Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

rubio.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–445 of 445 posts

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#441

Post by resuresu »

mistermann wrote: post #366
resuresu wrote: post #347

Hope it passes. I want that malicious social engineering tool purged from civilization and anyone involved in the creation of it thrown in prison.

Shall we apply the same standard to mainstream "journalism", or is there a certain level of acceptable social engineering?

There should be rules on what they can put into news papers or on the air. Needs to go through some review process where actual sources must be provided and verified. Not the trash we have today where “sources say” “polls say” lol what f*cking sources? Prove your BS!

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#442

Post by kube-system »

somrand0 wrote: post #434
kube-system wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a general list of differences between physical and digital things. Trade restrictions on physical goods don't exist due to matters of ownership. > the same stock cannot be owned by multiple people at the same time. This may be an irrelevant tangent, but that's entirely untrue.

clearly I need to learn more about stock ownership; but that would require the opportunity to own stock. And I'm from a secondary/lower socioeconomic-tier from a 3rd tier (third world country). So those opportunities aren't readily available to me. regardless, the restrictions on trade of physical goods exists due to matters of ownership over government-level permissions (licenses?) for import/export, taxation, an ot…

trade restrictions exist for many other reasons than 'ownership': political reciprocity, agricultural security, product health and safety, national security, etc. When these types of products come through customs, it doesn't matter who owns them, they're prohibited because of the inherent qualities of the items themselves.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#443

Post by def_true_false »

kristopolous wrote: post #417
akomtu wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're surprisingly passionate about defending TikTok and CCP. Also, I want to note how your comment is structured: 1. Demand an impossible proof. 2. Gaslight with remarks about vast spy networks, mind control and illuminatis. 3. Distract with an irrelevant, but true story. Like I said, you're defending TikTok & CCP with surprising passion and competence.

It's not impossible. I literally gave two examples along with a giant book of where such proof is. Yes, true stories, that's what I'm asking for. Not fantastic tales inspired from the protocols of the elders of Zion. Something like the Panama papers or Epstein or the VW emission scandal. There's more examples

Proof of having a capability and proof of using said capability is not the same thing. Your line of reasoning is no different from people who bitch about security patches costing performance when there is no evidence of exploits in the wild.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#444

Post by willio58 »

hereme888 wrote: post #218
willio58 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. If you are a wholesome person, it will be wholesome. If you are hateful, there's so much hate on tiktok.

Some content may be wholesome, but the dopamine-stimulating AI algorithms that abuse human psychology are never wholesome. And we should never justify the dopamine abuse with "people have the power to choose" because that never worked out with cigs, opioids, crack, gambling, or any other addictive activity or substance.

I agree with this but I don't think the solution is banning by law. The solution for all of these substances you mention is education, prevention, and treatment. Just like with banning alcohol, people will get around it and find even less healthy ways to feed their addictions. I mean Instagram already stole tiktok's functionality, now they just need to tune their algorithms to match the same level of dopamine drip that tiktok supplies.

Trust me, I'm aware of how addictive tiktok is, I had to swear off it after finding myself multiple hours deep in scrolling holes multiple times. But banning one platform (over something unrelated, privacy/data concerns) will do nothing to stem social media addiction.

Re: Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok

#445

Post by mensetmanusman »

three_seagrass wrote: post #436
mensetmanusman wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If China is able to ban all western social media because of “law” then per definition any law that stops Chinese social media is also “legit” if we go by the argument that it is okay to ban things if the law says to ban them.

Please elaborate on how a law banning a single company is the same as a law that allow companies to comply.

TikTok can comply by not having CCP leadership in the executive management. See the conflict?
Post reply on HN