Lemmy is mostly children isn’t it
This place is not only for people wanting to get away from Reddit because of their poor policies. This apparently is also a place for people who got away from reddit because they have shitty opinions that weren’t tolerated even there.
“Can you do something so that any given incel can’t shoot 30 of us while we hide under our desk.” - kids
“Literally go fuck yourself also no tik tok because it could be dangerous.” - government
Relax nobody is taking away your TikToks
Fuck TikTok, but I’m sick of hearing “BUT THE KIDS!!!” As an excuse for constantly trampling everyone’s freedoms
The fact that we have to baby proof the internet because someone is too lazy to do basic parenting is crazy
This is fucking retarded
But Black Dynamite, we’re on Epstein’s list.
🎵DYNAMITE DYNAMITE🎵
American political posts and the comments never fail to disappoint me.
it would be one thing if they were actually going to ban it, but the plan is pretty plainly for deep state establishment to seize it so that the US government can do all the awful things that they’re accusing the Chinese government of doing. Remember y’all, the difference between information and propaganda is “Do I like the person who is currently speaking?” and nothing more.
If it truly was a “free speech platform” the ownership wouldn’t matter either way, right?
swing and a miss
the point is that they’re trying to pretend they’re protecting us from propaganda by seizing the propaganda platform and operating it themselves. you don’t trust the CCP and neither do I. Let’s take that as read. do you trust the US government? if this is dangerous, why not shut it down? hell, why not go a step further and make it illegal for anyone to do?
If you can find any Uighurs left ask them if Chinese atrocities are “made up”.
Do better.
I didn’t say anything was made up or that China was doing anything good. You put the phrase “made up” in quotes. Find it in my original comment if you’re quoting me.
What I did say was that the US government is angling to steal China’s propaganda apparatus to use for itself and pretending that it’s protecting us.
Read better.
How is this itself not a fake argument?
The arguments in support of tick-tock are a bizarre amalgamation of just about every category of bad faith argument. I haven’t seen one that suggests tick-tock it’s actually a net benefit.
Whataboutism is a form of informal fallacy.
Whataboutism means nothing at this point. Risk analysis? Whataboutism. Considering consequences? Whataboutism.
“Informal” means it’s not actually a fallacy. Prooooobably because people use it way outside of its definition to dismiss arguments they don’t like because they have not thought through whatever they are arguing about.
The net benefit is that people enjoy it.
If there was some negative that outweighed that you’d think the bill would be banning that practice but the thing they don’t like is its partially owned by Chinese companies so they’re just trying to force it to be sold so it can cobtinye to operate in the exact same way but just for the benefit of an American billionaire instead.
Cocaine is something that people enjoy, same with driving drunk or drinking while pregnant. Enjoyment shouldn’t factor into any policy related discussions/ decisions.
I’m not arguing for or against the app, I do not use it. Enjoyment shouldn’t affect policy.
Ok, I agree there’s a reasonable argument in there.
On the one side of the scale is people enjoy it. Maybe that’s enough. I feel similarly about drug policies (that is, people want to use it, consequences are on them, not something that should be forced on them by the state).
I also think it’s legitimate to say if there’s a problem, policy should reflect that problem. The idea that it’s about protecting American money is probably fair too. But those aren’t really arguments in support of tick-tock. Those are arguments that others should be included if there’s legislation. I would love to see something passed that actually protected privacy universally. A hope for constitutional protection there was one of the casualties of the Roe v Wade overturn.
Last thing… a nation protecting it’s interests is pretty legit in terms of legislative justification. One country protecting it’s industry is very common and something both countries in question do all the time. Protecting from foreign interference is a pretty standard requisite for sovereignty. If you want to criticize US for not respecting others, I think you’ve got plenty of evidence. That’s still different than saying a county shouldn’t take steps to protect themselves.
Net benefit to whom? And by what metric? And who gets to apply said metric?
it’s not that tiktok is good, it’s that banning it sets a bad precedent and will be used to justify further control and censorship of the internet
I’m all for setting a precedent if it’s about banning chinese spyware and propaganda weapons.
They don’t want to ban it, they want to seize controll of it and let it operate as is, just with different propaganda now.
That’s a much better argument than what’s presented in this meme. There’s at least an argument to claim that the difference is about curtailing foreign interest through ownership. Ownership does heavily influence a platform. Unfortunately that hasn’t prevented Murdock from owning more formal messaging platforms.
On a side note, how do you feel about a handful of corporations controlling and censoring the Internet?
I may have missed something in civics class, but since when is access to a crappy social media site a right?
Since when is reading newspapers your government doesn’t agree with a right? Since when is communicating with people your government doesn’t like a right? Since when is publishing whatever you want a right? Since approximately 1776. It’s such an important right that it’s literally the first one in the constitution. Because our ability to speak freely and criticize the government is one of the rights that underpins all others. The medium shouldn’t matter, speech is speech whether it’s an app, website, chat server, newspaper, bulletin board, code, painting, drawing, whatever. If the government can just shut down any medium or venue they don’t like because “it’s propaganda”, that basically closes the door to any open criticism of the government.
We’ve tried not having those rights for the sake of convenience, expediency, or social pleasantness. Tends to not end well. Ask people in Russia or Iran how that “government gets to dictate where and how you speak” thing is going for them. Insane bootlicking going on in this thread.
I mean I’m not saying that this is being gone about the right way or for the right reasons, but when an adversarial nation-state is working to undermine US economic interests within its borders is there really anything wrong with punching back? I personally don’t think so, but I’m fully aware that I’m probably in the minority on this here.
https://twitter.com/lizalinwsj/status/1765615508357779477
(paywalled article from author above https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-technology-software-delete-america-2b8ea89f)
The govt can do anything it wants to punch back so long as it’s not infringing on the rights of its citizens. Our plan to stop China from “influencing us” is to… become more like China?
If China is going prevent US companies from doing profitable business within its economic borders I don’t see why the US should allow Chinese companies to engage in profitable businesses ventures within its country.
Blocking a company from doing business in the US is not the same as the US Government infringing on citizens rights. The better way to do it imo would be to toss ByteDance on the Sanctioned Entities list and block any US financial institution from servicing their US subsidiary. ByteDance wouldn’t stay in the US market for long if they couldn’t get any ad revenue, then it’s their choice to pull out instead of the US Government kicking them out.
It’s really not an infringement of rights either way though.
If China is going prevent US companies from doing profitable business within its economic borders I don’t see why the US should allow Chinese companies to engage in profitable businesses ventures within its country.
- They get to do whatever they want because they’re a dicatorship. Saying the US government should be allowed to do something “because China does it” is a real slippery slope. 2. We aren’t talking about oil extraction or car sales here, we’re talking about something which is explicitly a speech platform. They are different.
It’s not just a “company” being banned, it’s the government telling you that you can’t use that companies services for your speech. Imaging the US government banning the The Guardian because it’s not owned by US citizens. That’s the same thing as banning TikTok because it’s not owned by US Citizens. The government has no right to ban newspapers or websites which are otherwise engaging in legally-protected speech. You have a right to hear what they have to say.
Jesus christ bro you’re insufferable.
They get to do whatever they want because they’re a dicatorship. Saying the US government should be allowed to do something “because China does it” is a real slippery slope.
It’s a weird blend of trade war and cyber warfare, but for all intents and purposes it’s a trade war right now. No one was complaining that the US is blocking the sale of H100s in China are they? No.
We aren’t talking about oil extraction or car sales here, we’re talking about something which is explicitly a speech platform. They are different.
Except it’s not, it’s an ad platform.
It’s not just a “company” being banned, it’s the government telling you that you can’t use that companies services for your speech.
Nope, absolutely incorrect, it is indeed just a company being banned. I don’t think you fully understand what “speech” is, or really who the Constitution applies to. You do realize that the First Amendment means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, right? You also realize that preventing a company from doing business in the US because they’re beholden to an openly antagonistic nation-state is decidedly not the same as banning a company from doing business in the US because of its speech right?
Freedom of speech and the press has literally nothing at all to do with this.
Except it’s not, it’s an ad platform.
Right. So if they sell ads on it, it’s not a speech platform right? Reddit, not a speech platform? The Washington Post? The Guardian? Lemmy, when lemmy instances start running ads, Not a speech platform? Gmail? Not a speech platform?
Nope, absolutely incorrect, it is indeed just a company being banned.
It’s not. This isn’t a company that sells cars, they provide an online speech platform. It’s my ability to use the speech platform that gets banned in the process. They can ban TikTok from being able to “do business” in the US, that is different from pulling it from the app store or installing a great firewall to prevent US citizens from accessing their site. And frankly, “doing business” has been an inherent part of speech platforms for decades, selling advertising on speech platforms is how they can exist, all the way back to the days of newspapers and radio.
That slope is very slippery.
If the “protect children” politician does nothing about school shootings, you know they’re a PoS.
It’s because Epstein’s island is a honeypot </tinfoil-hat>
A honeypot trap that’s never used as a trap is just free honey.
Of course the island was a honeypot trap. How else did Epstein create all his compact discs with handwritten labels including: “‘Young [Name] + [Name],’
- Are different, unrelated things
- Involve different parts of government
- Involve different people in charge
- Is smoothbrain understanding of criminal investigations
- Is smoothbrain understanding of due process
I’m starting to fly down some ‘conspiracy hole’ about this shit: I can’t trust or even hope that the avalanche of memes like these aren’t Chinese (or Russian? they love stirring our shit up for the lulz) in origin. This paranoia reinforces itself in a loop
The way .ml cries everyday about TikTok being banned you’d think it was an actual real life crises for all of you.
Multiple counties have already banned the app (as well as other ccp government apps) years before the US started trying to. Where was all the out cry then?
.ee users and simping for every lib policy. Name a better combo.
Aww did mommy and daddy go to sleep already so you could use the computer?
Dune 2 on mushrooms?
TBH the comments are always filled with “Fuck TikTok” so it doesn’t feel like an organic trend of posts to me.
In .ml? Lol no it’s all weirdos complaining how bad the US is.
In .ml, yes. You know, the instance I’m currently posting from. Also, only a complete blind idiot wouldn’t see that the US is a shithole.
-and other things highschool kids say to be edgy
'murican can’t comprehend the existence of places outside 'murica. More non-news at 11.
Did you finish your homework tonight?
I finished my free higher education a while ago :)
It was at a time when I really didn’t need to make too many free healthcare visits.
Yes but Lemmy isn’t as bad as Hexbear, a very large number of us still think the CCP is even worse.
Oh definitely, hexbear is a special kind of special
can’t find any western countries that have it banned for the general public
Afghanistan.
Australia.
Belgium.
Canada.
Denmark.
European Union.
France.
India.
Lativa.
Netherlands.
New Zealand.
Norway.
Pakistan.
Taiwan.
United Kingdom.All have banned the app either from government employees to a nationwide ban.
This is a bit dishonest. Only Afghanistan and India have banned TikTok from citizens and neither of them are western countires. In every other country you listed it’s just about government devices.
“You can’t use this at work” and “You can’t use this ever” are very different things.
That’s correct. Not every country on that list limits the ban to just govt employees.
How many apps has China flat out banned? Movies? The actual Internet?
How many apps has China flat out banned? Movies? The actual Internet?
So what you’re saying is that 'murica is just as bad as China
Hardly. Banning one app for security is nowhere near as bad as blocking most of the entire world because you don’t want your citizens to see it.
Are you even remotely aware of the level of spying going on in 'murica, by 'murica?
Most governments even semi big companies don’t allow whatsapp or other meta products on their hardware, is that precedent enough to ban meta too? Very few apps comply with the GDPR requirements needed on company/government hardware.
Look, I despise Tiktok too, but most arguments on here are just “muh China bad” or “look at these other people doing something”
Yeah that’s true, while it’s being debated in a lot of places the only current bans I can find any news on are for government officials and employees. Now that I think about it, doesn’t that make Biden’s TikTok illegal?
Rules for thee not for me
The “for the children” arguments are almost always misleading.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff that’s genuinely “for the children”, but the vast majority of the time they’re doing something for the children it’s not.
Bluntly, the core of the argument for a lot of the online stuff for the children is reported as protecting them against would be child molestation or dangers of some similar variety. In tiktok’s case, here’s a platform that has huge potential for revenue due to its popularity, and has an established user base. I’m certain that many of the so-called upper class/elites/capitalist pigs/owners of the country, are salivating at the prospect of getting a piece of that. It was said, in the open discussion for the bill to ban tiktok, that they want to “make” tiktok “better”. Not better for the people using it, better for the people who could profit from it. Several of these shit heads have already, formally and publicly stated that they have an interest in acquiring the platform, because the bill says: tiktok will be banned unless it sells to an American owner. So the only way for tiktok to operate in America after the bill is passed, is for them to buy it.
The legislation isn’t for the children. The legislation is the people who actually hold power, making the government do a thing so they can reap the rewards.
They want to profit off of the children. Because mind raping them at a young age into a life of consumerism and spending, while earning money for that privilege, is a capitalists wet dream.
“What about the people on epsteins list” is gotta be the most generic strawman.
Cna you believe that they haven’t arrested every single person who ever made social contact with epstein and arrested them for rape, despite a lack of any supporting evidence that they committed a crime?
I mean i am sure that rich people get away with lots of stuff that normal people wont. But this whole “pedophile elite” thing smells very similar to the “elite jews control everything” and is simplistic bs at best. I am not even sure what people are on about. I would be happy if we finally fought for more equality and better distrubution of wealth but that seems “too simple” to most or something.
In other countries the connection is power, not Judaism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/05/the-main-allegations-against-ted-heath
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/16/westminster-paedophile-ring-innuendo-evidence
This is what a lot of power does to humans, it corrupts, makes one view those with less power as less of a human being. There shouldnt be any absurdly powerful people.
An alternative is that corrupt people seek power.
Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew’s accuser, disagrees.
Can you believe no other single person has been arrested?
Can you believe Ghislaine was only convicted of supplying girls to a dead man so that no-one else need be prosecuted.
