ritcgab 3 months ago

Market intervention through administrative measures is never a good thing for any country.

  • lugu 3 months ago

    I am wondering why, can you develop?

    • kirkbackus 3 months ago

      In this case, the necessity of this law is proof that American companies are incapable of producing an app that can compete with Tiktok.

      • lugu 3 months ago

        What do you talk about? TikTok is ban because it is nocive and can be leveraged by an adversarial force.

        The answer to your enemy poisoning you, isn't poisoning yourself.

    • ritcgab 3 months ago

      If you don't know why, you don't need to know why.

carstenhag 3 months ago

Not sure if sarcastic or not, I'll bite. If tiktok infringes some kind of data privacy laws, punish them. If the data privacy laws of the US are bad, improve them.

But this? Just because some... not so bright soldiers use tiktok to upload videos of their base? What else is there so bad it requires a total ban? It seems like hypocrisy to me, when Meta, Google, X also have similar data available and also don't want to adhere to for example EU laws.

pr337h4m 3 months ago

Do you think a Great Firewall of America is a good thing? Because that is what this ruling enables.

  • misiti3780 3 months ago

    Do you think TikToc is a net positive for the world or the US?

    • yibg 3 months ago

      Isn't that the same argument used by China for why the GFW is needed? The US allows all sorts of things that can be argued as net negative (e.g. smoking).

    • yyhhsj0521 3 months ago

      It is not. But not banning it for geopolitical reasons is a net positive for everyone.

    • jMyles 3 months ago

      It is a net negative.

      Attempts at intervention by legacy states over the evolution of the internet (which will obviously fail on sufficiently long time-scales) are also a net negative.

      Two net negatives do not make a net positive.

[removed] 3 months ago
[deleted]