TikTok users can't upload anti-ICE videos. The company blames tech issues

Post by adi_kurian » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 6:35 PM UTC

superkuh wrote: post #963

adi_kurian wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling doesn't directly manipulate biochemistry either. Neither does porn. Both are recognized as addictive. If you think reading Dostoevsky is in the same realm as doom scrolling algorithmically tailored Instagram reels because they're both "enjoyable stimuli," there's not much of a conversation to be had. This is a thread about government-aligned owners censoring content on a platform the government forced a sale…

False. Gambling disorder exists, but it is grandfathered in. It wouldn't be accepted today. Porn addiction has no entry in the DSMV or ICD10, it is purely a made up concept advanced by for-profit companies looking to exploit people (and authoritarian governments looking to control). The same kind of groups that used to run camps to "fix" gay people. If you think a chemical directly manipulating the biochemistry of in…

Post by wat10000 » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

cowboylowrez wrote: post #968

wat10000 wrote: post #958

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal prohibitions are, but legal powers are different. It's illegal for an insurrectionist to be President, and it's illegal for federal agents to shoot a subdued man ten times in the back, but that clearly doesn't stop it from happening. On the other hand, consider an attempt to dictate to states how they should manage their voter rolls. Trump has tried this without success. The problem isn't that it's illegal to d…

I think Trump and his backers have enough financial and military muscle to get done what they want done. He'll surely have the occasional setback but the course seems pretty steady so far.

Post by Animats » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 7:50 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #614

Can't mention "Epstein", either.[1] It was better when TikTok reported to the Third Department of the People's Liberation Army. They don't censor outside China. [1] https://www.npr.org/2026/01/27/nx-s1-5689104/tiktok-epstein-...

Post by hammock » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 8:27 PM UTC

GrinningFool wrote: post #689

quailfarmer wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. The most valuable feature of a fraction of people having guns is that the risk of someone having a gun discourages the most extreme harassment, even if no gun is ever fired.

Yes, just like government operators were recently discouraged from escalating with that one protestor who had a legal gun that he wasn't using.

Post by gcanyon » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 10:29 PM UTC

deaux wrote: post #955

gcanyon wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on this, because I'm not understanding what your grief with the 2016 DNC is. I'll help speed the process saying: 1. I voted for Bernie in the primary 2. I fully recognize -- and we all should -- that the DNC is not beholden to us to run the primary in a particular way. Until some point in the 20th century nominees were literally decided in backroom deals without primaries influencing anything. So the i…

The issue isn't not choosing Bernie, it's knowingly picking the only candidate who could possibly lose. Because as GP said, they're in on the game. The goal wasn't to pick who they sincerely believed to be the best candidate for the country, including both fitness and likelihood of winning. So it's theatre, as they pretend to put the populace first, but clearly they don't.

   1. Knew that Hilary Clinton would lose to Trump
   2. Engineered the primary to select her as their nominee *because* of (1)?