I just have to wonder, why are we passing a law to ban TikTok, because of 1) data security, and 2) spread of misinformation, but we're not passing a law to ban Facebook for the very same offenses?

Facebook, Twitter, et al offenses have never been as flagrant as those done or possible by Tik Tok.  Putin used those medias successfully.  And was (to a large extent) cut off - albeit too late.  No such option exists with Tik Tok.  And besides, those social media sites were not written to be government weapons (as suspect with Tik Tok).

This is all new territory.  A major media web site was always American.  Including Amazon, Ebay, Google, Bing, and the so many web sites that preceded them.  Even all browsers are American.  From Netscape and IE onward.  Even though it was pioneered in Cern (Europe).

ik Tok is a first major site not in America.  Not subject to oversight or whistleblower laws  As a result, American did not need (is rumored to not have) a Great Firewall - as in China.

None of these answers are easy.  Since many require backing away from long held American principles that once made America dominate in world wide telephone, radio and TV, satellite, and internet communication.  Both in standards and in how connections are made.

For example, a call from Palestine to Israel often went through the US.

Banning TikTok is corrosive to Democracy.  Since it even means changing interpretations of the First Amendment and a concept called net neutrality.  But this much we do know.  The internet can be stopped or subverted; it is not virtual.  It can be corrupted by 'powers that be'.

Ask about Tiananmen Square in China to discover how many do not know what that event was.

No solid, conclusive answer can materialize.  Since so much is subjective, vague, and undefined.  And worse, requires us to change some long held principles that, for the first time, can means threats to this nation's security.  Again, even an octopus could not keep trace of so many tangents.

I do not say this idly.  Since my principles have long been aversarial to too much security in markets where innovation must always happen.  But I make no apologies for what I see, long term, as a major world war.  Someone with a long history of condemning unjustified wars (Vietnam and Mission Accomplished).  And outrightly blamed Americans as the only reason for defeat also in Afghanistan.  How does one enter a justified war only to screw it up that badly?

I regard this war, if it does happen, a major threat to this nation.  For the first time, America is at much risk as London was in WWII.

Which is why are I am also quite critical of people (such as Donald Trump) who would love another war. And even tried to start one with Iran.  Just like Nixon, Cheney and Rumsfeld, Goldwater, Alex Jones, Curtis LeMay, Marjorie Greene, and half the Republican party that would throw Ukraine under the bus.

This is the point where we decide to be at war with China before 2030.  Or avert a potential conflict.  By doing what America did in the 1930s - without the public so realizing it.  Designing in a nation to go to war.

I write this as neither a pacifist nor a hawk. So much remains to be learned and prepared for.  Little is fully evident.  But coming and possible trends are apparent.  Vague as they may be, we must still consider the many possibilities.

I hate sounding like George Marshall.

tw wrote:

This is all new territory.  A major media web site was always American.

You'll have to forgive me for taking a glaringly obvious interpretation of this statement to an absurd extension, but is it not apt to describe this as 'America fighting back against a threat to their global information hegemony?'

And consider the terrifying consequences of picking a "winner" in this information conflict. Do we really trust America to be the only arbiter of ALL INFORMATION in the world.?? America, the country who said Saddam had WMDs, are the best country to control ALL INFORMATION that the world is allowed to see.?? We feel so strongly that America, the land that punishes whistleblowers for exposing their massive spy network against their own citizens, is the best choice for an uncontested total global information empire, that there should rightly be NO OTHER VOICES in the conversation.?? Only the American Government itself, and it's most blindly adhering sycophants could possibly be comfortable with this.

For God's sake, are you really saying that the "threat of TikTok" is that ONLY AMERICA should be allowed to control a social media outlet.?? That's creeping me right the ƒuck out, I'm getting major "are we the baddies?" vibes.

oh, definitely.. that was so far above my head that I'd need binoculars to catch sight of it

it's literally what you said

This is all new territory.  A major media web site was always American.  Including Amazon, Ebay, Google, Bing, and the so many web sites that preceded them.  Even all browsers are American.  From Netscape and IE onward.  Even though it was pioneered in Cern (Europe).

ik Tok is a first major site not in America.  Not subject to oversight or whistleblower laws  As a result, American did not need (is rumored to not have) a Great Firewall - as in China.

so the threat is, a major internet presence that is not American

so "all internet is American controlled" = GOOD
and "any other competitor on the internet" = PROBABLY BAD

this is your own argument

and I literally apologized in advance for extending it to an absurd extent
you should try reading things in good faith
 

Flint wrote:

so the threat is, a major internet presence that is not American 

The threat is OBVIOUSLY a system controlled by an adversarial government.  So suspect that Tik Tok is defined by that government as  "sensitive technology". 

Nobody said it must be American.   This threat was minimal when most major web sites were American - not Putin's.  Again what was ignored:

Why insert that nonsense and fiction into what never was said or even implied.  As if all American allies and democracies cannot be trusted.  Apparently you believe UK, Japan, Australia, Germany, Jordan, Chile, and France are also adversaries like Putin.  Only that reasoning makes a fictional accusations plausible.

Those nations are competitors - not trying to become a military, social, and economic threat.  Competitors never try to destroy their counter parties.  Adversaries do.

And again, also ignored.  This is when we decide to make China so adversarial as to create war.  TPP was a superb solution.  Destroyed by a fascist who has now publicly admitted he intends to become a despot.  Even with Guantanamos in America.

Will an adversarial China become a military enemy?  That decision is why Huawei is banned.  And Tik Tok is clearly suspect.  Again, what was ignored and what the Chinese government calls Tik Tok:  "sensitive technology".    Not corporate technology.  Government owned technology.
 

Last edited by tw (5/04/2024 10:29 am)

It can be labeled sensitive tech not because they want to use it to manipulate other countries, it could be a fear of capitalist running dogs tainting Chinese youth with dreams of sugar plums. I'd bet on both.