POV: It's January 19th

[email protected]

It is and there is tons of proof.

[email protected]

So are the xinny apps

Two things can be bad at once you dipshit

[email protected]

Yup, much better to let a foreign evil government have your data than the local evil government that actually has control where you live.

[email protected]

Fair point that it hasn't been rescinded, but I'm struggling to find any convictions based on this law or citations of this law ever being used in court, so it really does not seem relevant nowadays. If anyone can dig up any and reference them here, I'll gladly edit this comment to reflect that information.

There are laws from 1700s that haven't been rescinded but also bear no relevance to the modern day. California just changed old legal language stating that marriage was defined as being between a man and woman, but gay marriage has been legal for a long time now.

[email protected]

Which is why you linked so much of this proof, eh?

To date, there is no public evidence that Beijing has actually harvested TikTok’s commercial data for intelligence or other purposes.

TikTok collects a lot of data. But that’s not the main reason officials say it’s a security risk | CNN Business

After TikTok CEO Shou Chew testified for more than five hours on Thursday before a Congressional committee, one thing was clear: US lawmakers remain convinced that TikTok is an urgent threat to national security.

CNN (www.cnn.com)

Victor

Where? Just curious.

Victor

Google doesn't push right wing propaganda to my phone. Do they only do that to US citizens?

[email protected]

Technical possibilities to circumvent a law are not part of my argument here.

[email protected]

I'm Canadian - 2 weeks before the election I started getting about an article per day pushed to my Android phone, for a few days.

[email protected]

TikTok will not be banned. People are delusional.

[email protected]

This.

Not a big fan of Tik Tok but fuck this fedposting bootlicker OP.

[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.