• MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • antidote101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • fin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    TikTok isn’t your “right”, and if you say that banning tiktok is talking away your rights, TikTok’s taking away people’s lives

  • TheControlled@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    • 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

    • Gabu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      A honeypot trap that’s never used as a trap is just free honey.

  • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Fuck TikTok, but I’m sick of hearing “BUT THE KIDS!!!” As an excuse for constantly trampling everyone’s freedoms

    • Ziixe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The fact that we have to baby proof the internet because someone is too lazy to do basic parenting is crazy

  • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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?

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        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?

      • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          “You can’t use this at work” and “You can’t use this ever” are very different things.

          • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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?

            • Gabu@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              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

              • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • Gabu@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Are you even remotely aware of the level of spying going on in 'murica, by 'murica?

        • Jako301@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          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”

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      TBH the comments are always filled with “Fuck TikTok” so it doesn’t feel like an organic trend of posts to me.

    • ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

  • Agrivar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I may have missed something in civics class, but since when is access to a crappy social media site a right?

    • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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. The medium shouldn’t matter, speech is speech whether it’s an app, website, chat server, newspaper, bulletin board, code, painting, drawing, whatever.

      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.

      • borari@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I mean I’m not saying that this is being gone about the right way or for the right reasons, but when a 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)

        • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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?

          • borari@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              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.

              1. 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.

              • borari@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  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.