Current Events > Bye bye, TikTok: House votes overwhelmingly to ban it

(+) Yeah! (+)

Starks posted...

You don't have to bullshit while the Ukraine funding discharge petition is gathering signatures.

Oh please tell me you detected my sarcasm...I wasn't being serious lol. I could give two elephant shits about TikTok, they have more important issues to be discussing rather than which American company can purchase TikTok

Hejiru posted...

Because China bad

Chinese leadership is bad. Tik Tok serves Chinese leadership.

If you have both parties unanimously agreeing on something, you're fucked.

I wonder if the Senate has their own agenda here. When the House passes something that overwhelmingly, I would say that's a lot of pressure to do the same.

Samurai_Man posted...

Oh please tell me you detected my sarcasm...I wasn't being serious lol. I could give two elephant shits about TikTok, they have more important issues to be discussing rather than which American company can purchase TikTok

Gotcha.

littlebro07 posted...

They'll say "because China owns it and uses it to spy on people"

But the true reason is it allows for the quick spread of soooooo much information they don't want to be spread

Correction: So much false information

I'm definitely creating an account with my real name and a fuck American fascism theme if it's banned.

How exactly would they ban it? Wouldn't a VPN get around whatever they try to do?

Not that I'd try. Fuck tiktok.

Their goal is to make sure an American company owns it. It's basically a hostile takeover in the form of law.
Also lol at anyone who thinks they will suddenly stop harvesting your data and "spy" on you when Americans run it. That's the whole point, they don't want to protect your rights or privacy, THEY want to have it.

LeoRavus posted...

How exactly would they ban it? Wouldn't a VPN get around whatever they try to do?

Not that I'd try. Fuck tiktok.

If the average person can figure out a VPN for their phone, maybe. It's not ingrained in our culture like more repressive countries where forgoing a VPN can be fatal.

Sheiky-Baby posted...

Correction: So much false information

they don't care if false information is spread, so long as they control the narrative
remember when the news media willfully spread false information about covid
partly responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of unnecessary deaths
backed by and in support of the president of these united states of america
the shit is completely fucked
this will just be another way for them to control and lie to the american people

Ive never used TikTok or signed up for an account. But Ive used the YouTube, Facebook, instagram versions whatever they call them equivalent of tiktok.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You keep bringing up Pride Flags, but what you arent getting is that it doesnt apply here. A pride flag expresses an idea. Thats the content of the speech. That is legally distinct from the manner in which that speech is expressed. Thats what Im talking about, and it seems like something is hanging you up in trying to understand what Im saying, but Im not sure what. Content and manner are not protected equally. I just dont think TikTok has a right to exist just because it provides an additional manner in which to express speech. As far as the hard question of should TikTok be banned I dont yet know where I stand, but I dont buy the argument that banning it is an abridgment of free speech. I dont necessarily want TikTok to be banned, I just dont agree that its a cornerstone of free speech.

Id be all for the banning if there was actual evidence that TikTok has been using data in a dangerous way such as identity theft or stealing government information. I havent seen anything that isnt done by any other website though. Moreover there hasnt been any other developed country that has done a population wise ban. Some have done a ban for government staff which is fair but not otherwise. Feels weird that the country that prides itself on its freedom of speech is banning something before other nanny state developed countries that havent.

https://youtu.be/nTPRqgX90Tw?si=c9EdhxqL3tJdv8xS

Crimsoness posted...

But why?

Because they'd rather an American company makes money instead of a Chinese one.

ejolson posted...

Spoken like some incel neck beard that does not know the power or wants to see the power of grassroots movements destroyed and the power of the state control everything.

While I don't agree with banning all social media; I find it odd how you think only grassroots movements have power through social media. As if hate speech hasn't gained power through social media as well. You know; spread by those incel neckbeards.

By the way, the civil rights movement of the 60's didn't need social media to gain traction. You know, because they went outside and got things done.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Im basing it off of well-established law. Courts have upheld time, place, and manner restrictions and treat them differently from content restrictions. Youd know this if you did some cursory research. Im not asking you to take my word for it, but Im confident that if you look into it more youd see Im right.

Also, plenty of harmful speech is protected by the first amendment. Youre wrong about that standard as well

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

What are you getting tripped up by, specifically? Do you want me quoting case law or something? I dont have the resources readily available to do that, and frankly you arent being reasonable enough to convince me its worth the considerable time it would take to teach you about this stuff. Time, place, and manner of speech have always been subject to stricter scrutiny than content of speech, and protections of content have been stronger as well. Im not making this up.

Idk more ppl are born everyday

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Whats moronic about it? A ban on one specific manner of speech is not always an abridgment of free speech. I thought I was very clear about what I meant. Your speech isnt limited because you cant use TikTok to express yourself, just as isnt limited because you cant use DikDok to express yourself. Its content-neutral.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Whats moronic about it? A ban on one specific manner of speech is not always an abridgment of free speech. I thought I was very clear about what I meant. Your speech isnt limited because you cant use TikTok to express yourself, just as isnt limited because you cant use DikDok to express yourself. Its content-neutral.

The difference is that DikDok doesn't exist because no one has created it; no law is stopping anyone from doing so.

I do think TikTok, like most social media platforms, is a poison. Still I think everyone deserves the agency to choose whether or not they wish to poison themselves like they can with other vices suches drinking and smoking

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It will only be banned if they don't sell the company to someone without Chinese influence

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ive already explained this, but Ill try again. Displaying a pride flag is the content of the speech, not the manner. You CAN display a pride flag on the steps of city hall, but not inside your neighbors living room. Other examples might include restricting the decibel level of a sound amplifying device, or restricting protests at certain times of day, or regulating the size of signs on public property. These are content-neutral restrictions and have long been upheld by courts. If you dont want to believe me then I dont know what else to say besides Look it up for yourself.

a lot of social media sucks and tick tock is particularly bad but it shouldnt be treated special

Who is this guy who is arguing that a government taking away a medium in which people use to communicate isn't limiting speech? Shit we may as well just have a single government approved forum for anything and everything, because that dumb ass argument could be applied to anything.

I don't think the government should be banning any website unless its primary purpose is to facilitate illegal activity.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Man you are dense.

If they ban the flag being displayed at city hall then that is a restriction of the CONTENT of the expression, which Ive said a dozen different times is different. Also, as Ive maintained, time, manner, and place restrictions dont always abridge free speech but they certainly can. Speech is protected from those types of restrictions as well, but not always.

Theres actually a three prong test that courts use to determine this. I looked I up the court case just for you: Ward v. Rock Against Racism.

1. Is the restriction content neutral?
2. Does it serve a narrowly tailored government interest?
3. Does it leave ample alternative methods for communicating the message?

Are you familiar with this?

Central Park is not an analog for the internet.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The steps of city hall are a traditional public forum, your neighbors living room is not, so those restrictions arent considered equally. The first amendment covers the former, but not the latter. They arent equally protected. TikTok is owned by a private corporate entity, is not clear to me that its a traditional public forum in the way that public property is.

DuuuDe14 posted...

https://youtu.be/nTPRqgX90Tw?si=c9EdhxqL3tJdv8xS

lol

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Whats moronic about it? A ban on one specific manner of speech is not always an abridgment of free speech. I thought I was very clear about what I meant. Your speech isnt limited because you cant use TikTok to express yourself, just as isnt limited because you cant use DikDok to express yourself. Its content-neutral.

You're looking at it the wrong way. A government ban on any group of people from the homeless to ex-convicts from making a website (that fits the requirements that all sites must fit of course) is a violation of their free expression. It's foreigners operating in the US that are getting their freedom of expression restricted.

Yawn_Master2 posted...

Chinese leadership is bad. Tik Tok serves Chinese leadership.

No it doesn't. All Chinese companies are required by their law to turn over data to the government if it requests it. Yes, that could be used for nefarious purposes, however they do not directly serve the CCP any more than any other Chinese company, who are also obligated under the same rules.

You know what other country requires that of their companies? The U.S.

All U.S.-based social media is under the same obligation if law enforcement/the government requests the data. Social media data is not protected from the government at all.

Clearly TikTok is the most dangerous thing in America.

GiftedACIII posted...

lol

You're looking at it the wrong way. A government ban on any group of people from the homeless to ex-convicts from making a website (that fits the requirements that all sites must fit of course) is a violation of their free expression. It's foreigners operating in the US that are getting their freedom of expression restricted.

Thats actually an interesting point, and definitely something that Ive considered but its not what were discussing. Whether or not a ban is restricting TikToks (and by extension its owners) freedom of speech is certainly an important and relevant issue, but were talking about abridging the rights of TikToks users. Personally Im more concerned about the rights of people than the rights of corporations, but its certainly up for debate.

Kradek posted...

No it doesn't. All Chinese companies are required by their law to turn over data to the government if it requests it. Yes, that could be used for nefarious purposes, however they do not directly serve the CCP any more than any other Chinese company, who are also obligated under the same rules.

You know what other country requires that of their companies? The U.S.

All U.S.-based social media is under the same obligation if law enforcement/the government requests the data. Social media data is not protected from the government at all.

For all else being equal, I'd rather the US government do that than some other government.

Ban fox instead.

GiftedACIII posted...

It's foreigners operating in the US that are getting their freedom of expression restricted.

The internet has geographic no borders, nor should it. Creating a border is dictatorial and akin to telling people what newspapers they can read, films they can watch, music they can listen to.

Meh. There's so much bullshit fashy content on it that goes unmodded anyway.

Starks posted...

For all else being equal, I'd rather the US government do that than some other government.

I don't know why since the U.S. government has violated your rights, security, and privacy more than China has.

GWB with the Patriot Act violated our rights far more than China ever has.

I haven't read through this whole thread, however typically people don't even express why they fear China having access to this data, they just lose their mind at the mention of China and attach it to some nebulous fear that exists from merely the word itself.

What exactly are people fearing they're going to do with this data? Know who people are? Steal their identity for AI/propaganda purposes? Take out a loan in their name? Come to their house and execute them in the middle of the night?