That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
How do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:22 pm That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.
Hallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:24 pmHow do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:22 pm That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.
I didn't ignore other evidence. I read the link you provided. Your own news source.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:23 pm I pointed out a motivation earlier. He's pandering to the right who want to participate in a culture war that they see going on at college campuses.
I noticed you ignored the other evidence that was posted about the Chinese government's involvement in Tik Tok.
You'll have to connect the dots for me on how that relates to the current situation.LordMortis wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:23 pmWe need a legal scholar here. I don't think I agree with youstessier wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:16 pm I believe VR is right on the First Amendment problems with this. I don't see how the government can get away with banning or forcing them to sell. Tik Tok has a first amendment right to publish. I don't see how the ban/forced sale is narrowly tailored or falls into one of the exceptions to the first amendment. It was a really silly bill and I'm surprised it made it to law.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article ... t-of-1917/
Tiktok worth far more than twitter. To force them to divest in 9 months mean you're forcing them to sell at lower price to American investors which equal robbing foreign investors, or being banned.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:25 pmHallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:24 pmHow do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:22 pm That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.
I'll try to go back and read them. It was only one link when I read the article before I wrote my previous response.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:26 pm I added another almost immediately after posting, there wasn't just one. In addition, LM posted multiple links.
Seems pretty clear to me that the First Amendment does not protect espionage. China use Bytedance to gather intelligence from behind closed doors, which is their right, but it does not mean they should get Carte Blanche to do so in the US. That is why the forced sale wouldn't be an infringement on the first to me. Where's Fed when we need him?Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 on June 15, two months after the United States entered World War I. Just after the war, prosecutions under the act led to landmark First Amendment precedents.
Espionage Act limited dissent to the war
The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
Absolutely! The price will be in the shitter because Bytedance absolutely will not send their IP along with the sale of company. We're finally on the same page.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:28 pmTiktok worth far more than twitter. To force them to divest in 9 months mean you're forcing them to sell at lower price to American investors which equal robbing foreign investors, or being banned.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:25 pmHallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:24 pmHow do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:22 pm That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.
I'm sure they'll try to divest if they have no other choice. They'll lose more value if they are banned. But that is still robbing foreign investors. A bad precedence for investors if US can make law to force them to sell.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:29 pm They were willing to do it in 2020 to stay off the banned list.
But isn't the espionage need to be proven in court? You can accuse anyone of anything but it doesn't matter if it can't be proven in court.LordMortis wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:33 pm An example of limits to the First Amendment:
Seems pretty clear to me that the First Amendment does not protect espionage. China use Bytedance to gather intelligence from behind closed doors, which is their right, but it does not mean they should get Carte Blanche to do so in the US. That is why the forced sale wouldn't be an infringement on the first to me. Where's Fed when we need him?Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 on June 15, two months after the United States entered World War I. Just after the war, prosecutions under the act led to landmark First Amendment precedents.
Espionage Act limited dissent to the war
The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
What hostile power? US and China are trade partners. US and China is not at war.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:37 pm An even worse precedent would be potentially allowing hostile foreign powers to operate social media platforms in the United States while gathering personal info on citizens.
So you're supporting robbing foreign investors.LordMortis wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:35 pmAbsolutely! The price will be in the shitter because Bytedance absolutely will not send their IP along with the sale of company. We're finally on the same page.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:28 pmTiktok worth far more than twitter. To force them to divest in 9 months mean you're forcing them to sell at lower price to American investors which equal robbing foreign investors, or being banned.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:25 pmHallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:24 pmHow do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:22 pm That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.
For the record, that is no longer a thing. Schenck vs United States is the case that gave us Mr Fed's favorite:LordMortis wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:33 pm An example of limits to the First Amendment:
Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 on June 15, two months after the United States entered World War I. Just after the war, prosecutions under the act led to landmark First Amendment precedents.
Espionage Act limited dissent to the war
Which he later repudiated.Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote:“[T]he character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
"Gather Intelligence" is doing a lot of work there for you. What national security information is ending up on Tik Tok? People's data and browsing habits can not be it as then there is no foreign entity that would be allowed to run a company in the US.Seems pretty clear to me that the First Amendment does not protect espionage. China use Bytedance to gather intelligence from behind closed doors, which is their right, but it does not mean they should get Carte Blanche to do so in the US. That is why the forced sale wouldn't be an infringement on the first to me. Where's Fed when we need him?The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
"Allowed" being the key word. Russia isn't "allowed" to influence the elections of other countries, yet here we are.stessier wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:46 pm
"Gather Intelligence" is doing a lot of work there for you. What national security information is ending up on Tik Tok? People's data and browsing habits can not be it as then there is no foreign entity that would be allowed to run a company in the US.
I wish you'd been this upset about Grindr.
And my version of it.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:35 pm I'll offer an olive branch:
Romney and some of the politicians who recently voted for banning Tik Tok or forcing it to sell may have done so with some prejudice against Tik Tok due to what they believe is anti Israeli sentiment being passed around Tik Tok.
HOWEVER, they also were the same group that wanted it banned years before due to security concerns. Overwhelmingly so.
Take this olive branch as you will.
I didn't know about Grindr. It is getting late here. So I'll stop responding. Hopefully you guys can have a good discussion. Seem like my opinion isn't that controversial after all. Free speech concern is a real concern.
I never said you were and I don't see that any current conflict would factor into this at all.hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:48 pm I'm just saying that this isn't an example of the United States showing that it's willing to censor any and all attempts to criticize Israel right now (not accusing you of this, but it has been used by another here in many ways).
And I'm glad to read that you finally accepted that there are legitimate security concerns involved and not just censorship run wild.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 3:57 pmI didn't know about Grindr. It is getting late here. So I'll stop responding. Hopefully you guys can have a good discussion. Seem like my opinion isn't that controversial after all. Free speech concern is a real concern.
That's where I think you go off into crazy-land.
Only question is if TikTok is banned and trump says he’ll reverse it will the your vote swing to him?hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 1:14 pm This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.
And vote for the guy who'll personally hand Russia my 401k account info? No thankswaitingtoconnect wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 5:08 pmOnly question is if TikTok is banned and trump says he’ll reverse it will the your vote swing to him?hepcat wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 1:14 pm This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.
Biden probably lucky my youngest and her friends can’t vote yet if so.
Having it is an incredible danger but then so is Facebook. We need to really limit kids access to social media.
If you upload a video to YouTube or Instagram encouraging children to set themselves on fire or drink poison, the video gets taken down and you get banned. If you upload it to TikTok, it gets 'delisted' and won't show up in search results or recommendations, but is still present and can be linked to and shared indefinitely.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 1:33 pm If the reason is to "save the children" then US need to ban youtube shorts or instagram reel which are almost the same as tiktok.
Are you saying Tiktok doesn't ban anyone? How do you know they're not banned?Blackhawk wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 7:36 pmIf you upload a video to YouTube or Instagram encouraging children to set themselves on fire or drink poison, the video gets taken down and you get banned. If you upload it to TikTok, it gets 'delisted' and won't show up in search results or recommendations, but is still present and can be linked to and shared indefinitely.Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 1:33 pm If the reason is to "save the children" then US need to ban youtube shorts or instagram reel which are almost the same as tiktok.
And those are two literal examples.
I got a playlist of songs to play for suicide when searching for incelcore.
There aren’t enough tik toks in the world to allow Gen Z to top the Boomers in this department. Also, Tik tok doesn’t make narcissists. You’re just crabby old man.hepcat wrote:This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.
Which has what to do with what I said?Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 8:51 pmI got a playlist of songs to play for suicide when searching for incelcore.
I got videos about incels when searching for incel. Both the one that make fun of them or the ones that promote them.
Then I did the same at tiktok and you know what I got? Nothing at all. Both incelcore and incel doesn't result in any incelcore music or incel contents.
Dear god yes.RunningMn9 wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 8:51 pmThere aren’t enough tik toks in the world to allow Gen Z to top the Boomers in this department. Also, Tik tok doesn’t make narcissists. You’re just crabby old man.hepcat wrote:This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.
It meant that tiktok is not more harmful than youtube? They had their problems but they tried hard to fix them. If they don't recommend the problematic videos. If they don't let you search for them. Then why is it a problem if they ban them or not? They're practically banned.Blackhawk wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 8:52 pmWhich has what to do with what I said?Victoria Raverna wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 8:51 pmI got a playlist of songs to play for suicide when searching for incelcore.
I got videos about incels when searching for incel. Both the one that make fun of them or the ones that promote them.
Then I did the same at tiktok and you know what I got? Nothing at all. Both incelcore and incel doesn't result in any incelcore music or incel contents.
The footage, which has been circulating on the platform for several days, originated on Facebook and has also been shared on Twitter and Instagram.
TikTok is hugely popular with young people - and many have reported coming across the video and being traumatised by the content.
The app said it would ban accounts repeatedly uploading clips.
Where is these elsewhere? Maybe the government need to look at that, too?Zarathud wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 9:23 pm If it’s still available, it’s a problem. VR, you of all people should know goons post such links elsewhere to “spread the message.”
/incredulous
So I tried again and searched for Blackout Challenge and once again nothing.Blackhawk wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 9:42 pm Who's talking about videos of a suicide? I was talking about the numerous dangerous and sometimes deadly 'challenge' videos. When the dangerous ones come up (like the Blackout Challenge, which has killed 20 kids), they make some token show of responding or point to what their policies say on paper, but they're well aware that their reporting mechanisms are ineffective, their moderation is scarce, and that they make a lot of money from these videos. They then usually fall back on "It's hard to keep kids off of the app", which completely misses the point that these videos that are so dangerous remain available, and ignores the fact that they're causing deaths in adults and older kids as well (12 wrecks and 8 deaths from the Kia Challenge, for instance.) And that's when it's not actively recommending them to people.
Go on YouTube show me all the videos of people encouraging others to tie things around their neck and choke themselves until they black out. You won't find them. They're all on TikTok. Why? Because the other social media platforms acted decisively to stop that kind of thing from happening, and all of the people making them moved to TikTok specifically because of their limited rules and moderation. Do they take action? Yes. Very limited, ineffective action.
TikTok is a stain on humanity.