This memory monopoly is ridiculous! I have maybe 20 free gigs left on my computer. There has to be something really amazing about COD if I’m ever gonna buy a new PC for it.
I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps). If America is opposed to the way China handles social media then we shouldn't seek to emulate them
> I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps).
This presumes an assumption. I don't consider the banning as a lever for ensuring US controls Tiktok as bad behavior. America has a vested interest in snooping on and having direct control over popular mediums of communication. Giving Chinese ownership access to the methods used (like the physical devices, et al), is a security issue. It's a cold war game that seems a little sophisticated for this day and age (somehow). The lack of understanding explains a lot of these wandering conversation about tangents.
Interest and action are separate. There was interest, so action was taken. Was the mechanism controversial? The mechanism, a law passed by the legislative body and upheld by the court seems like any other law. That's the qualifier in the US Constitution to know if it is constitutional or not.
My dog is a dog. He doesn't see anything wrong with pooping on the floor, so he won't be fazed if I do it too: threatening to poop on my own floor is not going to get him to stop doing it. If I follow through with my threat, not only will I be doubling up on the problem of poop on the floor, I'll also be behaving in a way that is far more improper and unacceptable for a me than it is for my dog, because we do not hold human beings to the same standards of behavior and hygiene that we expect from dogs.
China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Their government does not see anything wrong with violating the rights of their citizens, so they won't be fazed if we do it too: threatening to restrict access to social media in the US is not going to get them to stop doing it in China. If we follow through with our threat, not only will we be doubling up on the problem of illegitimate political restriction on public discourse, we'll also be behaving in a way that is far more improper and unacceptable for the US than it is for China, because we do not hold constitutional republics to the same standards of rule of law and respect for individual rights that we expect from authoritarian regimes.
I think you're perpetuating a false equivalence, though.
The Chinese government kicks out foreign social media because they want to censor a laundry list of topics and have near-direct control over discourse.
If we assume poor intent, the US wants to kick out TikTok in order to prop up the market share of US/Western-owned social media companies.
But if we assume better intent, the US wants to kick out TikTok in order to deny the Chinese government the ability to run unfettered political/social influence campaigns on US citizens. (Instead they'll have to play cat-and-mouse games on Western-owned platforms.)
Even if both intentions are there, I think this is much better justification than what the Chinese government does.
You're talking about intent, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance of intentions here. We're evaluating behavior, which remains the same irrespective of what intentions motivated it. I think it goes without saying that the Chinese government and the US government will invoke quite different rationalizations to explain their behavior, but I'm not sure that any rationalizations are sufficient to justify behavior that is bad in itself.
Or, more simply: no, intent does not matter -- you are responsible for the damage that proceeds from your purposeful actions regardless of what ideas were in your head at the time. Ends are not sufficient to justify means.
And yet you conveniently leave out the part where clearly the Chinese government desires that TikTok continue to operate in the US (under their control). Denying someone something they want is nearly the definition of punishment.
The analogy only works if the US response to banning US social media was to do something similar like banning Russian social media that had no impact on China.
As for whether the ban is legitimate or not, The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it is. We’ve banned foreign governments from owning television stations for decades.
So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead?
It's not quite correct to say that the Supreme Court ruled that the ban is legitimate. It narrowly ruled that the immediate first amendment challenge wasn't sufficient to invalidate the law under intermediate scrutiny. The only thing they were evaluating was whether the impact of the ban was biased toward any particular content, which it isn't.
They didn't rule on the overall constitutionality of the act, whether its first section amounts to a bill of attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader freedom of the press under the first amendment, or anything else. Those questions might well be evaluated later.
>whether its first section amounts to a bill of attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader freedom of the press under the first amendment
The petitioners made those challenges as well. 3 lower courts denied them, and SCOTUS chose not to overturns the law based on those challenges, thus upholding the constitutionality of the law.
Based on your the argument, because SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of the ban with respect to the 2nd amendment, they didn't actually declare that it was legitimate.
So yes technically you are correct, but SCOTUS certainly choose not to declare the law illegitimate, which is the most legitimating thing they are ever going to do.
>So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead?
It's just a bad analogy. Come up with a better one.
> So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead?
No, I think the way of thinking is that it's irrelevant whether or not China (the dog) does it. If you want to deny the Chinese government the ability to use a Chinese-owned social media platform in a certain way, then you ban it. This isn't a tit-for-tat situation at all; the US is doing something it believes is beneficial for itself; it's not simply pooping on the floor which would serve no benefit.
The overall point is that your analogy doesn't fit the current circumstances, so stop using it to argue against the TikTok ban.
The role of the US government isn't do things it believes are beneficial for itself. It's to administer the law consistently with the constitution. When it behaves in arbitrary way and implicates the rights of its own people in order to pursue geopolitical ambitions on the global stage, it is metaphorically pooping on the floor.
The constitution explicitly gives the government the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Nothing about this is arbitrary, it is merely the government catching up with new technology and bringing regulation of that technology closer in line with regulation of existing technology. Foreign governments or companies controlled by foreign governments have been prohibited from holding radio licenses since 1934.
No that would contradict freedom of association. People are free to form closed, self-censoring groups if they choose to. What we want to avoid is the government forcing it on people.
The paradox of tolerance specifically states that one must not be tolerant of intolerance. Hence, a paradox.
Tolerance is a social contract of leaving alone others whose ways differ from your own so long as they do the same for you.
One must not tolerate those that call for violence and subjugation of differing groups, which is almost the exact opposite meaning your comment seems to be implying in my reading of it, instead calling for wholly unfiltered speech by whosoever should deem to speak.
Racists and similar hatemongers calling for others to tolerate them while they are screaming for those they disparage to be caste down and out cannot be tolerated in any reasonable forum.
As such, any reasonable forum must ban some facets of free speech.
That we disallow this power for governments is a reasonable limit on the powers of the elected to rule, lest those powers be abused.
The problem with this interpretation is of course that it lets you be as intolerant as you want to anyone you decree intolerant. Which is why it is so popular.
No, as an autist, this guy is right. I’ve “systematically”thought about it a lot and creativity is something that must be done the long and hard way. You can be creative about efficiency but not efficient about creativity.
I wonder what strange little people this rule was removed for. Sexism just stupefies me and I wonder how someone with the intelligence to breath could render such words.
Looks like there was no specific rule. But some so-called journalists tried to think of what some people they dislike might say now that a rule they like is gone.
If a rule blocks someone from saying something then that rule is for that. There is a specific rule if they couldn’t say it before. What are you saying what does that mean?
And yet we see a lot of instances in free market economies. If you're going to talk Marxism, address actual criticisms (of which there are plenty) and not reactive Red Scare-type boogeymen.
