3 ms·
If you don't like the fact that businesses can be regulated, then there is a whole bunch of other laws you are going to have to object to first. For example, v
by stale2002 3y ago
If you don't like the fact that businesses can be regulated, then there is a whole bunch of other laws you are going to have to object to first.
For example, very recently there was a ruling that allowed California to have food regulations for pork sold to its residents.
Do you think that this food regulation is some sort of huge infringement on citizen rights?
Because it isn't much different than other regulations that you are complaining about.
- int_19h 3y agoI don't mind regulation when it serves a useful purpose, but 1) this one does not, and 2) pretending that it doesn't affect individuals because it only directly targets companies is misleading. If you genuinely believe that TikTok should not be available to anyone, then argue that openly.
- stale2002 3y ago> 1) this one does not Well, it does if you think that TikTok is a national security threat. > If you genuinely believe that TikTok should not be available to anyone This statement of yours just means that you can't argue against the actual point, and instead have to make up a new one to attack, instead of the actual stated position. The actual stated position is that we put regulations on businesses all the time. And it is better to do that, than enforcement on individuals. The reasons why it is better to do completely standard, and normal business regulations, is because if enforcement was on individuals instead, it would have to involve draconian things like checking everyone's phones all the time. Nah. There is no need to do that. App store regulations are perfectly fine instead, and there is no need to defend some absurd position, that nobody is arguing, like that everyone's phones should be investigated by the government. And this is no different than when California puts laws on pork businesses.