FCC Commissioner Carr Says 'Huge Miss' If US Doesn't Ban or Divest TikTok in 2024 (indiadispatch.com) 136
Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, in a wide-ranging interview with Indian newspaper Economic Times praised the South Asian market for blocking Chinese apps in 2020 and said he hopes the U.S. will follow suit. He said: I hope there will be a movement towards a nationwide ban of the application soon, much like India led the way so many years ago. It is taking time, and I wish it was done as swiftly and with the alacrity that India banned not just TikTok but a number of other Chinese apps that had questionable data sharing and privacy policies. If TikTok is neither banned nor ByteDance is forced to divest this year, I would consider it a huge miss. Because only when action is taken would it be possible for us to go after the smaller players too.
Just one problem... (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, that pesky First Amendment. Too bad for Carr.
Re:Just one problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that individual speech is protected in each video. The aggregation and omission of how those individual speech bits are amplified or suppressed is the problem.
Consider that TicTok itself is not allowed by the Chinese government in China. Why is that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean just like people reject drugs, cigarettes, etc. all on their own despite the shown-and-proven addictive properties?
Re:Just one problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
Part of freedom is accepting (and allowing) that people may make bad choices (or at least what we perceive to be bad choices.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The government shouldn't interfere. The free market will sort this out. People will reject a bad product. I don't need big brother telling me what I can and cannot put on my phone. If I consent that the Chinese government has information about me, my name, where I live, what I like, who I am friends with, that Is my right to let them know those things.
Considering how badly the algorithms are damaging people's minds (especially Zoomers), intervention is necessary. We don't need to ban anything, just need:
1. All algorithms need to be explicitly opt-in, with no reduction in service for not opting in.
2. All algorithms must be open and fully transparent.
3. Actual enforcement.
Re: Just one problem... (Score:2)
Your number one is proof that you know how nothing works, and or don't know the definition of algorithm.
The other points are valid, but even sorting by date is done with an algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
and last but not least:
Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture,should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In general I agree with you, with this thinking on most things.
However, this is not something domestic, or even with a friendly country.
This is something being pushed by an antagonistic country (at best)....it is a propaganda machine from an enemy country aimed at the western world.
You notice even China doesn't allow it in their own country, that should tell you something.
We have banned companies like Huwai (sp?) and others from US
Tiktok is a business (Score:1)
Its founders happened to live in China.
Its US customer related operations and data storage/management are entirely done in the US, after some pressure from US officials.
Young people around the world seem to like it. Businesses around the world market to young people using it.
One thing I'd say about defining a country as "antagonistic" or "an adversary". You have to be careful that you don't talk your way into a preventable war.
Such terms to ref
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC TikTok was founded as a startup in the US, but the Chinese company ByteDance saw potential in it early on and bought the company and funded its growth.
Community Notes: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with the general population or race of the people living over there...it DOES have everything to do with the Chinese Communist Party...which is our enemy and controls everything over there, including all companies that operate from China.
You're wanting to allow more propaganda apps from Iran, Russia and the like to come get a grip on
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to live in the world.
You're critiquing the "information" in Tiktok as being Chinese propaganda, without looking at it obviously.
Those dance videos, stupid challenges etc are definitely designed to weaken our decadent western society lol.
I believe most information and points of view that aren't illegal (weapons assembly instructions, child porn etc) should be findable on the internet from anywhere around the world regardless of where the f*** you happen to be or the source o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a truly independent company in China.
The CCP has full access and authority over any business over there....
They are full well involved with TikTok.
The CCP is not like the US, it is full blown authoritarian govt.....I'd think that was common knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
You notice even China doesn't allow it in their own country, that should tell you something.
That's just on brand for China. Next time it's gay pride month, go to Target and flip over some of the rainbow colored kitsch so you can see that "Made in China" sticker. LGBTQ+ rights in China, however, are in a rather sad state.
Most of the reasons why China doesn't allow $THING revolve around their form of government not being very big on the concept of individual rights and freedoms. But if you've resolved the cognitive dissonance of being pro individual rights but still simultaneously think there's s
Re: (Score:1)
The government shouldn't interfere. The free market will sort this out. People will reject a bad product.
What you are missing that TikTok is targeting minors in the midst of their cognitive development. They by definition lack that kind of discernment and, in fact, a major part of how adolescent humans form that kind of discernment is by social cues from their peers. Which is where TikTok as a CCP propaganda tool comes in, vastly over-representing to them videos which encase views friendly to CCP ideology - or just things they think will destabilize American society - but certainly not the educational content
Re: (Score:2)
The only person you can control is you. So the question becomes:
What are YOU going to PERSONALLY DO about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Harmful algorithms, such as those found in social media, have been shown to cause anxiety, depression, and a host of other harms over the past few years; they play on the worst human tendencies.
So, slap a warning on it and let people exercise their individual responsibility. We tried banning alcohol because in addition to having all of the problems you've listed, it is also physically addictive and causes temporary cognitive impairment. If you remember your history lessons, that ban didn't work out so well.
Consider that TicTok itself is not allowed by the Chinese government in China. Why is that?
Because China is a control freak communist nation that we'd do well not to emulate.
Re: (Score:2)
But....TikTok is a "Platform"....
It isn't of itself "speech".....
Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
They are just as guilty as Tik Tok is.
But I guess they are ok since they are white and not yellow.
Re: (Score:1)
It's shocking and saddening you assume that this is a racial issue. But I guess this gives us context everytime you use the race arguement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but we did go after Russian and other "hostile" foreign country's companies.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not to protect the people, it is to protect the politicians interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure you apply the same law to all the American and European tech companies as well.
They are just as guilty as Tik Tok is.
But I guess they are ok since they are white and not yellow.
Rather than targeting specific platforms, why not make a law that sets out conditions and applies them to all companies regardless of who owns them. I don't know, some kind of General Regulation for the Protection of Data
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Microsoft, et al, all have been accuse of doing what Byte Dance does.
But where are the congresspeople for that? I know! Getting their genitals moisten on big tech dime!
So, any claim that this is for the good of the country is an incredibly hollow argument when you don't go after all bad actors.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you gotta start somewhere, eh?
Foreign company run by enemy country (China) that has been SHOWN to be detrimental to our country, particularly America's youth.
Let's peg that as low hanging fruit and cut that one off.
That might send a message to our domestic SM and tech companies you list...and maybe give them notice.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup (Score:3)
He has influenced the tone of the US's foreign policy rhetoric from all political sides now, in a really dangerous way.
Could the US populace (and the chattering classes that influence them) possibly be collectively dumb enough to re-elect him?
I would really, really like to be able to say no, that could never happen.... what kind of imbecile would do that....
I would really like to
Re: (Score:2)
But then I remember JW Bush being made President for a second term after conducting an illegal war against the wrong country, and I shake my head.
It's worth mentioning though, that the same incumbent effect is what will very likely keep Biden in office for another term. 2028 is when a Republican actually will have a good shot at getting back into the White House.
Re: (Score:1)
This is NOT something new...I'm guessing you are too young to remember.
But there has not been a time since Mao that China was not an enemy of the US.
They have always worked against us, stolen intellectual property...etc.
They fought us in Korea.
They now push harmful drugs our way (fentanyl's components largely come from China)...
The problem is, they now have more money to be more of a threat than they used to be.
But
Re: (Score:2)
When there is a paranoid isolationist in power on both sides,
There have been periods of less tension. That's when companies like Apple, Tesla, etc. locate in and/or contract massively in China, and create great economic value in both co
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and it is unfortunately that we have let it get to this state.
Dependence like this for a lot of commerce on an unfriendly country is not a good thing for national security.
We need to be extricating ourselves from this situation.
It benefits China a great deal, allowing com
REPUBLICAN CANCEL CULTURE (Score:1, Troll)
Did anyone find this chilling? (Score:3)
Translation: "Nice social media company youse got here. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it, like whats happened to ByteDance.
Re: (Score:2)
They said the quiet part out loud. It's always a slippery slope towards more government control with these sort of things, but I guess he wants to do a speedrun.
Can't compete? (Score:2, Insightful)
Go crying to Daddy Government! Waaah! Whatever happened to individual choice? Is it any secret who owns TikTok? Is there anybody out there who doesn't know their data is going to some Chinese database? They choose it anyway. "People are smart enough to make their own decisions on what's best for themselves and their families." That's literally the fundamental principle of capitalism and conservative philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you're posting from the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo where there's no big daddy government to go crying to? What's that, you're not? You mean you're posting from somewhere where you need Daddy Government to actually protect you and your way of life. Interesting...
Re: (Score:2)
I worry far more about the American government and their database on me.
Let's ban thing! (Score:1)
Not happening in 2024, zero chance (Score:1)
Scared Of A Meme Factory? (Score:1)
United States Of Mommies.
I pledge allegiance to no one.
Is TikTok such a big problem? (Score:1)
Meanwhile what did the FCC do about this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
http://irregulators.org/bookof... [irregulators.org]
https://kushnickbruce.medium.c... [medium.com]
Oh but TikTok is a bigger problem? Really?
transparently self-interested (Score:2)
Do Facebook next (Score:2)
Ok, you plan to ban Facebook too, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Do Facebook first!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guns are more harmful to children. Let's talk about that instead. I mean we have toddlers shooting people every other week.
I was going to ask for a citation but got curious and poked around myself. According to https://everytownresearch.org/maps/notanaccident/>this report, accidental shootings by "children" happen in the US about once a day, about half resulting in deaths. "Child" in this context is anyone under 18 so it's not exactly toddlers.
For comparison, around 900 people under 19 drown each year. If we're concerned about children dying, perhaps we should ban swimming, an entirely optional recreational activity.
This is
Re:Interesting (Score:4)
If we're concerned about children dying, perhaps we should ban swimming
Many states DO have laws that restrict access to pools. For example, in Arizona, pool owners must comply with a long list of requirements (such as lockable fencing: https://www.azdhs.gov/document... [azdhs.gov]). When similar requirements are attempted to be implemented for guns (such as gun safety locks, gun storage requirements, etc.) people yell and scream that this somehow "violates their rights."
In recent years, firearm deaths have been THE top killer of children (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a gun fanatic... they are useful and have their place in society (and not in the hands of school murderers/etc), but the problem with your analogy is that the right of having a pool is not codified in our national law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a gun fanatic... they are useful and have their place in society (and not in the hands of school murderers/etc), but the problem with your analogy is that the right of having a pool is not codified in our national law.
I'm a little lost what you're saying. Doesn't that support my argument? Banning pools ought to be more sensible because (at least from the stats I found which admittedly may be incorrect) they kill more kids, have less significant value, and are not protected by long standing legal tradition. Naturally, reasonable people can disagree about the objective utility of guns versus pools.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a gun fanatic... they are useful and have their place in society (and not in the hands of school murderers/etc), but the problem with your analogy is that the right of having a pool is not codified in our national law.
I'm a little lost what you're saying. Doesn't that support my argument? Banning pools ought to be more sensible because (at least from the stats I found which admittedly may be incorrect) they kill more kids, have less significant value, and are not protected by long standing legal tradition. Naturally, reasonable people can disagree about the objective utility of guns versus pools.
I'm saying that it's exceedingly more difficult to ban guns or place restrictions on guns due to the 2nd amendment than it would be to enact meaningful laws governing pools.
Re: (Score:2)
In recent years, firearm deaths have been THE top killer of children (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761).
Interesting. That doesn't square with the stats I found, which is there were about 150 deaths from guns and 900 from drowning. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I don't have the citations handy and don't think it's worth my time to dig them back up. Neither of us is going to convince the other and we're getting very far afield from the original story.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a gun accident resulting the death of someone under 18 is a lot less harmful to society then millions of childrens minds being ruined.
In any case, everything should be viewed as it's own issue because each issue has it's own unique risks/rewards.
More kids die from drowning (as you said) or car accidents. That does not mean, banning tiktok means we need to ban children in cars or swimming pools. (That can be debated but as it's own issue.)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a gun accident resulting the death of someone under 18 is a lot less harmful to society then millions of childrens minds being ruined.
That's an interesting opinion but let's be honest, it's just your opinion. There's no objective way to determine that.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is worse for kids mental health, social media or regular active shooter drills at school?
Re: (Score:2)
That a good point and goes back to my statement "everything should be viewed as it's own issue because each issue has it's own unique risks/rewards."
Sort of off topic - I wonder if we have data that the active shooting drills change results?
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of off topic - I wonder if we have data that the active shooting drills change results?
Well, less panic is usually an improvement. Unluckily, it is likely illegal, or strongly dioscouraged to gather that data.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, since you guys don't seem to care at all for the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Ok, you probably support the 3rd too.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, they also keep bitching about not having the 1st, and you keep telling them that it doesn't matter, private company can do whatever it wants with speech,
Wait, sorry, this is year out of date dogma. Let me check my recent memos...
"Speech is bad, twitter must be shut down". There we go. I'm up to date now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
That would at least be legal, unlike the infringement of that amendment committed by various states.
Re: (Score:2)
The current broad interpretation is a rather recent one, bought and paid for by gun manufactures.
Re: (Score:2)
The authors and proponents of the 2a always meant for it to be an individual right, and it was always meant to permit citizens to own weapons of war.
At the time private citizens owned cannon without requiring any permits, and warships with letters of marque. So you did need a permit for some weapons... if they were sufficient to bombard cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons of war, yes, not self defence or hunting. That would exclude concealed carry certainly. It would also not include carrying guns everywhere just because because carrying a gun to a public park in peace time cannot in any reasonable way be regarded as a weapon of war.
https://www.brennancenter.org/... [brennancenter.org]
And as you point out with warships, add part of a well regulated militia it was historically regulated at the time when the people who wrote the second amendment and knew what is meant (because they wrote
Re: (Score:2)
And as you point out with warships, add part of a well regulated militia it was historically regulated
Well-regulated meant "in proper working order" which in turn meant armed. And also at the time, the Militia was all men of military age. They wanted them to arm themselves so they wouldn't have to do it.
The 2a is arguably outdated, but if so that doesn't change the intent at authorship, it only means that it should be amended away. But doing an end run around the constitution with laws which directly conflict with it is unlawful.
Re: (Score:2)
Well-regulated meant "in proper working order" which in turn meant armed.
But it also meant "in proper working order", which is not a free for all.
But doing an end run around the constitution with laws which directly conflict with it is unlawful.
It's only an "end run" around the constitutions by layering modern meanings over old words. Allowing people to carry weapons of self defense because of the 2A is absolutely an end run around the 2A because that was not what it meant when it was written. Now people ta
Re: (Score:1)
Allowing people to carry weapons of self defense because of the 2A is absolutely an end run around the 2A because that was not what it meant when it was written. Now people take "arms" to mean any weapon, not weapons of war.
Pistols ARE weapons of war. I don't know where you got the idea that soldiers don't carry sidearms, but it is inherently false. My pistol (which, in case you are wondering, I do not carry... but I'm thinking about it more seriously since I live in an area with a lot more random violent crime now) is a commander-style 1911. It was explicitly designed to be carried in war, but it is (or was, before plastic fantastic guns got cheap) a common EDC sidearm because it is shorter than a normal 1911 but flatter than
Re: (Score:2)
This is fruitless because you're reading what you want me to have written, not what I actually wrote.
I don't know where you got the idea that soldiers don't carry sidearms
I don't know where I got the idea either given that I didn't make that claim.
Your statements are in no way based on historical fact.
Between 1888 when law review articles were indexed from and 1959, every single article had the same conclusion. This only started to differ when the lobbying effort started in 1960 and really ramped up in the
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
You said "Now people take "arms" to mean any weapon, not weapons of war." When we were talking about whether that covered pistols. I didn't make you say that.
Re: (Score:2)
You said "Now people take "arms" to mean any weapon, not weapons of war."
Yes.
When we were talking about whether that covered pistols.
âoeA man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.â
--Tennessee Supreme court 1840.
See how that does not say whe
Re: (Score:3)
re: 2A (Score:1)
Over-generalize much?
Seriously, I've watched plenty of instances unfold where a cop pulls someone over in a routine traffic stop and the driver volunteers that, "I have a gun." and instructs the officer where it's at in the vehicle or on his person. The cop handles it professionally, and it's a non-issue.
Cops only "lose their shit" over someone having a gun if it's potentially going to be used against them. (EG. Person being apprehended is already acting violently and doesn't warn the officer they have a l
Re: (Score:2)
Oh here’s a double whammy. A teenager shot someone and while fleeing drops the gun at a daycare where a 5 year old then shoots himself. I sure do feel safer. https://www.weau.com/2023/11/0... [weau.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Read the Constitution. We have a right to guns.
You have a Constitutional "Amendment" granting you a right to guns. I'll let you look up the word "amendment" in the dictionary and figure out yourself what that means for the ability to change that almighty piece of paper you hold so dear.
Re: Sorry Mr. Unelected Official (Score:4, Interesting)
What does the first amendment have to do with banning tiktok? Your right to free speech isn't infringed, no one is stopping you from speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the first amendment have to do with banning tiktok? Your right to free speech isn't infringed, no one is stopping you from speaking.
And if the government banned your car and took it away, your ability to get to work isn't being infringed because you can always still walk that 20 mile commute, right?
Try again.
Re: Sorry Mr. Unelected Official (Score:2)
You have no right to drive a car.
Secondly, you are not silenced by any conceivable metric just because you can't post on tiktok. You're still perfectly free to go anywhere else and say what you want.
So I suggest you try again
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, you are not silenced by any conceivable metric just because you can't post on tiktok. You're still perfectly free to go anywhere else and say what you want.
Normally I'm not one to let right-wingers make my arguments for me, but there's already been quite a case made that being "deplatformed" does equate to hinderance of the speaker's ability to disseminate their speech. In most cases though, it is a private company that is making it more difficult for them to speak, not an action of the government. That's an important distinction, because private companies are under no obligation to grant you a platform for your speech. However, if it's the government yanki
Re: Sorry Mr. Unelected Official (Score:5, Informative)
Remember how leftists controlled Twitter and gaslit everyone by telling them it wasn't leftist leaning?
No, because that never happened.
that leftist bots were being shutdown and conservative viewpoints weren't being shadow banned.
And by conservative "viewpoints" you mean lies about "stolen" elections, drag queens [imgur.com] trying to rape children [imgur.com], the holocaust never happening, and all those people on January 6th were really just peaceful tourists wearing masks while they assaulted police [imgur.com] with bear spray [nbcnews.com], flag poles [go.com], stun guns [npr.org], and fire extinguishers [nbcnews.com] while using pick axes [yahoo.com] to break through windows and calling to hang [cbsnews.com] elected officials. Those are the "viewpoints" you are talking about, right?
You do know that pedo guy is blocking accounts for exercising their free speech [imgur.com], don't you? Funny how you didn't mention that.
the worst part about losing Twitter for them was when Musk took away their child pornography sharing.
You do know that Musk lets child molestors [forbes.com] on Twitter, don't you?
Your gaslighting is hilarious. You should go on tour. You'll make big bucks making people laugh at your jokes.
Re: Sorry Mr. Unelected Official (Score:2)
Re:Sorry Mr. Unelected Official (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans talk about the freedoms they want to take away.
The Democrats just go ahead and do it.
Exactly. Look at all those Democratic run states taking away a woman's right over her own body.
The same with all those Democratic states taking away a parent's right to determine what books [newrepublic.com] their kid can read in school.
Or those Democratic states telling people who they are allowed to marry, who they can sleep with, how many dildos [houstonpress.com] they're allowed to own.
The one I realy like is Democrats wantig to take away no-fault divorce [vanityfair.com] so women are forced to live with their abusive husbands.
I tell you, if it's not one thing it's another. Democrats really hate freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
Republicans talk about the freedoms they want to take away.
The Democrats just go ahead and do it.
Exactly. Look at all those Democratic run states taking away a woman's right over her own body.
The same with all those Democratic states taking away a parent's right to determine what books [newrepublic.com] their kid can read in school.
Or those Democratic states telling people who they are allowed to marry, who they can sleep with, how many dildos [houstonpress.com] they're allowed to own.
The one I realy like is Democrats wantig to take away no-fault divorce [vanityfair.com] so women are forced to live with their abusive husbands.
I tell you, if it's not one thing it's another. Democrats really hate freedom.
Both Republicans and Democrats talk big about defending rights. In fact, the removal of rights from others is almost always framed in the light of defending someone's rights, because people have a curious need to appear righteous. Such has always been the case in history.
It's not an accident that the most deadly war in American history has been framed by one side as a fight for rights, ostensibly the right for self-determination, but in reality the right to own slaves and to suppress the rights of enslave
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely a fight for rights, the "state's rights": It is the only honesty in GOP's policies. This is what Big Brother (1984) means when he promises "[your] Freedom is [my] slavery".
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to know why the USA cared about Britain's military incompetence in WW1: I can only assume a massive German empire scared the shit out of the USA.
In, WW2, it was definitely seen as the American way of life being threatened by communist Russia and Nazi Germany.
The problem with Korea, was the purpose of the war kept changing: The goal of protecting a US ally was used to justify a Kill, Crush, Destroy mentality.
One of the problems of Vietnam, was the lack of reasons for ordinary Americans
Re: Sorry Mr. Unelected Official (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I tell you, if it's not one thing it's another. Democrats really hate freedom.
Republicans hate letting you have Freedom. Democrats hate letting you have the ability to use your Freedom. Both take your money and leave you nothing, not even self respect.
Re: (Score:2)
The one I realy like is Democrats wantig to take away no-fault divorce [vanityfair.com] so women are forced to live with their abusive husbands.
You've got an interesting combination of an appeal to emotion fallacy and a fallacy of composition going here, with a nice dash of irrelevant partisan bias. A small percentage of marriages have abusive husbands, therefore all marriages must have abusive husbands. Evil Republicans are looking to abolish No Fault Divorce because they want to force abused women to remain in their abusive relationships.
I'm not even going to bother arguing the partisan nonsense you're bringing up because abolishing No Fault Divo
Re: Sorry Mr. Unelected Official (Score:2)
The Trump Administration DID take it. Then it was ruled unconstitutional because it was a revenge move over a prank against one of Trump's rallies.
I'd wager your choice of news sources never told you about that.
Re: (Score:2)
America's ally seems to be doing genocide with American support and the 13th amendment allows slavery for those convicted of crimes such as loitering in the town square or disturbing the peace by saying the wrong stuff in the town square if those laws are written to do so, namely classifying them as felons. Prison slave labour is big business in America.
There's also the re-education camps that lasted almost to the 21st century, though they targeted people based on the color of their skin rather then religio