The Senate has passed legislation that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban, a contentious move by U.S. lawmakers that’s expected to face legal challenges and disrupt the lives of content creators who rely on the short-form video
I don’t think that a hostile foreign nation has an inalienable right to collect the data of and interfere in the lives of American citizens, as a form of “free speech” lol
You think that it being unaddressed made it “fine?” The United States had slavery for years and years before being banned and I wouldn’t call that “fine” either.
No it’s literally the exact same logical process you followed in your comment, just on a subject dramatically worse. Also I know what it is you’re accusing me of, but a “red herring” is not it lol.
The United States is not an enemy nation to the EU. Nor does the United States own Meta or Xitter.
That being said if EU nations were worried about the NSA collecting information on their citizens and had reason to believe Meta was complicit in that, then they absolutely should ban Meta. I mean they have the GDPR don’t they.
They basically do, as revealed by Snowden documents when the US forced American companies like AT&T, Microsoft, or Google to let them spy on their users. I don’t even think Tik Tok stores their user data in China servers, it’s in Texas or Virginia or Singapore.
Well then yeah maybe the EU should ban them. Thats up to them, but I would totally understand it if they did.
As for TikTok’s user data, it doesn’t matter where it’s geographically stored. ByteDance has unfettered access to the data regardless, which means the CCP has unfettered access to it.
This was the original compromise, but Byte Dance repeatedly gave access to said servers to engineers with ties to the CCP against the agreement’s stipulations. Byte Dance broke the compromise.
More like evening the playing field. If China doesn’t want to let social media businesses operate freely in China, why would the US be required to do the same?
Free markets 📉🔥
Free speech 📉🔥
Children’s attention spans 📈✈️
I don’t think that a hostile foreign nation has an inalienable right to collect the data of and interfere in the lives of American citizens, as a form of “free speech” lol
It was apparently fine for years and years though lol
You think that it being unaddressed made it “fine?” The United States had slavery for years and years before being banned and I wouldn’t call that “fine” either.
Red herring for supper?
No it’s literally the exact same logical process you followed in your comment, just on a subject dramatically worse. Also I know what it is you’re accusing me of, but a “red herring” is not it lol.
Nope a solid example of how just because something is not illegal doesn’t mean it is fine
I guess the EU should ban Meta and Xitter…
Yes but not for the reasons stated in the post you replied to.
The United States is not an enemy nation to the EU. Nor does the United States own Meta or Xitter.
That being said if EU nations were worried about the NSA collecting information on their citizens and had reason to believe Meta was complicit in that, then they absolutely should ban Meta. I mean they have the GDPR don’t they.
They basically do, as revealed by Snowden documents when the US forced American companies like AT&T, Microsoft, or Google to let them spy on their users. I don’t even think Tik Tok stores their user data in China servers, it’s in Texas or Virginia or Singapore.
Well then yeah maybe the EU should ban them. Thats up to them, but I would totally understand it if they did.
As for TikTok’s user data, it doesn’t matter where it’s geographically stored. ByteDance has unfettered access to the data regardless, which means the CCP has unfettered access to it.
This was the original compromise, but Byte Dance repeatedly gave access to said servers to engineers with ties to the CCP against the agreement’s stipulations. Byte Dance broke the compromise.
Oh I don’t remember seeing that anywhere. You got a link with more info on that?
Well yeah?
Probably, but for other reasons. Neither of those are owned by the US, are they?
You’re arguing this is bad for free speech defending an app run by a country that doesn’t have free speech.
So your argument is that we should be more like china
More like evening the playing field. If China doesn’t want to let social media businesses operate freely in China, why would the US be required to do the same?
Because we’re supposed to be better than them
You’re exceptionally dumb if you think they won’t just go to another app that does the exact same thing.