4 ms·

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 ho

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.
      - EchoReflection 4y ago
        nailed it. sophistry indeed.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      > Companies are social relations with legal protection In other words, they are real things, you can go speak to people who work for apple. You can visit its buildings. Your can install their apps. > 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. You're getting into the weeds here. To bring things into focus, how does any of this qualify the TikTok company/platform as an idea that would be "censored" if you shut them down?
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I don't think you're going to convince me to re-reifiy the concepts of Apple and TikTok. Once a concept is de-reified the magic gets sucked out of it. If anything understanding enough about the process of reification to de-reify the concept has a much greater chance of de-reifying the concept in your own mind than it does re-reifying it in mine. Saying repeatedly that something is real to someone for which the concept is de-reified is only further evidence that they are attempting to reify the concept. That's the weird part of the reified mind - it's a self-alienating process - a mental blindspot and once you see your own blindspot, you can't unsee it.

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.
    - EchoReflection 4y ago
      nailed it. sophistry indeed.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    > Companies are social relations with legal protection In other words, they are real things, you can go speak to people who work for apple. You can visit its buildings. Your can install their apps. > 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. You're getting into the weeds here. To bring things into focus, how does any of this qualify the TikTok company/platform as an idea that would be "censored" if you shut them down?
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      I don't think you're going to convince me to re-reifiy the concepts of Apple and TikTok. Once a concept is de-reified the magic gets sucked out of it. If anything understanding enough about the process of reification to de-reify the concept has a much greater chance of de-reifying the concept in your own mind than it does re-reifying it in mine. Saying repeatedly that something is real to someone for which the concept is de-reified is only further evidence that they are attempting to reify the concept. That's the weird part of the reified mind - it's a self-alienating process - a mental blindspot and once you see your own blindspot, you can't unsee it.