Man people really set up the strawmen here. Congress has literally said it’s about foreign influence, not about protecting children. It has absolutely nothing to do with kids. It has to do with China influencing the citizens of the United States to do things that are beneficial to China, against the interests of the US government.
It’s not a ban, if China gives up control of the app to a United States entity then there’s no problem. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children.
Who are they worried China is going to influence? Children, right? If it’s adults, that’s almost more insulting, they think we don’t deserve to be able to see all sides of an argument and are too stupid to discern fact from fiction. We may as well dispense with free expression entirely at that point because the government can just say “you’re too stupid to read this and we’re worried you’ll be influenced, so you can only read the books we’ve pre-approved for you”
It is every American’s right to think freely, to speak those thoughts to others, and to have others have the opportunity to hear those thoughts whether or not they are “good influences” according to govt. It is wild how easily people are willing to throw that right away for fears of “foreign influence”. What’s next, banning TV shows from foreign countries because they might “corrupt our culture”? Banning books with subversive topics because they will “give people bad ideas”?. This is how the road to fascism begins.
Congress has literally said it’s about foreign influence
Which is also a lie. The likes of Twitter, Facebook and Google are just as beholden to foreign governments such as the fascist regimes of India, Israel, Myanmar and others. They pay the people in Congress a lot more in legal bribes, though, so they can basically get away with anything.
It’s not a ban, if China gives up control of the app to a United States entity then there’s no problem.
Imagine the uproar if China demanded that Google stopped being a US military contractor…
What the whole thing is about is empty symbolic rhetoric and xenophobia in an election year and oppressive measures to go with it.
Americans are so racist that they can’t accept the fact that non-American companies can be successful.
1
Short answer: No
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooo
Its worth adding, TikTok in China (it’s called something else, I’m blanking) is entirely controlled on the state and there is absolutely no way that it would be permitted to host any political discussion or advocate mass action not approved by the state. Their “Hey call your congressman” stunt was the most idiotic PR move ever, because they demonstrated that this company is willing and able to leverage the userbase in the US in ways that would never be permitted in “West Taiwan”.
China beat America at capitalism and now America big sad. 😢
China doesn’t claim to be liberal, so no
According to that logic we should ban Instagram and Facebook
No. But that’s not the point. America’s government allows foreign aid interests to buy land and other property in America. Should they ban all of it, even if it crashes the economy?
Damn straight they should. No foreign entity should own any American land. Same goes for Canada too, with the obvious problem being their housing crisis caused by foreign real estate investment.
Congratulations, we have just destroyed global capitalism. Let’s go.
If the “protect children” politician does nothing about school shootings, you know they’re a PoS.
Because it’s not a list of rapists, just a list of people Epstein was interested in having influential control over.
…and even going to the Island just meant he was trying to influence you. He was looking for whatever leverage he could find over people.
The list of rapists certainly exists
Court papers said that alongside photos were compact discs with handwritten labels including: “‘Young [Name] + [Name],’
Agreed. Its a list. Anyone can make a list of people. They can even put people they’ve never met on the list.
I can make a list, put your name on it, label “bad people” and leave it for the FBI to find. Does that prove you’re bad?
For those who have truley committed the crimes suggested by the “list”, I vote for a beheading (not the one attached to the neck).
When was the last time Tik Tok was accused of rape?
Virginia Giuffre: What we know about Prince Andrew’s accuser
This is fucking retarded
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.
That slope is very slippery.
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],’
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.
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
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’m all for setting a precedent if it’s about banning chinese spyware and propaganda weapons.
- 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
