RadiRoot posted:

lol if his photo op with unions saves his rear end

is pepsi ok posted:

SardonicTyrant posted:

Where's virgil brianna?

Edit: doh. Wrong person lol

is pepsi ok posted:

Amazing how Dem supporters have convinced themselves that defeating Trump is the single most important and urgent thing in the world while the leaders they support demonstrate over and over that they don't actually give a poo poo about winning and will gladly throw countless votes in the trash to ban the evil China app.

is pepsi ok posted:

Amazing how Dem supporters have convinced themselves that defeating Trump is the single most important and urgent thing in the world while the leaders they support demonstrate over and over that they don't actually give a poo poo about winning and will gladly throw countless votes in the trash to ban the evil China app.

The Oldest Man posted:

if winning elections was actually the priority theyd make weed legal

it's a totally free policy that could probably generate a lot of tax revenue and come with patronage opportunities to pick winners in the new national weed industry that would spring up overnight, that is also incidentally incredibly popular with basically everyone

winning elections is not the priority

mags posted:

it’s not a free policy to the huge policing apparatus that’s funded to enforce prohibition

The Oldest Man posted:

if winning elections was actually the priority theyd make weed legal

it's a totally free policy that could probably generate a lot of tax revenue and come with patronage opportunities to pick winners in the new national weed industry that would spring up overnight (incidentally creating a major new source of campaign contributions for future elections), that is also incidentally incredibly popular with basically everyone

winning elections is not the priority

loquacius posted:

you've activated another trap card

by saying weed should be legalized, you've implied that you want weed to be legalized and thus proved that you are a selfish bro (white) who just wants to smoke weed

loquacius posted:

you've activated another trap card

by saying weed should be legalized, you've implied that you want weed to be legalized and thus proved that you are a selfish bro (white) who just wants to smoke weed

loquacius posted:

you've activated another trap card

by saying weed should be legalized, you've implied that you want weed to be legalized and thus proved that you are a selfish bro (white) who just wants to smoke weed

The Oldest Man posted:

can someone explain to me again how tiktok not being owned by fuckerberg is a national security issue

The Oldest Man posted:

can someone explain to me again how tiktok not being owned by fuckerberg is a national security issue

The Oldest Man posted:

can someone explain to me again how tiktok not being owned by fuckerberg is a national security issue

VideoKid posted:

Basically Zuckerberg will suppress content that the government wants suppressed and TikTok won’t.

The Oldest Man posted:

can someone explain to me again how tiktok not being owned by fuckerberg is a national security issue

Lpzie posted:

wrong thread

RadiRoot posted:

ban all social media

RadiRoot posted:

ban all media

RealityWarCriminal posted:

paging Willa to the thread

we already know the us government was in contact with facebook and twitter etc. in removing posts. tiktok likely doesnt return their phonecalls, and this is dangerous to them

pencilhands posted:

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

Also (and less sarcastically than my previous post), it's totally unfair that the inscrutable Chinese commies came up with a popular app while American capitalism has been in a holding pattern iterating on the same social media mess for years. American capital can't have someone beating them at their own game, and so they have to stage a hostile takeover and blubber that it's for "national security" reasons.

quote:

Risks of Interdependence

Technology is increasingly at the heart of America’s many complaints about unfair and illegal Chinese economic practices. For example, Washington argues that Beijing’s extensive and opaque subsidy regime—which includes preferential government financing and procurement contracts—has helped Chinese tech giants like Huawei reach their dominant market positions. Another long-standing sore point is Chinese government discrimination against foreign firms in such areas as regulatory enforcement, licensing, and market access; American tech companies are the most likely of all U.S. firms in China to perceive such discrimination. Likewise, China’s practice of pressuring foreign companies into sharing trade secrets and intellectual property with Chinese corporate partners has disproportionate impact on U.S. companies built around specific technology rights, know-how, and data. And the list goes on.

As these examples illustrate, the technology sector is a major target of unfair Chinese economic practices. Technology can also enable China to obtain unfair advantages in all sectors. For example, the Chinese government carries out large-scale cyber espionage for the benefit of domestic firms, and it shields Chinese companies from accountability when they conduct their own cyber espionage. The U.S. government classifies these policies as unfair trade practices, and it worries that American technological links to China—for example, through the digital supply chain—provide additional access points for Chinese cyber thefts.

Although “unfairness” may be in the eye of the beholder, Washington sees China as violating specific bilateral and multilateral commitments, including WTO rules—that is, Beijing’s own promises. Unfortunately, the United States has had only limited success in resolving these issues via formal trade dispute mechanisms and direct diplomacy. Beijing remains strongly committed to its economic strategies, and international trade obligations are difficult to apply and enforce in these kinds of cases. With frustration mounting, Washington has begun to take more unilateral measures, including curbs on the flow of technology to and from China.

U.S. officials have pointed to several ways that technology controls help combat unfair Chinese practices. First, they can serve as a punishment meant to induce changes in Chinese behavior. When Trump implemented tariffs on large categories of Chinese goods—including tech products like smart devices, flash memory devices, and electronic components—he said he was imposing costs for China’s intellectual property theft and seeking concessions at the bargaining table. Second, technology restrictions can aim to counteract the benefits China receives from unfair practices and thus equalize the economic competition, in much the same way that countervailing duties offset foreign subsidies. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo once told Congress that the Entity List—which prevents designated Chinese companies from obtaining U.S. technologies, ostensibly for national security reasons—can “level the playing field for the American worker.” Finally, technology controls can reduce China’s opportunities to act unfairly. For example, the U.S. government has strongly discouraged American telecoms from using Chinese equipment, in part so that Beijing cannot leverage this equipment to steal U.S. intellectual property.

RealityWarCriminal posted:

lmfao at will stancil comparing himself to 1939 poland