- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dumbasses in House pass Trojan Horse TikTok ban
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:13 pm to Shepherd88
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:13 pm to Shepherd88
quote:
We all know Tik Tok is a problem. But the bigger problem just became this bill. It now gives the government power to shut down any website (including this one) and any application. That’s why it’s a Trojan horse.
I figure the bill will go to the USSC and be found unconstitutional.
0
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:13 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:How does forcing the Bytedance sale of TikTok limit free speech?
I never said there’s no consequences of freedom just ensuring they don’t take anymore.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:15 pm to NC_Tigah
Anytime giving the government more power, Is not good. It has never favored the individual in the end. But to answer your question, it gives the government precedent to over ride freedom of speech.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Inside of bill they have the ability to kill any website they don’t agree with
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:18 pm to umrebel2009
quote:That language is not in the bill, at least not that I've seen. The language I've seen refers to entities (apps, companies, websites, etc) which are "controlled by a foreign adversary."
People are not against banning tiktok, it's the vaguely worded bill that gives the government the ability to ban any website they see as a threat that's the issue
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:19 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
Yes and it pushes certain content on purpose to give a false narrative about America etc. It's literally brainwashing in a sense
I'm on TikTok a LOT and very rarely does it force any specific type of content on me outside of my normal sports/comedy/cooking/gaming content.
There's plenty of political content on the app, created by individual users, that covers the entire political spectrum from the hardest core liberal left, to the hardest core conservative right. Whatever videos you watch more of, it'll allow more of that content on your feed.
quote:
Social Media has done more harm to America than literally anything else, over the last 2 decades.
There have been pros and cons to it for certain, but in this instance, the notion the TikTok is less for free speech and more brainwashing than Facebook Instagram, Google, etc... is laughable. As I've said before, TikTok far and away allows more opinions, political or otherwise, on it's platform comparative to others.
It's the most efficient stream of information I've encountered among the social media platforms and is the least restrictive on what's allowed. Above all else, the ease with which the American populace can obtain information across the ENTIRE political spectrum on this app is likely the reason the US govt has taken issue with it.
That and ridding the US of TikTok helps Facebook and the others, which in turn helps the corrupt pieces of shite in Congress.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:20 pm to Fun Bunch
They could have stipulated No Offshore ownership of Tic Toc if was about just tictoc
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:22 pm to NC_Tigah
First of all it’s the government getting involved in a foreign business forcing its sale. If they are successful they will do it more which will have global consequences and eventually consequences here for business owners.
170 million active users on a platform using it for many reasons including political speech. The premise is to get it away from China and let another person own it. Who will buy it? Will they alter it? Will they change the format? These and other variables will ruin the product 170 million Americans like. This will cause users to leave and the platform it fall apart forcing users back to big tech platforms where they already sell data and sensor speech. Not to mention we still don’t know which elite will buy it and then sell the data.
There’s a lot more but if you are a conservative you don’t want govt involved in speech or business, even if it’s foreign owned.
Don’t forget it is an election year …. They’re doing this because they don’t control it.
quote:
How does forcing the Bytedance sale of TikTok limit free speech?
170 million active users on a platform using it for many reasons including political speech. The premise is to get it away from China and let another person own it. Who will buy it? Will they alter it? Will they change the format? These and other variables will ruin the product 170 million Americans like. This will cause users to leave and the platform it fall apart forcing users back to big tech platforms where they already sell data and sensor speech. Not to mention we still don’t know which elite will buy it and then sell the data.
There’s a lot more but if you are a conservative you don’t want govt involved in speech or business, even if it’s foreign owned.
Don’t forget it is an election year …. They’re doing this because they don’t control it.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:22 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Inside of bill they have the ability to kill any website they don’t agree with
Here is are complete sections containing language taken out of context elsewhere. The link is to the entire bill.
Where do you see language enabling Feds "to kill any website"?
quote:
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON7 TROLLED APPLICATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.— The term ‘‘controlled by a foreign adversary’’ means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is—
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) COVERED COMPANY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘covered company’’ means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that—
(i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and 14 view text, images, videos, real-time commu15 nications, or similar content;
(ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B);
(iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and
(iv) enables 1 or more users to view content generated by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application.
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘covered company’’ does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:26 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Oh, so you only want freedom of speech to only allow your viewpoints? It's a young person's app, so of course it is going to view the world in a different lens. That scares you? We okay with Twitter's pro-Russia push and all that it allows? I've never seen murders and porn on TikTok.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:29 pm to dgnx6
quote:my rambling? I said like 3 things.... is that rambling now?
your rambling made zero sense.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:33 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:Only a designated adversary
First of all it’s the government getting involved in a foreign business forcing its sale.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:37 pm to Shepherd88
I dismissed that part since clearly TD is not a foreign adversary controlled website. I'm wondering where the language lives that gives government the right to shut down an American controlled website.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Where do you see language enabling Feds "to kill any website"?
A federal agency could easily claim a person in part ownership of an entity is subject to "foreign influence".
We've seen em do worse.
quote:
(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI16 CATION.—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled
17 application’’ means a website, desktop application,
18 mobile application, or augmented or immersive tech19 nology application that is operated, directly or indi20 rectly
(C) a person subject to the direction or
2 control of a foreign person or entity described
3 in subparagraph (A) or (B).
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:41 pm to Mr Roboto
quote:
They will use same precedent to ban free speech platforms, such as X
They are forcing the China-based parent company to sell Tik Tok under the Bill. Is "X" foreign owned? If not...it's apples to oranges.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:45 pm to madmaxvol
Elon Musk is African American and not American so…
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:45 pm to madmaxvol
Sounds like the fear is that all the government would have to do is decide Elon is being controlled by a foreign adversary and is letting them dictate functionality in order to ban the app from the country.
Sounds pretty outlandish, but I understand the caution given the last several years.
Sounds pretty outlandish, but I understand the caution given the last several years.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:46 pm to Shepherd88
quote:
Elon Musk is African American and not American so…
I'm out of herePosted on 3/13/24 at 2:47 pm to InTheDetails
quote:Ooooh boy.
so of course it is going to view the world in a different lens
Posted on 3/13/24 at 2:49 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:That doesn't do it. The reference is to entities "controlled by a foreign adversary."
A federal agency could easily claim a person in part ownership of an entity is subject to "foreign influence".
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News