571–580 of 769 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"U.S. bad so just ignore outside influence". Can you imagine a world where both should be taken seriously? Or are you just here to minimize?
Our official policy is to bankrupt our country by medaling in the affairs of everyone else, how could their “influence” possibly be any worse?
> it would "not directly prohibit the continued use of TikTok" by Apple or Google users who have already downloaded TikTok. But it conceded the prohibitions on providing support "will eventually be to render the application unworkable." I have a technical question with regards to this. Typically, censorship* investigation efforts (from academia or elsewhere, such as OONI, Apernet etc.) have tended to focus on non-Ame…
Would killing .ipa/.apk distribution not suffice? PWA still sucks, no one knows how to deal with .apk let alone invalid signed .ipa, I think it'll effectively prevent any app from going mainstream. Which is crazy but I suppose okay just this one time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Deliberately misinforming people, especially under a foreign state payroll, is illegal. First of all if you have any evidence of TikTok engaging in it, you should present it since even our government have said there is no such evidence and that possibility remains hypothetical. Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
There are several studies thwt strongly imply TikTok pushes an agenda.
Without substantiating your claim with links / references, this is an empty "appeal to authority" argument, aka weasel words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ticktock content is curated to fit CCP’s narrative not simply an algorithmic reflection of what its users care about. If you can show evidence of that you should give it to the U.S. government, because it has repeatedly said there is no evidence of such and any threat remains hypothetical.
I’ve read it in a few places ex: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-... Not sure how creditable their research is, but I’d place it above random news articles.
So instead of arguing the U.S. social media has an anti-China bias, they argued that it's the evidence of TikTok being more pro-China.
Using American social media as the control group for neutrality on China is absolutely insane.
The most likely cause is that TikTok is just a lot less political and more international than YT and Instagram.
For rest of the world, people do not automatically associate words like "Xinjiang" to "Chinese government oppression", the fact that they expect that to be the top result can be argued that American media is the one manipulating information.
Apple and Google control exactly what data apps can possibly harvest, via their OS permissions. There are millions of apps on their app stores. If apps are acting like spyware then the government should pressure Apple and Google to fix the issue at the OS level. Otherwise it's just whack-a-mole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>Deliberately misinforming people, especially under a foreign state payroll, is illegal. First of all if you have any evidence of TikTok engaging in it, you should present it since even our government have said there is no such evidence and that possibility remains hypothetical. Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
Not accurate, no, assuming that by misinformation you mean information that the author knows to be false. To name just two quite legally clear examples with no inherent connection to foreign states, US defamation law and US product liability law often create civil liability and occasionally even criminal liability for certain categories of knowingly false statements.
But, sure, spreading misinformation is not always illegal, and a blanket ban on that would indeed violate the First Amendment even though more targeted bans have been upheld as passing the relevant judicial tests for laws affecting First Amendment rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Holy shit can you people stop with "every point that disagrees with me is a russian propaganda point" are you serious? Can you not conceive of anyone disagreeing with you in good faith without being a state actor? You're literally just declaring a specific kind of speech "not free speech" as if it's a fact and not your arbitrary opinion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Censorship... zzzZZZzz They're banning app/news delivery app managed by enemy government It is not like they're blocking internet, wikipedia they're banning stupid, memes/brainrot app
- they're banning stupid, memes/brainrot app Imagine same rhetoric by CCP adressing Facebook or YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is the exact same question being asked around the global - how could you be sure that American made LLMs are not altered in a way to maximize US interests at the costs of everyone else's.
You cannot. But in US you have elections every 4 years wheres in Russia or China both Putin and Xi are "elected" for their lifetime. Does it tell you anything ?
The "two-party system" in the U.S. is perhaps broken beyond repair, and presents an illusion of choice in many ways rather than an actual choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>Deliberately misinforming people, especially under a foreign state payroll, is illegal. First of all if you have any evidence of TikTok engaging in it, you should present it since even our government have said there is no such evidence and that possibility remains hypothetical. Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
Again, does NOBODY know what the first amendment covers???
If you yell FIRE in a crowded theatre (misinformation) that is not covered by the 1st amendment[1]. Please stop talking confidently about something you don't understand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Edit: Schenck v. United States was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio but not completely, only limiting the scope. There are also many other examples that could be used to show that spreading misinformation is not blanket covered by 1a (defamation for example).