4 ms·

Somehow this sounds so wrong. I really hope TikTok won't sell because what this is trying to achieve is concerning.

by aeurielesn 2y ago

zer00eyz 2y ago
[flagged]
- deely3 2y ago
  > There is no world where TikTok should have been allowed to even go this far.... Sorry, what are you talking avout? How "far" is far? How TikTok is different from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good?
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good? That's for real one of the two main reasons being given to force the sale of TikTok. It sounds insane because it is. It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. The other reason begin floated is because TikTok has been showing young people what Israel are doing with the unflinching rock-hard support of damn near our entire Congress. Also categorically insane. Also deeply supremacist and unconstitutional. 67% of Americans support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, compared to just 11% of Congress.That's a hell of a disparity. TikTok pierced corporate and social media's veil, so they are being explicitly treated as a threat to 'US interests' (read: the interests of the international ultra-wealthy).
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      > It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
      - caustic-view 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fucked up in the first place? That doesn't make it right.
        zer00eyz 2y ago
        Just so we are clear: your fine with china owning a media company in the US, because it would be "isolationist and supremacist" to do other wise? And you make this statement with full knowledge that China does not let us do the same (all media there is state controlled). > deeply unconstitutional It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? > categorically stupid By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
        mandmandam 2y ago
        It's funny watching you argue that we need to be more like China, while at the same time acting terrified that people might have a Chinese-owned app on their phone.
        noxs 2y ago
        That isn’t remotely true. They're not banned outright. Things like iCloud and Bing still work in China because Microsoft and Apple are willing to register a company that is owned by a Chinese owned majority and accepts audit, there is a legal fundamental for that in China's law for this. Now we are just doing exactly the same at US.
        hn_acker 2y ago
- noxs 2y ago
  Pretending China/Russia/Iran companies are evil while US companies are not because of some preconceived notion is a great way to let that world order crumble.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    This isn't about morality. Would any of those countries let us run a service with the same scale or influence in their borders? (Is there any non state media in those countries). You're comparing the banality of "corporate evil" to actual evil. I have no words.
    - noxs 2y ago
      I am sure if TikTok is owned by a western countries wouldn't yield into a result of lawmakers creating laws that is doing something very similar as CCP does, that is, operating Internet based service requires the company to be owned by a Chinese entity at majority, that is exactly the reason why Google quits China, and we used to dispise what CCP does, now we are like "CCP is doing the good stuff and we should follow"
- Arnt 2y ago
  Why... you guys have your constitution and are proud of it, so you ought to live by it even if the Chinese don't.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli... Were not limiting any ones right to speak, were restricting who can own a platform, and excluding a foreign government. Nothing about that in the constitution.
    - caustic-view 2y ago
      [dead]
- afiori 2y ago
  So you would have been fine with most of the world banning facebook, google, whatsapp, twitter, reddit and maybe others in the last 12 years?
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    You mean what china did to Twitter, Facebook, Google.... This move is not without president. Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media... extending it to the web in this case, is a no brainer.
    - caustic-view 2y ago
      [dead]
    - afiori 2y ago
      Precisely what China did yes. To be precise I believe that China's requirements were mostly around using local datacenters and respecting censors, the US is actually going a step further even if only because it is ashamed of how much it needs to censors its warcrimes. > Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media The traditional media was an oligopoly and a very important gatekeeper of information. The internet is both of those things but in a less exclusive fashion.

Somehow this sounds so wrong. I really hope TikTok won't sell because what this is trying to achieve is concerning.

zer00eyz 2y ago

[flagged]

deely3 2y ago
> There is no world where TikTok should have been allowed to even go this far.... Sorry, what are you talking avout? How "far" is far? How TikTok is different from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good?
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > Probably because Twitter, Facebook, Instagram is US based, so they by definition is good? That's for real one of the two main reasons being given to force the sale of TikTok. It sounds insane because it is. It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. The other reason begin floated is because TikTok has been showing young people what Israel are doing with the unflinching rock-hard support of damn near our entire Congress. Also categorically insane. Also deeply supremacist and unconstitutional. 67% of Americans support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, compared to just 11% of Congress.That's a hell of a disparity. TikTok pierced corporate and social media's veil, so they are being explicitly treated as a threat to 'US interests' (read: the interests of the international ultra-wealthy).
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    > It's also isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid. 'You will eat only the info we allow you' has never lead anywhere smart. You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli...
    - caustic-view 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fucked up in the first place? That doesn't make it right.
      - zer00eyz 2y ago
        Just so we are clear: your fine with china owning a media company in the US, because it would be "isolationist and supremacist" to do other wise? And you make this statement with full knowledge that China does not let us do the same (all media there is state controlled). > deeply unconstitutional It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? > categorically stupid By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
        mandmandam 2y ago
        It's funny watching you argue that we need to be more like China, while at the same time acting terrified that people might have a Chinese-owned app on their phone.
        noxs 2y ago
        That isn’t remotely true. They're not banned outright. Things like iCloud and Bing still work in China because Microsoft and Apple are willing to register a company that is owned by a Chinese owned majority and accepts audit, there is a legal fundamental for that in China's law for this. Now we are just doing exactly the same at US.
        hn_acker 2y ago
noxs 2y ago
Pretending China/Russia/Iran companies are evil while US companies are not because of some preconceived notion is a great way to let that world order crumble.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  This isn't about morality. Would any of those countries let us run a service with the same scale or influence in their borders? (Is there any non state media in those countries). You're comparing the banality of "corporate evil" to actual evil. I have no words.
  - noxs 2y ago
    I am sure if TikTok is owned by a western countries wouldn't yield into a result of lawmakers creating laws that is doing something very similar as CCP does, that is, operating Internet based service requires the company to be owned by a Chinese entity at majority, that is exactly the reason why Google quits China, and we used to dispise what CCP does, now we are like "CCP is doing the good stuff and we should follow"
Arnt 2y ago
Why... you guys have your constitution and are proud of it, so you ought to live by it even if the Chinese don't.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  You should look up the laws around television. This concept is not without precedent. https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli... Were not limiting any ones right to speak, were restricting who can own a platform, and excluding a foreign government. Nothing about that in the constitution.
  - caustic-view 2y ago
    [dead]
afiori 2y ago
So you would have been fine with most of the world banning facebook, google, whatsapp, twitter, reddit and maybe others in the last 12 years?
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  You mean what china did to Twitter, Facebook, Google.... This move is not without president. Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media... extending it to the web in this case, is a no brainer.
  - caustic-view 2y ago
    [dead]
  - afiori 2y ago
    Precisely what China did yes. To be precise I believe that China's requirements were mostly around using local datacenters and respecting censors, the US is actually going a step further even if only because it is ashamed of how much it needs to censors its warcrimes. > Look up the law on foreign ownership of traditional media The traditional media was an oligopoly and a very important gatekeeper of information. The internet is both of those things but in a less exclusive fashion.