this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
46 points (71.7% liked)

People Twitter

5274 readers
1111 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
46
Both the Economist and the WSJ state explicitly that the main reason the TikTok ban picked up so much bipartisan steam in DC since Oct. 7 was because of how much Israel criticism was allowed to air an (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Edit:

  • added source, added direct link to video
  • added additional replies from Glenn on subject
  • fixed wording of edit to reflect replies of Glenn were added

@ggreenwald

Both the Economist and the WSJ state explicitly that the main reason the TikTok ban picked up so much bipartisan steam in DC since Oct. 7 was because of how much Israel criticism was allowed to air and circulate on the platform (see below).

But really! It's all about China!

@benshapiro

The House has voted to separate TikTok from its Chinese Communist Party ownership. It’s nice to see a bit of bipartisan sanity once in awhile.

Direct link to video (should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1768310919887536135/vid/avc1/1280x720/4zWnNyjVkmz0yRc9.mp4?tag=14

Source: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1768382962360283559

Additionial information by Glenn:

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Glen Greenwald, Ben Shapiro, the Daily Wire providing more "information" am I missing something??

For what reason on this earth would anyone want to amplify the enshitification of humanity?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

Highly doubtful since this was threatened and became a political issue FAR before Oct 7th.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The articles cite "people" and a single analyst concerned about content, but no lawmakers.

I understand people are concerned with 1st amendment issues, but I do not see any issues with free expression here. Individual US citizens have the right to free speech in America, including the right to spread CCP propaganda. Foreign companies do not have this 1st amendment right. Also, individuals do not have a right to use a specific privately-held platform for expression. If this right existed, the government would have to bail out a bankrupt platform to keep it operational.

This bill is regulating a corporation. In my view, we should do more to distinguish corporate rights from individual rights, end corporate personhood, and hit all companies, including social media companies, with many more regulations. This bill is a step in that direction, and hopefully a prelude to data privacy bills.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

The problem is the things they get mad at TikTok for is basically the same stuff other social media platforms do, but they do it for the US government so it's fine. I think banning TikTok or forcing it to change is great but the same should be applied to Google, Meta, and others to ensure that these companies can't violate users' privacy by gathering all of this data and just letting governments have it. But no they don't argue that, instead they just focus on oh no China is doing all these bad things and we have to stop them, not acknowledging their government agencies do the same type of spying.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This isn't the best example but does perfectly highlight why you don't want foreign national companies controlling the discourse in your own country.

Canada should ban Facebook, and X, and tiktok.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Yeah, the U.S. isn't being the crazy one here, the rest of the world is crazy for letting the U.S. have so much influence. There's nothing preventing these U.S. companies from influencing elections throughout the world using their platforms. Maybe you can make the argument that the CCP is a more hostile regime and deserves more scrutiny, but I'd argue that Trump showed the U.S. can become hostile at any moment.

If only there was a social media platform that wasn't owned and controlled by any company, perhaps with many instances hosted by public non-profits, that people could feel safe discussing on.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Ah yes, because I sure trust companies owned by Murdoch and the Rothschilds to accurately report on a topic and not sow division.

I know centrists love the idea of trusting media, but you have to know who owns the rags you're reading. If it's a billionaire, probably a good idea to find a less partial source.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lol they literally just demand a non ccp country own it in the bill

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I mean, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest this, it's more that the bill offers a win/win scenario for U.S. interests. Either ByteDance has to sell, likely to an American tech conglomerate or tech investment firm because they have the most money to offer, or the platform gets banned from U.S. eyes. The lawmakers don't really care which option gets selected, and U.S. based companies don't care because they're still allowed to advertise on TikTok irregardless. ByteDance clearly does care though, and has boosted their propoganda machine to try and stop this, so they might be in a situation where they cannot or will not sell.

I wouldn't consider divestment a foregone conclusion, a ban might even be likely.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

His mouth looks like he just ate out a dirty booty hole lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

How many wealthy corporations or oligarchs are chomping at the bit hoping that TikTok sells instead of just blocking the country? Surely that decision didn't incentivise their decision to ban this specific software instead of writing legislation that would protect Americans?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Social media apps are invasive. Social media apps controlled by adversarial governments are dangerous. This is true regardless of who we're talking about. The pearl-clutching over 'censorship', 'racism', etc. is kind of ridiculous.