Jump to content

Talk:Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 23:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by OlifanofmrTennant (talk) and ElijahPepe (talk). Nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (talk) at 05:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC). Note: at the time of this nomination, DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode. All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior nominations during this time will require two QPQs for every article nominated. Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Less than 20 noms so only 1 qpq needed. Earwig's showing a rather high overlap for some of the sources, but most of that is the bill's title, quotes, or people's names, so no concerns about plagiarism. AryKun (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Changes to status quo

[edit]

Neutrality, please explain your drastic changes first before pushing them into the article. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I explained in the edit summaries, your edits have massively removed well-sourced material and inserted content not directly supported by the cited source. Your seemingly random removals of text have resulted in quotes not supported by the citation used. Not cool. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have explained in my edit summary, my concern is that you are using sources that predate coverage of this article's subject. This risks introducing content forks, original research, outdated and unbalanced information. I have summarised the background using only sources that are more recent and relevant to this PAFACA. CurryCity (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using outdated sources that do not mention an article's subject would allow anyone to add old information of their choosing to a new topic regardless of balance and due weight. CurryCity (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "sources" are "outdated" or "don't mention the article's subject"? What's "old information"? I have no clue what you are going on about. Is this some sort of strange dilatory tactic? Neutralitytalk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ones that are old and not reporting on PAFACA were removed [1]. I have restored the Axios source because it was easily missed at first, but as you can see, most of the new ones you added that actually mention this latest bill I did not remove them. CurryCity (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual concerns

[edit]

List some of the other concerns you have because it is not easy to tell from edit summaries. CurryCity (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities"[1] What are your concerns and suggestion?

References

  1. ^ "US pro-Israel Jewish group backs ban on 'antisemitic' TikTok". The New Arab. 13 March 2024. Critics say supporters of Israel are weaponising antisemitism to defend Israel's war on Gaza and the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices, including on social media. TikTok has been an important tool for activists and users to expose the genocide in Gaza and condemn Israel's atrocities.
  • OK, to be clear: you're admitting that the prior text, which you shoved into the article at least twice, was not supported by the cited source? And then, once called out on it, you're introducing a new source to try to post hoc support it? And, for the record: the new source you're offering is low-quality, it is undue weight, and it still doesn't support the assertion made (we can't take a "critics say..." statement and then use it for a statement in wikivoice). This is really painfully obvious stuff. And, I'm not going to play whac-a-mole, statement-by-statement, like this. Just stop and familiarize yourself with core Wiki policies. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only restored some of your changes and cannot be held responsible for every edit that happened before then, but clearly it was not in wikivoice in the first place [2] "Critics, however, objected to the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities", so your characterisation is inaccurate. CurryCity (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate articles

[edit]

There seems to be some confusion going on here. The bill that was passed in the House on March 13 was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which didn't go anywhere. The bill that includes foreign aid that was passed in the House on April 20, passed in the Senate yesterday, and signed by the President today was the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, a separate piece of legislation. We already have Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, which is too long to cover all the details, but Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance was also just created; a merge discussion has been started at Talk:Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance#Merge proposal. I think either Proposed divestment... should be merged into Protecting Americans..., and that article be renamed 21st Century... (for the purpose of retaining history). Alternatively, we could merge both Protecting Americans... and Proposed divestment... into Restrictions on.... Thoughts from other editors are much appreciated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Protecting bill" is notable independelty of "Restrictions", however "Proposed divestment" is unnotable.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: To explain, the bill that Biden signed into law today is the National Security Act, 2024. The House of Representatives amended the RELIEVE Act to include the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act referred to in the National Security Act is a separate legislative entity. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so the "Protecting" and "21st Century" acts are both part of the same National Security Act? If so, then let's move this article to National Security Act, 2024 and merge the info you had on the Proposed divestment article. In any case, we shouldn't have so many articles covering the same thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 21st Century Peace through Strength Act's provisions were merged into the National Security Act. The act, as passed by Biden, includes the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The National Security Act also includes the provisions for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It would be improper to move this page given that. I have created National Security Act, 2024 to cover the act's provisions, as it appears that such a substantial expenditure will have some impact on the war in Ukraine. I support merging this article into that one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the National Security Act includes both the Protecting Americans and 21st Century provisions, then I don't see why they can't co-exist on the same article about the foreign aid. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop creating articles until we sort this out Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I've tried that one before. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal that the article Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is renamed to whatever the name of the overarching legislation is (I am still a little confused on that), while Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance becomes a redirect (probably to the aforementioned article, but possibly to Restrictions on TikTok in the United States), with any relevant information merged into appropriate articles. Should a request be opened? –Gluonz talk contribs 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't. We can resolve this speedily through normal discussion; RM takes forever and only does a disservice to readers. If there are concerns after we sort this out, then an RM may be held, but I think there wouldn't be any opposition to fixing the current state of mess (which I too am confused with). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. I think I agree with that. –Gluonz talk contribs 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this article stays where it is, it's clearly notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, which possible fix is your current preference? –Gluonz talk contribs 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryCity:@Neutrality: these two have been significant contributors Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking we should move this article to whatever the final/overarching legislation is called, and then merge the contents of the other article(s) here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great now just the probelm of what that is? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is National Security Act, 2024, I think the article with more history (the one this talk is for) should be kept, and that it should be adapted with relevant information, such as from the article currently at National Security Act, 2024, which itself would be merged into the article. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article can be renamed, its got the most history wise. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that the National Security Act, 2024 is independently notable for its appropriations to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The TikTok portion of the bill is not the entirety of its scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we would rename the article and include information about those, while keeping the article that has the most history. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we're back to my original alt proposal to reverse-merge the "Proposed divestment" article into here, and then move it to a generic title like Proposed TikTok ban in the United States (I think calling this a "proposal ... by ByteDance" is ambiguous). Even if it's not exactly a ban, it effectively is, and it's already demonstrably the common name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(This is under my assumption that "Protecting" and "21st Century" are two completely separate entities. If this isn't accurate, please correct me.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are? I had not been mentioning that article. I am not so sure we should give this a generic title, but I suppose we can. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs a generic name. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was referring to the original merge discussion on that page. My number one preference is still to rename this to the "final" iteration of the legislation, but apparently that final form is the National Security Act that includes the foreign aid package (which is why they were able to pass this so quickly), and an editor believes we should have separate articles for the act as a whole and its two TikTok provisions (Protecting and 21st Century). The alternative to a generic title would be Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, which obviously wouldn't work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we have separate articles for the Act as a whole and its TikTok-related provisions? I believe they could be under one article. –Gluonz talk contribs 21:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, according to this source, the National Security Act contains four bills, three of which are about foreign aid and the last of which is the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, "which includes a modified version of the TikTok ban that passed the House earlier this year". It seems this article should remain at its current title and its contents be adjusted accordingly. Not sure whether National Security Act, 2024 should exist as a separate page or be merged here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The final legislation contains four primary divisions, as the article mentions. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and 21st Century Peace through Strength Act exist in the National Security Act. The sanctions against Iran, Syria, and Hamas in the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act do not appear to warrant a separate article. The independent Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act did not officially pass in the Senate, only the version mentioned in the National Security Act. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my understanding, the Protecting act was modified and incorporated into the 21st Century act, which was then passed as part of the National Security Act that Biden signed today. Is that correct? So, since the 21st Century act includes other things unrelated to TikTok, as does the National Security Act that includes three other bills, this article should stay as it is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act that was passed in March is not the same entity as the act that was passed in the National Security Act. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter though, 21st Century just includes a "modified version" of PAFACA. We can't name this article 21st Century because it includes other unrelated things, and we can't call this article National Security Act because it also includes other things. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... I mean, I guess it would be OK to move this to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act and briefly discuss the non-TikTok information. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this article be merged into the National Security Act article and the divestment article remain as it is in order to encompass any legal challenges in greater detail; the National Security Act is not all about TikTok. InfiniteNexus, I ask that you reconsider your bold redirect until this has been discussed in full. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you believe there should not be separate articles for the National Security Act as a whole and the PAFACA/21st Century bill? If so, just copy-and-paste the contents of that new page, redirect it here, and then we can move this page there. I'm not sure what you mean by my BOLD redirect of the Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance page, which consensus had already decided shouldn't exist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The National Security Act article needs to cover the entirety of that act's provisions, without additional weight for the TikTok divestment portion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading your comment. You seem to be saying there should be one article about the National Security Act and another about the TikTok bill(s). Regardless of what the latter article is titled, it should result from a move of this page because it has the oldest history.
In sum, our three options are:
Given this turns out to be a quite complicated matter, I would be open to an RM after all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came here via New Page Patrol. I agree a separate article is warranted for National Security Act, 2024, versus Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. But I think the name of this article is wrong as the scope appears to be all legislation the US passed or considered passing that bans TikTok, not one specific bill, and it should be titled as such. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article already exists. It is Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, with information dating back to the Trump administration. This article (regardless of what it ends up being titled) is about the recent (2024) effort to ban TikTok. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a moment so determin if the other bills in the National Security Act are even notable as opposed to this one which is very clearly notable.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that determining the notability of the other bills is important. I support a move to National Security Act, 2024, so long as its other provisions are notable enough to warrant this. –Gluonz talk contribs 12:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the alternative case, the article currently at National Security Act, 2024 could be redirected and the existing article kept at its current title. If the National Security Act is notable enough to have its own article but not a substantial amount of content, the status quo could be kept with both articles remaining. I do not support a move to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, as that is at an intermediate level in the hierarchy of this law. Moving to a generic name is an opinion if the above options do not work out. –Gluonz talk contribs 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one enacted act. The text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text) clarifies. The final legislation (inartfully called H.R. 815, long title "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes" but usually just called the 2024 national security supplemental) incorporates different (formerly separate) pieces of legislation as separate "divisions." So the TikTok provisions are Division H of the Act, the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act is Division D, the Israel aid is Division A, the Ukraine aid is Division B, the Taiwan aide is Division C, etc. I think it's most more efficient to handle all in one unified article, with separate subsections. Neutralitytalk 22:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "DIVISION H—PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT" appears to be part of "DIVISION D—21ST CENTURY PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH ACT", according to the table of contents nested under Division D. The White House calls the overall legislation H.R. 815; I don't see any mention of "National Security Act" and am wondering where ElijahPepe came up with that. That is basically what was already established above: there was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was then incorporated into the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, which was then incorporated into H.R.815 (a.k.a. "National Security Act"). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found it: [3]. This Act may be cited as the "National Security Act, 2024" InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction, an amended version of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was included in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act. The distinction is important, because what the House passed independently and what appeared in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act are different, even without consideration for the extended timeframe for ByteDance to divest TikTok. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remain or rename. The efforts to ban TikTok since late 2023 are notable due to the heavy media coverage. The other acts are there only to fast-track this. They have very different purpose, background, and legislative histories and are not nearly as notable without the part about banning TikTok.Newsback (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge into National Security Act, 2024 and create TikTok divestment article

[edit]
Not merged per unanimity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@OlifanofmrTennant, InfiniteNexus, Gluonz, and Neutrality: In the discussion above, I established a path to merge this article into National Security Act, 2024, and create Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance to encompass the presumptive legal challenges to the act without diverting from the act's other provisions, primarily aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. This is a proposal to follow through with that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose creating a proposed divestment of Tiktok page. I feel that would limit the scope of this page. Additionally anything discussing a divestement of tiktok is through talking about THIS bill. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the creation of the proposed divestment page. I explained my stance on the other issue above: I support a move to National Security Act, 2024, so long as its other provisions are notable enough to warrant this. In the alternative case, the article currently at National Security Act, 2024 could be redirected and the existing article kept at its current title. (Note that, either way, the page with more history is kept rather the one currently at National Security Act, 2024. What changes between the two cases is the title of the page.) If the National Security Act is notable enough to have its own article but not a substantial amount of content, the status quo could be kept with both articles remaining. –Gluonz talk contribs 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Information can be covered here or Restrictions on TikTok in the United States. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the change in how the pages are spread out for now. It is my opinion that InfiniteNexus has the right idea for now and Wikipedia can cover the aspects of TikTok both here and at a TikTok related page until someone has found enough reason to break it out as its own page. Jorahm (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lawsuit Update Proposal

[edit]

It seems US is just going to ignore the lawsuit because there’s no consequence for ignoring it ((they are not paying a fine to China) Unlike Trump’s attempt, this one is different because it happened after the bill was passed. Because of that, there’s nothing China can do when US is ignoring the lawsuit. Worse case scenario, war. Besides war, there’s nothing China can do to the US) and upheld the legislation. Source from Reddit and this news (links below).

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1cmgai8/tiktok_sues_us_government_saying_potential_ban/?rdt=33288&sort=confidence

https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/tiktoks-lawsuit-challenging-potential-us-ban-very-much-a-landmark-case-expert-says-congress-chinese-social-media-influence-bytedance-national-security-first-amendment-free-speech-legal-implications-harvard-law-brown-university

Biden Ignoring The Lawsuit: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-super-pac-joins-tiktok-201635285.html

New source that relates to what I said: https://www.deltaplexnews.com/tiktok-sues-to-block-potential-ban-can-it-win/

69.1.59.248 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are you proposing is changed in the article? –Gluonz talk contribs 15:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just add that Biden ignoring the lawsuit and US is instead upheld the legislation in the lawsuit section of the article according to the sources I put above. 69.1.59.248 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like WP:SYNTH and also reddit is unreliable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The U.S. cannot "ignore the lawsuit". A judge has the ability to deem the law unconstitutional, and the evidence provided by ByteDance suggesting that is insurmountable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protecting_Americans_from_Foreign_Adversary_Controlled_Applications_Act&oldid=1263119530"