has endorsed the RESTRICT Act, calling it a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats.

The Act's vague language gives the Commerce Department extensive investigative and punitive powers over information and telecom companies.

It targets six countries initially, with the potential to expand, allowing the Commerce Department to investigate and ban apps from these countries.

The government could force companies like TikTok to share user data with them before being banned.

The Act allows for crushing criminal penalties, including 25 years in prison, for evading mitigation measures like importing TikTok into the US.

Actions taken under the Act are not subject to administrative or traditional review in federal courts, giving unchecked power to the government.

The Act's broad interpretation could lead to the manipulation and interference in federal elections, impacting free speech.

The bill's proponents argue that if TikTok is banned, a copycat app would simply take its place, which the mainstream media has accepted without question.

The RESTRICT Act and similar legislation are a cause for concern due to the potential for government overreach and the erosion of civil liberties.

The documentarian calls for awareness of those who use fear to manipulate Americans into giving up their liberties and first amendment rights.

The potential for the government to ban speech and regulate communication is highlighted as a significant threat to democracy.

The documentary on Dick Cheney is mentioned as an example of how war profiteering and manipulation of power can occur during times of crisis.

Transcripts

I want to talk about the restrict act

because it was billed as a ban on Tick

Tock but the weird thing is it doesn't

even mention Tick-Tock in this Chinese

own act in the bill so what is this

really about is it about restricting you

know Tick Tock that's not mentioned in

it or is this really a power ground what

are your thoughts on this people should

pay really close attention to the

restrict act because the the Democrats

and Republicans that have have

introduced this legislation are trying

to Market it as something that it's not

it does ban Tick Tock it makes it

illegal for Americans to use Tick Tock

but it does a whole lot more than that

it gives power unfettered power to

unelected bureaucrats in the Commerce

Department to tell us what social media

apps we are or are not allowed to use it

gives them access unfettered access to

our data our browsing history how we're

using different apps on our phones and

it basically criminalizes the use of of

vpns with some pretty serious

consequences and they're doing all this

in the name of National Security Now

this sounds a whole lot like what we saw

with the Patriot Act we as the American

people need to be smart enough to not

fall into this trap again where

ultimately we have again people who took

an oath to support and defend our

constitution our civil liberties our

rights but they are hell-bent on taking

those rights away and Dangerously in

this bill the restrict act not even

allowing us to challenge their actions

through our court system yeah this is a

very serious bill that threatens the

very Foundation of our democracy and our

our god-given rights that are enshrined

in the Constitution and we we cannot

allow them to do this you know what's

you know what's even more scary that

co-signers like Lindsey Graham didn't

even know they had co-signed on this

bill that these these big decisions that

are affecting our civil liberties and

our freedom are being decided by a bunch

of staffers

um instead of actual Senators it was

embarrassing and humiliating and he

should be embarrassed about that that he

should be and that is where we have to

hold these elected leaders they work for

the people we're the ones who get to

hire and fire them and we have to hold

them accountable to do their job the

restrict act are better known as The

Tick Tock bill is a wild trojan horse

under the ACT if you're caught using a

VPN to use tick tock after they ban it

you're gonna get slapped with a one

million dollar fine and get thrown in

prison for 25 years and it's not just

Tick Tock this will apply to any app

made by Foreign adversaries that they

decide to ban and who are the foreign

adversaries any country the government

decides to slap that label on that means

whatever foreign app or foreign Tech the

Department of Commerce wants to ban they

can ban it this bill also gives a lot of

power to unelected officials and if you

violate the law well you can be tried in

a literal secret Court quote gag order

secret fisa Court proceedings public

information blackouts and special

administrative exemptions if that all

sounds familiar to the post-911 era

you'll get where this is going and guess

who's pushing this bill the White House

itself the White House endorsed the

restrict act on Tuesday calling it a

systematic framework for addressing

technology LG based threats to the

security and safety of Americans

no matter what your thoughts on Tick

Tock are if this bill or a bill like it

passes we are gonna be in deep trouble

and here's what you have to know this

bill isn't really about banning Tick

Tock it's never about what they say it

is instead this bill would give enormous

and terrifying new powers to the federal

government to punish American citizens

and regulate how they communicate with

one another it's in fact a far far

broader the restrict act proposes to

Grant the Commerce Department additional

investigative and punitive Powers

regarding all information and telecom

companies connected to a foreign

adversary if they pose undue and

unacceptable risk to U.S national

security or U.S citizens whatever that

means

that is very truly broad oh yeah that's

vague as you could possibly have it well

that's that's broader than

um Barn I mean yeah I was the broad side

of it yeah it's very broad um

foreign

[Music]

of the nootropic supplements I take is

Alpha Brain by Joe Rogan's company on it

and as it turns out the shipping

software on it uses is called ship

station as the chief of operations of

onitsun ship station fundamentally

transformed the company and allowed us

to scale to where we are today that's

because shipstation is the fastest most

affordable way to ship products to your

customers it lets you find the lowest

shipping rate saving you up to 84 from

Top carriers like UPS USPS and DHL

Express while letting you streamline

everything simply connect your selling

Channel and then you can manage all of

your shipping you can set up automations

custom branding shipstation will

instantly update the tracking

information on your selling channel for

you and you'll even get free

comprehensive onboarding support to get

you shipping faster right away so what

are you waiting for use the same

shipping software that Ana uses by going

to shipstation.com for a 60-day free

trial that's two months of Cheaper

stress-free shipping completely for free

go to shipstation.com right now with the

link below thanks to shipstation for

sponsoring this video

[Music]

the restrict Act is intentionally made

to be very vague and flexible quote to

authorize the Secretary of Commerce to

review and prohibit certain transactions

between persons in the United States and

foreign adversaries and for other

purposes what other purposes you may ask

we don't know and that's kind of the

point the people enforcing this could

bend a lot to fit whatever agenda they

want and starting out the bill would

specifically Target these six countries

China Cuba Iran North Korea Russia and

Venezuela under President Nicolas Maduro

if any sort of Technology from these

countries is sold to 1 million Americans

or more in a year the Department of

Commerce would have the right to

investigate and mitigate any risks

associated with it and by mitigate they

mean ban the app outrights or force them

to sell the business to an American

company I don't know about you but that

sounds very much like a free market to

me and if they think someone is

violating the restrict acts they have

all the power to authorize additional

surveillance of U.S citizens online

activity so more surveillance under the

bill the Commerce Secretary can demand

information from any party to a

transaction or holding under review or

investigation in theory a company

designated under the bill such as Tick

Tock could be required to cough up user

data during these investigations so not

only could the government ban Tick Tock

for collecting data on American citizens

they could also go to tick tock and

force them to share their data with them

before they're banned but isn't this

exactly what they're mad about China

over the fact that China can make Tech

talk hand over U.S data at any given

moment this bill will give the American

government that exact same power so what

this tells us is that the US government

isn't against authoritarianism they're

just a guess that when it's not them

that has the authoritarian power and

that's not where it ends according to

the eff a digital Rights group giving

the Commerce Department broad authority

to impose crushing criminal penalties on

any person trying to evade a mitigation

measure is dangerous for example in the

case of a mitigation measure that bars

the importation of tick tock into the US

it authorizes penalties including 25

years of prison time for anyone who

brings tiktok into the us whether by use

of a VPN or downloading it while in

another country that's right if there is

restrict at passes and they ban Tick

Tock you could literally go to prison

for downloading Tick Tock through a VPN

and the same thing goes for any Tech

created or run outside of America and if

the government decides to ban some

random app or program they don't even

have to explain themselves either

because according to the acts actions

taken by the president and the Secretary

of Commerce under this act shall not be

subjected to administrative review or

traditional review in any federal court

except that's otherwise provided in this

section so at the flick of a wrist they

can ban any Tech they want and would not

owe the American public any explanation

whatsoever but if you thought it ended

there oh you're sadly mistaken

interference and manipulation of federal

elections which could mean you're just

skeptical or you're gullible and you

bought into some conspiracy theories and

you're talking about them and instead of

just being able to just talk like a

nonsense person you you get jacked man

this is all so open to interpretation

yeah impact to the country's critical

infrastructure and digital economy end

digital economy is included in there

like what does that mean if if Elon

posts a Dogecoin uh image immediately

Dogecoin goes up right doesn't that

impact the digital economy so what does

that mean yeah I don't know so what if

he says the crypto is bull Because he

believes it but doesn't that impact the

digital economy yeah they could arrest

but do the makers of this bill have

anything to say about this nope they say

that this bill isn't that bad that if

Tick Tock gets banned things will be

okay another Tick Tock copycat would

just pop up and take his place and the

mainstream media is just eating it up

the problem with legislation right is

not what they do it's what they write

down that they could do and then slowly

frog boil over time that's why there's

so much concern over this and the

perfect example of this is the Patriot

Acts

[Music]

after 9 11 the American public was so

enraged so angry and rightfully so that

they were willing to do anything to

accept anything that the government

peddled as the solution which was when

the government was able to pass the

Patriot Act without so much as any

opposition the Patriot Act famously

allowed the NSA to spy on millions of

Americans in secret without needing any

warrants or oversights and it put

America right up there with the Chinese

government in terms of surveillance

power but then on March 15 2020 section

215 of the Patriot Act expired and

suddenly all those Provisions that made

spying on America's legal went down with

it without the Patriarchs the government

had to go back to manually getting a

warrant for every single person they

wanted to spy on which is a huge hassle

if you're trying to monitor the masses

so that's why the government has been

patiently waiting for the next Crisis

the next mass panic that they can use to

slip through yet another overreaching

bill with a catchy name which is where

Tick Tock and the restrict act comes in

before it was terrorists now it's China

and just like before China is actually a

big threat but is it enough of a threat

for us to give up this much freedom to

give the government this much power

there are two main reasons why we might

not want to do this the one would be the

First Amendment to the Constitution

speech is protected whether you like it

or not the second reason would be is

that the constitution actually prohibits

bills of attainder you're not allowed to

have a specific bill against a person or

a company so this fails on two egregious

points pretty obvious points and I think

we ought to think about that I think we

should be aware of those who peddle fear

I think we should be aware of those who

use fear to coax Americans to relinquish

our liberties to regulate and limit our

first amendment rights every accusation

of data Gathering that's been attributed

to tick tock could also be attributed to

domestic big tech companies in fact one

of the bills they're looking at doing is

Broad enough that the president will be

given the power to designate whatever

country he sees fit to be an adversary

and whatever company underneath that

definition it would basically be a

limitless Authority for the president to

ban speech

and this is all happening as the US

loses its grip as the world's superpower

as economies all around the world are

ditching the dollar as China is uniting

our enemies as Putin is moving nukes

into Belarus and as the U.S inches

closer than ever to World War III yes we

are in turbulent times and if World War

III does break out there will be a

select few individuals that will make a

ton of money as they always have and if

you want to be one of those wealthy War

profiteers then you gotta watch our new

private documentary on the greatest war

profiteer that ever lived Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney is what many call the most

influential vice president of all time

and thanks to the war in Iraq de Cheney

is now worth an estimated 90 million

dollars and that's just an estimate and

it was all because he mastered the Dark

Art of greasing the wheels of Washington

and we expose his exact strategy in a

new private documentary that you can

watch right now by clicking the card on

the screen this documentary is part of

our YouTube membership where we post

videos that are too controversial to be

monetized and members love this video

so click the card on the screen to watch

them foreign

[Music]