4 ms·

What I find troubling about this is the delta between the vox populi and the decision made. Whether it's right or prudent or whatever, if you figure that peopl

What I find troubling about this is the delta between the vox populi and the decision made. Whether it's right or prudent or whatever, if you figure that people using the service don't want it shut down (~170M or roughly half of the population) then what's happening here is that our "representatives" are doing what they always do and totally ignoring their constituency. Mind you, this isn't surprising in the least, but perhaps it's a good moment to step back and reflect a little on this snag in our governance.

BeetleB 3y ago
Representatives are elected to do "what's right". If their constituents don't like it, they can elect them out.
- pksebben 3y ago
  Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck...
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    > Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck... A sign that the constituents don't care about a given issue the way you do.
    - pksebben 3y ago
      That's a gross oversimplification, and I think you know it. We're not idiots here. On any given year in the last decade, about 1/3 (sometimes more, sometimes less) of voters have been registered independent. George Washington was the last independent president. We take for granted that campaign promises are there to be reneged on. Even assuming legitimate alignment with a given candidate (that is, that they are genuine about representing you), this more or less means you're not getting what's on the label. It's well known that unless you live in one of like 6 states your vote won't affect the outcome of a presidential race. Those states tend to have lower populations. The system is broken, and it has been for a long time. The number of things that get between your vote and the implementation of policy are enough to ensure that your voice is unimportant - whether this is by accident or design is another conversation but I haven't yet seen a reasonable argument that what we have is even remotely functional. I'm open to hearing one if you have it.
hellotomyrars 3y ago
I think a lot of this is the language used in reporting around it. It is presented as a Ban on Tiktok in headlines and people who regurgitate them when the purpose of the legislation is not to ban Tiktok but require them to sell their American operations to a domestic company. The penalty for non-compliance is to not allow them to operate in the US but the goal isn't to ban Tiktok.

BeetleB 3y ago

Representatives are elected to do "what's right". If their constituents don't like it, they can elect them out.

pksebben 3y ago
Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck...
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > Can they, though? I've been trying for about as long as I can remember without much luck... A sign that the constituents don't care about a given issue the way you do.
  - pksebben 3y ago
    That's a gross oversimplification, and I think you know it. We're not idiots here. On any given year in the last decade, about 1/3 (sometimes more, sometimes less) of voters have been registered independent. George Washington was the last independent president. We take for granted that campaign promises are there to be reneged on. Even assuming legitimate alignment with a given candidate (that is, that they are genuine about representing you), this more or less means you're not getting what's on the label. It's well known that unless you live in one of like 6 states your vote won't affect the outcome of a presidential race. Those states tend to have lower populations. The system is broken, and it has been for a long time. The number of things that get between your vote and the implementation of policy are enough to ensure that your voice is unimportant - whether this is by accident or design is another conversation but I haven't yet seen a reasonable argument that what we have is even remotely functional. I'm open to hearing one if you have it.

hellotomyrars 3y ago

I think a lot of this is the language used in reporting around it. It is presented as a Ban on Tiktok in headlines and people who regurgitate them when the purpose of the legislation is not to ban Tiktok but require them to sell their American operations to a domestic company. The penalty for non-compliance is to not allow them to operate in the US but the goal isn't to ban Tiktok.