Tik Tok lawsuit

[hepcat]

I pointed out a motivation earlier. He's pandering to the right who want to participate in a culture war that they see going on at college campuses.

I noticed you ignored the other evidence that was posted about the Chinese government's involvement in Tik Tok.

[Victoria Raverna]

That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.

How do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.

[hepcat]

That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.

How do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.

Hallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.

[Victoria Raverna]

I pointed out a motivation earlier. He's pandering to the right who want to participate in a culture war that they see going on at college campuses.

I noticed you ignored the other evidence that was posted about the Chinese government's involvement in Tik Tok.

I didn't ignore other evidence. I read the link you provided. Your own news source.

Or since the article is no longer strongly support your argument, it become untrustworthy source?

[hepcat]

I added another almost immediately after posting, there wasn't just one. In addition, LM posted multiple links.

[stessier]

I believe VR is right on the First Amendment problems with this. I don't see how the government can get away with banning or forcing them to sell. Tik Tok has a first amendment right to publish. I don't see how the ban/forced sale is narrowly tailored or falls into one of the exceptions to the first amendment. It was a really silly bill and I'm surprised it made it to law.

We need a legal scholar here. I don't think I agree with you

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article ... t-of-1917/

You'll have to connect the dots for me on how that relates to the current situation.

[Victoria Raverna]

That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.

How do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.

Hallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.

Tiktok worth far more than twitter. To force them to divest in 9 months mean you're forcing them to sell at lower price to American investors which equal robbing foreign investors, or being banned.

[hepcat]

They were willing to do it in 2020 to stay off the banned list.

[Victoria Raverna]

I added another almost immediately after posting, there wasn't just one. In addition, LM posted multiple links.

I'll try to go back and read them. It was only one link when I read the article before I wrote my previous response.

[LordMortis]

An example of limits to the First Amendment:

Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 on June 15, two months after the United States entered World War I. Just after the war, prosecutions under the act led to landmark First Amendment precedents.


Espionage Act limited dissent to the war



The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Seems pretty clear to me that the First Amendment does not protect espionage. China use Bytedance to gather intelligence from behind closed doors, which is their right, but it does not mean they should get Carte Blanche to do so in the US. That is why the forced sale wouldn't be an infringement on the first to me. Where's Fed when we need him?

[hepcat]

I'll offer an olive branch:

Romney and some of the politicians who recently voted for banning Tik Tok or forcing it to sell may have done so with some prejudice against Tik Tok due to what they believe is anti Israeli sentiment being passed around Tik Tok.

HOWEVER, they also were the same group that wanted it banned years before due to security concerns. Overwhelmingly so.

Take this olive branch as you will.

[LordMortis]

That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.

How do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.

Hallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.

Tiktok worth far more than twitter. To force them to divest in 9 months mean you're forcing them to sell at lower price to American investors which equal robbing foreign investors, or being banned.

Absolutely! The price will be in the shitter because Bytedance absolutely will not send their IP along with the sale of company. We're finally on the same page.

[Victoria Raverna]

They were willing to do it in 2020 to stay off the banned list.

I'm sure they'll try to divest if they have no other choice. They'll lose more value if they are banned. But that is still robbing foreign investors. A bad precedence for investors if US can make law to force them to sell.

[hepcat]

An even worse precedent would be potentially allowing hostile foreign powers to operate social media platforms in the United States while gathering personal info on citizens.

[Victoria Raverna]

An example of limits to the First Amendment:

Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 on June 15, two months after the United States entered World War I. Just after the war, prosecutions under the act led to landmark First Amendment precedents.


Espionage Act limited dissent to the war



The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Seems pretty clear to me that the First Amendment does not protect espionage. China use Bytedance to gather intelligence from behind closed doors, which is their right, but it does not mean they should get Carte Blanche to do so in the US. That is why the forced sale wouldn't be an infringement on the first to me. Where's Fed when we need him?

But isn't the espionage need to be proven in court? You can accuse anyone of anything but it doesn't matter if it can't be proven in court.

If you read that act, it stated clearly what is the limited things that are prohibited. So you need to prove that Tiktok did those that are prohibited by that espionage act of 1917.

[Victoria Raverna]

An even worse precedent would be potentially allowing hostile foreign powers to operate social media platforms in the United States while gathering personal info on citizens.

What hostile power? US and China are trade partners. US and China is not at war.

Is US declaring China as an enemy?

[Victoria Raverna]

That was a typo on my part. I meant to write high Palestinian support. Which it has quite a bit of.

How do you propose they ban twitter or other social platform? Asked them to divest and sell to Chinese investors? They're US companies. It'll be much harder to ban them.

Hallelujah! NOW you admit that the US is saying that Tik Tok has the option of divesting instead of being banned.

Tiktok worth far more than twitter. To force them to divest in 9 months mean you're forcing them to sell at lower price to American investors which equal robbing foreign investors, or being banned.

Absolutely! The price will be in the shitter because Bytedance absolutely will not send their IP along with the sale of company. We're finally on the same page.

So you're supporting robbing foreign investors.

[hepcat]

I said hostile, not enemy. In diplomacy, there's a distinction.

[stessier]

An example of limits to the First Amendment:

Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 on June 15, two months after the United States entered World War I. Just after the war, prosecutions under the act led to landmark First Amendment precedents.


Espionage Act limited dissent to the war

For the record, that is no longer a thing. Schenck vs United States is the case that gave us Mr Fed's favorite:

“[T]he character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Which he later repudiated.

The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

Seems pretty clear to me that the First Amendment does not protect espionage. China use Bytedance to gather intelligence from behind closed doors, which is their right, but it does not mean they should get Carte Blanche to do so in the US. That is why the forced sale wouldn't be an infringement on the first to me. Where's Fed when we need him?

"Gather Intelligence" is doing a lot of work there for you. What national security information is ending up on Tik Tok? People's data and browsing habits can not be it as then there is no foreign entity that would be allowed to run a company in the US.

[hepcat]

"Gather Intelligence" is doing a lot of work there for you. What national security information is ending up on Tik Tok? People's data and browsing habits can not be it as then there is no foreign entity that would be allowed to run a company in the US.

"Allowed" being the key word. Russia isn't "allowed" to influence the elections of other countries, yet here we are.

I'm not saying this isn't a delicate situation in terms of first amendment rights. I'm just saying that this isn't an example of the United States showing that it's willing to censor any and all attempts to criticize Israel right now (not accusing you of this, but it has been used by another here in many ways).

So you're supporting robbing foreign investors.

I wish you'd been this upset about Grindr.

[Victoria Raverna]

I'll offer an olive branch:

Romney and some of the politicians who recently voted for banning Tik Tok or forcing it to sell may have done so with some prejudice against Tik Tok due to what they believe is anti Israeli sentiment being passed around Tik Tok.

HOWEVER, they also were the same group that wanted it banned years before due to security concerns. Overwhelmingly so.

Take this olive branch as you will.

And my version of it.

Romney and some of the politicians who recently voted for banning Tik Tok or forcing it to sell may have done so with some prejudice against Tik Tok due to what they believe is anti Israeli sentiment being passed around Tik Tok.

HOWEVER, they also were the same group that wanted it banned years before because of prejudice against Tik Tok due to what they believe is anti Republican sentiment being passed around Tik Tok.

Now that doesn't explain the Democrats side. So maybe Democrats really concerned about national security.

But even back when Trump tried it, there were concern about free speech.

[Victoria Raverna]

I wish you'd been this upset about Grindr.

I didn't know about Grindr. It is getting late here. So I'll stop responding. Hopefully you guys can have a good discussion. Seem like my opinion isn't that controversial after all. Free speech concern is a real concern.

[stessier]

I'm just saying that this isn't an example of the United States showing that it's willing to censor any and all attempts to criticize Israel right now (not accusing you of this, but it has been used by another here in many ways).

I never said you were and I don't see that any current conflict would factor into this at all.

[hepcat]

I wish you'd been this upset about Grindr.

I didn't know about Grindr. It is getting late here. So I'll stop responding. Hopefully you guys can have a good discussion. Seem like my opinion isn't that controversial after all. Free speech concern is a real concern.

And I'm glad to read that you finally accepted that there are legitimate security concerns involved and not just censorship run wild.

[stessier]

there are legitimate security concerns involved

That's where I think you go off into crazy-land.

[hepcat]

Change all your passwords to your birth date. I wanna prove something to you.

[waitingtoconnect]

This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.

Only question is if TikTok is banned and trump says he’ll reverse it will the your vote swing to him?

Biden probably lucky my youngest and her friends can’t vote yet if so.

Having it is an incredible danger but then so is Facebook. We need to really limit kids access to social media.

[hepcat]

This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.

Only question is if TikTok is banned and trump says he’ll reverse it will the your vote swing to him?

Biden probably lucky my youngest and her friends can’t vote yet if so.

Having it is an incredible danger but then so is Facebook. We need to really limit kids access to social media.

And vote for the guy who'll personally hand Russia my 401k account info? No thanks

[Blackhawk]

If the reason is to "save the children" then US need to ban youtube shorts or instagram reel which are almost the same as tiktok.

If you upload a video to YouTube or Instagram encouraging children to set themselves on fire or drink poison, the video gets taken down and you get banned. If you upload it to TikTok, it gets 'delisted' and won't show up in search results or recommendations, but is still present and can be linked to and shared indefinitely.

And those are two literal examples.

[Victoria Raverna]

If the reason is to "save the children" then US need to ban youtube shorts or instagram reel which are almost the same as tiktok.

If you upload a video to YouTube or Instagram encouraging children to set themselves on fire or drink poison, the video gets taken down and you get banned. If you upload it to TikTok, it gets 'delisted' and won't show up in search results or recommendations, but is still present and can be linked to and shared indefinitely.

And those are two literal examples.

Are you saying Tiktok doesn't ban anyone? How do you know they're not banned?

Here is an article from Vice about the bad thing about tiktok:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjv4jw/ ... oung-users

So after reading that, I tried it on youtube. Do you know what I found?

[Blackhawk]

Why don't you tell us, or are you just playing games?

[Victoria Raverna]

Why don't you tell us, or are you just playing games?

I got a playlist of songs to play for suicide when searching for incelcore.

I got videos about incels when searching for incel. Both the one that make fun of them or the ones that promote them.

Then I did the same at tiktok and you know what I got? Nothing at all. Both incelcore and incel doesn't result in any incelcore music or incel contents.

Then I tried to search for suicide. At youtube, you got videos about suicide. Mostly about prevention or about people who lost family members to suicide which is not bad.

Tried that at tiktok. Nothing.

[RunningMn9]

This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.

There aren’t enough tik toks in the world to allow Gen Z to top the Boomers in this department. Also, Tik tok doesn’t make narcissists. You’re just crabby old man.

[Blackhawk]

Why don't you tell us, or are you just playing games?

I got a playlist of songs to play for suicide when searching for incelcore.

I got videos about incels when searching for incel. Both the one that make fun of them or the ones that promote them.

Then I did the same at tiktok and you know what I got? Nothing at all. Both incelcore and incel doesn't result in any incelcore music or incel contents.

Which has what to do with what I said?

[gbasden]

This is the very definition of a win/meh scenario for me. I really hate tik tok and won't be sad to see it go away. But if it stays, I can just continue to ignore the narcissistic generation it's creating.

There aren’t enough tik toks in the world to allow Gen Z to top the Boomers in this department. Also, Tik tok doesn’t make narcissists. You’re just crabby old man.

Dear god yes.

[Victoria Raverna]

Why don't you tell us, or are you just playing games?

I got a playlist of songs to play for suicide when searching for incelcore.

I got videos about incels when searching for incel. Both the one that make fun of them or the ones that promote them.

Then I did the same at tiktok and you know what I got? Nothing at all. Both incelcore and incel doesn't result in any incelcore music or incel contents.

Which has what to do with what I said?

It meant that tiktok is not more harmful than youtube? They had their problems but they tried hard to fix them. If they don't recommend the problematic videos. If they don't let you search for them. Then why is it a problem if they ban them or not? They're practically banned.

But you're still wrong about Tiktok not banning those videos.

From 2020:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54069650

The footage, which has been circulating on the platform for several days, originated on Facebook and has also been shared on Twitter and Instagram.

TikTok is hugely popular with young people - and many have reported coming across the video and being traumatised by the content.

The app said it would ban accounts repeatedly uploading clips.

[Zarathud]

If it’s still available, it’s a problem. VR, you of all people should know goons post such links elsewhere to “spread the message.”

/incredulous

[Victoria Raverna]

If it’s still available, it’s a problem. VR, you of all people should know goons post such links elsewhere to “spread the message.”

/incredulous

Where is these elsewhere? Maybe the government need to look at that, too?

[Blackhawk]

Who's talking about videos of a suicide? I was talking about the numerous dangerous and sometimes deadly 'challenge' videos. When the dangerous ones come up (like the Blackout Challenge, which has killed 20 kids), they make some token show of responding or point to what their policies say on paper, but they're well aware that their reporting mechanisms are ineffective, their moderation is scarce, and that they make a lot of money from these videos. They then usually fall back on "It's hard to keep kids off of the app", which completely misses the point that these videos that are so dangerous remain available, and ignores the fact that they're causing deaths in adults and older kids as well (12 wrecks and 8 deaths from the Kia Challenge, for instance.) And that's when it's not actively recommending them to people.

Go on YouTube show me all the videos of people encouraging others to tie things around their neck and choke themselves until they black out. You won't find them. They're all on TikTok. Why? Because the other social media platforms acted decisively to stop that kind of thing from happening, and all of the people making them moved to TikTok specifically because of their limited rules and moderation. Do they take action? Yes. Very limited, ineffective action.

TikTok is a stain on humanity.

[Victoria Raverna]

Who's talking about videos of a suicide? I was talking about the numerous dangerous and sometimes deadly 'challenge' videos. When the dangerous ones come up (like the Blackout Challenge, which has killed 20 kids), they make some token show of responding or point to what their policies say on paper, but they're well aware that their reporting mechanisms are ineffective, their moderation is scarce, and that they make a lot of money from these videos. They then usually fall back on "It's hard to keep kids off of the app", which completely misses the point that these videos that are so dangerous remain available, and ignores the fact that they're causing deaths in adults and older kids as well (12 wrecks and 8 deaths from the Kia Challenge, for instance.) And that's when it's not actively recommending them to people.

Go on YouTube show me all the videos of people encouraging others to tie things around their neck and choke themselves until they black out. You won't find them. They're all on TikTok. Why? Because the other social media platforms acted decisively to stop that kind of thing from happening, and all of the people making them moved to TikTok specifically because of their limited rules and moderation. Do they take action? Yes. Very limited, ineffective action.

TikTok is a stain on humanity.

So I tried again and searched for Blackout Challenge and once again nothing.

I tried again and searched for Kia Challenge and nothing, too.

Then I tried again at youtube and found news about them.