POV: It's January 19th

[email protected]

Actually it's "Freedom (terms and conditions apply)".

[email protected]

I was explaining my fish preferences.

I tried to hold on to the red snapper but I took what was in the box.

[email protected]

I don't use tiktok because I don't want to get addicted personally, and I know a few people who borderline are.

That's not the point though, not the real one anyway. Even if this ban was going through with good intentions, it doesn't actually solve anything. Everyone will just find a new PRISM-compatable app to get addicted to. The government's "action/statement itself" is precisely the problem. If they passed a law that forbid certain addicting behaviors, and TikTok ran afoul of that law, then I'd likely be in support, because it bans those behaviors in general. But that's not what's happening here, instead the government is targeting the individual company, so it's pretty clear to me that the cited privacy and addiction concerns are only an excuse. Don't take this combatively, I just think this is important, but I think that ironically you're the one who needs to separate the action from the actors. I think you're underestimating how dangerous a precedence this sets.

[email protected]

Sure, I don't think any disagrees that there's side effects that aren't good for anyone, never mind teens.

But there's nothing that you've written that's specific to Tik Tok. It's not substantially worse than American alternatives. Facebook has known for years the negative effect, study after study has come out. What legislation was passed to protect that?

So why target Tik Tok specifically?

[email protected]

Ty for ur detailed response, i get what u r trying to say, but I feel maybe we r seeing from different perspectives, like I said i m also aware that the US doesn't have any good interests, but i still believe that banning the app is a net positive, the thing is many ppl r aware they r addicted, but just are not able to stop, banning tiktok is atleast one good thing in nd of itself, I also agree that this doesn’t do anything for the root of the problem, but i feel ppl being more aware (and having experienced) the destructive effects it has on their life, once freed, will probably refrain harder from walking into the same wormhole again, so i don’t quite agree that a ban will do nothing, it probably will have a net positive impact still

Let me know if i m misunderstanding something.. but regardless of the intentions, the act of banning is still in itself a good thing, its the same as police carrying a more thorough investigation on some case because of media pressure, while u can definitely argue abt the root of the problem (nd i will agree) their act of atleast bringing justice to one person should not be shitted upon, u can shit upon the person nd the system i will do it with u, but here i see a lot of comments and just general mindset that “US said this, US bad, hence what they did is bad too/they should not be taken seriously”

According to me atleast, statements should be judged based upon its own merits and not by the person saying it

[email protected]

Touch a nerve did I?

[email protected]

Hmm i get ur argument, but still i do believe that banning that app will still have some net positive impact, i understand that this doesn’t really fix the problem by its root, maybe i m biased, but i just want the people around me to get a chance to get off that app, thats why banning it, while i agree with not with so good intentions, still might give some sort of positive impact on people who cant concentrate on anything for more than a minute, i just don't jive well with the mentality here that the ban in nd of itself is wrong, i understand tho that the US has its own interests and doesn’t give many fcks abt ppl

Victor

Now when you say "pushed to", where and how did that actually manifest "on" your phone.

[email protected]

Not a credible source.

[email protected]

Android will push notifications for news articles that you may be "interested" in. I think it used to be called Google Now.

Congress is concerned about theoretical propaganda, but it's a reality in nearly every major news outlet and tech companies, but zero concern when it fits a certain narrative.

[email protected]

When you can’t disprove the content, attack the source.

[email protected]

You're splitting hairs here for the sake of winning an argument. There's no practical difference between cruelty and torture to the people suffering it.

And as far as genocide goes, you're moving the goal posts here, but if we're playing that game, the native Americans might have something to say about that.

NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ

Thankfully, that doesn't apply to us using the app because the Chinese government doesn't govern us.

Meanwhile, the US government absolutely influences the flow of information on US hosted social media sites, so uh, let's be upset at all of them regardless of location!

Victor

Huh. Curious. I've been using Google Now, and after that, its successor, for a long time. Rarely do I see any political propaganda. Just sane reporting. I'm based on Northern Europe though.

[email protected]

There's no reasonable way for a single person to point out every single flaw in a conspiratorial website. The whole article is a gish-gallop; so much misinformation that even if I disproved 90% of the primary points, people would still latch on to the 10% that I hadn't had time to disprove, and say, see?, they were right! (That's assuming that they even accept counterclaims as being sufficient in the first place.)

Paying attention to your sources and not using bad ones is one of the first, most basic principles of media literacy. Failing to adhere to this basic principle is precisely how you get Q-anon.

[email protected]

There very much is difference between cruelty and torture, same as with 1st and 3rd degree burns and denying that is awful.

The native Americans are not being genocided today, Uygurs are. I don't know about you, but I cannot change the past.

The US track record is by no means clean, but miles away from the likes of China, specially in recent years. And you should be able to criticize both (or more) without whataboutism.

[email protected]

How about disprove just one thing?

[email protected]

I don't have to. It's a shitty source that's making extraordinary claims, so it's on them to provide the extraordinary proof.

I could make any number of bullshit claims, like, say, Nazis built a moon base shortly before the end of WWII, and the inability of the allies to find Hitler's body proves that he didn't commit suicide in a bunker in Berlin, and you would quite rightly insist that I give you a lot of solid evidence. The article does none of that.

[email protected]

Companies should not be free. Only people should be free. Companies exist to do what we want them too.

[email protected]

Citizens should be free to choose which social media platforms there wish to use.

Companies are not free, which is why they must operate within the regulations and laws that protect consumers and the nation as a whole.

Banning TikTok only violates the freedom of citizens and does nothing to protect consumers or the nation. Your argument makes zero sense in this context.