31–40 of 49 posts
This law is a failure waiting to happen. First off, what about all the folks in Montana who already have TikTok? Will Montana State Troopers be setting up roadblocks to check people's phones, then going house to house to do the same? And when it comes to stuff like this, kids aren't stupid. If they can't gain access to a VPN providing an IP address outside Montana, they'll just message someone they know from out of s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol. Don't be upset when your sister cuts all contact from the family, just saying.
It's funny. The type of thinking that normalizes or encourages people to cut off contact from their family almost all originate from social media and adjacent online bullshit. From that point of view, it's best to not have kids exposed to any of this shit. Not like people can't learn how to navigate social media when they're adults.
I'm a little confused. I am unaware of that "type of thinking," perhaps because I don't use mainstream social media?
I DDG'd around a bit, but found only stuff like articles from Psychology Today and advice columns from therapists and the like about "toxic families," child abuse and similar.
But based on the tenor of your post, that doesn't appear to be what you mean.
I seem to be missing something important.
I'm not being coy or snarky here. I really haven't encountered (except in discussions around abusive relationships --- abusers try hard to cut their victims off from family/friends because it makes it easier to control them --- and cults -- generally for the same reasons).
Would you please point me in the right direction here?
Thank you!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how provocative another comment was or you feel it was. We ban accounts that do so, for what should be obvious reasons. I'm not going to ban you right now because everyone gets activated sometimes and it doesn't look like you've been breaking the site guidelines recently (at least not from a quick skim I just did). But please don't do this again! and please avoid…
I know. Hence the addendum to my comment. As I said there: "I screwed up. I will try to do better in the future."
My apologies for wasting your time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how provocative another comment was or you feel it was. We ban accounts that do so, for what should be obvious reasons. I'm not going to ban you right now because everyone gets activated sometimes and it doesn't look like you've been breaking the site guidelines recently (at least not from a quick skim I just did). But please don't do this again! and please avoid…
>You can't attack others like this on HN, regardless of how provocative another comment was or you feel it was. We ban accounts that do so, for what should be obvious reasons. I know. Hence the addendum to my comment. As I said there: "I screwed up. I will try to do better in the future." My apologies for wasting your time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " " Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
does that disallow criticism of the style of a comment?
I'm rather surprised that you can write a law calling out one particular company by name and applying solely to that one company, as the Montana bill does. How common is this?
Practically unheard of. It's usually tiptoed around by wording laws in such a way that they only apply to one company. Compare, for example, the recent Arkansas bill[1] banning some social media services, which effectively exempts TikTok by making an exception for any "social media company that allows a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment". For that matter, it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically unheard of. It's usually tiptoed around by wording laws in such a way that they only apply to one company. Compare, for example, the recent Arkansas bill[1] banning some social media services, which effectively exempts TikTok by making an exception for any "social media company that allows a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment". For that matter, it's…
Yeah, I understand passing a law that is intentionally designed to apply to only one company. But it's odd for a law to just name the company.
This law is a failure waiting to happen. First off, what about all the folks in Montana who already have TikTok? Will Montana State Troopers be setting up roadblocks to check people's phones, then going house to house to do the same? And when it comes to stuff like this, kids aren't stupid. If they can't gain access to a VPN providing an IP address outside Montana, they'll just message someone they know from out of s…
> First off, what about all the folks in Montana who already have TikTok? The ban is silly, but I’d have Apple and Google remove the app for all users with a billing address in Montana.
This won’t pass. How are you going to enforce this? Are you going to fine Montana residents 10K per TikTok post…? Republicans keep pushing the most un-american stuff on this country. What happened to “freedom”?
The bill answers your question if you read it. The fine is on an entity providing TikTok. So that would be Apple, Google, ByteDance. It explicitly states no individuals will be fined.