381–390 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this singular issue may be the genesis of the rebirth of unions in a modern context.
I have never seen a Twitter mob manage to avoid the use of libelous claims. This begs the question, what could be done to protect people from online mobs? What relief do you think unions could provide?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the arrests in Portland, does that mean every country should ban American products?
Most countries arrest people who are breaking windows, setting things on fire, engaging in riots after being told to disperse and illegally carrying weapons. All of the people who were arrested were charged and then released (pending bail, recognizance, etc per Washington law). You may feel those actions are just, but being just does not make them legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. Every legal action was unprecedented at some point, until a precedent was set. That alone is not a strong argument against the TikTok ban being just. In addition to that, note that the EFF post you linked to mentions Lawfare's primer [1] which explains the legal case for the divesting or…
> Congress delegated some of its constitutional authority over foreign commerce to the President in 1988, explicitly empowering the President to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security. TikTok's acquisition by ByteDance falls under that authority. However, Congress cannot delegate a power they do not have. The US Constitution specifically states that: > No Bill of Attainder [law t…
Any acquisition involving foreign commerce is subject to the approval of the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States). Following is an explanation taken from a recent Congressional Research Service report [1] (page 5).
"These regulations created an essentially voluntary system of notification by the parties to an acquisition [...]. Despite the voluntary nature of the notification, firms largely comply with the provision, because the regulations stipulate that foreign acquisitions that are governed by the Exon-Florio review process that do not notify the committee remain subject indefinitely to divestment or other appropriate actions by the President. The regulations make it clear that the President alone determines 'whether a transaction threatens national security.'"
When ByteDance acquired TikTok, they chose not to undergo that review. This was their legal right. However, that made their acquisition liable to be retroactively disallowed by the President.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most countries arrest people who are breaking windows, setting things on fire, engaging in riots after being told to disperse and illegally carrying weapons. All of the people who were arrested were charged and then released (pending bail, recognizance, etc per Washington law). You may feel those actions are just, but being just does not make them legal.
Flip the script and it’s TikTok just complying with what you see as unjust laws, but they are laws of the CCP nonetheless.
We are under no duty to allow the CCP to act within our borders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is, when I post that Catalonia should be free and go on holiday in Spain, no spooks would follow me around, and no pressure would be put on German companies to fire me, and this isn't even remotely comparable.
7 elected politicians and 2 leaders of the independence movement have been arrested and convicted for the ‘crime’ of holding a referendum. Up to 13 years in prison.
> "being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free"
and if merely pointing that fact out is getting me downvoted, that's the problem of the people who are doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not banning the software. They're banning doing business with ByteDance. If no money or contract is executed, you aren't covered. It's ByteDance that chooses to enforce a ToS and have a contract - they could put the code and app up for download with no money changing hands, and it'd be fine. This is importantly different. Not saying it's right or wrong, just specifically different.
Indeed. I don't see why people are mischaracterising this ban; it isn't banning software, it's an extension of the concept of a 'commercial embargo' - except now it applies to a company instead of a country.
I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…
If a company is deemed to be considered the equivalent of a town square, it can be given the same restrictions as the 1st amendment. For example Malls cannot ban protected speech in their premises.
If a company is not deemed this by courts, they have the full right to ban you for non-protected reasons (excluding racism/sexism and so on)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radio Free Asia has been founded by the CIA, and is generally considered to be a propaganda rag. Would not use it as a source, and if you can only find RFA as a source and not much else it's probably outright false.
Wasn't that a different organization that operated in the 50s? The modern RFA started in the 90s and gets federal funding but is not associated with the CIA. They probably should have used a new name, but is there any other reason you think they are a CIA rag?
When US intelligence has credible proof of something and want to be trusted, they go to reputable media or outright publishes it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flip the script and it’s TikTok just complying with what you see as unjust laws, but they are laws of the CCP nonetheless.
Which is why we're banning them using the tool for that situation (a foreign company who is acting in a way unaligned to the interests of US citizens) and not arresting them. We are under no duty to allow the CCP to act within our borders.
In this nonsensical economy, the pathetic moral arguments made by this article are word vomit. Not relevant to anyone's life. Nobody cares. They should be locked up for abusing our collective brains with this irrelevant crap.