wilg

23 ms·

541.
by wilg 2y ago
often the reason is because it wasn’t true or they were told and weren’t listening!
542.
by wilg 2y ago
doesn't have to be fears, can just be good security hygiene. and china's running a whole playbook too. welcome to geopolitics!
543.
by wilg 2y ago
yes exactly but not on any of tiktok's users to say what they want, which is 1000x more important than the rights of the PRC to tweak the algorithm and moderation however they like
544.
by wilg 2y ago
the problem this law solves is that in tiktok's case the "they" who has the power to manufacture consent is the PRC
545.
by wilg 2y ago
these are just random irrelevant or incorrect platitudes
546.
by wilg 2y ago
yeah because the issue isn't money going to china its prc control over a major social media platform
547.
by wilg 2y ago
tiktok isn't a publication and the ease with which people can post on other platforms as well as their relationship to the platform is relevant
548.
by wilg 2y ago
you don't refuse to close one security hole because you might have another. we could make the latter illegal too! it might already be!
549.
by wilg 2y ago
whether or not that's true it doesn't affect the issue of our jurisdiction over a PRC-controlled app
550.
by wilg 2y ago
the latter might be your debatable characterization of the situation right now, but the former was not on the table and the only reason to couple them together is to make your point
551.
by wilg 2y ago
analogy completely misses the point which is that there is no impact on what anyone is allowed to say
552.
by wilg 2y ago
they're not banning any media or expression though so its a non-issue
553.
by wilg 2y ago
yeah and we don't want them having a surveillance tool over a huge part of our domestic internet
554.
by wilg 2y ago
no, it's reasonable for countries to want mass media their citizens use to be subject to their own government, especially when the country in question is an adversary, not a democracy, and not a particular beacon of free speech or huma
555.
by wilg 2y ago
yes very brave and original to quote 1984 but actually its not totalitarian in any way. the means here are extremely reasonable and there's no free speech issue.
556.
by wilg 2y ago
i dont want to argue about the definition of infrastructure. concretely, tiktok crosses the threshold of influence and risk where it is reasonable to require them to divest or close. no brainer.
557.
by wilg 2y ago
well that doesn't really represent the situation here so it doesn't really matter what you'd prefer of those two options
558.
by wilg 2y ago
you already posted this elsewhere and it sounds deranged here too
559.
by wilg 2y ago
what? china can continue to have cultural exports like every country, it is inevitable, it simply can't own and control tiktok
560.
by wilg 2y ago
it is not an exaggeration at all. it's a different layer of infrastructure, but it's still infrastructure. the mention of ITAR is an analogy, which I know you understand. if "we were serious" about what? the issue of for
561.
by wilg 2y ago
if you don't save your watch history, yeah, it probably doesn't bother using you for this feature
562.
by wilg 2y ago
they didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it. we don't let any foreign citizens work on missiles and stuff (ITAR), we shouldn't let adversarial countries own and control co
563.
by wilg 2y ago
selling a company is a solved problem
564.
by wilg 2y ago
you can still access any thought you want due to our permissive free speech laws. you just cant run the app if you're china
565.
by wilg 2y ago
those countries are not our geopolitical adversaries, but if the people of those countries want them to be considered as such, it would be reasonable to pass a similar law
566.
by wilg 2y ago
nothing wrong with doing it in advance but yes, there is some evidence but of course its very controversial
567.
by wilg 2y ago
the us has political and legal jurisdiction over those companies which is the entire point
568.
by wilg 2y ago
i don't know if it does it on auto play, i typically see a "rising video" in a top slot on the homepage. i think its also based on what it thinks you might like so not everyone may get them.
569.
by wilg 2y ago
Luckily they don't, the first amendment is very strong, they just say the PRC cannot control social apps in the US.
570.
by wilg 2y ago
People want politicians to say they will do something something, but have nothing ever change. And then they punish politicians who change anything at all.

More ›