US House Panel Approves Bill Giving Biden Power To Ban TikTok 170
The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted on Wednesday along party lines to give President Joe Biden the power to ban Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, in the latest setback for the popular video sharing site. From a report: Lawmakers voted 24 to 16 to approve the measure to grant the administration new powers to ban the ByteDance-owned app -- which is used by over 100 million Americans -- as well as other apps considered security risks. Democrats on the committee opposed the bill, which was sponsored by Republican committee chair Michael McCaul. TikTok has come under increasing fire in recent weeks over fears that user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government, undermining Western security interests.
Mother May I..? (Score:2)
If the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the US Military needs to be granted permission to do this, then I'd like to know the reason it's being banned.
Guess I don't really recall this being a problem or necessary step whenever it's deemed a "matter of national security", so what's the justification that requires additional approval?
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:5, Funny)
It's Chinese.
The USA has always been at war with China.
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent Funny but not really true.
Anyway, it's better than the other twisted angle on unlimited freedom to load apps, no matter how dangerous or harmful or even destructive they might be.
I do think this "problem" is really about geopolitics, and it wouldn't be such a problem if China wasn't so asymmetric about it. I believe China has the best cyber-defenses in the world, but they scream "imperialism" or even "racism" when other countries worry about cyber-defenses...
However these things cut backwards, too. Xi "needs" the defenses largely to defend against unpleasant truths and America needs the defenses precisely to the degree that we can't reverse engineer their hardware and apps to understand their capabilities.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a quote from 1984....
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be literal, the quote is:
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
Of course it fits in this case, as the USA considered China to be a trading partner up to very recently
In regards to actual events, "The Great Firewall of China" [wikipedia.org] is a very real attempt by China to keep their citizens expectations low by hiding the behavior of Western nations from them.
IMO, the USA is completely justified in dem
Re: (Score:2)
Read what I wrote. I was pretty careful about my pronouns. Or maybe I needed a /s somewhere? Or maybe your reply is unclear?
I might think you had sent a reply to the wrong comment, but I was probably the first to introduce a couple of the key terms in your reply.
If you're just making a straw man, sorry, but I'm out of matches and not even interested in playing.
Re: (Score:2)
You're being sarcastic with the "little", right?
Re: (Score:2)
How about Eastasia? Have we been at war with them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is laughable to label spyware as essential to freedom
Re: (Score:2)
It is laughable to reduce TikTok to "spyware" wehen all the other social media apps are apparently fine...
What is essential to freedom is that people get to choose what they want to install on their phones. Freedom does very much include the freedom to make questionable decisions. Otherwise it is not freedom.
Re: Mother May I..? (Score:2)
Oh please, by the time you lot were trying to blame China the spread had already happened. There was nothing to shut down that would have slowed anything appreciably. What WAS happening was Asian Americans were being harassed and in some cases assaulted because racists were seizing the opportunity.
Oh and finding evidence today is not the same as being right about it before.
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:4, Insightful)
We should really know the reason *anything* is being banned, and the Constitutional authority to do it. If software is speech, then doesn't banning an app violate the First Amendment?
I can imagine a multi-step process, by which entities owned by foreign governments are not allowed operate certain businesses in the US (like social media). From there, maybe you fine companies that enable the backend? The TFA doesn't link to the bill, so I'll assume it is poorly drafted by grandstanding morons.
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to state with...constitutionally, the President is actually a fairly weak leader. The office of the president has (or is supposed to have) limited powers. He cannot make law, he only can enforce laws passed by the legislature (senate and house).
So, unless the President is exercising a power specifically granted to the executive branch by the US Constitution, then that power or ability must be explicitly granted by congress.
The reason?
Well, national security. For one thing, Communist China is our enemy. They do not like us, they continue to do what they can to undermine the US.
With an app that is controlled by a Chinese business (and therefore directly answerable to everything by the Chi-Com government) is being used to hoover up valuable information on every US citizen and business that uses it, it is a problem.
You think this information isn't valuable? Ask Facebook about that....
Also, with this much control (total) of such a popular, widespread app...they can readily use their algorithms to sway the American public and push agendas that are China friendly, even if they are not in the US's favor.
It's bad enough that through social media, the new "public square" can and is manipulated through a few owners of US corporations....it's FAR worse if a hostile country has that same type of access and influence.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason?
Well, national security. For one thing, Communist China is our enemy.
While I sincerely appreciate the detail and civics lesson, it's not like we still really respect the Constitution or Bill of Rights anymore. So separation of power comes down to non-corrupt, competent, and sober leadership following far more than the mere spirit of the law. That said, national security was kind of my point for the CINC side of his hat, which tends to hold a lot more autonomy.
A "matter of national security" has excused and dismissed a lot in the past. Why not now, was my curiousity. Is
Re: (Score:2)
It's bad enough that through social media, the new "public square" can and is manipulated through a few owners of US corporations....it's FAR worse if a hostile country has that same type of access and influence.
I use a seedbox service (a torrent client run on a remotely hosted server) located in a country where they could put me to death for being gay, if I ever was crazy enough to go visit. Sometimes "hostile countries" actually allow you to have more freedom on the internet than US-based companies, which are subject to US laws and influence by US politicians.
TikTok is only the object of Republicans' ire because there are a lot of liberals on it. If the situation were flipped, the conservatives would be furious
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that....this actually looks to me like one of the few bipartisan issues out there. Even before the last elections I saw Dems on tv speaking out about the dangers of Chinese run TikTok
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that....this actually looks to me like one of the few bipartisan issues out there. Even before the last elections I saw Dems on tv speaking out about the dangers of Chinese run TikTok.
Politicians sometimes go off script. I recall a time when Trump actually campaigned on universal healthcare [statnews.com], before he later admitted "Who knew healthcare was so complicated?". His latter remark was probably just backpedaling after being told by other Republicans that promoting universal healthcare is actually a liberal position. Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't just one Dem going off script that I'm referring to.
Again, I argue to date...this has been perceived as largely a bipartisan idea that TikTok is bad, and dangerous.
Hence you see local and state goats banning its use and it isn't just conservative ones that are doing this.
Re: Mother May I..? (Score:2)
Trump actually was a democrat during his first presidential run, I would consider him a classical liberal (like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher), heâ(TM)s pretty far from a âconservativeâ(TM), at best a neo-con.
Re: (Score:2)
All this time I thought he sat at a desk with two levers. One to control gas prices and the other to control inflation.
Well, based upon Biden's own quotes, those levers only seem to exist when gas prices or inflation are going down.
Re: Mother May I..? (Score:3)
Over the centuries, both Senate and House have given lots of powers to the legislative branch, all the 3-and 4-letter agencies (eg. FTC, SEC, OSHA, Fed) are indeed the presidential levers of control over the economy that operate with minimal to no oversight from Congress and even implement their own extrajudicial and legislative systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think of it as a signal to the conservative Supreme Court to let this presidential action through if it gets challenged on constitutional grounds.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not presidential action. It's an action endorsed and promoted by the House of Representatives. Since Congress is the one who makes laws, telling the president they are allowed to do something will withstand any constitutional challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
still not sure how banning 'apps' (is there even a legal definition for a specific app yet?) is the purview of the federal government. How much would 10cent (soon to be 15 cent) need to change tiktok to skirt said ban? what's to stop them from just setting up a US based company to make a clone of the app?
not a fan of the CCP or tiktok or apps in general, but this whole thing is just political feelgoods searching for a problem to latch onto.
Re: (Score:2)
is the purview of the federal government
If Congress actually in this case passes a law about it then the Federal government has made it their purview. I would expect ByteDance to take it to court in which case it will either get thrown out or I could deifnitely see this taken moving up the system to SCOTUS.
That whole process takes time though and unless they can convince judges and SCOTUS (if they choose to hear it) to fast track it the damage may already be done if TikTok is off phones for months and months.
Re: (Score:2)
well that doesn't address the bigger issue here, how does congress pass a bill (not a law) specific to tiktok?
do they call out specific features in that app?
do they call out the company making it?
or just the name?
any of those would be excruciatingly easy to game. if they make the verbiage too broad, then other non-tiktok apps would get caught in the crossfire. Too specific, and it's very simple to sidestep any rules directed specifically at tiktok.
This is just a horrible idea all the way around -- definite
Re: (Score:2)
I mean they can clearly name TikTok and it's parent company ByteDance since that is the primary contention this is all over. Their intention is to pass a bill specific to TikTok.
Congress has hundreds of staffers and lawyers and people who have to write all those long, detailed bills. They can focus on the language anf focus on TikTok the social media platform and an app specific to the platform published by the company at hand. They can also make that cover any apps that access the data tied to their own
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Here is the reason: Wah...wah...wah...Security!....wah...wah...America!...wah...wah...wha.
Pretty much a totalitarian move you would expect from the likes of North Korea, Iran or China. Incidentally, these three countries also claim their people are free.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much a totalitarian move you would expect from the likes of North Korea, Iran or China.
This is why there's the expression "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." A country doesn't wake up one day and end up instantly like North Korea, Iran, or China; freedoms are slowly eroded piece by piece. It wasn't long ago America was downgraded to the status of a "flawed democracy". Wikipedia defines a flawed democracy as:
Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor sup
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why there's the expression "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." A country doesn't wake up one day and end up instantly like North Korea, Iran, or China; freedoms are slowly eroded piece by piece.
All three of those cult-nations serve as great counter-examples to the oft-hypothesized slow loss of freedom occurring to an otherwise well-intentioned consensus democracy.
Pretty much all three of them did "wake up one day" with a violent revolution overthrowing the previous government (which usually came to power or was propped up by its own violence). Indeed, "democratic people's revolutions" across history and around the world have a rather poor success rate for promoting either democracy or the people.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much all three of them did "wake up one day" with a violent revolution overthrowing the previous government (which usually came to power or was propped up by its own violence).
That did almost happen here. You were paying attention on Jan. 6th, right? There are forces at work attempting to unravel our democracy, they're just having to work more slowly because the direct approach requires too many people to turn off their televisions and go outside. In America, even the insurrectionists are kind of lazy.
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:5, Informative)
Here are actual citations for security issues with TikTok and evidence of its use as malware:
In June 2022, reports emerged that ByteDance employees in China could access US data and repeatedly accessed the private information of TikTok users,[162][163][164] TikTok employees were cited saying that "everything is seen in China," while one director claimed a Beijing-based engineer referred to as a "Master Admin" has "access to everything."[162][165][166] [wikipedia.org]
162 "FCC Commissioner urges Google and Apple to ban TikTok". Engadget. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
163 "Leaked Audio Reveals China Repeatedly Accessed US TikTok User Data". PCMAG. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
164 France-Presse, Agence (18 June 2022). "TikTok moves to ease fears amid report workers in China accessed US users' data". the Guardian. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
165 "Leaked Audio From 80 Internal TikTok Meetings Shows That US User Data Has Been Repeatedly Accessed From China". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
166 "TikTok and Oracle teamed up after all, but concerns about data privacy remain". The Verge. 19 June 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, so? You think the situation is any different with all the other social media apps? It is probably less bad when China does it than when Meta or Google or all the others do it, because the Chinese cannot do a lot with it. Meta or Google or all the others on the other hand...
Re: (Score:2)
China has placed themselves in an adversarial position to the USA, there are prices to pay for such hubris
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:4, Funny)
its a trap ya dingus, if he uses this power "big guberment is takin mah freedomz" and if he doesnt "brandons too weak to protect the chilren from the commies"
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I don't really recall this being a problem or necessary step whenever it's deemed a "matter of national security", so what's the justification that requires additional approval?
Recent trends in the public's perception on Executive power. Literally waxes and wanes with public opinion, recently Republicans have been on the bus of "it has to be explicit" and so that's where we are with their voting.
Re: Mother May I..? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the US Military needs to be granted permission to do this, then I'd like to know the...
Since Republicans pushed for this, I'm inclined to believe they'll claim Biden is stomping on the 1st Amendment if he actually does it (cue "It's a trap" meme).
Kinda doubt that since the Republican wanted to ban this app long ago. If this is a "trap" for anything, it's perhaps more for every Democrat who wanted to label a ban "racist" and "xenophobic" long ago.
The reason for banning it, hasn't changed. Even Democrats know that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bill [congress.gov] is explicitly limited to TikTok/ByteDance, so tinfoil hatting and casting this as some broad power grab (especially in light of Biden's recent executive order on the subject) seems disingenuous.
Re:Mother May I..? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bill is explicitly limited to TikTok/ByteDance, so tinfoil hatting and casting this as some broad power grab (especially in light of Biden's recent executive order on the subject) seems disingenuous.
Alas, the bill the committee voted on today was H.R. 1153 [house.gov], not H.R. 503. I'd feel a lot better about it if it were limited to just Tiktok.
This bill is vague and overly broad to say the least. It applies to:
Re: (Score:2)
Barring your screed at the bottom, I think your question is a good one (and honestly a question I asked myself when I read the bill). Is it an unconstitutional extrajudicial action, or is it national security / trade policy (and does that mean every time we "sanction" someone foreign we don't like, (like Russian oligarchs or Iranian military officers) that we've gone down the same path?)
With regard to your screed at the bottom, both parties suck at adhering to the constitution. They differ in which areas
Time to start using tik tok (Score:2, Funny)
The United States Government has no authority nor powers to restrict which apps I can load on my device, sign up, and use.
Come file charges, you federal creeper overlords. I'll learn you some 1AM stuff.
Ehud
Tucson
Arizona
US (not the part controlled by anti-app fascists.)
Re: (Score:3)
The United States Government has no authority nor powers to restrict which apps I can load on my device, sign up, and use.
Come file charges, you federal creeper overlords. I'll learn you some 1AM stuff.
Ehud
Tucson
Arizona
US (not the part controlled by anti-app fascists.)
Yeah! Use the app probably controlled by the totalitarian one-party state! That will show people you believe in freedom!!
Note, I don't actually know what a "ban" would look like, I suspect it might just involve instructing TikTok to make it unavailable in the US geographical location which would make it pretty hard for an end user to circumvent without some serious mucking with your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
[Freedom of speech] doesn't only apply to speech you deem acceptable, because different people have different ideas about what sort of speech qualifies as acceptable.
Actually, the Supreme Court has had quite a bit to say about what sort of speech does not qualify as acceptable. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is the one most people are familiar with, but there are lots of others. [britannica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater
Has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater
Has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Ok, how is it not speach?
Re: (Score:2)
The United States Government has no authority nor powers to restrict which apps I can load on my device
Interstate commerce. Just FYI, that's the authority cited in the panel. Be that valid or not, that is between you and your member of the House to talk about. Just being the messenger here.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't an "export" of "restricted materials" issue, it's a personal use of a personal general computing device to run a personal program.
Yeah, try that rationalization with your personal collection of child porn and see how well it works.
TikTok is a cancer (Score:3)
Having seen this just after an article elsewhere showing the results of a TikTok "challenge" - a man in a wheelchair due to having his spine wrecked - I can only consider banning it to be a win. So many stupid challenges and so many people sucked into taking part because, hey, it's only a bit of harmless fun, right?
Plenty have suffered injury up to now, how many more will as the stupidity envelope is pushed further & further towards people dieing as a
matter of course? How long before you get deliberately crafted challenges (if that's not already happening) - "eat a random forest mushroom", perhaps, or "poke a pit-bull"? Ooh, I know, "down a cup of table salt" for TikTok kudos - that'll be cool, right?
I suppose I should say this in case anyone reading this is gullible beyond reason - DON'T do any of the patently dangerous things I've written above.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to confused as to cause and effect. TikTok does not turn people into stupid cretins. They already are, and TikTok should be thanked to make the extreme cases more obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
The "Tide Pod Challenge" has actually killed people - so we also need to ban collegehumor.com, theonion.com, Tumblr, and YouTube.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The "Tide Pod Challenge" has actually killed people - so we also need to ban collegehumor.com, theonion.com, Tumblr, and YouTube.
Don't worry, the next Republican administration is working on that.
Long overdue (Score:5, Funny)
Irrespective of China, TikTok should already have been banned long ago because vertical format videos are an affront to all humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrespective of China, TikTok should already have been banned long ago because vertical format videos are an affront to all humanity.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Long overdue (Score:5, Funny)
so on a vertical screen, you would prefer horizontal video? strange.
You're holding it wrong.
Breaking! Republicans terrified of video app (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's face it, the Tiktok hate is just harmless posturing against China, or has been so far. Plus, we get the cranky grandpas who hate all social media, because they just don't get it. They long for the days of cheap mimeograph newsletters and writing snailmail epistles in sloppy cursive.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, we get the cranky grandpas who hate all social media, because they just don't get it.
I'll never manage to find the link to the video, but one of the representatives who wrote Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law specifically was motivated by his belief that there seemed to be too many gay teenagers on TikTok who considered themselves to be celebrities. The future is too new and scary for these sorts of people, and not only do they wish we'd go back to the days of "snail mail and sloppy cursive", they're using the force of law to try to make it happen.
Party line vote? (Score:2)
if (Score:2)
If he can ban tiktok, what's to keep him from banning twitter?
Should've gave it away (Score:4, Insightful)
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest are all guilty of the same things as Byte Dance.
But fucking over Americans is only allowed when American companies do it apparently.
Re:Should've gave it away (Score:4, Insightful)
As good a reason as any...
Re:Should've gave it away (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels are blatant TikTok ripoffs. So if Google and Meta weren't guilty of the same things as Byte Dance before, now they are.
Maybe not Twitter, they are guilty of different things, especially now that it is Elon Musk's personal webpage.
I hate TikTok, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate TikTok as much as anyone.
But I hate lawlessness even more.
NOTHING in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to post a ban on speech, an ex post facto law, or a bill of attainder. And even if it otherwise did, the Bill of Right specifically prohibits each of these things.
I won't sacrifice the principles of lawful, Constitutional government, just to be rid of a nuisance that in time will likely go away on its own regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
to post a ban on speech
They aren't posting a ban on speech. Just because a platform enables speech doesn't give them a free pass to commit other atrocities.
Literally no one cares about the content on TikTok. No one. It's about ownership, tracking, algorithms and things not at all related to your ability to post speech.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about ownership, tracking, algorithms and things not at all related to your ability to post speech.
If that was true, then our congresscritters would address the issue in a way whereby free speech doesn't suffer as collateral damage. If an American company was overstepping its data-sucking bounds, we'd probably hold a pointless hearing and that would be the end of it (and maybe someone would make a funny video [youtube.com] about it). Assuming we're okay with a double standard, we could always just fine ByteDance until they agree to play ball. It's not ideal, and it reeks of protectionism, but it would at least pres
Re: (Score:2)
I hate TikTok as much as anyone.
But I hate lawlessness even more.
NOTHING in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to post a ban on speech, an ex post facto law, or a bill of attainder. And even if it otherwise did, the Bill of Right specifically prohibits each of these things.
I won't sacrifice the principles of lawful, Constitutional government, just to be rid of a nuisance that in time will likely go away on its own regardless.
Isn't the government allowed to ban foreign governments from doing stuff within US borders? Can't they ban ownership of property, news stations, etc of foreign governments within the US?
How's tricks? (Score:4, Insightful)
From a constitutional propriety point of view, Congress continues its decades-long approach to casting off legislative power to the executive branch.
Just pass the law, "TikTok is hereby banned." Done.
The law, the words that send you to jail, are supposed to come from the voice of Congress as a whole. "Here, Prez, you do it!" turns the president into a dictator -- the executive speaks the law into existence, the dictate part of dictator.
It's astounding how many scream democracy uber alles, then look fondly on tricks to work around it.
Would China do this? (Score:3)
If China had the ability to design an algorithm that forces our children to focus on destructive ideas, would they?
Everyone's a victim...
Group think is good, individual opinions are bad...
All non-black people are racists...
Changing your gender at a super young age will make you cool...
The American flag represents fascism...
Haven't you noticed that all of these themes correlate directly with TikTok adoption? The faster the adoption, the more prevalent these ideas?
China is preparing the future of America for an easy takeover. They'll just wait for us to tear ourselves apart and stroll right in.
Re: (Score:2)
China is preparing the future of America for an easy takeover.
They're doing that with the money we've willingly handed over to them in exchange for cheap goods, not by turning kids "woke" through TikTok or whatever nonsense you're claiming.
The CCP decides what TikTok users see (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest issue is not data privacy. The big issue is the CCP decides what/who the app prioritizes and who it shadow bans.
The CCP knows the importance of this because the app only shows positive content to Chinese kids plus they limit the amount of time kids can use it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
CCP retaliates with hit on Meta (Score:2)
Question (Score:2)
I'm not comfortable with this. What's stopping them from banning e.g. the Linux kernel next?
Is software not a form of protected speech?
Useless theater... (Score:2)
Just like the TSA security theater. Let's ignore problems, and focus on one person to hate. That'll solve things!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep...nothing but our tax dollars.
Oh please, it's not as if Biden is going to personally mail you a check with your extra tax refund when the SCOTUS shoots down the student loan forgiveness. I don't have any student loans and it doesn't bother me one bit that we could be giving some people a leg up in a tough economy. Why be a bucket of crabs [wikipedia.org] over it?
Re:TikTok is trash.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It bothers me....on principal.
It isn't fair.
It isn't fair to those people that took out loans....and struggled and sacrificed and paid them off.
It isn't fair to the people that saw they could not afford college, and took other ways to earn a living....if they knew they wouldn't have to pay...their lives may have been completely different.
And this teaches a poor lesson to people....if you make bad choices, the govt will bail you out.
People need to know, if they make adult decisions and sign loan contracts (or other binding agreements) that they are then obligated to see them through.
And on top of this...where does it end?
Let's say they do forgive this round....but do nothing to prevent other people from making the same stupid decisions, taking out huge loans to take classes that earn worthless degrees that they never will be able to use to pay those loans back.
Do we keep repeating the cycle?
We have to draw the line of spending...now. It is already out of control and we have to stop govt. spending of tax dollars.
It is our money. We should all see a return on it, and I'm sorry someone getting a degree in underwater basket weaving and spending 100's of thousands of dollars going to Harvard to do this is not giving the taxpayer a return on their money. We'd have gotten more out of that "investment" if the person had gone to a trade school, started working early in life earning money and paying taxes back.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Modern medicine is unfair to all the people who died of illnesses which are now treatable. Marriage is unfair to all the folks who go their entire lives and never marry. Bitcoin is unfair because I missed the opportunity to buy it when it was nearly worthless.
It's cliché, but "life isn't fair". The best you can do is worry about your own affairs and let other people make their own choices and mistakes. That's how freedom works.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A more accurate analogy would be like being unable to join a class action lawsuit because you weren't a member of the affected class. Thing is, people generally don't go around screaming "that's unfair!" because they're missing out on a $5 check.
Covid threw a huge monkey wrench into the normal economic workings of the country, and giving students (generally young people who are just getting started) some compensation because they got a raw deal thanks to the pandemic is based on fairly sound legal standing
Re:TikTok is trash.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't fair.
Fair? Is it fair that the child of rich parents, through no merit of his or her own, can go to college without accruing any debt? Or that such a child can, if he or she so chooses, live a life of leisure, and not do anything productive?
And this teaches a poor lesson to people....if you make bad choices, the govt will bail you out.
Why shouldn't people learn this lesson? It certainly seems to be the case, at least for companies. Just look at the airline industry, or the auto industry, or the finance industry. Wouldn't it be fair for some actual humans to see some of that generosity?
And on top of this...where does it end?
Should it end? Why shouldn't everyone be covered for post-secondary education? There are plenty of countries that manage to do this for their citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's that kinda thinking that will keep us from EVERY even possibly getting our spending and debt back under at least a tiny bit of control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning something (or at least passing a law) is relatively easy and your assumption is that society CAN be fixed.
Even if it were possible, it would be extremely difficult to even attempt to fix society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should think banning the app would be a start in the right direction of attempting to "fix society".
The belief that "leader knows best" is precisely how you get a horribly broken society in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the cat videos, no.
But it is the corporate control of algorithms that manipula
Re: (Score:2)
Read a fucking book, take a walk, go see a movie and no, not every fucking thing has to be recorded for posterity. This is an addiction people and it's seriously hampering peoples' wellbeing and our economic future.
How about screw the puritanism and just let people live their own lives?
I don't like TikTok, so you know what I do? I don't use it, but I'll damn well speak up for the rights of those who choose to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cause its a political trap, now that he has this power he is screwed either way on the topic
Re: (Score:2)
Still not sure it's a trap...?
I could swear just the other day there were reports from Biden admin, or maybe it was Biden himself saying they were looking into banning TikTok....and this gives him the ability to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
now that he has this power
Since when does a bill passing out of committee make it law?
Re: (Score:2)
since when does a fact make a difference with these people?
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats were voting against this bill, not the concept in general. Democrat amendments had been rejected throughout the bill's lifecycle. So don't take their vote as support for TikTok. It was more of rejection of the legislative process the bill had undertaken.
Re: Now if Canada could ban Facebook, Google, NSA (Score:2)
At the very least, every sovereign nation should have its own versions of social media and search sites just to be able to have some control over agitprop and infrastructure.
It is every bit as valid to do it for the protection of citizens as it is to oppress them.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it is. They expect they can shut down all discussion simply by claiming "Security!".