TikTok users can't upload anti-ICE videos. The company blames tech issues
(cnn.com)1490 points by kotaKat 5 days ago
1490 points by kotaKat 5 days ago
A NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie suggested (in jest) that the next Democrat administration send armed IRS agents to gated communities in Florida, to "investigate tax fraud".
But this is exactly why all citizens should be concerned about the infringement of rights happening in Minnesota. If it is allowed without prosecution, you are next.
Right, if a future democratic president starts sending masked government thugs out to assault and kidnap American citizens we all know that 100% of the people who are defending the current ICE atrocities will suddenly be outraged about government tyranny.
a surprising amount of people seem to genuinely believe law enforcement (generally, not just police) is at its core based on discretionary actions guided by their moral values and not a morally neutral action upholding agreed upon contracts
that is to say, the law only applies to you if you do "bad" things. and ill be honest, there is a level of truth to this to me. from a practical standpoint, it is infeasible to formally understand every nuance of every law ever created just to be a citizen. The underlying core social contract does appear to be one of "if you do 'good' things, generally the law will agree with you and if it doesnt then we wont hold it against you the first time"
*the important caveat here is that this leaves a rather disgustingly large and exploitable gap in what is considered good vs bad behavior, with some people having biases that can spin any observable facts into good or bad based on their political agenda. Additionally, personal biases like racism for example, influence this judgement to value judge your actions in superficial ways
I would be remiss if I didn’t suggest everyone go watch the Watchmen series on HBO
They are acting with the expectation that Democrats are too spineless to do anything because thats all they have seen their entire lives and they are probably right.
Yeah I also expect they are correct on that assumption. If history is any guide Dems will take very few if any concrete actions to correct these wrongs if/when they ever get back into power again. I'm sure they'll give some rousing speeches and press conferences though.
What should happen is that everyone who is flagrantly violating the law and looting the federal govt right now should be quickly and aggressively prosecuted. Real concrete legislative reforms should be enacted to limit future corruption and dangerous adventurism by demented leaders.
I expect none of that to actually happen.
Zero disagreement. Rules of engagement should be clear to everyone. How can you possibly play the game if the rules keep changing based on political expediency. And we all know.. that that kind of a game is rigged from the start.
That said, I was thinking more about people all of us building tools that got us into the situation we are in now.
I'm repeatedly shocked by the images of these ICE agents dressed like they are soldiers in a war zone.
I was just thinking how in my country immigration officials would be probably wearing formal clothes and have clipboards and paperwork.
Your comment about armed IRS agents made me laugh / reminded me about this.
His brilliant columns is the only reason I would ever consider a NYT subscription.
My favorite was the one where Florida Republicans made it legal to deny medical treatment based on religious or moral belief, and a surgeon stopped administering anesthetic to Republicans.
Come on now, you didn't expect someone linking to that trash website to actually read any of it did you? Grokipedia tries to downplay the progressive part but does still mention it.
A democratic administration would be extremely unlikely to do that, I think. Democrats are usually middle–of–the–road, don't–upset–anyone types. Radical centrists, if you will. That's why the elections of people like Mamdani are so shocking.
There's going to be a lot of pressure on Democrats from their base to hold people accountable for what happens during Trump's 2nd term. And there is going to be some new blood that runs on that. You have state governors like Newsom, Pritizker and Waltz documenting abuses with future accountability in mind.
What baffles me is how conservatives supporting the current government overreach aren't worried about the coming backlash. Do they think they'll just win all the future elections? Even when there is no more Trump?
That’s not something which really happened: conservative groups screamed about it loudly but the investigation found that the IRS was looking at liberal groups, too.
Why would anyone be opposed to the IRS catching tax cheats? This seems like such a bone-headed take.
In any case it’s also historically illiterate, the IRS has long been used as a political weapon, infamously against “Tea Party” activists.
"Why would anyone be opposed to deporting criminals" is verbatim what I've read from conservative commenters.
That isn't the issue being discussed. This is illustrating that armed, masked goons as a political weapon is a pandora's box that will get turned against everyone, regardless of status. Some people just don't care about the violence in Minnesota because it isn't happening to them.
There's nothing wrong with catching tax cheats as long as due process is followed and the person's rights are not infringed. However, selective enforcement can be used as a weapon - never investigate people "on your side" and always investigate "enemies" even if there's no evidence of fraud. Another way to weaponise enforcement is to have a law that is almost never prosecuted and rarely followed (e.g. only using bare hands to eat chicken in Gainesville, Georgia), so then a law enforcement officer can threaten to prosecute for it unless the victim complies.
Another great way to do this would be to preemptively arrest your political enemies with a pretext of assumed fraud and use that as a fishing expedition. Then you could spread your retribution by trying to violently suppress anyone who got in your way and use that as a pretext to send in the army to raid some billionaires' compounds.
I feel like you can both want illegal aliens to get deported, but not approve of how ICE is executing protesters in the street, entering homes without warrants, and kidnapping people in unmarked vans.
Similarly, you can think it would be good to catch tax fraud, but think that it should be handled without executing folks.
> infamously against “Tea Party” activists
that claim was disproved by the way
but, it is famously how the feds managed to get Al Capone
Speaking of historically illiterate...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
> Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.
The problem I was listening to a historian discuss the other day is that we're stuck in a cycle of:
1. Republican breaks norms/laws
2. Democrat cleans up after, but by *not* breaking norms, doesn't go far enough to actually undo all the damage
3. We end up with a more broken governmental configuration, and head back to (1)
Theres a reason 99% of actions taken by democrats are just "strongly worded letters" and how they consistently come up with the exact small number of Democrats needed to push legislation and bills that the party proposes to be against.
Most Democratic politicians are in on the game too. Its all just political theater and their in-group rotates out who gets to be the bad guys.
Yes Democrats clean-up by not breaking norms, but as mentioned they never go far enough because they legitimately do not want to go too far due to corporate interests and the elite.
I am left leaning but do not align with the majority of the Democratic party because they are in on this too. They have the tools to be much more antagonistic to the GOP but they purposely don't use them
I think this take is on the cynical side. A more charitable interpretation would be what they say (but maybe I'm being naive): that they don't want to break the rules to fix what someone else broke by breaking the rules.
I'm not sure what you mean by "they consistently come up with the exact small number of Democrats needed to push legislation and bills that the party proposes to be against" -- if you mean the Republicans manage to get some Democrats to "switch sides" -- it's important to remember that this is how everything used to get done. Check the old votes: party-line was less common back in the day. And even now, Democrats tolerate members with differing opinions far more than the GOP does, and it shows in their voting patterns.
One willing to break the norms and campaigning on this in Trump-like weasel words would landslide the next election. Not a chance in hell that'd be allowed to happen though, as big tech, the DNC, and the rest of the capital class would put a stop to their platform long before.
On occasion, it is worthwhile to take a step back and recognize that what is happening is not new or novel. Likewise, it is useful to recognize a pattern when it presents itself. It is extra useful ( and helpful ) that this is brought to the attention of other people who may still be going through the steps of processing of what seems to be happening.
If it helps, I appreciate going meta after me, but there is not much to dissect here. I stand by my bemused. You may think it is some soft of grand struggle and kudos for you for finding something to believe in, but don't project onto others.
I don't think its any sort of "grand struggle" in any sense other than the human condition is a grand struggle for peace in a world which perhaps fundamentally encourages conflict, but it doesn't have to be a grand struggle to appreciate the fact that people are dying and being treated inhumanely.
I really do think you're fundamental warning is spot on: people really should consider how power is going to be used against them when calculating how much of it to give up in the pursuit of a goal. I also happen to think its sort of ridiculous (and impossible) for us all to wail and gnash our teeth each time a person dies unjustly. But I also think its probably wrong to be amused by it, even if it is commonplace in human affairs.
This is called "boomerang theory" in sociology
> The imperial boomerang is the theory that governments that develop repressive techniques to control colonial territories will eventually deploy those same techniques domestically against their own citizens.
This is different from what parent post describes. Parent means developing tools by one side of a barricade, that the other may eventually use against them, e.g. when the power shifts to them. Whereas you speak about developing the tools to be used abroad, but those tools eventually also get used domestically, but the administrator remains the same.
And you think they won't be used against me if I don't help build them?
Seems unlikely.
If the implication is that the tools won't exist if I don't build them, that's beyond a pipe dream. We'll never get a globe of 8 billion people to agree unanimously on anything. Let alone agreeing not to build something that gives them power over their adversaries.
I will offer a benign example. A new team member was given a task to generate a dashboard that, as per spec, in great detail lists every action of a given employee within a system that generates some data for consumption by those employees.
As simple as the project was, the employee had the presence of mind to ask his seniors some thoughtful questions of what makes sense, what is too intrusive, what is acceptable. He felt uncomfortable and that was with something that corps build on a daily basis.
Now.. not everyone wakes up thinking they are building database intended to enslave humanity as a whole, but I would like to think that one person simply questioning it can make a difference.
Yeah.
I don't subscribe to the hypocritical vies that people are expected to have "free will" and "freedom", while also being "influenced by the algorithm".
Its either one or the other. Personally I think its the former, and Tik Tok is just confirming to people what they want to hear.
<< Its either one or the other.
Why would that be a given? If we remove tiktok and replace it with anything else, that replaced influence does not automatically negate my will? Case in point, when I call my mother to talk a new car purchase, does her disliking my choice automatically mean I either influenced and therefore have no will?
I am not certain you considered edge cases here.
Weapons can come in all forms and sizes. When wielded with the blend of censorship and propaganda, (social) media is absolutely a weapon. Is there a reason why it won’t be?
I have been arguing this point for several years now -- but wrt to the Democratic party's relationship with guns. The same justification used to limit the second amendment is the same justification that can be used to limit the 1st, 4th, etc.
Both parties seem to be on an authoritarian bent over the last 10-15 years, which sucks.
Afaik only one side of the aisle asks for Russia's help with offensive cybersecurity.
Sure, but I was under impression those mechanism already exists. The question, as it were, comes to enforcement.
The mechanism to do it properly is the feds working with local and state officials where there's a full breadth of accountability and judicial coverage. Some states and cities have explicitly rejected doing this, some opting to purposefully make it harder. Trump instead of being diplomatic and trying to work with them has aggressively sent goons in to do flashy operations and pushed federal enforcement to the limits of the law.
ICE and border patrol wasn't really designed either legally or in training for these sorts of large operations, so it's created lots of dangerous situations like how to do crowd control broadly under laws like "interfering with a federal investigation", while commanders are pushing them hard for results.
How fitting that you bring up pedophiles and rapists, and trusting the system, while Trump is sitting in the white house. Do I need to point out the irony?
Anecdotal: uploading a video of original songs with political/protest lyrics will have random background noises added to the audio track, making the songs audio seem amateurish.
Edit: here’s a link to an example https://bsky.app/profile/seaniebyrne.bsky.social/post/3mby7j...
can you relax the restrictions on your link or share a direct link to the video, i dont have a bluesky account
That's super curious. No offense, the noise didn't make it sound more amateurish to me personally, so I wouldn't go as far as to immediately conclude that this was intentional by TikTok, let alone that it is because it didn't like the lyrics, but I'm very curious what is it anyway.
Reminds me of how someone lately was going crazy about weird video-artifacts on Youtube. It was fixed (for his videos) after contacting somebody on the technical side of Youtube, but there was never an explanation AFAIK of what actually went wrong, so I was left pondering if that could be a result of some more ambitious ML-experiments in attempt to improve compression rates or something, but never found out conclusively.
It's insane right now browsing tiktok and seeing every 3rd or 4th video on my feed have consistent glitches (in the same places of a video, as if my internet was slow which it isn't), on only the videos mentioning resistance topics from the US. Very black mirror. Feels like it's meant more to send a message that your content is flagged, and to watch what you say and do. Otherwise they would just block it or hide it from your feed.
Did the consensus shift about TikTok? I thought it was a given that as tech/IT people TikTok isn’t an app worth having on your phone due to spyware/attention brute forcing/curated propaganda by Chinese government.
There are people with a wide variety of opinions here. TikTok is one of the most popular social media platforms, so naturally a lot of folk here will use it too.
And a thread about something on TikTok will naturally select participation from people who have first hand experience or care about it.
Well, I had it _becuase_ it was non-us propaganda. Otherwise all I have is US propaganda. If i must be manipulated, then let folks with competing objectives have an equal shot, hopefully they cancel each other out.
Now though? Tiktok isn't worth having, it is same old.
Anecdotal to myself. I shamefully sometimes use TikTok, I particularly like recipe clips and even I noticed something in the last week, most noticeably around this weekend where the algorithm for recommendations changed. It’s like they completely wiped my preferences. I try not to watch anything political so I cannot say much about censorship of content but something was noticeable in the last week.
I noticed exactly the same thing. I don't recall which day it started (probably this past Sunday), but it was as if a switch flipped. My For You Page no longer has anything to do with my preferences. I'm familiar with Tiktok nudging me in different directions in the past, but I was always able to steer it back to videos I was interested in within 10-15 minutes. Three days later, and it's as if Tiktok not only has forgotten everything about my watch history, it also hasn't learned. That said, it doesn't seem to be entirely about politics. I had a mix of political/protest related content, native plant content, and woodworking videos on my For You Page. None of those are showing up for me.
Same experience here, and also I noticed several channels I used to be following I was no longer following after the hand offs. The feed is completely different now.
Something definitely broke.
It does this all the time. I think it is called "exploration injection". It increases engagement by trying to prevent boredom.
It’s amazes how confident people will describe your lived experiences and say you are wrong. No this was entirely different and coincided in time with the complaints of censorship.
I said you were right. You might need to go touch grass man.
[Edit]: I shouldn't have made the "touch grass" comment. Sorry.
Have you been using it for long?
I no longer use TikTok, but I was pretty hooked for a while, and I felt those “waves” every now and then.
It was pretty noticeable because each time I started getting extreme right political content from my country, and I neither consume anything local nor right wing content.
TikTok said in a statement that glitches on the app were due to a power outage at a US data center. As a result, a spokesperson for TikTok US Joint Venture told CNN, it’s taking longer for videos to be uploaded and recommended to other users. The tech issues were “unrelated to last week’s news,” TikTok said.
There was a major storm over the weekend. I think the issues have been resolved. Is it still the case anti ICE videos can't be uploaded? Seems easy to test.
It seems to me that the hard part to test would be whether or not videos are allowed to circulate in the same way they would be if they were of a different subject. Upload status seems like red herring
Much like how even relatively innocuous comments on many subreddits will just be shadow-deleted.
If someone demonstrates they are liars, there is a reasonable default reaction. Most people can ignore what they say, because liars made the conscious decision not to be credible.
It is an incredible time-saving productivity hack to disregard what habitual liars say.
This is a reaction to reputation, which is sometimes reasonable. But reasonable people also confirm their suspicions with evidence regardless of the situation.
Go ahead and save your time, but remember your reputation is at risk as well, and I would consider you unreasonable.
Sadly, there are not enough minutes in a day to verify all information thrown at me. So taking shortcuts feels necessary to me. Sure, this should be contingent on new information and developments.
It looks like some are moving over to upscroll, anyone know anything about upscroll? what other apps are you using?
I remember when everyone migrated from MySpace to Facebook and I assumed everyone was going to just keep moving over to the next big thing every few years but that actually didn't happen. Facebook became an institution.
Nothing. These apps are mental poison. They're designed to be addictive. Healthy adults don't use TikTok or any equivalent.
I would agree with you, but its pretty disturbing that the general public doesn't have a good outlet, especially to discuss unconstitutional ICE actions. It’s unfortunately very convenient that at a time when the pros outweigh the cons (open discussion vs. addiction) that some might stay offline. I would encourage you to overlook the mental poison and continue to support open communication. That's more important right now.
> Healthy adults don't use TikTok or any equivalent.
This is a pretty obnoxious comment. You're welcome to your opinion that the apps are harmful, and I'm inclined to agree with you even though I use TikTok myself, but a blanket statement that only unhealthy people are on the apps is just inflammatory.
Really? I have bookmarked:
- 758 posts on home construction and interior design - 487 posts on cooking - 58 posts on relationship health - 605 posts on leadership - 58 posts on fitness - 19 posts on woodworking
, and countless others on travel and dining.
Would you like to restate your claim with more nuance? I have collected a vast amounts of knowledge through TikTok. Their algorithm is insanely good at capturing whatever it is you’re after. It’s a challenge to put the app down and I think any person that can’t impose their own healthy limits or can’t modulate their topical interests is going to have an even harder time. Let’s remember that amidst the real negative aspects, there is a really great system for learning buried in there.
Have you learned 758 things about home construction and interior design? Bookmarking certainly isn't learning. I should know; my collection of bookmarks contains countless papers, documentation, and tutorials, yet I've hardly glanced at most of them and the majority will remain in that state for eternity.
It's great that you're using these tools for expanding your knowledge. Share some of the highlights! Sometimes I think people who claim everything on these platforms is bad are telling on themselves, or not very savvy at getting the best out of a tool and blaming the tool.
A subscription to multiple news sources is a good way to consume news.
I have been using feedly to slowly build up a good news "diet" using sources from all over the world. Anytime, I come across an article on hn from a good news source I look into that website and add it to my feed. I look for criteria like independent journalism, representation of perspectives I don't already have in my news portfolio and general quality. I do think of my news as an investment portfolio, you want a good balance of stocks, diversification, hedging, risk management.
I checked out the website, and it looks more like Instagram than TikTok. We've had a few TikTok-like apps, and it didn't work out. Even the people behind Vine couldn't make their own Byte app take off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddles_(app)
TikTok showed that the platform lives and dies by the algorithm and ease of use. I'm not even a huge fan of TikTok's recommendations these days with too much slop slipping through the cracks. And their comment moderation is some of the worst.
If another platform ever gets popular enough, I'm sure the same people will find another way to neutralize it.
Yeah, I read about this thing called network effects on blue sky.
It feels like federated networks with open-sourced feed algorithms are the best path forward.
If AI removes any technical limitations, and automates content management, what's stopping a content creator from owning what they create and distributing it themselves?
How can centralization continue to survive?
The magic lies in the two-sided coin of promotion vs. spam filtering.
The web started off as a pretty peer to peer system, but almost immediately people built directories and link farms as means to find things. You can make a system as distributed as you want, but that only works for content which people know to find. Which is great for piracy, as e.g. movies and TV shows are advertised everywhere else and can be found by title.
For social media, the recommendation engine is a critical part of the appeal to users.
The distinction between promotion and spam is solely that the promotion side can be entertaining enough that the users will willingly chase it.
Why do so many tech people push this "federation is a panacea" idea despite all evidence to the contrary? I don't get it.
First, the obvious: if federation was clearly superior, it would've won. No medium since email has been federated and even that's dominated by a handful of players. Running your own email server is... nontrivial.
Second, users don't care abou tthis. Like at all.
Third, supposedly tech-savvy people don't seem willing or able to merely scratch the surface of what that looks like and how it would work.
Fourth, there's a lot of infrastructure you need such as moderation and safety that would need to be replicated for each federated provider.
Lastly, zero consideration is given to the problems this actually creates. Look at POTS. We have spam and providers that are bad actors and effectively launder spam calls and texts. You need some way to manage that.
If the better, truly good thing was always also the winning, "superior" thing, we would live in a very different world.
Running your own email server is not trivial.
Federated networks are theoretically and systematically superior to centralized, that's why people push it.
Humanity and social media isn't about technological superiority. Current platforms have inertia. Why would people fragment when all they care about is basic actions, and their network is already built?
Federated networks have been burdened by an onboarding tax, but this, along with moderation, can all be abstracted away by AI.
Let's see the current reality: social media platforms are currently American-dominated. A serious geopolitical problem, especially considering the amount of time younger generations spend on it.
There is more and more reason for governments to get involved and force the fragmentation of these platforms.
>if federation was clearly superior, it would've won.
no because we don't live in the best of all worlds. it starts to win pretty rapidly when centralized abuses of power become apparent. Bitchat (p2p mesh network messaging app) has been becoming quite popular in Uganda and Iran.
Decentralization is the basic guarantor for most of the freedoms we take for granted in democratic systems. Just because the average user doesn't exercise them, just like people who only start going on the treadmill when their chest starts to hurt at age 50, doesn't mean it isn't the answer.
Well for one we've seen how great and powerful federation can be, email is completely federated and the design of email has enabled hundreds of multibillion dollar companies.
Why wouldn't this also apply to social media? Why is it better for 5 players to exist rather than 1000s?
For almost all of human history information has been centralized among a small actors, for some time period we had a large independent press but those days are gone.
Everyone has a stake in getting accurate information, and therefore they have an interest in owning part of that system.
Sure is! the issue is that people's attention isn't -- most people on the web stick to a few web pages; their social media of choice (facebook, tiktok, etc...) and their news provider of choice (CNN, Fox, NBC).
Putting up a website is easy, pulling traffic away from bigger sites is much more difficult
Beyond federated systems, P2P systems seem to have a strong advantage here in identifying bad actors.
Ranking posts/comments by the exponential of inverse IPAddress-post-frequency would solve bad actors posting behind VPNs/proxies like evil bot farms / state actors and marketers.
Real users have their own IP address, and IP addresses are expensive like $20-50 a month which would make mocking traffic an extremely expensive proposition.
Mocking 1% of reddit's 120M daily active user would cost 58M and you wouldn't want to share/sell these addresses with other actors since it would ruin your credibility
I think it would do the opposite. The regular user posts 5 times per day, but the spammer has bought access to 65536 IP addresses and posts once from each, boosting his posts 5x. And the town in South America with one CGNAT IP address to go around gets censored.
You're not wrong that its easy to get relatively obscure IP addresses cheaply, however youll be sharing them with lots of folks potentially damaging reputation.
At scale, say P2P-book becomes the largest social networking site, all bad actors will be focused on using it and they will likely be sharing IP's, comingiling their reputation.
Sharing account ID's across IP would also be penalized.
People who post consistently from the same IP / MAC would be boosted, those are real people.
Of course before one is the biggest game in town you will simply not be on the radar, so using a captcha as well will be useful to prevent bots.
> Ranking posts/comments by the exponential of inverse IPAddress-post-frequency
Doesn't this just incentivize posting a bunch of comments from your residential proxy IP addresses to launder them? This smells like a poor strategy that's likely to lead to more spam than not. Also, everyone has to start somewhere so your legit IP addresses are also going to seem spammy at first.
Hmm consider an established social network which sees lots of bad actor activity, these folks will likely be sharing IP's on these residential network severly damaging their reputation.
You should only see one user-id per MAC / IP. If you see multiple then its a sign of a bad actor.
Before you're established using something like a captcha prevents most spam, except for state actors, and they wont be focused on the site until its larger.
Do you actually believe anything you just wrote?
If TikTok falls TikTokers will just use another centralized app.
Content creators don't have peertube instances for a reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came stays relevant
Someone I know told me they think about this when they see the people who voted for gun bans talk now about how they need guns to defend against unlawful ICE folks
The Black Panther Party proved this works decades ago: https://www.wbur.org/npr/442801731/director-chronicles-the-b...
Not the same thing or even country, but the guy killing Abe with the handmade gun changed the handling of Moonie infiltration of Japanese government and society. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/02/how-shinzo-abe...
Disagree. The most valuable feature of a fraction of people having guns is that the risk of someone having a gun discourages the most extreme harassment, even if no gun is ever fired.
That's because those people are all brainwashed.
They were told: buy guns because freedom, and they repeat "we buy guns because freedom".
Then they were told: never mind freedom, lets shoot this unarmed person, and they repeat "never mind freedom, shoot the person".
"we need our guns to protect our freedom against the government" idea could have some merit, but the reason right wingers say it is different. They say it because that meme has infected them, and uses them to replicate. A meme in the original sense
> A meme is a term referring to a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another.
Remember all the grievances about the previous executive administration's "Twitter Files" censorship? Rules for thee, but not for me.
To be clear, I think both censorship regimes are not good, but I can't say I'm surprised.
The pendulum is in full swing. Soon it will be ban worthy offense to suggest there are more than two genders.
Though I am morbidly enjoying the irony of seeing those on the left suddenly discover an interest in free speech, and those on the right discover their love for campaigning to get people deplatformed.
I'm beginning to put together that party-lines are strictly about gaining and holding power at all costs. Irony disappears through that lens and the way people act makes much more sense.
All of which are private institutions and therefore are valid expressions of free speech in and of themselves, even if you found it corrosive.
The idea the government needs to step in to tell HR departments what mixture of ideas they’re allowed to hire and reward is ridiculous. That is an actual affront to free speech.
If you don’t like woketard social dynamics, make your own HR department that lacks them, duh.
A few weeks ago, I reported a compilation video of ICE officers beating people. The description included the phrase "The deportations will continue :)".
I reported it for promoting violence, but TikTok found no violation of its guidelines.
It probably didn't help that the video was posted by the official White House TikTok account..
Allow me to offer some words of wisdom. If you help building weapons to be used against $currently_designated_bad_people, you can rest assured that given enough time, those weapons will be used against you. I am watching all this with a mild sense of bemusement.