top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Some congressperson is going to be assassinated by a Gen Z terrorist cell and I'll be like squidward-chill

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 92 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 80 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    They're not even trying to hide the fact they just want TikTok to be Westoid-owned.

    Purely just a question of capital flow, they don't care about surveillance.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The context is a chef's kiss.

    The US isn't just reauthorizing its surveillance laws - it's vastly expanding them | Caitlin Vogus | The Guardian

    The US House of Representatives agreed to reauthorize a controversial spying law known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last Friday without any meaningful reforms, dashing hopes that Congress might finally put a stop to intelligence agencies’ warrantless surveillance of Americans’ emails, text messages and phone calls.

    The vote not only reauthorized the act, though; it also vastly expanded the surveillance law enforcement can conduct. In a move that Senator Ron Wyden condemned as “terrifying”, the House also doubled down on a surveillance authority that has been used against American protesters, journalists and political donors in a chilling assault on free speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    They care about surveillance alright. They just need to be the ones surveilling and reality inventing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm wondering is if the driving interest is to ensure American companies own most of the social media that Americans use because they don't want to lose the means to surveil large portions of the population. They very much act like there's a threat to state power, and this is the only angle that makes sense.

    The alternative is that the state is now dominated by racist boomers that actually believe the red scare propaganda their predecessors made up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nobody has ever explained to me why any person in the US should care about a government with no jurisdiction over them might conduct surveillance on them. The government that worries me is the one that has power over me. Maybe I’m stupid, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago

    One reason could be because that other government may not be bound to rules regarding surveillance on people who are not citizens of their country, thus can't be held accountable, and then that government could share that information with anyone they want including that government where the person is a citizen.

    But then I'm just describing Five Eyes and US surveillance again anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    I can see TikTok calling their bluff and then Gen Z just using VPNs to get around it so now all the ad dollars flow exclusively to Chinese companies instead of American ones

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    That is what will happen

    over 1.7 billion users as of 2023

    TikTok has 150 million active monthly users in the United States.

    I'm guessing that 1.7 billion number is prolly off due to bots and defunct accounts, but still, you don't sell your platform for 10% of your market lmao. I'm not sure if the US thought they would honestly back down just because they're America, if they wanted to ban it because they honestly think it's spying on Americans, or what exactly the play here was, but the obvious one (force them to sell to Americans) was laughably stupid and unlikely to happen for obvious reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Doesn't look like it

    79% of revenue comes from China

    8% of revenue comes from the US

    Article is more current than the last one too, and that seems to track with what other sources say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    There's also a better than zero chance US vassals will follow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think 'good for them' is the thing that matters here though. The EU is a massive market for Instagram and we've seen first hand in recent years where EU leadership's loyalties lie.

    It's possible they won't follow the US lead but I wouldn't be too surprised if they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 65 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    ByteDance should simply take TikTok down and replace it a few days later with a new app called “Tik tok 2”

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    The "aid" is to Israel/Ukraine isn't it

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 64 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I've always found it darkly comical that United States government policymakers, masters of the art of soft power in the first cold war, is now staffed with people who can't conceive why anyone would use soft power and always leaped to military options. They can't imagine the government of China continuing economic soft-power control over Taiwan for long-term reintegration purposes. Because US policymakers would never do such a thing themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 59 points 2 years ago

    Banning tiktok dean-neutral

    Banning tiktok AND supporting genocide dean-malice

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    I'm gonna download tiktok out of principle. And probably never use it.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 29 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's like nationalisation except for private companies

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago

    they attached it to the bill??? like in Simpsons???

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    Considering this includes an aid bill with it, would it pass the US senate?

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Yanis Varoufakis was recently saying some interesting stuff about TikTok. Basically TikTok is a way for a Chinese company to generate data capital in a way that cant be taxed or restricted in ports, and that drives US capital crazy.

    He also connected it with the Huawei ban- basically the US is terrified of China's free universal digital banking, because it could threaten to unseat the dollar as the international trade currency.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Don’t think China will allow it to happen. Someone on here once explained why that’s the case but I can’t remember the details

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    There are a couple of points to consider the biggest one being that Americans as a user base are but a fraction of the global base,less than 10% iirc, and one of the hardest to monetize. Outside of financial considerations it's worth more to keep tiktok just for the global soft power it exerts on the other parts of the world and to send a message as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Still only going to be banned under trump. They extended it to 9-12 months specifically to keep it alive through the election to hurt genojoe

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›