4 ms·

To be clear, I'm interested in the real reason they're doing it, not their ability to backfill a rationalization. If that's the real reason, well enough. But I

To be clear, I'm interested in the real reason they're doing it, not their ability to backfill a rationalization. If that's the real reason, well enough. But I am somewhat skeptical that it is. I'm also not sure that the President's power ought to extend to hypothetical, remote concerns like this -- we'll have to see what the courts say.

shawnz 6y ago
I don't think it's possible for such a drastic action to be taken just based on a political rationalization or a security rationalization alone. It could only be a combination of factors which allows an action like this. The security rationalization had existed for a long time already, but only when the political rationalization came into the picture as well was it possible to actually make a move. Does that mean the move was wrong or unjustified? > I'm also not sure that the President's power ought to extend to hypothetical, remote concerns like this -- we'll have to see what the courts say. I'm not sure it does. Like you say this is currently being challenged in the courts and TikTok is online right now in the US. The legal process is working, although it was initiated in a messy way in this case.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > The security rationalization had existed for a long time already, but only when the political rationalization came into the picture as well was it possible to actually make a move. Does that mean the move was wrong or unjustified? It depends on the strength of the various components in the making of the decision, I guess. Again, if the main reason was political or economic, and the presence of the security reason is a fig leaf, then that's not so good.
an_opabinia 6y ago
> I'm interested in the real reason they're doing it It is as simple as Trump, personally, saw a TV pundit at 6am that said TikTok was bad and the president should do something about it. Did someone at Facebook PR plant that story in the pundit's program, which is for sale? Sure. I don't know, who do you think gives a single fuck about giant companies fucking each other? Not a single normal person. What will courts say? The matters could all be resolved in 10 minutes. They're just going to say that if there's a problem, it's with the way the order is written - Trump could issue another order. They articulate no legal problem with the order, because there is no legal problem with the order. Truthfully, the court's resolution of the matter is the least interesting part here. The president's power is being used to affect a corporate acquisition. You can go have a debate about mercantilism, it's settled. Nothing of substance to normal people will change because 100% of the spending inside social media apps is surplus, they could disappear tomorrow and absolutely nothing of value would be lost. People would just buy ad inventory elsewhere, as they always had for all of history.
- DobryMorozov 6y ago
  Mark Zuckerberg personally met with government officials to "warn" them about tik tok

shawnz 6y ago

I don't think it's possible for such a drastic action to be taken just based on a political rationalization or a security rationalization alone. It could only be a combination of factors which allows an action like this. The security rationalization had existed for a long time already, but only when the political rationalization came into the picture as well was it possible to actually make a move. Does that mean the move was wrong or unjustified? > I'm also not sure that the President's power ought to extend to hypothetical, remote concerns like this -- we'll have to see what the courts say. I'm not sure it does. Like you say this is currently being challenged in the courts and TikTok is online right now in the US. The legal process is working, although it was initiated in a messy way in this case.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> The security rationalization had existed for a long time already, but only when the political rationalization came into the picture as well was it possible to actually make a move. Does that mean the move was wrong or unjustified? It depends on the strength of the various components in the making of the decision, I guess. Again, if the main reason was political or economic, and the presence of the security reason is a fig leaf, then that's not so good.

an_opabinia 6y ago

> I'm interested in the real reason they're doing it It is as simple as Trump, personally, saw a TV pundit at 6am that said TikTok was bad and the president should do something about it. Did someone at Facebook PR plant that story in the pundit's program, which is for sale? Sure. I don't know, who do you think gives a single fuck about giant companies fucking each other? Not a single normal person. What will courts say? The matters could all be resolved in 10 minutes. They're just going to say that if there's a problem, it's with the way the order is written - Trump could issue another order. They articulate no legal problem with the order, because there is no legal problem with the order. Truthfully, the court's resolution of the matter is the least interesting part here. The president's power is being used to affect a corporate acquisition. You can go have a debate about mercantilism, it's settled. Nothing of substance to normal people will change because 100% of the spending inside social media apps is surplus, they could disappear tomorrow and absolutely nothing of value would be lost. People would just buy ad inventory elsewhere, as they always had for all of history.

DobryMorozov 6y ago
Mark Zuckerberg personally met with government officials to "warn" them about tik tok