(Not you OP, you = governments)
You want to block corporate social media sites as propaganda
I want to block corporate social media sites because they’re parasites on society.
We are not the same.
Im actually quite upset that lawmakers havent used this to pass generalized privacy protection.
They have an opportunity to end mass survailance, but thats OK if its US survailance
Because the US government is more interested in picking who can spy on us for fun and profit, not whether anyone should.
Our tools of social connection vs their tools of propaganda.
Now fill in the possessive pronouns with either country and change them depending on the specific tool used.
What sucks is I’ve imagined a social media platform that was built with good intentions to actually better being people together and make their lives better. It’s one of the worst missed opportunities in recent memory.
I want to block them because they are both
I don’t care what they are. I just think the internet in its current state sucks and I like the idea of there being less of it.
Imagine blocking TikTok for being a competitor in a so called free market under the guise of national security and privacy
They didn’t blink an eye when Facebook had to testify about blatantly abusing COPPA and doing the exact same thing.
And not even the platform itself, just the company so it can be liquidated or sold to an American megacorp so it can make money for the poor shareholders and let the NSA do their funny PRISM plugin.
Americans are the most propagandized people on earth. They’ll kick and scream about Chinese Censorship, then accuse a Singapore CEO of being a Chinese Communist and pass legislation to Censor an American company because it took money from Chinese investment group ages ago.
Imo they should force a sale of twitter for taking saudi money as well, but I guess somehow the execution happy saudis are somehow better people?
Imo they should force a sale of twitter for taking saudi money as well
I mean, they should quarantine that whole site and sterilize it with napalm. But forcing the sale is another option.
The company is allowed to operate under different ownership. It’s pretty simple, and makes a lot of sense for the nation’s interests given the amount of hostility from China.
TikTok is literally a weapon created and used to undermine the USA (among other democracies but mainly USA) and to brainwash its citizens. Anyone who doesn’t see it is a useful idiot who bought into Chinese propaganda.
If you think this is only about TikTok, you bought into US propganda instead.
All the popular social media apps have been weaponized to undermine democracy across the globe. They’re in dire need of sensible regulation. In many democracies, including the US, the current political situation makes this a virtual impossibility. Personally, I’d rather see a ban on all content algorithm social media than no regulation at all.
I’d be happy with just a minor amendment to the Communication Decency Act that would make social media companies liable for content their algorithms recommend. It’s fine for them to be shielded for liability for things posted by users on a site that’s moderated to avoid the problems that act was designed to prevent. But as soon as a complex algorithm is recommending content to someone, it should be considered to be the same as traditional media publishing something.
And the libertarian techbros should be happy with this because it’s actually less regulation. Though somehow I think their libertarian ideals would melt away when a regulation that shields them from liability is removed.
I literally watch cat videos and cooking videos on tiktok. Damn Chinese. Giving me cute cars and recipes.
Oh look… the liberals are at it again.
Your whataboutism doesn’t change the fact that the west’s claims of valuing “press freedom” turning out to be completely false posits severe implications for your ideology, liberal - not anyone’s living in China.
You’re not communicating your point very well. Do you mean like neoliberal liberal or like fox news liberals?
He’s on lemmy. He def means “non-tankies”
“non-tankies”
Perhaps it’s best not to use terms you don’t understand, liberal.
😂 okay buddy.
Alright fuck it, I’ll ask: what do you think tankie means?
And more-importantly, what did you actually mean? lol
Like the other guy said, authoritarian communists.
Or authoritarian communists pretending not to be. The type of people to come out and defend everything China and Russia do while decrying “the west” at every opportunity. Constantly at it with “what aboutisms” and other bad faith arguments. People who claim we should vote third party/not vote while pretending they want to make the US better through these actions, when really they just want the US to fail. Jackson Hinkle types or Infra Haz types.
If I recall correctly, tankies are named because tanks were used to put down protests in Czechoslovakia under the USSR and tankies will defend it.
Interesting. I looked at the urban dictionary definition, which was super helpful from a historical perspective (people that support sending in the tanks). But appreciate the straightforward answer. Thanks!
Not sure why people were offended by my comment. Maybe I could’ve worded the question better. It’s weird if people expect others to know this super obscure shit no one ever really talks about anywhere else.
It’s very simple. “Authoritarian Communists”
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies.
The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.
Sorry, I must be the dumbest person who ever tried to be a leftist.
So the first guy criticized libs (seems like the answer is fox news type libs) and then I asked him to clarify and another person replied saying he means not-tankies (so leftists that aren’t neolibs/or just communists maybe?). At that point the first guy replies saying he knows what tankie means and that the other guy actually doesn’t. That’s when I replied again.
Now it seems like you (and voters) are saying the guy that replied to me was in fact correct in his usage meaning she didn’t guy’s actually a tankienor maybe a conservative? I get lost there. Surely the first guy isn’t an authoritarian communist. Like what? Someone help!
I just want to communicate with other political junkies and nerds that want to fight capitalism… someday, somebow.
deleted by creator
neoliberal liberal or like fox news liberals?
Is there a functional difference?
Doesn’t fox refer to anyone to the left of the American center as liberal? I’m not super versed but I was thinking it wouldn’t make sense to call socialists, neoliberals, and communists all liberals and I def don’t think fox is being that specific
Doesn’t fox refer to anyone to the left of the American center as liberal?
Yes, they do… but this doesn’t change the fact that Fox itself peddles liberalism - ie, capitalism. That is, when it’s not peddling outright fascism - liberalism’s status quo-sustaining alter-ego.
I was thinking it wouldn’t make sense to call socialists
No, it doesn’t make sense to call people such as socialists - who want to dismantle all aspects of liberalism (and with it, fascism) - “liberals.”
China isn’t a good country either. I don’t get why your so excited to back people up who commit genocide.
Also is banning TikTok really preventing freedom of the press? They are beholden to the Chinese government and used to suppress talk about the Uighyur cultural genocide.
How about we instead replace it with something like Lemmy but for video?
China isn’t a good country either.
China never claimed to have a “free press.”
Also is banning TikTok really preventing freedom of the press?
What (alleged) “freedom of the press”? This (supposed) “freedom of the press” is a cornerstone of liberal ideology - not whatever it is that China is doing.
Again… the realization that liberal ideology is full of holes (and always have been) has implications for liberals - not people living in the PRC.
deleted by creator
Huh, interesting. Thanks for that.
ETA: I realized I was unclear. I’m thanking the user for giving me such a clear reason to block them. It’s not always so cut and dry.
deleted by creator
Defederating from lemmy.ml? What a loss!
No way, only China and Russia (THE BAD GUYS) spy while the US is innocent and unaware of even how to spy because it’s the GOOD GUY.
deleted by creator
I love these winnie pooh memes
Ah yes let’s copy China. Progressive
I hate tiktok
but all these talks about keeping children off phones is restricting the flow of information to a point that it scares me. we have Enciclopedias in our pockets ffs.
if the bar kids from easily accessing the internet, they’re effectively blocking 2mil people (14-17) from instant access to information. (I did some sleep deprived math, dont @me if its off)
I’m thinking of downloading Wikipedia for my kids to use offline. Apparently it’s around 300gb, so I’ll probably do it on work’s wifi one day.
Lol yeah its far smaller without the pictures - I think closer to 50GB? Not sure though you’d have to check, but much better than 300GB.
Sweet!
Well it should come as no surprise the dictionary is in one of the most recent pushes for book bans in Florida
As far as I know, there’s no legislation being talked about to keep kids off their phones, or even social media. This is more of a concern about China having unfettered access to user data at the drop of a hat, which I can absolutely agree is an issue. Though I don’t know that current legislation is the solution.
That said, kids absolutely do need to spend more time off their phone than they do. We’ve seen legitimate issues arise from perpetual phone use. The issue is… you can’t really legislate that. It’s parents that need to get their heads out of the sand and actually parent.
If they actually cared about that, they would legislate data privacy laws that keep our data from being sold on the open market. As it is now, everyone from the FBI to your local cops, to the RNC to Chinese or Saudi companies can pay cash for user data. This legislation is largely protectionism for our own domestic surveillance capitalism industry.
Absolutely agreed, but that’s something republicans would never vote for. This is something that actually has a chance to be implemented.
Baby steps are better than no steps.
A fine example yet again why a two party system is so bad.
Honestly the brain dead obvious political move outside of monied interests is strong legislation to protect peoples information.
But we won’t see that
china blocked tiktok first
Not Douyin
Well, do you want to be like China in that regard?
Yes clearly the way you know you are always doing the morally correct thing is to sink to the level of the everyone else.
And by everyone else you mean one country known for authoritarian censorship
What I meant was a general operating principle, not to take a side in a pissing match.
The standard is good behavior, not other people. Pointing out that X country is doing something wrong does not mean every country gets to do that wrong thing. The alternative to this viewpoint is one where we are effectively or actually extinct from an escalating cycles of violence and a race to the moral bottom.
See I thought you meant the exact opposite and thought “damn that’s dumb, that person is being dumb, I should be snarky”
No worries, should have been more clear. Have a good day.
USA is not banning tiktok, it’s banning china’s ownership of tiktok. If Chinese stake is sold to someone else, tiktok will remain.
Isn’t TikTok owned and operated out of Singapore?
So no different than any international corporation that offshores for best financial advantage?
Where a business is incorporated or operated from has no bearing on where the ownership money comes from.
But china doesnt claim to be a paragon of freedom unlike the united states. No one cares that china banned american social media becuase its expected. People care that america bans tiktok because its hypocritical.
Besides, tiktok isn’t even “chinese”, their government only has a 1% stake in the company while foreign investors(mostly american) hold 60% IIRC. Y’all can fact check me on that. This is an attempt by the American bourgeosie to force bytedance into being publicly traded so that Americans can have more sway over the companies decisions. This allows them to silence an alternative news source that often conflicts with their interests or make a shit ton of money if they give in and opem up to public trading.
The American bourgeosie is nervous about actually facing competition on the online market place. They’ve dominated it so long thanks to silicone valley and they got used to it.
The U.S. doesn’t claim to be a paragon of freedom for the CCP or Chinese-owned and operated enterprises lmao
Ah yes, the famous “you’re free as long as you obey me”. Totally not imperialism.
What freedoms granted by the Constitution have ever applied to foreign legal entities? And since when did sucking off 200 billion dollar corporations become part of the leftist playbook?
The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, *Boumediene v. Bush, *which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.
Unless otherwise specified, the rights granted in the US constitution apply to all people of the world regardless of where they are.
If corporations are people as defined by citizens united, then these protections apply to foreign companies also.
So we support Citizens United now?
- One can only speak for themselves. Is extremely weird to say “we support X now?”. I’m not a we, and neither are you.
- Nowhere did I say I supported it, the question was since when do foreign companies get rights, and my answer was merely showing a way in which they would under our current precedents.
I’m not sucking any corporation. Many people here are licking USA ass though. In support of a shameless imperialist move.
Idk, I’ve looked through a lot of comments here, and there seem to be three prevailing opinions:
- “No social media company is a good social media company, let it burn”
- “I don’t actively want to see TikTok banned, but there are literally thousands of more important things to worry about than the legal troubles of an—again— $200,000,000,000 corporation
- ”Nooo u force ByteDance to sell TikTok that is hypocrite and liturally the same as the Great Firewall” (it isn’t, by the way; the U.S. will never block the website no matter what happens)
I wholly agree with you first paragraph.
But the 1% stake the Chinese government has in ByteDance is a golden share.
From The Economist:
More stunning are the terms of these investments. ciif’s 1% stake in a ByteDance subsidiary gives it the power to appoint one of three board members in a unit that holds key licences for operating its domestic short-video business.
To what extent the CCP will exert control or what ByteDance has agreed to is unclear. And who knows if any of that matters.
A FORCED SALE IS NOT A BAN.
I’ve said this like a thousand times and I hate repitition, but the USA as a whole has never tried to ban TikTok. Trump claims he did, it isn’t allowed for military servicemembers, but it has never been banned.
Yeah, this way the US gets to control the algos and surveillance
Forced sale only works if your government has any control over the organizational structure of your company which the USA does not. What they are effectively doing is forcing the American arm of Tik Tok to sell without access to it’s technology which China can absolutely deny. If the sale doesn’t go through, the US will ban its use. If they do sell, it will be without the technology and a company will be Tik Tok in name only having to essentially build the service from the ground up. This is an effective ban of Tik Tok regardless of the outcome.
What makes you think the proprietary rights held by the Chinese hold any sway in the USA? If they want to try suing they can, heck they can even take it to international courts, but they won’t have much luck given the evidence that China was using it maliciously.
What I mean is, there is no way the Chinese headquarters of tik Tok will let the America arm of the company have access to its algorithm. Tik Tok is nothing without its algorithm. At best it’s a large install base that will dwindle once they realize til Tok kinda sucks all of a sudden.
Oh that would be interesting, it seems very uneconomic for it to be that centralized because the US facilities would be useless but I suppose I could see it as a possibility. In that case, whoever they sell to could try to sue them with pretty unlikely odds of success. More likely China would just refuse to sell in that circumstance, in which case it would be the same as China themselves ending TikTok.
Ooh… i dont think the tankies will like this!
Oh no anyway
Its hilarious the instance the tankies most frequent is banned in china
Tankies like a lot of evil shit, so I really don’t care about what they like or don’t like.
