|
Gripweed posted:It’s pretty easy to guess why Republicans would be willing to give the president the power to ban websites they don’t like in advance of a presidential election they’re the favorite to win. This is a massive gift to Trump. Are there a lot of social media websites owned by China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia with over 1,000,000 daily users in America that Trump wants to ban? Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Mar 13, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Quotey posted:I feel like it’s bad for a country to ban an app or website that isn’t expressly hosting illegal content. The internet should be free and all that, it’s my computer. Seems like it would have a tough time getting past 1A issues anyway, from what I read. They should just pass expansive data protection laws if they want em kicked out (lol) This+all the stuff about China? That’s the state department’s problem, not mine. They have their own issues, China was cool as hell when I went, I don’t consider them my secret adversary or whatever. Selling anything inconvenient on national security grounds only flies because the leadership in Generation Jitterbug cannot conceive of this being important to anyone who matters. It’s also how you know it’s a sham—Americans gently caress up my life on the daily way more than China does. This is just a mugging disguised as a legitimate concern. American surveillance dollars belong in the pockets of American oligarchs like Bobby Kotick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Are there a lot of websites owned by China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia with over 1,000,000 daily users in America that Trump wants to ban? yeah, this one
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:yeah, this one I knew Jeff was part of the North Korean government, but I don't think SA is cracking 1 million daily users yet. We are safe... for now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I knew Jeff was part of the North Korean government, but I don't think SA is cracking 1 million daily users yet. Sounds like he needs to reinstate DPPH
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:once again, the suppressed communities are left to shoulder the burden, because we can't say for sure with six sigma of certainty that the attacks are real This may be hard for you to believe, but the experiences of myself and my friends as queer people in queer communities on various social media platforms is apparently very different from your personal experiences and those of your friend group. Instead of assuming that you're the one and only queer person in this entire thread and then declaring yourself the sole representative of the collective queer and disabled experience worldwide, maybe consider that maybe your personal social experiences are not sufficient backing for some rather wild claims about the universal experience of every single social media platform besides Tiktok. Especially when you consider that, as I've said again and again and again, these sites have incredibly massive and incredibly diverse userbases and are expressly designed to divide people into highly-siloed group experiences which make it effectively impossible to get any sense of what the platform as a whole is like, at least without substantial data-gathering done using complex and cumbersome methods specifically designed to avoid that siloing and try to get somewhat representative samples of the site as a whole. That kind of thing is why D&D discussions need to rely on things like data and evidence, because if two people are arguing based on personal experiences or gut feelings or whatever, then the discussion is basically deadlocked as soon as their personal experiences or gut feelings contradict each other. Without any consistent shared reality to fall back on, we end up with ridiculous and embarrassing poo poo like you coming to the conclusion that "the collective queer and disabled experience online" all agrees with your conspiracy theory that social media platforms are all suppressing leftist speech in unison, or your suggestion that we must all be cis and that's why we don't realize that the only reason the US Congress could possibly be doing this is that they fear the Chinese refusal to censor the left. People have posted tons of evidence that it's about long-held and well-documented global brinksmanship with China and associated security concerns, but you just keep ignoring that and alternating between insisting there's zero evidence and insisting that the evidence is all figleaves no one could possibly really believe. Sorry if this is coming off a bit hostile, but you're being an absolute rear end in a top hat with poo poo like this, and it's not even the first time in this discussion, since you backhandedly accused someone of being a fascist a couple of pages back. You're not a fan of someone disagreeing with your personal narrative? It makes you tired? I'm not a fan of you negating my identity and suggesting that we're all cis-plaining at you because my experience as a queer person doesn't line up with what you've deemed to be the "collective queer experience". It makes me pretty tired too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:55
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Are there a lot of social media websites owned by China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia with over 1,000,000 daily users in America that Trump wants to ban? I don’t think it’s limited to social media websites. And I think the president can add countries to the list of bad guy countries whenever he likes. And they don’t even need to be wholly owned by a company from a bad guy country, just partially. It’s an insanely broad power, and one I don’t trust President Trump to wield responsibly.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I don’t think it’s limited to social media websites. And I think the president can add countries to the list of bad guy countries whenever he likes. And they don’t even need to be wholly owned by a company from a bad guy country, just partially. It’s an insanely broad power, and one I don’t trust President Trump to wield responsibly. It is limited to websites with 1 million daily users where those users create content to share with other users, so it is limited to "social media" and doesn't include sole publisher or commercial websites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:02
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It is limited to websites with 1 million daily users where those users create content to share with other users, so it is limited to "social media" and doesn't include sole publisher or commercial websites. Wouldn’t any website with comments qualify under that?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It is limited to websites with 1 million daily users where those users create content to share with other users, so it is limited to "social media" and doesn't include sole publisher or commercial websites. That’s a weird limitation considering the reasoning for the bill has little to do with if it’s social media or not. Is that just to keep Temu from getting axed? Not that I would be sad to see Temu axed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Wouldn’t any website with comments qualify under that? No, they explicitly carve out protections for comments and product reviews. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240311/HR%207521%20Updated.pdf Fork of Unknown Origins posted:That’s a weird limitation considering the reasoning for the bill has little to do with if it’s social media or not. Is that just to keep Temu from getting axed? It's because they are trying to target TikTok as specifically as possible without just writing "TikTok is banned" into law. One of the potential triggering conditions to qualify is "be a subsidiary of Bytedance Ltd."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:since you backhandedly accused someone of being a fascist a couple of pages back. A Nazi too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:09
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I don’t think it’s limited to social media websites. And I think the president can add countries to the list of bad guy countries whenever he likes. And they don’t even need to be wholly owned by a company from a bad guy country, just partially. It’s an insanely broad power, and one I don’t trust President Trump to wield responsibly. They also can't add more countries to the list. It uses a fixed definition from a previous law as the definition for "foreign adversary" so the following countries are permanently on the list, but there also can't be any new countries added: quote:(2) Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means—
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:quote is not edit, my bad How did you come to the conclusion that there's not a lot of LGBT+ people in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
RFK Jr. has apparently made his VP pick and will announce on March 26th. https://twitter.com/akarl_smith/status/1767978425522737428
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
RFK has been recognized as being off the rails but most people and is mostly pulling in qanon nutters, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
aaron rogers as his running mate would crush his chances in michigan. politically unwise...
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:RFK Jr. has apparently made his VP pick and will announce on March 26th. If I was president I would make Spiderman my vice president because he's cool and always wins
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:quote is not edit, my bad I don't use TikTok and don't have much to contribute to discussions about how the community looks on that platform. Do we need to announce our identities every time we post? Speaking for myself, I'm generally cautious about sharing much personal info in spaces where I can't match faces or voices to names, especially if it's not important to the discussion at hand, and especially if in a space where tensions can run high.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
Whatever happened to the Tik Tok/Oracle deal from a few years ago? Last time I remember this being a major issue, Oracle floated an offer to buy the US part of the company (or a significant chunk of it). I'm forgetting the details, it was awhile ago now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If I was president I would make Spiderman my vice president because he's cool and always wins Actually, I think it would be difficult to find a Marvel superhero who loses fights more often than Spiderman
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Actually, I think it would be difficult to find a Marvel superhero who loses fights more often than Spiderman Deadpool?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:36
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If I was president I would make Spiderman my vice president because he's cool and always wins Better him than his best friend Peter Parker who just has the worst luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:39
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Whatever happened to the Tik Tok/Oracle deal from a few years ago? Last time I remember this being a major issue, Oracle floated an offer to buy the US part of the company (or a significant chunk of it). I'm forgetting the details, it was awhile ago now. The Wal-Mart and Oracle joint deal they proposed in response to Trump trying to ban TikTok via executive order? It fell apart after the courts held up Trump's order. Oracle and TikTok formed a later partnership once a ban was proposed again where Oracle would host the U.S. algorithm and servers. That server hosting is part of the "Project Texas" that TikTok started to try and avoid regulatory issues or a ban.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:41
|
|
|
spiderman g getting hit on the head by a brick and winding up a amnesiac crank third party presidential candidate sounds like a plausible arc in the daily comic
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
It sounds crazy to say, but I think Jesse "The Body" Ventura has too much dignity and actual political success to accept the VP slot. I don't see Aaron Rodgers actually doing it either. I would bet that it is a random nobody and RFK Jr. just offered those two the slots in the hope they might accept and if they didn't, then he could leak that there have been discussions to try and build some hype.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
I suspect, but without obvious hard evidence, that if you swapped "US Government" for "China's Government" in the structure of TikTok and ByteDance then a lot of people defending it would instead be pretty critical and skeptical. Just because it's not the US government doesn't mean it's all a good thing, I think people should be highly skeptical of a setup like the one between ByteDance and China's government and not dismiss it because "the US is bad" and "I like this thing". That all said, I don't know if this legislation is particularly useful or overreacting or the stated reasons are cover for more nefarious reasons. Just that saying "but the NSA spies on US citizens and other countries too!" isn't some gotcha that absolves the Chinese government for doing that. We can say "both of these things are bad and shouldn't be done!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
https://www.wsj.com/tech/how-tiktok-was-blindsided-by-a-u-s-bill-that-could-ban-it-7201ac8b?mod=itp_wsj WSJ has a story up on some of the details behind the scenes. WSJ posted:How TikTok Was Blindsided by U.S. Bill That Could Ban It Bolded part of it I found interesting since it contradicts some claims in here. The Palestine Genocide and visibility of pro-Palestine content on Tiktok apparently played an important part in moving the ban towards reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:quote is not edit, my bad Some of us queers think that TikTok isn't a safe bastion for the community. Especially when you have one of the biggest socratic terrorist against the queer community - LibsofTikTok aka Chaya Raichik - merrily doing her horrible work everyday on the platform. I mostly lurk because everytime I try to find data on something I find *bad* data, but we are very much here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No, they explicitly carve out protections for comments and product reviews. Where is the carveout for comments, as you claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It sounds crazy to say, but I think Jesse "The Body" Ventura has too much dignity and actual political success to accept the VP slot. I don’t see Rodgers doing it when he’s still got at least a little bit of time left in the NFL
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:22
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It sounds crazy to say, but I think Jesse "The Body" Ventura has too much dignity and actual political success to accept the VP slot. FlamingLiberal posted:What is even happening
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
I don't want Tiktok to be banned because then Congress wouldn't drag the CEO in front of them to answer hilariously boomer questions anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I don't want Tiktok to be banned because then Congress wouldn't drag the CEO in front of them to answer hilariously boomer questions anymore. It isn't being banned for that or because of china. It is being banned because the USA media and State Department lost control of the "there isnt a Palestian genocide" narrative. https://www.wsj.com/tech/why-the-new-effort-to-ban-tiktok-caught-fire-with-lawmakers-7cd3f980?mod=RSSMSN quote:Gallagher is well-liked by Democrats and his GOP colleagues and respected as an expert on the issue. His efforts appeared to stall in 2023, but were revived in part by the fallout from the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, according to people close to TikTok and people close to lawmakers. TikTok’s users quickly inundated the platform with videos about the attack and Israel’s war on Gaza. Some lawmakers said TikTok appeared to favor pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel content, and renewed calls to ban the app in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:It isn't being banned for that or because of china. It is being banned because the USA media and State Department lost control of the "there isnt a Palestian genocide" narrative. Considering that they were going after Tiktok since around 2017 this narrative seems like "well one person said this so it has to be the only reason why because I want to agree with that narrative"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:48
|
|
|
The precedent being set that the final push to ban TikTok came about because it was promoting a viewpoint the government didn't like bothers me, even if I personally refuse to get TikTok and loathe TikTok dances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Considering that they were going after Tiktok since around 2017 this narrative seems like "well one person said this so it has to be the only reason why because I want to agree with that narrative" Either it took 7 years for them to get this bill together and get the logic right for the house to vote yes on it overwhelmingly, despite the house changing every 2 years, or the bill was largely dormant and without support until a recent event caused support for it to massively increase such that it passed by overwhelming margins across both parties. Or to put it more succinctly, why wait this long when it got so many yes votes? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Considering that they were going after Tiktok since around 2017 this narrative seems like "well one person said this so it has to be the only reason why because I want to agree with that narrative" It is the reason why the attempts were revived and democrats got fully onboard this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:It is the reason why the attempts were revived and democrats got fully onboard this time. Not disagreeing here exactly, just curious since we really only have hypotheses at this point. And how would forcing a sale to another company solve that? Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
TikTok is being banned because a bunch of kids embarrassed Trump in Tulsa using it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 01:00
|
|
