561–570 of 677 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. I don’t buy this argument until they ban all Chinese apps. As far as I can tell, it’s just a way to cut off younger voter’s access to information that is critical of Trump. And that’s a generous reading.
There’s an absolute ton of pro Trump material on TikTok made by young people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead, I believe that it is a national security issue Are you uncomfortable adopting that belief with literally no concrete evidence that anything of the sort is actually occurring? I don't know how you reconcile rule of law with such drastic interventions in the rights of companies without evidence of wrongdoing. If anything you can come up with in your most paranoid fantasies can be the basis of shutting down a…
This whole shift to China as the new "enemy" is fascinating. Even though Trump is more or less mental, and is recognised as such, he has somehow managed to whip up this new cold war frenzy even among his opponents in the media. I can barely remember any focus on China before Trump. Not saying that there shouldn't be any but it's still interesting how this can spread to the entire country even if the author is an untr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely Facebook’s a bigger issue than 60 second videos since any bad actor can target messaging at susceptibile users and no one will know. This just seems like yet another case of Republican double speak. Say one thing do a different thing that just coincidentally happens to grab power over others. Also, what is the method of using a 60 second video platform to share messaging with a crowd who will immediately scrol…
Theoretically, CCP could abuse location services to track movements of military personnel and civilians in a war. Since FB isn't Chinese, that is less of an issue for large scale surveilance. Also, if the Chinese had a zero day that they could exploit by pushing a malicious TikTok update, they could get root access to these phones and use them for surveillance on a large scale. Sure, this is all hypothetical, but it'…
Or the could just buy that information from the phone companies or data brokers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just think practically about what could happen. Suppose the chief executive has a grudge against an individual person. He or she bans them from owning anything produced overseas. Legal or not, I think we can agree that shouldn't be possible.
That has nothing to do with the current case. You violate US law by spying on citizens, you get banned. As a foreign company you don't get a right to a trial. The US Government does not have a relationship with your users - you do. If you get banned, your users have a right to sue you to recoup their costs. The US Government does not owe your users anything. If you get banned from the supermarket for not wearing a ma…
If there's no trial, who is to say that any law was violated?
In other words, if you think it's OK to steal our intellectual property, then we do the same. OK, to ban, block and force business structures, we treat you exactly as you treat us. Ban chunks of the international internet? No problem, you are treated the same.
Yes, I know this is simplistic. Yet, I think there's merit to the idea that we treat each other as we each choose to treat the other. I don't say this in a religious sense at all (atheist). I say this as a starting point from which a relationship can be refined and framed in less sophomoric terms. The alternative is to start from a position of absolute contempt for the other it is difficult to shift the relationship towards the middle. Just look at the, sadly, plentiful history of contentious divorces for examples of this.
BTW, I am not saying this in a US-centric fashion. China has been predatory to almost every nation of the world. From the tip of South America to the northern reaches of Europe and everything in between. They ought to live by the same rules they impose on everyone wishing to do business in China.
Another thing that deeply bothers me are the Chinese companies listed in US stock exchanges, none of which seem to comply with US regulatory and accounting requirements. In other words, they are likely as opaque as can be, or worse, they could be fabricating financials. US and other investors could be in for a horrific awakening as investment in these companies could very well be a house of cards.
I do believe framing the TikTok problem in terms of national security is wrong.
The correct term would be "global security". The US happens to be mounting resistance at this stage, yet other nations should think this through carefully. The most important fact to understand here is that the Chinese Communist Party has their hooks into absolutely everything in China. It might look benevolent when you buy your $28 blender at Walmart, but, in the long term, the equation that drives decision-making at the CCP isn't one that seeks to improve the lives of the Walmart shopper. Read Sun Tzu, it's all there. Now add ideology, motive and objectives.
As a parent I do not want my kids anywhere close to these algorithms. I also don't care for my kids to be anywhere close to the Facebook algorithms.
Imagine, if you will, if the US federal government had --by force, by law-- full access to all of the data from Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
Would you be comfortable with that reality?
I would not. Not one bit.
Why then, is it OK for the CCP to have their hooks into everything that reaches international shores that has "Made in China" in it?
I think it is fair to say that nobody is comfortable with their own government (anywhere in the world) having detailed access to all of their most intimate social media/internet data.
How could anyone be in favor of the CCP having exactly that access through, quite literally, every Chinese company doing business internationally?
For me, from a Libertarian/Classical Liberal perspective, this isn't about hating China --I do not, they should be free to do as they please within their own nation. This is about a general principle:
No government in the world should be allowed to sink their hooks into internet companies to turn everything we touch with our phones, computers and TV's into surveillance data from birth until death. That would be --and I hope everyone agrees with this-- unequivocally wrong, evil, disturbing and can lead to nothing good in the long term.
This is not how free human beings are supposed to live on this planet. Going from free animals roaming the plains to being entries in massive databases with unique identifiers tattooed on our backs is far from freedom. It's the internet turning humanity into cattle. Add the power of government to that and anyone should be able to understand why this TikTok mess is the right fight to have at this moment in time.
If not now, when?
i dont accept US moderation in my life with YouTube, twitter, or facebook. the fact that we're arguing the merit of CCP moderation of our youth is strictly a nonstarter; its crazy talk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system. Cuban cigars haven't broken any laws. Iranian ceramics haven't broken any laws. The power to sanction / embargo is a very well established power of the government, and it doesn't require a trial. China has long been in violation of the Trafficking in Persons…
Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? [a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they a…
This action is obviously not a bill of attainder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
> A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.
1) The action was not taken by the legislature,
2) I do not believe it declares TikTok to be "guilty" of any crime,
3) I'm sure the district court judge knows what a bill of attainder is, would have said so if this was one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Western governments are far more sinister than China Oh really, I didn't know my country was doing things way worse then putting people in concentration camps, harvesting organs, putting people in prison because they had group sex, putting people in prison for years because they legally protested etc. Thanks for the information! But just for future discussions when I try to talk down these pesky people that try to…
[flagged]
Let's see.. in the US, force sterilization leads to an investigation and the relevant doctor being fired and punished. In China, it results in a promotion, because it's the official policy. Seems like a bit of a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system. Cuban cigars haven't broken any laws. Iranian ceramics haven't broken any laws. The power to sanction / embargo is a very well established power of the government, and it doesn't require a trial. China has long been in violation of the Trafficking in Persons…
Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? [a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they a…
That does not apply on a number of levels.
1) this ban is an act of the executive, not the legislature. It is not a bill.
2) this ban does not declare tik tok illegal (It's not clear what it even means for a product to be against the law).
3) The department of Commerce has a long history of... regulating commerce. It's what it does. If this kind of trade regulation was indeed unconstitutional, someone would have noticed by now.