4 ms·
It is the salient point. A domestic adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. In the form of Instagram/Twitter/Facebook/etc.
by tkel 2y ago
It is the salient point. A domestic adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. In the form of Instagram/Twitter/Facebook/etc.
- wilg 2y agothe us has political and legal jurisdiction over those companies which is the entire point
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ternnoburn 2y agoDo they? Do they actually? I'm not sure the U.S. has control sufficient to exercise meaningful jurisdiction, even if it exists on paper. Big companies have too much influence in Congress and with politicians to be meaningfully reigned in in practice.
- snovv_crash 2y agoSo you don't see Zuckerberg doing a roundabout on a bunch of policies with the new administration then?
- ternnoburn 2y agoYou think he changed because he was worried about either admin? I think he changed because he sees the outcome of an election as an endorsement of his beliefs by the populace.
- snovv_crash 2y agoHe's a billionaire, why would he put on a whole dog and pony show if he just wanted to do stuff? He'd just do it, no go on Joe Rogan as well. No, this is about kowtowing to the new powers that be.
- wilg 2y agowhether or not that's true it doesn't affect the issue of our jurisdiction over a PRC-controlled app
- tkel 2y agoI think it's a stretch to say "PRC-controlled". I think the government has influence in working with ByteDance's board, not unlike in the US. This is the propaganda that has infected the American psyche. To think every single organization in China is an arm of the big bad communists. It's quite uninformed and ahistorical and political propaganda.
- roca 2y agoIt's not a stretch. For example a large fraction of Chinese private companies have CCP committees embedded in them: https://www.seafarerfunds.com/prevailing-winds/party-committees-in-chinese-companies/ https://www.seafarerfunds.com/prevailing-winds/party-committ... Nothing equivalent in the USA. China's rule of law is generally very weak. "Ultimately, no matter what the laws say, it would be difficult for any Chinese citizen or company to meaningfully resist a direct request from security forces or law enforcement, and the courts cannot be relied on to provide a remedy." https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/what-the-national-intelligence-law-says-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/ https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/what-the-national-intel... This is particularly obvious with the number of senior executives of key Chinese companies who have simply disappeared, at least temporarily, when they displeased the government. Again, nothing comparable in the USA (yet).
- epolanski 2y agoIt also has on bytedance in US. As does turkey or Germany or whoever when it comes to US socials operating in their countries. All you need is a court order and all socials will delete whatever content is requested.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]