3 ms·

A free and open society gives people the choice to use whatever they want within sensible bounds. I don't think you appreciate the nuances between a totalitaria

A free and open society gives people the choice to use whatever they want within sensible bounds. I don't think you appreciate the nuances between a totalitarian regime like China, a nanny state like the UK, and an open society like the US. In an open society, people are free to use apps regardless of who may or may not be behind them. That's the price of freedom: bad actors, unpleasant words, unpopular views, and the freedom to be a jerk.

_8j50 4y ago
> and an open society like the US. Surely you jest. > A free and open society gives people the choice to use whatever they want within sensible bounds Right. It's people not China and the CCP. Tiktok can still exist outside of the US and serve content to US visitors. ISPs will not block it. But the company itself which is operated by people associated with the CCP cannot operate and make profit in the US. If you like tiktok you can still use it. But even if ISPs banned tiktok, the restriction is intended to harm tiktok, you can't reasonably argue that the US is trying to prevent its people from accessing legitimate tiktok content. Matter of fact, tiktok's chinese owners have been advised to divest their stake in the US arm of tiktok so it can continue to operate in the US and you can enjoy tiktok. The choice if it comes down to it is made by tiktok's chinese owners refusing divest their stakes with fair compensation (even above market some would say) > In an open society, people are free to use apps regardless of who may or may not be behind them. That's the price of freedom: bad actors, unpleasant words, unpopular views, and the freedom to be a jerk. No, free does not meen freedom to harm or harass others or as you probably know "yell fire in a crowd". There are no protections against malicious and provable intent in any society, free or not. It could be a speech or even your thought, if it can be proven that your intent was malice then you acted in abuse of the liberites granted to you and forfeited their protections. Moreover, you cannot argue that an act against a company (not a person with rights) is an act against its users without proving that the government was intending to restrict or harm the company's users. In a free society, you do not have the freedom to access tiktok, you have the freedom to become tiktok or use many of the alternate competing services. Companies are denied license to operate in the US all the time, a free society is free for people not random foreign corporations. Corporations are not people.

_8j50 4y ago

> and an open society like the US. Surely you jest. > A free and open society gives people the choice to use whatever they want within sensible bounds Right. It's people not China and the CCP. Tiktok can still exist outside of the US and serve content to US visitors. ISPs will not block it. But the company itself which is operated by people associated with the CCP cannot operate and make profit in the US. If you like tiktok you can still use it. But even if ISPs banned tiktok, the restriction is intended to harm tiktok, you can't reasonably argue that the US is trying to prevent its people from accessing legitimate tiktok content. Matter of fact, tiktok's chinese owners have been advised to divest their stake in the US arm of tiktok so it can continue to operate in the US and you can enjoy tiktok. The choice if it comes down to it is made by tiktok's chinese owners refusing divest their stakes with fair compensation (even above market some would say) > In an open society, people are free to use apps regardless of who may or may not be behind them. That's the price of freedom: bad actors, unpleasant words, unpopular views, and the freedom to be a jerk. No, free does not meen freedom to harm or harass others or as you probably know "yell fire in a crowd". There are no protections against malicious and provable intent in any society, free or not. It could be a speech or even your thought, if it can be proven that your intent was malice then you acted in abuse of the liberites granted to you and forfeited their protections. Moreover, you cannot argue that an act against a company (not a person with rights) is an act against its users without proving that the government was intending to restrict or harm the company's users. In a free society, you do not have the freedom to access tiktok, you have the freedom to become tiktok or use many of the alternate competing services. Companies are denied license to operate in the US all the time, a free society is free for people not random foreign corporations. Corporations are not people.