5 ms·

I think that’s a bad metaphor, though I don’t particularly know what you’re trying to say.

SOTGO 2y ago
I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps). If America is opposed to the way China handles social media then we shouldn't seek to emulate them
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps). This presumes an assumption. I don't consider the banning as a lever for ensuring US controls Tiktok as bad behavior. America has a vested interest in snooping on and having direct control over popular mediums of communication. Giving Chinese ownership access to the methods used (like the physical devices, et al), is a security issue. It's a cold war game that seems a little sophisticated for this day and age (somehow). The lack of understanding explains a lot of these wandering conversation about tangents.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    > America has a vested interest in snooping on and having direct control over popular mediums of communication. So this is the sort of statement that needs to be whacked a couple of times with a rolled-up newspaper. The US government does not have a vested interest in doing things expressly prohibited to it by its own constitution.
    - Supermancho 2y ago
      Interest and action are separate. There was interest, so action was taken. Was the mechanism controversial? The mechanism, a law passed by the legislative body and upheld by the court seems like any other law. That's the qualifier in the US Constitution to know if it is constitutional or not. Don't whack me, it won't change my beliefs.
Gormo 2y ago
My dog is a dog. He doesn't see anything wrong with pooping on the floor, so he won't be fazed if I do it too: threatening to poop on my own floor is not going to get him to stop doing it. If I follow through with my threat, not only will I be doubling up on the problem of poop on the floor, I'll also be behaving in a way that is far more improper and unacceptable for a me than it is for my dog, because we do not hold human beings to the same standards of behavior and hygiene that we expect from dogs. China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Their government does not see anything wrong with violating the rights of their citizens, so they won't be fazed if we do it too: threatening to restrict access to social media in the US is not going to get them to stop doing it in China. If we follow through with our threat, not only will we be doubling up on the problem of illegitimate political restriction on public discourse, we'll also be behaving in a way that is far more improper and unacceptable for the US than it is for China, because we do not hold constitutional republics to the same standards of rule of law and respect for individual rights that we expect from authoritarian regimes.
- sarchertech 2y ago
  And yet you conveniently leave out the part where clearly the Chinese government desires that TikTok continue to operate in the US (under their control). Denying someone something they want is nearly the definition of punishment. The analogy only works if the US response to banning US social media was to do something similar like banning Russian social media that had no impact on China. As for whether the ban is legitimate or not, The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it is. We’ve banned foreign governments from owning television stations for decades.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead? It's not quite correct to say that the Supreme Court ruled that the ban is legitimate. It narrowly ruled that the immediate first amendment challenge wasn't sufficient to invalidate the law under intermediate scrutiny. The only thing they were evaluating was whether the impact of the ban was biased toward any particular content, which it isn't. They didn't rule on the overall constitutionality of the act, whether its first section amounts to a bill of attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader freedom of the press under the first amendment, or anything else. Those questions might well be evaluated later.

I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps). If America is opposed to the way China handles social media then we shouldn't seek to emulate them

Supermancho 2y ago
> I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps). This presumes an assumption. I don't consider the banning as a lever for ensuring US controls Tiktok as bad behavior. America has a vested interest in snooping on and having direct control over popular mediums of communication. Giving Chinese ownership access to the methods used (like the physical devices, et al), is a security issue. It's a cold war game that seems a little sophisticated for this day and age (somehow). The lack of understanding explains a lot of these wandering conversation about tangents.
- Gormo 2y ago
  > America has a vested interest in snooping on and having direct control over popular mediums of communication. So this is the sort of statement that needs to be whacked a couple of times with a rolled-up newspaper. The US government does not have a vested interest in doing things expressly prohibited to it by its own constitution.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    Interest and action are separate. There was interest, so action was taken. Was the mechanism controversial? The mechanism, a law passed by the legislative body and upheld by the court seems like any other law. That's the qualifier in the US Constitution to know if it is constitutional or not. Don't whack me, it won't change my beliefs.

Gormo 2y ago

My dog is a dog. He doesn't see anything wrong with pooping on the floor, so he won't be fazed if I do it too: threatening to poop on my own floor is not going to get him to stop doing it. If I follow through with my threat, not only will I be doubling up on the problem of poop on the floor, I'll also be behaving in a way that is far more improper and unacceptable for a me than it is for my dog, because we do not hold human beings to the same standards of behavior and hygiene that we expect from dogs. China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Their government does not see anything wrong with violating the rights of their citizens, so they won't be fazed if we do it too: threatening to restrict access to social media in the US is not going to get them to stop doing it in China. If we follow through with our threat, not only will we be doubling up on the problem of illegitimate political restriction on public discourse, we'll also be behaving in a way that is far more improper and unacceptable for the US than it is for China, because we do not hold constitutional republics to the same standards of rule of law and respect for individual rights that we expect from authoritarian regimes.

sarchertech 2y ago
And yet you conveniently leave out the part where clearly the Chinese government desires that TikTok continue to operate in the US (under their control). Denying someone something they want is nearly the definition of punishment. The analogy only works if the US response to banning US social media was to do something similar like banning Russian social media that had no impact on China. As for whether the ban is legitimate or not, The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it is. We’ve banned foreign governments from owning television stations for decades.
- Gormo 2y ago
  So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead? It's not quite correct to say that the Supreme Court ruled that the ban is legitimate. It narrowly ruled that the immediate first amendment challenge wasn't sufficient to invalidate the law under intermediate scrutiny. The only thing they were evaluating was whether the impact of the ban was biased toward any particular content, which it isn't. They didn't rule on the overall constitutionality of the act, whether its first section amounts to a bill of attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader freedom of the press under the first amendment, or anything else. Those questions might well be evaluated later.