5 ms·

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 represent

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.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Companies are social relations with legal protection. Apps are intangible and servers are merely substrate. Hypothetically I could even steal all of TikTok's servers and I still wouldn't be TikTok. TikTok simply isn't the sum of its physical parts. To put it in Saussureian terms, the signifier TikTok doesn't completely signify tangible objects. Therefore part of the signified must necessarily be intangible.
        alexvoda 4y ago
        This is off-topic sophistry. Your argument that "TikTok is an idea" does not syllogistically connect with "TikTok should not be banned" because the connector "Ideas should not be banned" is invalid. Intangible things have been banned and will continue to be banned especially if you extend that notion to include companies.
        4y ago
alexvoda 4y ago
Power is a slippery slope. That does not mean that it has a single destination or that going down the slope is irreversible. It just means that reversing an imbalance of power is harder. Such a change can only be brought to a halt if the imbalance of power is small enough. The Overton window is a thing. That does not justify extremism if your goal is a functioning society. The Overton window says nothing about whether a position is right or wrong. It only describes what is acceptable and what is extreme. The average citizen is not a static thing. Russia managed to pull a partial draft even if the people didn't want it. People fled the country because of it. Because before that, all protests were swiftly crushed. It managed to do so because the imbalance of power is great enough that what the people want matters less. For comparison France is seeing protests for increasing retirement age by two years. It is better to be a citizen of France than a citizen of Russia. I never said that TikTok is not dangerous. Influencing the minds of people through TikTok is just one way to influence the Overton window. What many people criticizing this bill are saying is that despite TikTok being a danger of multiple kinds, this bill is also a danger for democracy. Not having ever used TikTok I will not speculate on which danger is greater, but this is not a dichotomy. Pass the bill as is or not are not the only two options. A better bill that addresses the threats while introducing less threats of its own is possible.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  > It only describes what is acceptable and what is extreme. The average citizen is not a static thing My point here is that government is ultimately restricted by the people. Any assumption what the government does will change that window of acceptability is wrong. This bill won't make it OK for the government to ban (insert thing the average person likes or does here). To do so will likely mandate that the average person begin to dislike or oppose that thing. > Russia managed to pull a partial draft even if the people didn't want it. Key word here is partial, and as far as I'm aware it was quickly withdrawn. Ultimately Russia will act against its people, because it's an authoritarian nation, they just have to get there. The USA, however, is a functioning democracy. > What many people criticizing this bill are saying is that despite TikTok being a danger of multiple kinds, this bill is also a danger for democracy. The number of blatant lies about the bill makes me think otherwise. The tone isn't "this needs fixed" it's "this must not pass". The end result here rapidly looks like it's approaching an end to any ban on TikTok, and when that happens we will be deeply and truly fucked. Far far more so than we would be by this bill.

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.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Companies are social relations with legal protection. Apps are intangible and servers are merely substrate. Hypothetically I could even steal all of TikTok's servers and I still wouldn't be TikTok. TikTok simply isn't the sum of its physical parts. To put it in Saussureian terms, the signifier TikTok doesn't completely signify tangible objects. Therefore part of the signified must necessarily be intangible.
      - alexvoda 4y ago
        This is off-topic sophistry. Your argument that "TikTok is an idea" does not syllogistically connect with "TikTok should not be banned" because the connector "Ideas should not be banned" is invalid. Intangible things have been banned and will continue to be banned especially if you extend that notion to include companies.
        4y ago

alexvoda 4y ago

Power is a slippery slope. That does not mean that it has a single destination or that going down the slope is irreversible. It just means that reversing an imbalance of power is harder. Such a change can only be brought to a halt if the imbalance of power is small enough. The Overton window is a thing. That does not justify extremism if your goal is a functioning society. The Overton window says nothing about whether a position is right or wrong. It only describes what is acceptable and what is extreme. The average citizen is not a static thing. Russia managed to pull a partial draft even if the people didn't want it. People fled the country because of it. Because before that, all protests were swiftly crushed. It managed to do so because the imbalance of power is great enough that what the people want matters less. For comparison France is seeing protests for increasing retirement age by two years. It is better to be a citizen of France than a citizen of Russia. I never said that TikTok is not dangerous. Influencing the minds of people through TikTok is just one way to influence the Overton window. What many people criticizing this bill are saying is that despite TikTok being a danger of multiple kinds, this bill is also a danger for democracy. Not having ever used TikTok I will not speculate on which danger is greater, but this is not a dichotomy. Pass the bill as is or not are not the only two options. A better bill that addresses the threats while introducing less threats of its own is possible.

bioemerl 4y ago
> It only describes what is acceptable and what is extreme. The average citizen is not a static thing My point here is that government is ultimately restricted by the people. Any assumption what the government does will change that window of acceptability is wrong. This bill won't make it OK for the government to ban (insert thing the average person likes or does here). To do so will likely mandate that the average person begin to dislike or oppose that thing. > Russia managed to pull a partial draft even if the people didn't want it. Key word here is partial, and as far as I'm aware it was quickly withdrawn. Ultimately Russia will act against its people, because it's an authoritarian nation, they just have to get there. The USA, however, is a functioning democracy. > What many people criticizing this bill are saying is that despite TikTok being a danger of multiple kinds, this bill is also a danger for democracy. The number of blatant lies about the bill makes me think otherwise. The tone isn't "this needs fixed" it's "this must not pass". The end result here rapidly looks like it's approaching an end to any ban on TikTok, and when that happens we will be deeply and truly fucked. Far far more so than we would be by this bill.