4 ms·

> The government could literally take any power at any moment for any reason at any time that they wanted to. It can but there is a process to follow and the p

> The government could literally take any power at any moment for any reason at any time that they wanted to. It can but there is a process to follow and the process might take time. It is the same with Russia conscripting and officially threatening to use nukes. Of course they could and they did, but in order to do so they first had to officially declare the annexation. Otherwise there was no internal legal basis to conscript since Russia officially was not at war, it was a "special military operation". They could have also gone the alternative route of changing the laws. Or the alternative route of officially declaring war as an aggressor from the beginning. Same for official nuclear saber rattling, their official nuclear doctrine only allows defensive use and, before annexation, Russia could not claim anyone was attacking it. Before annexation, threats of nukes only came from TV people not high ranking officials. No matter how democratic or repressive a regime, no ruler rules alone. Therefore even in the most authoritarian regimes there are processes to go through in order to achieve certain objectives. Different processes have different costs and risks. Those processes have steps with each step facilitating the next ones regardless of whether they are eventually taken or not. This bill is just one of those steps towards dystopia.

bioemerl 4y ago
You're kind of repeating the same thing here. Government isn't a big slippery slope, it's a balancing act between the people and the government. Law represents where we stand on that balancing act. It doesn't matter really how the government tries to shift the status quo. If things get out of line with the will of the people, and they notice, change will be brought to a halt. This is a common fallacy, especially with recent talk of the "Overton window" that's convinced people it's a good idea to be as extreme as possible instead of approaching the middle ground. Your party and it's positions do not determine the average person's point of view. They determine what positions you can sustainably maintain, and wherever you move you will see raising or dropping support based on that. The government won't just slide on over to some crazy extreme. This is why Russia, despite all their bluster, is still not managing to pull a draft. The people don't want it. And this is why TikTok is so dangerous. By getting into the minds of the people, they threaten to undermine the foundation of our political process.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Do you have a list of other dangerous ideas?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    TikTok isn't an idea, it's a platform atop which people speak, and the platform is owned by a country that recognizes no right to free speech and is actively hostile to the United States.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      You can't touch a platform, TikTok included. It's an intangible construct and as such it clearly falls into the category of ideas. Everyone knows this. The only reason someone would think otherwise is that banning an idea is a yucky concept and in a fit of cognitive dissonance, it must therefore not be an idea. Let's not fool ourselves. Folks want to ban an idea and we all know how that story goes.
      - alexvoda 4y ago
        Your argument is a bit too philosophical. But going by that definition (intangible construct) plenty of ideas have been banned before without issue. I do think there is merit in understanding that TikTok can be a threat vector unlike Facebook which is also a distinct threat vector. Just as there is merit in accepting that this bill is a threat.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        It's not even philosophical; it's sociological. Besides, the banning of ideas ventures too far into the IdeaCrime territory than I feel comfortable with.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        It's absolutely tangible. It's an app. It's servers. It's a company. I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that a company isn't tangible.

bioemerl 4y ago

You're kind of repeating the same thing here. Government isn't a big slippery slope, it's a balancing act between the people and the government. Law represents where we stand on that balancing act. It doesn't matter really how the government tries to shift the status quo. If things get out of line with the will of the people, and they notice, change will be brought to a halt. This is a common fallacy, especially with recent talk of the "Overton window" that's convinced people it's a good idea to be as extreme as possible instead of approaching the middle ground. Your party and it's positions do not determine the average person's point of view. They determine what positions you can sustainably maintain, and wherever you move you will see raising or dropping support based on that. The government won't just slide on over to some crazy extreme. This is why Russia, despite all their bluster, is still not managing to pull a draft. The people don't want it. And this is why TikTok is so dangerous. By getting into the minds of the people, they threaten to undermine the foundation of our political process.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Do you have a list of other dangerous ideas?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  TikTok isn't an idea, it's a platform atop which people speak, and the platform is owned by a country that recognizes no right to free speech and is actively hostile to the United States.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    You can't touch a platform, TikTok included. It's an intangible construct and as such it clearly falls into the category of ideas. Everyone knows this. The only reason someone would think otherwise is that banning an idea is a yucky concept and in a fit of cognitive dissonance, it must therefore not be an idea. Let's not fool ourselves. Folks want to ban an idea and we all know how that story goes.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      Your argument is a bit too philosophical. But going by that definition (intangible construct) plenty of ideas have been banned before without issue. I do think there is merit in understanding that TikTok can be a threat vector unlike Facebook which is also a distinct threat vector. Just as there is merit in accepting that this bill is a threat.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        It's not even philosophical; it's sociological. Besides, the banning of ideas ventures too far into the IdeaCrime territory than I feel comfortable with.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      It's absolutely tangible. It's an app. It's servers. It's a company. I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that a company isn't tangible.