IT'S OVER
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🚫 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.
📜 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.
🌐 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Restrict Act
💡TikTok
💡National Security
💡Unfettered Power
💡VPNs
💡Patriot Act
💡Commerce Department
💡Civil Liberties
💡Constitution
💡Surveillance
💡First Amendment
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]
浏览更多相关视频
Why a press freedom law should matter to us all | Peter Greste | TEDxUQ
Understanding how the Data Protection Authority in Philippines works | MediaNama
Social Media as Social Control.
Gravitas: Citizenship Amendment Act Explainer
43. OCR GCSE (J277) 1.6 Privacy issues
What are the three new criminal laws? | Explained
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)