Whether or not this particular ban is enforced is irrelevant. The point was simply to establish the precedent that the government can restrict citizens’ access to social media.
The thing people aren’t getting about this law is it’s extremely broad, with no due process. The definition they use for organizations that are subject to this law could literally include the New York Times. And designating an organization as controlled by a foreign adversary is a declaration by the Secretary of Commerce.
There’s no court, no hearing, no public notice, no juries, and only one judge (the secretary).
The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone. That’s half the country that uses TikTok. If they can do that without protests then they can shut down anyone.
The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone.
Exactly.
They needed a pretense for taking down a social media site in spite of the fact that it’s not violating any existing laws and in spite of widespread opposition to the takedown,and TikTok served both of those purposes.
And now, armed with Supreme Court approval, they can set about barring access to pretty much any site they want, for whatever reason they want, regardless of public opinion.
Pornhub is different though, because they could base it in existing laws barring minors from accessing pornography. It didn’t really establish any new precedents, but instead simply expanded enforcement of existing statutes to the internet.
That’s not to say it was a good thing - it just doesn’t pose the same sort of existential threat that this poses.
The difference here is that there are no existing laws that pertain to TikTok, so it’s not justvthe application of existing law to the internet. This is an entirely new power - the authority to simply pass a law decreeing that a particular site is to be banned in the US, entirely regardless of the legal standing of the site or its content, but solely because those with the authority to do so have decided that that’s what they want to do
Pornhub isn’t different. You as an adult and parent should monitor your fucking child, not let the government do it for you because you are a lazy selfish cunt raising a special snowflake piece of shit human who won’t be able to think or do anything themselves when they grow up.
I mean they’re also banning chinese networking hardware, chinese phone manufacturers, chinese software in cars, considering banning chinese drones, potentially banning tencent games, etc etc
I’m feeling pretty confident that the goal here is banning chinese spying considering all the other bans.
No government ever oppresses its citizenry by announcing that they’re setting out to oppress the citizenry.
They always, without exception, do it by first targeting someone the bulk of the populace thinks deserves it, and then only later incrementally expanding their reach.
That’s true, and that’s why so many internet censorship it spying bills are officially to counter pedophiles.
Yes.
But that was just an interim strategy, and could never serve their long-term goal, since all it could allow them to do is to institutionalize the authority to censor in cases of activity already deemed criminal.
The difference with the TikTok ban is that neither TikTok nor its users have been accused of any crime. This ban is being enacted in spite of the fact that there’s nothing criminal about the site, and that’s a new power.
I honestly don’t think it’s trying to soften people up to the government banning social media.
I guarantee that that’s exactly what it’s about.
It’s not a coincidence that all of the domestic social media overlords have already lined up to swear their fealty to Trump (and to hand him big piles of money). They know which way the wind is blowing, and they’re ensuring that they don’t get TikToked.
You’re dealing with what is likely restricted intelligence here. The reason people haven’t been backing up claims with proof of interference is because that proof isn’t declassified. It isn’t hard to understand that. Nobody was particularly up in arms about the potential TP Link ban, and that can be fixed with updated firmware.
Additionally, two things can be true at once. It can be rue that the government took Meta lobby money in exchange for this ban, and true that Tik Tok is a danger to national security. It would not be the first time the government had their cake and ate it too.
Whether or not this particular ban is enforced is irrelevant. The point was simply to establish the precedent that the government can restrict citizens’ access to social media.
The thing people aren’t getting about this law is it’s extremely broad, with no due process. The definition they use for organizations that are subject to this law could literally include the New York Times. And designating an organization as controlled by a foreign adversary is a declaration by the Secretary of Commerce.
There’s no court, no hearing, no public notice, no juries, and only one judge (the secretary).
The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone. That’s half the country that uses TikTok. If they can do that without protests then they can shut down anyone.
Exactly.
They needed a pretense for taking down a social media site in spite of the fact that it’s not violating any existing laws and in spite of widespread opposition to the takedown,and TikTok served both of those purposes.
And now, armed with Supreme Court approval, they can set about barring access to pretty much any site they want, for whatever reason they want, regardless of public opinion.
Yes, yes it can. Ask pornhub
Pornhub is different though, because they could base it in existing laws barring minors from accessing pornography. It didn’t really establish any new precedents, but instead simply expanded enforcement of existing statutes to the internet.
That’s not to say it was a good thing - it just doesn’t pose the same sort of existential threat that this poses.
The difference here is that there are no existing laws that pertain to TikTok, so it’s not justvthe application of existing law to the internet. This is an entirely new power - the authority to simply pass a law decreeing that a particular site is to be banned in the US, entirely regardless of the legal standing of the site or its content, but solely because those with the authority to do so have decided that that’s what they want to do
Pornhub isn’t different. You as an adult and parent should monitor your fucking child, not let the government do it for you because you are a lazy selfish cunt raising a special snowflake piece of shit human who won’t be able to think or do anything themselves when they grow up.
I mean they’re also banning chinese networking hardware, chinese phone manufacturers, chinese software in cars, considering banning chinese drones, potentially banning tencent games, etc etc
I’m feeling pretty confident that the goal here is banning chinese spying considering all the other bans.
They ban it to protect their companies, china would sell too cheap until all American competitors die out.
No government ever oppresses its citizenry by announcing that they’re setting out to oppress the citizenry.
They always, without exception, do it by first targeting someone the bulk of the populace thinks deserves it, and then only later incrementally expanding their reach.
That’s true, and that’s why so many internet censorship it spying bills are officially to counter pedophiles.
Banning tiktok is clearly controversial though, and I honestly don’t think it’s trying to soften people up to the government banning social media.
Yes.
But that was just an interim strategy, and could never serve their long-term goal, since all it could allow them to do is to institutionalize the authority to censor in cases of activity already deemed criminal.
The difference with the TikTok ban is that neither TikTok nor its users have been accused of any crime. This ban is being enacted in spite of the fact that there’s nothing criminal about the site, and that’s a new power.
I guarantee that that’s exactly what it’s about.
It’s not a coincidence that all of the domestic social media overlords have already lined up to swear their fealty to Trump (and to hand him big piles of money). They know which way the wind is blowing, and they’re ensuring that they don’t get TikToked.
You’re dealing with what is likely restricted intelligence here. The reason people haven’t been backing up claims with proof of interference is because that proof isn’t declassified. It isn’t hard to understand that. Nobody was particularly up in arms about the potential TP Link ban, and that can be fixed with updated firmware.
Additionally, two things can be true at once. It can be rue that the government took Meta lobby money in exchange for this ban, and true that Tik Tok is a danger to national security. It would not be the first time the government had their cake and ate it too.
Its being banned because of Zionist lobbying to censor pro Palestinian content. The China spying story is a cover.
US Social media platforms like Meta have been aggressively censoring Palestinian content.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/meta-censorship-devastating-palestinian-news-sources
Jonathan Greenblatt. ADL director gave it away last year in a leaked recording when he said “we have a TikTok problem”.
https://youtube.com/shorts/0f4cbLic3aA?si=uvk6cBVqPksRScBU
Then they should ban that, not pass an extremely broad law as I detail in another comment.