4 ms·

> it’s more the ability for CCP to leverage influence. like they cant influence twitter, facebook and all the rest?

• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > like they cant influence twitter, facebook and all the rest? Well, no, that’s more Maximum Bone Saw’s purview than the CCPs, and that foreign influence isn’t (at least per the initial list written into the proposed law) considered adversarial. (EDIT: That’s specific to Twitter, not Facebook and all the rest.)
  • andrekandre 4y ago
    i think the point is, banning tiktok just means influence can move to these other platforms via other means (troll farms etc), it doesn't solve the issue (unless you want to ban twitter et. al) but perhaps i am missing some obvious point?
    • gonehome 4y ago
      There’s a distinction between adversaries trying to cause trouble within American companies and a foreign hostile government effectively owning the company and dictating policy in its own interests.
      • andrekandre 4y ago
        if they were forced to divest from bytedance would that be satisfactory?
        • gonehome 4y ago
          Probably? I think that was one of the options iirc (ownership by an American company via a sale), but I don't really know enough about the specifics to have a strong position on the implementation.