41–49 of 49 posts
>The bill makes it illegal to download TikTok in the state, with penalties of up to $10,000 a day for any entity, such as Apple and Google's app stores or TikTok itself, that makes the popular video-streaming app available. Not clear to me: is it illegal to download tiktok or to provide a download to tiktok?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Lots of false positives if you do that. What happens if you're on a shared plan, and the only resident of Montana is the primary bill-to person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>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. 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 "toxi…
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.
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”?
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 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.
I just noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35563286 - yikes, that's really not ok. But I'm going to assume that your intention not to do that kind of thing backpropagates to cover earlier cases as well.
I noted your attention to that comment earlier today, but am only responding here and now. And yes, your assumption is correct. Thank you for (in this case, and in general here on HN) for embodying the ideals in the the HN guidelines.
I can't speak for anyone else, but your example makes me more inclined to calmer, more reasoned and good faith posting.
In fact, when I joined HN 2.5 years ago or so, I left behind a different news aggregator (which shall remain nameless) because I realized (not without provocation, but as you correctly point out, that's not a good reason to be a jerk) I was acting just as poorly as those I would castigate there. And I didn't like what sort of person that made me.
HN, its users (for the most part) and the consistently enforced guidelines led me to be more measured, thoughtful and mindful of the impact of my interactions with others.
As we've seen, I'm not perfect, but I'm much more of the kind of poster that I want to be thanks to that.
Just to confirm my understanding WRT the comment referenced, it was the last three words that were the bulk of the problem, yes?
Edit: Cleaned up my prose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35563286 - yikes, that's really not ok. But I'm going to assume that your intention not to do that kind of thing backpropagates to cover earlier cases as well.
>I just noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35563286 - yikes, that's really not ok. But I'm going to assume that your intention not to do that kind of thing backpropagates to cover earlier cases as well. I noted your attention to that comment earlier today, but am only responding here and now. And yes, your assumption is correct. Thank you for (in this case, and in general here on HN) for embodying the ideal…
> Just to confirm my understanding WRT the comment referenced, it was the last three words that were the bulk of the problem, yes?
Those were the worst bit but if you read the comment closely there's actually only one substantive sentence in it ("All Things Considered is not Fresh Air.") The other three sentences are all flamewar tropes, and the post wuld have been much better with those removed. The one substantive sentence would probably have been fine on its own, or you could optionally have added a bit more information to explain your point more fully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I just noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35563286 - yikes, that's really not ok. But I'm going to assume that your intention not to do that kind of thing backpropagates to cover earlier cases as well. I noted your attention to that comment earlier today, but am only responding here and now. And yes, your assumption is correct. Thank you for (in this case, and in general here on HN) for embodying the ideal…
Thank you! that's satisfying to read and I appreciate your taking the time. > Just to confirm my understanding WRT the comment referenced, it was the last three words that were the bulk of the problem, yes? Those were the worst bit but if you read the comment closely there's actually only one substantive sentence in it ("All Things Considered is not Fresh Air.") The other three sentences are all flamewar tropes, and…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames [1]
[1] While the quote I used was apropos, I strongly recommend against watching this movie. It's terrible!