3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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
      >> deeply unconstitutional > It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? By default, TikTok users have a First Amendment right to use a communication platform controlled by a foreign power. National security can override such a right, but the federal government hasn't declassified it's evidence of TikTok's supposed national security threat.
      - zer00eyz 2y ago
        It's a law that limits what ByteDance, a foreign company run by a foreign government, can own and operate on US soil. Nothing in the constitution enshrines a right for a foreign company or government. This law changes nothing for US TikTok users.

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
    >> deeply unconstitutional > It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil? By default, TikTok users have a First Amendment right to use a communication platform controlled by a foreign power. National security can override such a right, but the federal government hasn't declassified it's evidence of TikTok's supposed national security threat.
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      It's a law that limits what ByteDance, a foreign company run by a foreign government, can own and operate on US soil. Nothing in the constitution enshrines a right for a foreign company or government. This law changes nothing for US TikTok users.