559
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
559 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
761 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
once again - not a ban, a seizure. Steve Mnuchin is heading a group of government insiders who want to buy TikTok, and this bill bans it if and only if they don't sell. The government has decided that TikTok is a dangerous propaganda and espionage network and intends to steal it and run it themselves. Even if you think that TikTok is that dangerous you have to ask yourself: why is it legal for everyone else and why does our government want so badly to do it themselves?
Yup. And the precedent this sets is horrifying. Even monopolies get due process. Being able to declare a company as a foreign enemy and force them to leave the market or be bought out is a ridiculous measure in a supposedly free society.
If China really is using TikTok for psyops, then they will refused to sell, flood TikTok with anti-government sentiment for its remaining days, and then direct people to just use the TikTok website hosted in China (is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
One silver line here is "the youths" will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.
I can't imagine why they wouldn't. The movie industry is already lobbying for it
this happened to be back in the 90's & 00's when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i'm permanently anti democrat party.
however i don't think think that this will have the same impact depth because being denied videos does not have the same impact on your life as your government deporting the person you built a life with because you can't sponsor them for legal residency simply due to the fact you're both the same sex and being driven towards taking on huge student loan debt because the military won't let you join to obtain the college tuition part of GI bill.
in addition: people will brand you a tankie or a "both-sides-ist" for pointing out these anti-gay & anti-youth laws online; so today's youth will be pressured away from giving voice to it publicly.
I can understand your frustration. I currently feel that way towards a certain political party, but I have to keep an open mind because things change.
For example, I don't doubt what you said Democrats was true in past decades, but today I believe the Democrats are more friendly towards LGBT rights than Republicans are. It appears things have changed on those specific issues.
Maybe we wont agree, but let's at lets at least find clarity: Do you believe Republicans or Democrats are currently more friendly towards LGBT people?
like abortion, the democrats did nothing when they had the chance and; in my case and many others like me; they actively made it worse.
it was hollywood that changed people's minds on lgbt issues and democrats are simply the political beneficiaries.
Also, to get that clarity I was seeking. Do you:
These are the only 3 possibilities. Which are you?
For example, if you believe that Republicans are better for LGBT issues, then I want to hear you say it: "I think Republicans are better on LGBT issues". I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself, I really just want you to be clear about your view and then let everyone judge for themselves what they think is right.
vote for a third party if you're in a safely red or blue state and vote your conscience otherwise.
All fair criticisms of Democrats in my opinion.
The only thing I have a problem with is your "never vote Democrat" rule. You do you, but I believe voting in a way that will most help LGBT people, and most help women's reproductive rights, etc--I believe that if you want to cast votes that most support those causes, it will sometimes require voting for a Democrat.
I will always vote Democrat.
i've voted democrat before and will likely again; it's fascinating how people interpret a message in a way that wasn't said and that's not meant as an indictment on you.
Earlier you said:
and I read that as "I will never vote democrat". I see now that's not what you said.
I too would love to see us do better than the two deeply flawed parties we have now. I wish we had a better voting system that allowed better parties.
i can understand the "better red than dead" voters because they're getting what they want; so i mostly blame the "vote blue no matter who" voters because they have never gotten what they want and continue to believe that choosing the lesser evil option will somehow make things better even though it never has and never will.
thats a person issue not a democrat issue.
to be fair the people who bitch about "both sidesing" generally have a point, centrists fucking suck dude.
Centrists will pull some shit like "well maybe, we shouldn't ban gay marriage, but we should still restrict their rights, it's only fair right?"
martin luther king called them moderates and he agreed with both of us.
the problem is that moderates today call leftists they don't like tankies and other leftists agree; effectively proving king's point to be true.
istg politics fucks up everything it touches.
We can't have anything nice and this is why.
unfortunately for me and many others like me, politics is life due to simply existing at the intersection of every major national political topic for the last 35 years.
calling it "politics" divorces it from reality and frames it as purely theoretical even though it's not true; anyone calling it that is either clueless, privileged, or dog whistling. (sometimes 2 or all 3).
see that's the problem though, it's literally not life. You can go through the great depression without dying (probably)
Politics not existing for a little while isn't going to kill someone.
90% of politics is just performative bullshit anyway.
sure, now that it's politically popular; nevermind that they did nothing to make that a reality and made it worse instead of standing up for us after promising that they would.
You know TikTok is global right?
But yeah Biden is just over here casually giving Trump better chances.
If ByteDance doesn't divest of TikTok 9 months, then it will be blocked from being distributed from App Stores. Nothing will be blocked before the election, so it's not really something which will affect the typical voter who isn't following the news, causing them to change their vote.
It's major news. We're not that dumb.
Because then Facebook will pay for your reelection campaign?
so they can do the death penalty on a company, they have a model
they just don't do it to Exxon or Facebook or Monsanto or...
First off, source? Second, the npr interview I heard mentioned specifically that China has to approve the sale because the algorithm is proprietary to a Chinese company. So anyone "buying TikTok" is buying a name and none of the actual bones of the social media platform
First page when you google 'Steve Mnuchin'
source?
Not who you were replying to, and not an interview, but here's an NPR article that explains that the content-recommendation algorithms would be difficult to sell
Neat, ty!
Aren't the bones the cheap part now? Think truth social for instance, why was it supposedly worth so much if anyone can spin up a Mastadon instance and make it the same restrictions over the weekend. The userbase numbers are all that mattered there I assume. Why is reddit worth more than Lemmy? Is it because the bones are expensive? Or is it that they have access to a large userbase already.
the reason truth social was so highly valued is probably related to trumps chronic addiction to over valuing his assets by about 10-100x the original value of them.
you would think the userbase of truth social would be big, it's not. It's several orders of magnitude smaller than twitter, and it's value is theorized to be heavily independent of the actual user count, the board of truth literally said as much. I.E. basically fucking bullshit.