this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
418 points (96.9% liked)

World News

32389 readers
572 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Banning TikTok in an election year is proof Democrats don't want to win.

[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Lol it was bipartisan. Not just democrats, Republicans as well.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So what? This only pisses off the Democrat's base and it will make them stay home.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Notably the ban doesn’t kick in until after the election, after which it may not even be Biden’s problem. Maybe ByteDance will shut it down sooner. Maybe the next administration won’t follow through with the ban. 🤷

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It was smart to delay the ban. The original bill would have banned it before the election - monumentally stupid! This, at least, delays the impact.

People are paying attention, though, and TikTok has been buying ads to campaign against this law. It's still going to have an impact.

[–] livus@kbin.social 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And Biden himself has a tiktok account that pumps out content.

The whole thing is very cynical and weird.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago

It's a piss poor attempt to try control tiktok and ensure they play along. They don't really want it banned, they just want to control the flow of information and it's absolutely destroying the illusion of the first amendment!

[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Ehhh...I doubt it.

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The sell-or-ban measure was signed into law by US President Joe Biden on Wednesday.

This is the important part you might have missed, without a president signing it into law it means nothing.

Similar to when Biden said he would never sign a M4A bill (4yrs ago), he would veto, which became a deal breaker to some on the far left.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+veto+medicare+for+all+bill

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 13 points 7 months ago (5 children)

What’s the overlap between people who vote Republican and people who use Tiktok? I’m actually curious.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

The age range skews younger, so probably not huge. It's definitely there though - lots of "tradwife" thinly disguised fetish content. 😒

There's a reason Trump came out against this ban, he knows it's going to be unpopular and he loses nothing by flip-flopping on it.

This is just a free W for Trump and an L for Democrats with literally zero upsides. It accomplishes nothing besides pissing people off!

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Well, unless there’s a credible national security angle that’s being kept confidential. I kind of suspect there is, since Trump tried to push through similar legislation, but worded it so badly that it never got out of debate… and the likes of Wyden voted for it even while they said it was the wrong legislation to solve the problem.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's actually already banned in multiple countries, especially for anyone in government positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_TikTok

[–] livus@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

According to the world map in this link the countries that have banned it outright are: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Krzykstan, India, Nepal, and Somalia.

(For anyone else like me who has trouble with unlabeled maps).

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What about according to the text on that damn page?

[–] livus@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

The text is poorly organized, the map is faster.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Please don't tell me you actually believe them when they cry about national security. It's almost always a lie.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Usually it’s about economics. But in this case, it may actually be true.

Generally, I consider real natsec issues to be things they can’t tell the public. So when I see privacy minded reps joining in with reps from both side of the aisle, I’m willing to lend a bit of credence to a security angle.

Assuming it’s not just the US being upset that some other autocratic government is controlling the medium du jour.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

... and so by whining about natsec they can get you to support anything, as long as they don't tell you about it?

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, I ignore the whining and consider it may be an issue based on actual behavior, as I originally stated.

Hence the “in this case, they might be actually telling the truth” from the original statement.

Just because they over-use an excuse doesn’t mean that it isn’t true on the odd occasion.

The problem is that so much crying wolf makes it more difficult to tell when it’s real.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

If this was an actual national security threat, why would they give them so long to sell? In fact, why even try to buy it? Why not just ban it immediately? Furthermore, why haven't they implemented Biden's executive order to stop China from buying data from Meta or Alphabet? And why haven't they given us any proof of an actual national security threat?

Their actual behavior betrays the truth, just like you said. It's clear this is just national business interests and censorship.

Stop believing in national security bullshit.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

"The app that has kids doing silly dances and is a festering piece of shit is a natsec issue".

Those people don't realise just how fucking daft they sound!

[–] livus@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago

lots of “tradwife”

Wild, I've never stumbled on any of that. But it has a really sensitive algorithm and I'm pretty firmly entrenched in the science-travel-pets axis.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 1 points 7 months ago

You'd be surprised. I used to work in a rural factory. All the big burly red-neck older men were on tiktok during their smoke breaks.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Who votes for the dictator because of losing TikTok?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago (22 children)

They're just going to stay home.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

By the dictator, you mean the one running the genocide and expanding spying on the civilian population as we currently speak, right?

load more comments (1 replies)