U.S. investors, Trump close in on TikTok deal with China

Post by cjbgkagh » Thu, Sep 18, 2025, 1:49 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #479

cjbgkagh wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With regards to sovereignty I was referring to US foreign policy, not dealing with annoying libs. Right now the struggle is between the Restrainers and the Primacists to decide if a war with China should be preceded by a war with Iran. Israel is pushing for the war with Iran because it wants to be the local hegemony. No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for…

> No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty You're mixing up sovereignty with direct democracy. We're a republic. We have total sovereignty when it comes to geopolitics. None of that requires Americans voting on foreign policy issues, which in reality, given even informed Americans' international li…

Post by estearum » Thu, Sep 18, 2025, 1:51 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #486

estearum wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also this only matters if the Fed is independent. If it’s not, the President can direct it to purchase unlimited treasury bonds, effectively printing unlimited money to fund any program it wants. Paired with this administration’s assertion of impoundment powers and the pocket rescission, the Congress’s power of the purse is completely neutered in both directions. The executive can decline to spend whatever it doesn’t…

Maybe the best solution is to adopt a parliamentary system of government? With the executive formally subordinated to the legislature, it can’t spend money against the legislative majority’s wishes, because if it upsets the legislature, the legislature votes it out of power (commonly with no supermajority required, just a simple majority vote in the more numerous legislative house)

Post by giancarlostoro » Thu, Sep 18, 2025, 2:04 AM UTC

glenstein wrote: post #485

jfengel wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Board will include one U.S. government–appointed director. Why? The nominal reason for all this is that we didn't want a Chinese company controlling an important social media outlet. I don't love that reasoning, but fine, whatever. So they're forcibly selling it to an American company. Which should solve the problem, right? Are we going to be putting government-appointed directors on all social media companies? Or ju…

>Is there something so overwhelmingly devious about the TikTok format in particular that the government has to supervise it? Well, yes, for starters. I think there's a pretty strong consensus from people on all sides that there's no more addictive algorithm than the TikTok one. It's the beneficiary of powerful network effects, it created those effects for itself with a superior app, but nevertheless it is a distingui…

Post by frollogaston » Thu, Sep 18, 2025, 2:08 AM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #123

fullshark wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe these crypto-zealots who scream about decentralization will actually try and build a thriving decentralized media instead of pumping and dumping shitcoins?

The problem is that it's hard to make these things popular. There are several ActivityPub services that are pretty good and even have decent UXes, but they aren't super active. A major issue is it's confusing and the funds are limited.

Post by frollogaston » Thu, Sep 18, 2025, 2:09 AM UTC

ElijahLynn wrote: post #350

Is this a coup by conservative government to gain control of this social network to promote it's ideologies? first Twitter, now Tiktok, both controlled by conservative interests?