Comment by keybored

Comment by keybored 8 hours ago

> TikTok isn’t being banned because of free speech or not but because the usage of their algorithms allows the app to influence how Americans think about different issues. China has recognized this as a threat and as such has banned foreign adversary social media companies from operating within its borders.

The “personal freedom” part would be most immediately salient here.

Free speech wouldn’t apply if the app wasn’t in use already. But so many millions of Americans use the app already that it easily is about free speech as well.

redwall_hp 7 hours ago

I can't get over how widely accepted this paternalistic thinking is. "People might be viewing and think in the wrong things and must be stopped!" It's textbook censorship, with a bunch of legal tap dancing to attempt to justify it against the obvious unconstitutionality.

We can hardly claim to have a democracy while acting like the population at large needs to be controlled in such a way. It's contradictory.

Reply View 4 replies

corimaith 2 hours ago

If you want politically contrarian content you can just go to /pol/ or numerous internet forums discussing global events and politics. Hell, Wikipedia would be sufficient, and if you are serious you would be reading academic papers and studies, not social media.
The fact that these people don't want to do that, and would rather rely upon walled gardens and algorithms to feed them short-form content to inform their opinions already implies a desire for paternalism in of itself. You look at some these people talking about they were "lied" to about how China is third-world dump (where did they get that idea?) and in fact it's bustling cities with skyscrapers, when there are plenty of youtube videos showing the modern Chinese cities since it's inception.
When they didn't try to verify their assumptions with a trivial 2 minute search should tell you that these people want to be propagandized and will always be propagandized. Whether it's American Propaganda or Chinese Propaganda or whatever, they aren't ever going to take the responsiblity to actually to challenge their own preconceptions, they'll just sway from one extreme of propaganda to the next.
These people, by rejecting the old internet and choosing walled gardens, they want to be treated paternalistically. That's why they'll always reference other walled gardens like Facebook or Instagram, they'll never reference older forums or image boards. And so if we don't take that role, well the CCP would be quite content to fill in.

Reply View | 0 replies
ericmay 7 hours ago

As a society we just get to decide that. We can simultaneously be a democracy and also prohibit people from doing things. We can even be hypocritical. It's great!
There's nothing contradictory about it because living in a democratic society doesn't mean that you have free reign to do anything that you want.

Reply View | 2 replies
- scarecrowbob 4 hours ago
  
  Hell, yall can put people in concentration camps, enslave folks, summarily execute them.
  It's great. /s
  Look: I live next to a reservation, where the US gov committed war crimes. There's a fort up the hill a quarter mile up from where I am, which was a "residential school" where the US gov put kidnapped children to "educate them".
  You are 100% right that democracy can coexist with all manner of depravity.
  We get it, yall can happily do enact horrors you feel like enacting on the rest of us and still enjoy feeling smug that we don't like it.
  But that fact means that something being "democratic" does not mean that we should respect what you do just because you have a veneer of democracy across it.
  I am profoundly grateful I have so many greater crimes commited by the US to contextualize what, in the big scheme of things, is a meaningless and goofy action. If I didn't know that they were spearheading the literal ecocide of the planet while incarcerating more people than have every been locked up, while simultaniously funding a genocide in Israel, I'd probably feel like this is some kind of espeically bad thing.
  But it's not; it barely even registers once you start looking at the millions of people that the US has directly murdered in the last 250 years.
  But It's Great! (tm)
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  ericmay 4 hours ago
  
  I know I know.
  Americans... sorry I meant United Statesians, are really bad people. We might even be the worst people on the planet by any conceivable measure.
  Since we're so bad and we've murdered so many millions of people, I guess there's no redeeming us and anything good we've ever done was meaningless so I say we go ahead and ban TikTok as our final coup de grâce in this terrible and twisted timeline.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

ericmay 7 hours ago

The problem with this argument is that you are putting TikTok on a pedestal.

The US (and every country on the planet) has rules and regulations around who can do business in their country and who their citizens may do business with.

If you want to argue that the U.S. shouldn't be able to prohibit its citizens from doing business with TikTok you should spend some time generalizing that argument and figuring out a good reason we shouldn't be able to prohibit Americans from selling weapons to Russia, or allowing Russian companies to set up manufacturing facilities in the United States to build weapons to send back to Russia. (or any other scenario you want to make up)

"Free speech" is not a good argument here. TikTok isn't a "free speech" platform. It's just a random company selling products and services in the United States.

Reply View 3 replies

dragonwriter 6 hours ago

> "Free speech" is not a good argument here. TikTok isn't a "free speech" platform.
Free speech doesn't protect free speech platforms: free speech protects every speaker, platform, and listener against regulations targeted on the basis of content/viewpoint.

Reply View | 2 replies
- ericmay 5 hours ago
  
  Yep and you are still protected under the 1st Amendment even if you can't use TikTok because the government stopped the company from doing business in America.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- dialup_sounds 5 hours ago
  
  Three branches of government agree that this is not regulation targeted on the basis of content or viewpoint.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies