|
marshmonkey posted:What if the state of Israel owned TikTok, would everyone still be defending it? That's not fair Israel is an authoritarian regime that is known for using apps like this to gather information on it's enemies and has engaged in genocide of muslim populations, oh wait.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
haveblue posted:Fair enough, retracted. But here are some other testimonials about how Tiktok was really not helping their own cause: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/07/congress/tiktok-users-revolt-00145633 i think the issue I have with that is because it reminds me of Epic games trying to get their kid fanbase involeved with legal fight with apple. like i think all social media is cancer and the hammer/scapal should be taken to all of it, but its gross that some corp is trying to scare some kids into doing their dirty work for them. Like on one hand, i dont disagree that more people should call out elected offcials more and thats good, but like having some corp bullshit to kids and then do it is gross.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Representative Thomas Massie, says the law is very broad and might be used against websites any President wishes to ban, not just TikTok like apps. https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1767540941378744586 Hope he's very wrong. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Fair enough, retracted. But here are some other testimonials about how Tiktok was really not helping their own cause: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/07/congress/tiktok-users-revolt-00145633 I will admit, "Humans calling their representatives is a security threat / an indicator of a security threat" is ringing hollow if not downright the opposite of a security threat. I am reminded of every time I have been to a conference in person or online and watched the CEO of Tech Company Here ask the attendees to please contact their representatives about Please Don't Regulate Us As A Telco / We're Just Infrastructure, We Can't Moderate Nazis Using Cloudflare etc. At the risk of this sounding like whataboutism, are we going after those guys too? Every time Facebook and Twitter has made an official statement ending with a call to action asking users to consider voting along a certain issue or contacting their representatives: are we black bagging those guys or sanctioning their operations? Nonsense posted:Representative Thomas Massie, says the law is very broad and might be used against websites any President wishes to ban, not just TikTok like apps. If that's true, why are we handing President "I Will Be A Dictator For Just One Day" the tool on a silver platter tbqh. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Does anyone know why Tlaib did not vote on the bill?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Does anyone know why Tlaib did not vote on the bill? no idea. i am sure she will send a message about it later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I will admit, "Humans calling their representatives is a security threat / an indicator of a security threat" is ringing hollow if not downright the opposite of a security threat. https://twitter.com/metzgov/status/1767944208386515356 What about when they make a security threat Dapper_Swindler posted:no idea. i am sure she will send a message about it later. She voted no. https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1767952606654013776
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Does anyone know why Tlaib did not vote on the bill? did she actually abstain? gut reaction here: she is in a particularly tight space on either a yes or a no being wildly and maliciously misinterpreted by either perspective on the issue in this specific case where there are literally hundreds of votes between the overwhelming passage and hall pass territory, abstaining is probably not a bad survival instinct
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Listen. Guys. If your position is that TikTok is stupid because of the dancing and the dumb memes and you hate that people are on it all the time, you're being ignorant and old. If your position is that all social media is bad, I can't argue with that. Not really. Because you're correct, it's all exploitative and they sell data and certainly nobody involved in it is running a charity. I essentially agree with that. But it is no worse than facebook and in many ways it is much better. People who do not use TikTok tend to see a few things first; dance videos, thirst traps, stupid jokes and young people being painfully earnest. It rapidly funnels you into a particular part of TikTok based on your viewership and this is kind of where the crux is. TikTok is a haven for LGBTQ+ communities, for feminists, for fat and disabled people. It's got a lot of eye-roll content about mental health, yes, but it also lets people with serious trauma or conditions feel substantially less alone. Is this because TikTok is unique and no other platform can replace it? Well, we don't actually know that. Because the issue is not, 'Will another media platform be as popular?' because the answer is obviously yes. The issue is, how will these communities be treated on the new platform? The software is not unique; the community is. There has never been a place with so many minority voices in one place before. Is it all good content? God no. Is it thanks to TikTok's incredible leftist policies? Again, obviously not. It is essentially a coincidence, an example of people using a platform for their own ends. And given time, TikTok would gently caress it up themselves, or the app would lose popularity as people moved on to other communities. However, the US government banning a platform like this is not the same as Myspace losing popularity and if that's how you see it you have completely got up your own rear end. I am begging you all: if you are shaking your fist at TikTok and saying good riddance you are not properly in touch with what is happening and please try to get your head around it. If your position is that all social media sucks, then no problem, I agree, but it should probably start with the platform that all the boomers use to share misinformation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Representative Thomas Massie, says the law is very broad and might be used against websites any President wishes to ban, not just TikTok like apps. I skimmed the relevant sections and this appears to be true but I am not legally trained. Hence: koolkal posted:On a tangential note, this bill also gives the President the ability to ban essentially any application controlled by a Chinese company.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
" “If you ban TikTok, I will kill myself,” said one caller, according to audio obtained from a House GOP office. The caller had noted seeing TikTok’s pop-up that claimed members are trying to shut down the app." I'm not saying this didn't happen, but if it's from someone in the House GOP, I wouldn't put money on it actually having happened either. I could also totally see them having one of their own people make a fake call.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:People who do not use TikTok tend to see a few things first; dance videos, thirst traps, stupid jokes and young people being painfully earnest. It rapidly funnels you into a particular part of TikTok based on your viewership and this is kind of where the crux is. TikTok is a haven for LGBTQ+ communities, for feminists, for fat and disabled people. It's got a lot of eye-roll content about mental health, yes, but it also lets people with serious trauma or conditions feel substantially less alone. Is this because TikTok is unique and no other platform can replace it? Well, we don't actually know that. Because the issue is not, 'Will another media platform be as popular?' because the answer is obviously yes. The issue is, how will these communities be treated on the new platform? Well, so I can speculate about some of the secret sauce that I've been saying I will not speculate about : disadvantaged and persecuted visible and invisible minorities bullied the everliving poo poo out of right-wing agitators for a long time on the platform and continue to do so to a pretty good place. There's no breaking the Horny Racist Christian Mom bubble that's been locking horns on the platform, but that's beside the point. I fear that this is motivated specifically out of a desire to cudgel the pro-rights, pro-labor, humanist ecosystem on the platform that has thrived so successfully where it has been beaten out of existence on others by heavy hands on the scale. Quietly-conservative figures like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg stifled the opportunity for this to evolve on other platforms by--in their own leaked communications and in congressional testimony--finding ways to favor right wing extremism in the same space. It would be great if this issue could somehow evolve into solving the actual security threat here: a complete lack of consumer/digital privacy protections in the United States. That won't happen, nor could it be bid for now that the chips are gone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:" “If you ban TikTok, I will kill myself,” said one caller, according to audio obtained from a House GOP office. The caller had noted seeing TikTok’s pop-up that claimed members are trying to shut down the app." Politico caters to older readers. I’m sure the calls happened but that article struck me as a very politico article.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Well, so I can speculate about some of the secret sauce that I've been saying I will not speculate about : disadvantaged and persecuted visible and invisible minorities bullied the everliving poo poo out of right-wing agitators for a long time on the platform and continue to do so to a pretty good place. There's no breaking the Horny Racist Christian Mom bubble that's been locking horns on the platform, but that's beside the point. Well precisely. That's the thing that's very telling about the 'tiktok ban'; it seems, from our perspective, unmoored from any reality. "It's Chinese, therefore bad" is dumb on its face yet somehow its garnered bipartisan support. If it were really about digital privacy or international media influence you'd think a more finely crafted law witch targeted the real issue, instead of laser focusing this one specific app. This is personal to these people, there's no other explanation. I have to wonder how much of it is because nobody in congress uses TikTok and therefore all of their information comes from briefs. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Listen. Guys. The Fox News comments section? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Well precisely. That's the thing that's very telling about the 'tiktok ban'; it seems, from our perspective, unmoored from any reality. "It's Chinese, therefore bad" is dumb on its face yet somehow its garnered bipartisan support. If it were really about digital privacy or international media influence you'd think a more finely crafted law with target the real issue, instead of laser focusing this one specific app. This is personal to these people, there's no other explanation. Honestly, if more of them used it, this ban would have come sooner. It would be preeeeeetty upsetting to be directly responsible for US domestic and foreign policy legislation and realize just how deeply struggling Americans resent them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
Can the government compel the airlines to continue using Boeing 737 MAX death traps? United has thankfully shifted to Airbus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:But twitter was always chud? Twitter was always an extremely diverse site with an enormous range of users from a wide variety of countries and holding a wide variety of political views. Until Musk bought the site publicly proclaiming that he'd make it more It doesn't make a ton of sense to ascribe a broad ideological position to the entirety of a social media site with hundreds of millions of users and algorithmic group-sorting which allows people with contradicting positions the option to avoid ever running into each other. Even under Musk, there's still tons of people posting "FREE PALESTINE" on Twitter. Twitter's management is chuddy, but even despite Musk openly putting his thumb on the scale, it's pretty easy to use Twitter normally and still see way more leftist posts than chuddy stuff. Nonsense posted:Representative Thomas Massie, says the law is very broad and might be used against websites any President wishes to ban, not just TikTok like apps. Skimming his tweets and retweets, I see that Thomas Massie is a diehard MAGA who thinks that this bill will secretly put all US social media sites under the control of the FBI so that Biden can use it to force a woke purge on the internet by shutting down conservative social media and forcing other social media outlets to ban conservatives. He also thinks the Biden administration is running an open borders policy on purpose as part of a dastardly plot to pack the government by increasing the population of blue states with tens of millions of illegal immigrants, increasing those states' number of House seats and electoral votes. He also thinks that the US created COVID as part of their efforts to "play god" by researching new vaccines (which, for context, he thinks are a bad thing), and that the CDC was bribed into requiring dangerous COVID vaccines that are killing Americans. He's also introduced bills based on poo poo he saw on LibsOfTiktok. Thomas Massie is usually very wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Can the government compel the airlines to continue using Boeing 737 MAX death traps? United has thankfully shifted to Airbus. If national security is at stake, and China is involved, maybe they will consider it. It just so happens that... Airbus Agrees to Pay over $3.9 Billion in Global Penalties to Resolve Foreign Bribery and ITAR Case  www.justice.gov - Fri, 31 Jan 2020 posted:Airbus SE (Airbus or the Company), a global provider of civilian and military aircraft based in France, has agreed to pay combined penalties of more than $3.9 billion to resolve foreign bribery charges with authorities in the United States, France and the United Kingdom arising out of the Company’s scheme to use third-party business partners to bribe government officials, as well as non-governmental airline executives, around the world and to resolve the Company’s violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), in the United States. This is the largest global foreign bribery resolution to date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Skimming his tweets and retweets, I see that Thomas Massie is a diehard MAGA who thinks that this bill will secretly put all US social media sites under the control of the FBI so that Biden can use it to force a woke purge on the internet by shutting down conservative social media and forcing other social media outlets to ban conservatives. quote:(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— This is the relevant portion (minus the weird "review" website exception section lol) and it appears pretty clear cut to me (not a lawyer though). Either way, I don't see why one would go after the messenger. We have the text of the bill available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
koolkal posted:This is the relevant portion (minus the weird "review" website exception section lol) and it appears pretty clear cut to me (not a lawyer though). Could Trump 46 use this against, say, Google to force the sale of its assets to other parties?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Can the government compel the airlines to continue using Boeing 737 MAX death traps? United has thankfully shifted to Airbus. United still flies the 737 MAX, as well as Airbus jets. I don't believe the government can compel the airlines to change the planes they use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Could Trump 46 use this against, say, Google to force the sale of its assets to other parties? If Google became a subsidiary of ByteDance, Ltd or the Chinese government, then yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:United still flies the 737 MAX, as well as Airbus jets. I don't believe the government can compel the airlines to change the planes they use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Could Trump 46 use this against, say, Google to force the sale of its assets to other parties? So here's the relevant section on covered companies and what "controlled" means: quote:(1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “controlled by a foreign adversary” means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is— This would not include Google. It would include Epic though lol Also the requirements don't actually need the Chinese government involved at all since it relies on foreign ownership. So anything that is partially owned by people living in China is at risk, assuming they meet the application requirements on size + function. Not a lawyer though so I may be missing something! koolkal fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:If Google became a subsidiary of ByteDance, Ltd or the Chinese government, then yes. I was thinking about part B, but I missed the "and" between the (i+)s. I don't have the rest of the text I front of me, but is there a part I have a question about : quote:iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or If so: quote:(B) a covered company that— e: koolkal posted:So here's the relevant section on covered companies and what "controlled" means: Thank you for doing the needful and lol Epic
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Listen. Guys. For better or worse you're making the government's case for them. You're saying that TikTok is a place where marginalized communities have gathered and shared ideas with one another to the degree that they've become a very passionate community who are receptive to ideas promoted by that community. That a foreign power has the very real potential to influence the process by which this community communicates within itself as well as the ideas being promoted within it is an enormous concern to the US government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:If they blocked Airbus sales and support, and Airbus parts makers, wouldn't it accomplish the same end? There's a lot of US companies that make parts for Airbus aircraft, so that would be a very silly thing, but sure, I guess you could theoretically try to get the FAA to revoke the airworthiness certificates of all non-Boeing aircraft, but at that point you'd be pretty deep into fantasy land and also sabotaging the entire air travel industry and the economy, so... it's possible in the same sense as simultaneous meteor strikes on Joe Biden and Donald Trump throwing the election into chaos is possible, but about as likely, and thus about as worth planning for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:There's a lot of US companies that make parts for Airbus aircraft, so that would be a very silly thing, but sure, I guess you could theoretically try to get the FAA to revoke the airworthiness certificates of all non-Boeing aircraft, but at that point you'd be pretty deep into fantasy land and also sabotaging the entire air travel industry and the economy, so... it's possible in the same sense as simultaneous meteor strikes on Joe Biden and Donald Trump throwing the election into chaos is possible, but about as likely, and thus about as worth planning for. tangent lol: U.S. Department of State Concludes $51 Million Settlement Resolving Export Violations by The Boeing Company www.state.gov - February 29, 2024 posted:The U.S. Department of State has concluded an administrative settlement with The Boeing Company (Boeing) to resolve 199 violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR parts 120-130. The Department of State and Boeing reached this settlement following an extensive compliance review by the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance in the Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah. Everyone aged 12-16. That is what they said. This is from a few pages back, but I feel it's important to point out that because of how time works people who are 12-16 now will be 18-24 in the future which is why long term this could have negative ramifications. The Republicans already have a strong grasp on the narrative that Democrats are against free speech, if Biden signs that bill that's getting further cemented in the minds of a LOT kids in a way that sticks with them because it's going to have a direct impact on their daily lives. When some right wing grifter screams about how the Democrats are pro censorship that nonsense is going to sound very plausible to a whole generation of people who remember when the Democrats banned tiktok. And no it doesn't matter that the bill had bipartisan support, if a Democratic president was in the office when it happens that's who's getting the blame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
Riptor posted:For better or worse you're making the government's case for them. You're saying that TikTok is a place where marginalized communities have gathered and shared ideas with one another to the degree that they've become a very passionate community who are receptive to ideas promoted by that community. That a foreign power has the very real potential to influence the process by which this community communicates within itself as well as the ideas being promoted within it is an enormous concern to the US government. Then the US has a responsibility to address the means by which that 'influence' occurs, not to simply ban the community. Because it is not a problem unique to China and in fact could happen with any domestic app just as easily. EDIT: Also what exactly is the 'enormous security concern'? I hear this a lot in this argument but no one wants to spell it out, like it's just obvious on its face. For instance, I should think what occurred on Facebook in 2016-2020 - bombing boomers with misinformation delivered through Russian bots - is kind of what people are talking about when they discuss 'security' concerns. But Facebook is a domestic company that was influenced by a foreign power. Congress tried to address it but it mostly resulted in a personal dressing down of Zuckerberg with little political will to go further. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
Montana's TikTok ban was struck down in federal court and it seems very likely that a similar fate would befall the federal version. Either way, they will 100% get a stay while it is litigated, so there will be no change for several years at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Actually love to see Boeing crashing and burning as a result of their decision to move production to places with weak labor laws and lower taxes because the obscene tax breaks they were getting in WA just weren't enough. gently caress Boeing
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:53
|
|
Mendrian posted:Then the US has a responsibility to address the means by which that 'influence' occurs, not to simply ban the community. Because it is not a problem unique to China and in fact could happen with any domestic app just as easily. While the problem of discursive influence is not a problem unique to China, it's qualitatively different and of massively different scale when the entity in question is a proxy to a state actor and the state actor is famously sanguine about overt, massive propaganda systems of societal control. The US has less physical or legal access to even pursue action against China for similar actions, which can be on a far larger scale and with greater sophistication. Also China has illustrated a comfort with the use of these systems as Leon previously discussed with the Huawei cases. Tiktok is also qualitatively and quantitatively different from other platforms in that it's even more effective as a passive, serial, medium with opaque intellectual tendencies. These would be reasons to hate the platform as social media in its own terms, but they also make it worse as a tool of deliberate manipulation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Montana's TikTok ban was struck down in federal court and it seems very likely that a similar fate would befall the federal version. Either way, they will 100% get a stay while it is litigated, so there will be no change for several years at least. That ruling was half based on first amendment concerns and half based on supremacy, which wouldn't apply to a federal action
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Tiktok is also qualitatively and quantitatively different from other platforms in that it's even more effective as a passive, serial, medium with opaque intellectual tendencies. Is there any research into these differences you can share?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Representative Thomas Massie, says the law is very broad and might be used against websites any President wishes to ban, not just TikTok like apps. Thomas Massie is my friends' representative and he is a colossal idiot. His schtick is being a general contrarian and just voting NO on everything Main Paineframe posted:
This. If he's right on this, it's "blind squirrel finding a nut" level of right
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Then the US has a responsibility to address the means by which that 'influence' occurs, not to simply ban the community. Because it is not a problem unique to China and in fact could happen with any domestic app just as easily. I was writing a response but this was better than anything I was able to put together: Discendo Vox posted:While the problem of discursive influence is not a problem unique to China, it's qualitatively different and of massively different scale when the entity in question is a proxy to a state actor and the state actor is famously sanguine about overt, massive propaganda systems of societal control. Yep, exactly. The examples you cite of Russian propaganda, whereby state actors publish propaganda or engage in manipulation on a private platform, or even a situation where a private organization like Cambridge Analytica dupes people into providing data about themselves and then use that for further manipulative purposes are - to be clear - bad, (as is these two parallel things intersecting) but are substantively different from a state actor effectively owning a platform as well as all of its data, and indeed how that data is used. Russia was posting stuff on Facebook and hoping it stuck. They (to our knowledge) didn't have access to Facebook's internal data. Imagine if they did Mendrian posted:EDIT: Also what exactly is the 'enormous security concern'? I hear this a lot in this argument but no one wants to spell it out, like it's just obvious on its face. As I mentioned upthread, maybe at some point in the future you start to notice a lot of messages promoting the idea that Taiwanese independence is actually a pretty absurd notion, and that, say, Politician A who opposes Chinese annexation of Taiwan is really just a warmonger and we should vote against them. How would you know that's an organic thought, and not something that's been algorithmically surfaced to you by someone with their thumb on the scale since, per the data that they have at their disposal, they've assessed that you've been receptive to previous, roughly similar messages in the past? Riptor fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:This is from a few pages back, but I feel it's important to point out that because of how time works people who are 12-16 now will be 18-24 in the future which is why long term this could have negative ramifications. Yep. Forever it will be "Joe Biden just signed the TikTok ban bill, banning or heavily censoring political content on Tiktok."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
haveblue posted:That ruling was half based on first amendment concerns and half based on supremacy, which wouldn't apply to a federal action Yes, but the first amendment grounds will be hard to get around.* *Based on existing case law, but you never know with the current court. However, even the current court probably wants to continue to shrink administrative state regulatory power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:04
|
|