721–730 of 1001 posts
Next up, China forces Tesla to divest its Chinese operations or face ban
They did it to all previous OEMs via forcing them into Joint Ventures. So it would be actually equal treatment for Tesla as the rest of OEMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, no, no. China and Russia are banning Facebook, Instagram and whatnot because they are evil dictatorships. The US is banning TikTok because China is evil dictatorship.
Nice try bro, but US symmetrically responds to the hostile actions of authoritarian governments. If those authoritarian governments wouldn't be desperately trying to destroy the free world, no one would care of their silly apps.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media%27s_role_in_the_A...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't first ammendment protect even that. Propaganda of other countries are legal under first ammendment. Why should we be a nanny state that should dictate which apps one can or cannot use on one's device. Also even at the hight of cold war, Soviet Life magazine was published and disseminated widely in the US.
A US citizen distributing foreign media themselves is quite different than what is effectively a directly controlled broadcast owned by a foreign government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about being allowed, but more about being steered. And yes, other social media platforms have similar issues with algorithmic feeds, but they are currently a less clear national security threat. Though, one could argue they are radicalizing internal threats.
>less clear national security threat. Though, one could argue they are radicalizing internal threats. I don't and will never buy this argument that showing people certain media causes violence or is a security threat. People doing violent things is a security threat. What they read or believed that led them to do that is not. Freedom of expression is vital and defending it comes with serious negative consequences. It…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is not a US citizen.
The constitution is explicit when it carves out exemptions for citizens and non citizens. The first amendment is not one of them.
I think the primary argument for banning TikTok should be based on reciprocity rather than moral and/or security concerns. We can make similar arguments about the negative effects of Facebook, Instagram, and etc. even from the POVs of other countries, but the key issue here is that China heavily restricts foreign apps and services from operating in their market. If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete…
> If China is unwilling to allow US companies to compete fairly in their digital ecosystem, why the hell should we continue to grant Chinese firms unrestricted access to our market? I understand what you're saying and I actually support the ban as tiktok can be used as a giant botnet at-will by Chinas government, but an eye for an eye doesn't end well and the US is supposed to be "free" so this part of the argument I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>an eye for an eye doesn't end well Actually in most games that are played repeatedly, the optimal strategy is to cooperate with cooperators and defect against defectors.
This simplification misses key nuances. Strategies like Tit-for-Tat (TFT) are context-sensitive and not universally "optimal." Effectiveness varies with game structure, communication clarity, and the presence of noise. Moreover, the "optimal" strategy adjusts in finite games (which you didn't clarify which type of game) due to the endgame effect. Simple hole in your simplification: one simple misunderstanding could l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't first ammendment protect even that. Propaganda of other countries are legal under first ammendment. Why should we be a nanny state that should dictate which apps one can or cannot use on one's device. Also even at the hight of cold war, Soviet Life magazine was published and disseminated widely in the US.
> Doesn't first ammendment protect even that. Nope. The first amendment protects the speech of US citizens and only to a certain extent. This is why the US has a torture center in Guantanamo. To avoid issues of constitutional rights. This is also, btw, what allows the CIA and NSA to spy on data you send overseas in violation of the 4th amendment. US laws are geographically bound.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US freedom applies only to citizens and residents and not foreign govts.
That’s part of what is being criticized. Human rights are supposed to be universal, and some countries actually handle them like that, applying them to citizens and foreigners alike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if data doesn’t leave US, we want to avoid algorithmic manipulation via TikTok feed.
This logic is not going to hold up in court. You cannot ban access to propaganda in the US.