If they ban nasty things as such they can't do them themselves anymore without breaking the law.

Not that they care.

I wonder, though, could this be considered an unconstitutional bill of attainder? That's an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without a trial. Article I, Section 9, iii: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

That's one of the arguments being made by TikTok in their challenge against the "TikTok ban" bill.

That’s been my thought since the TikTok ban as well. It was meant for people, but this for sure seems to meet the spirit of the prohibition. Does it actually violate it? We’ll have to see once the cases work their way through.

Maybe Elise Stefanik was just really upset that she had to side-load the sketchy DJI APK on her Android device?

> Who decided it is a good idea to pass brands / companies specific bills?

People who want to move this country even further in the direction of Rule By Law, as opposed to Rule Of Law.

This sort of thing works out well for the already-connected and corrupt, and it's not like anyone in 2024 is deluded that we make principled decisions on anything.

I assume because the US doesn't care about the potential data collection of drones flying around as long as they have the data, they just don't like it when China has it.