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!