The Reserve stores are absolutely fantastic (and twice the price.) The Seattle location was the first one I had ever been to. Sadly it seemed to me like they stopped growing the concept... the one in Palm Springs is really just an ordinary Starbucks despite being branded as a Reserve, and they pulled the plug on an intended opening in Boston a few years back.
do they? when i want to work, ill go to the big one. if im late for work and feel like coffee, the takeaway one is quicker and less chaotic without the tourists/campers/families
im not usually one to defend a company, and i dont know what's best for starbucks the company and brand. but what i see isn't necessarily or obviously bad
an American corporation does in fact have some recognized legal personhood, and so a 'bill of attainder' could technically be found to exist within a legislative act which violates the legal rights of one.
Nope. Operant part of an attainder is no due process. In one year’s time, DoC will have to prove ByteDance is in violation of this law in a court. Simply naming a person isn’t enough to make a law an attainder, not even closely.
Actually not even echoes. Just literally the "Axis of Evil"[1] redefined for 2024 geopolitics:
> In 2024, Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg and his predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, have been forming new alliance of tyrants.[6][7] The same states have been recognized as a new axis of evil by several American politicians, including Christopher Cavoli,[8] Mike Johnson,[9] and Mitch McConnel.[10]
Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.)
The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.
you miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1].
it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted.
This is true of any legal question. That doesn’t mean third parties can’t opine on legality. This law is so far from a bill of attainder that it would be laughable for a lawyer to suggest to their client that it’s within the scope of reason.
but a reasonable lawyer representing the interests of a challenger would be remiss not to at least submit the argument before the tribunal. even clear-loser claims should properly be reserved for any subsequent appeal.
(by the way, i'm trying to figure out where we've commented past each other and i think it might be with my use of the word 'tight.' i've meant to employ 'tight' idiomatically, like as in air- or water-tight. well drafted to say it plainly. i was simply playing off the "Nicely written..." comment to which i was replying.)
Factually incorrect. China didn't ban US apps, it required US apps to obey local Chinese censorship laws. Some apps (like LinkedIn) stayed in compliance and stayed, while others left China.
What a weird stance to take! What happens if apps refuse to self-censor or obey Chinese censorship laws? They are banned. So indeed, China does ban US apps. Twitter/X did not just leave China; it is blocked in mainland China and no one can access it.
That's not a weird stance at all. Twitter/X is blocked in China because it refuses to comply with Chinese law on censorship. China's law criminalizes behavior on censorship, which adheres to what modern notions of legal jurisprudence. The US law criminalizes origin and ownership, which violates a legal principle on bills of attainder.
While US apps are slightly harmed by losing access to a market, it's really the freedom of Chinese citizens that is impacted by China banning apps. The US banning TikTok will harm ByteDance's bottom line but it also sets a precedent that the US government can dictate what you install on your phone. Why are people advocating for this like it's some kind of victory for freedom?
> Why are people advocating for this like it's some kind of victory for freedom?
We’re not. It’s a victory for national security. It’s a collective curtailment on freedom, similar to how we’ve agreed Americans are not free to finance terrorism.
While I personally disagree with the Chinese censorship laws, it is quite common that companies have to obey local laws to do business. If they're foreign companies and don't like it they can stay away.
So not a weird stance to take that US companies are not banned - they're not directly but indirectly it prevents many companies from anywhere who don't want to do business in China.
A) I'm not aware of their compliance status and B) being able to access something on the internet or not is not just about legality but also about the ability to enforce it.
I was just stating that in general a business needs to comply with laws where they do business. They can (and will) try to find ways around but it all comes back to enforcement.
If Twitter/X has no direct presence or interest in China, there is not much the local authorities can do to force them to comply with laws. If they own assets, employ people etc it looks very differently
