- 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: TikTok banned...
Posted on 9/19/20 at 6:27 pm to Gravitiger
Posted on 9/19/20 at 6:27 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
Respectfully, what does that mean?
Ban tigerdroppings!!!
0
Posted on 9/19/20 at 8:06 pm to lostinbr
quote:How would the government banning social media not be a first amendment violation?
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. (I’m also not advocating for all social media to be banned.)
This post was edited on 9/19/20 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 9/19/20 at 8:10 pm to GeauxTigers80
Nope. Cheeto is mad because Tik Tok kids requested thousands of tickets to that rally no one attended. Cheeto is still butf hurt over it.
Posted on 9/19/20 at 8:20 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
How is the government regulating what you can/can't post on social media, and where you can/can't post not a First Amendment issue?
Well for starters, the social media companies are adamant about their status as platforms rather than publishers. So can Facebook (as a company) really claim that shutting them down would be a first amendment issue while also claiming they aren’t responsible for anything their users post?
Second, I’m fairly certain courts have already ruled that social media users don’t enjoy first amendment protections for their content (when it comes to censorship by the platform), because the platform is a private company.
If the government were to shut them down, it wouldn’t be the government “regulating what you can/can’t post,” but they certainly would be regulating where you can post, as you said. I’m not disputing that. I’m just not sure it’s a “blatant” violation of anyone’s first amendment rights.
Posted on 9/19/20 at 8:22 pm to I Bleed Garnet
quote:Complete bullshite that he thinks he can or should "bless" such a deal. This should scare the shite out of everyone.
Donald Trump said he’s approved Oracle Corp.’s bid for the U.S. operations of TikTok “in concept,” a deal forced by the president’s orders last month declaring the popular video-sharing app a national security threat.
“I have given the deal my blessing,” Trump told reporters Saturday as he left the White House for a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C. “I approved the deal in concept.”
This post was edited on 9/19/20 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 9/19/20 at 8:23 pm to Gravitiger
So the gay commercials continue?
Posted on 9/19/20 at 8:27 pm to lostinbr
quote:Yes, they can. Newspapers aren't responsible for publishing letters to the editor. Local media websites aren't responsible for what users post in the comments. Religious TV programs and infomercials always say, "The views represented herein do not necessarily reflect those of the network." That doesn't mean the government can censor newspapers or local media websites or religious TV or infomercials. It actually means the opposite.
Well for starters, the social media companies are adamant about their status as platforms rather than publishers. So can Facebook (as a company) really claim that shutting them down would be a first amendment issue while also claiming they aren’t responsible for anything their users post?
quote:Yeah, a private company (the platform) can censor free speech. The government can't (except in narrow circumstances that don't apply here). This is basic first amendment jurisprudence.
Second, I’m fairly certain courts have already ruled that social media users don’t enjoy first amendment protections for their content (when it comes to censorship by the platform), because the platform is a private company.
quote:Ok. I'm sure it is. Under the first amendment, banning all (or any) social media no different than banning all (or any) newspapers or TV news or any other kind of media or public speech.
If the government were to shut them down, it wouldn’t be the government “regulating what you can/can’t post,” but they certainly would be regulating where you can post, as you said. I’m not disputing that. I’m just not sure it’s a “blatant” violation of anyone’s first amendment rights.
The first amendment also covers "where" you can speak, per hundreds of years of SCOTUS jurisprudence. And their definition of "the press" is very broad.
This post was edited on 9/19/20 at 10:44 pm
Posted on 9/19/20 at 9:10 pm to Gravitiger
Tinder is the one we should be worried about. So much blackmail material. So little security.
Posted on 9/19/20 at 9:12 pm to Gravitiger
I have heard Walmart is buying it. Siap
Posted on 9/19/20 at 9:42 pm to dallastigers
quote:
Only party 1st Democrats and several big tech companies seem to think China is our true friend, but that’s also really about $.
You are partially right saying it’s about $, but it’s also about power. I have to disagree with the 1st part. Here’s where a LOT of patriotic people are completely deceived:
Dims and big tech KNOW China is not a friend to the USA in its traditional, current, capitalist, ‘We the People’ form... You, and most of the nation have been fooled into thinking that Democrats ultimately want the same thing as we do... a free America, serving its free society under the Constitution. In fact, that is NOT AT ALL what the Dims want. They want a society beholden to a class of power. The masses stripped of their sovereignty and subservient to the government. An Overlord, all decisive, omnipotent government. Those values line up more closely to China’s... NOT THE PEOPLE’S. We need to stop thinking that when it comes to foundational Americanism, we are all on the same side. We are not. The Dims ultimate goal is treason, mutiny, and an all-out coup of our Constitution.
All you Democrat voters out there who want the USA to stay free and power to continue to lie in the hands of the PEOPLE, not the government, need to consider this point very, VERY carefully and WAKE UP to the lies, propaganda, and deception going on in the power center of your party. These people are not your friends, and they don’t give a shite about you, your family, or the Constitution. They just NEED you for right now. And when they’ve used your vote to circumvent the Constitution and solidify power for themselves, they will turn you into slaves... Get rid of them, Democrats... any way you have to.
This post was edited on 9/19/20 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 9/19/20 at 9:47 pm to HeadSlash
quote:If you see gay commercials, it's because of what you click on.
So the gay commercials continue?
Posted on 9/19/20 at 9:48 pm to GeauxTigers80
DAMN TOO BAD THERE ARE NO OTHER APPS THAT LET YOU UPLOAD VIDEOS TO THE INTERNET
Posted on 9/19/20 at 9:54 pm to LSUTigerFan247
quote:Guess how I know you don't understand anything about internet data privacy?
DAMN TOO BAD THERE ARE NO OTHER APPS THAT LET YOU UPLOAD VIDEOS TO THE INTERNET
Posted on 9/19/20 at 10:32 pm to stout
quote:
quote:
It will be interesting to see what FB stock does next week. If FB stock goes up as a result of the US government banning tiktok, can that be considered stock manipulation?
Chris, I am pretty sure your last remaining few brain cells are struggling for oxygen.
Well let's see what the stock does this week then we can discuss on what arguments can and can't be made.
Posted on 9/19/20 at 10:37 pm to dgnx6
quote:
These people believe he's doing what's best for this country and undoing this path we've traveled since Clinton.
Do they realize he was a huge Clinton supporter at the time?
Posted on 9/19/20 at 10:40 pm to GeauxTigers80
Tic toc no
Posted on 9/19/20 at 10:47 pm to OweO
quote:Grab 'em by the pussy
Do they realize he was a huge Clinton supporter at the time?
Posted on 9/19/20 at 10:48 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
Ok. I'm sure it is. Under the first amendment, it's no different than banning all newspapers or all TV news or all of any other kind of media or public speech. The first amendment also covers "where", and who is the "press" is very broad, per hundreds of years of SCOTUS jurisprudence.
All I’m saying is that the recency of social media and smartphone apps complicates things, and that plenty of forums are regulated and subject to penalties if they don’t comply with those regulations.
As an example, the FCC can’t shut down a radio station for making statements they don’t agree with on-air. But they can certainly shut them down for broadcasting at a higher power than their license allows, or without a license at all. So yeah, the speech is protected from censorship, but that doesn’t mean all government intervention is censorship of free speech.
Maybe I should have been more specific. I agree that the government can’t arbitrarily decide to shut down all social media. That’s what you actually said, and I think it’s pretty obvious.
My comment was really arguing against the idea that they can’t shut down any social media platform, or implement regulations that fundamentally change how social media works in the US. Again, I realize that’s not actually what you said.
Personally, I’m torn on the whole TikTok thing. On the one hand, I hate when the government uses businesses as bargaining chips for foreign policy objectives. On the other hand, I think we should aggressively defend against any legitimate risks to our national security. When the whole Huawei thing came up, my thought was “either they are a national security risk or they aren’t. If they are, why are we negotiating?” I feel the same way here.. but I can acknowledge that China’s relationship with businesses is somewhat unique.
Posted on 9/19/20 at 10:56 pm to lostinbr
So you agree that a unilateral ban on all social media by executive order would violate the first amendment?
The "recency" of all technology "complicates" the founders' language. Almost certainly they didn't intend the second amendment to mean individuals can hoard handguns and semi-automatic rifles. But under the language, they can. It is what it is. And that's just one example.
The lesson: It's really hard, if not impossible, to draft a long-term constitution, based on what is currently known at the time. Ours has already lasted longer than 99% of those in history. And it's still got major problems.
The "recency" of all technology "complicates" the founders' language. Almost certainly they didn't intend the second amendment to mean individuals can hoard handguns and semi-automatic rifles. But under the language, they can. It is what it is. And that's just one example.
The lesson: It's really hard, if not impossible, to draft a long-term constitution, based on what is currently known at the time. Ours has already lasted longer than 99% of those in history. And it's still got major problems.
This post was edited on 9/19/20 at 11:47 pm
Posted on 9/19/20 at 11:43 pm to OweO
quote:
Do they realize he was a huge Clinton supporter at the time?
People are allowed to change their minds as situations change and thought matures. Look at Biden and Kamala, they are changing their stances every time a new poll comes out.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News