They aren’t protecting you. They are protecting themselves from what you may give their enemies. Don’t think just because the federal government is doing something “for the people” that nominally it’s not about the government itself. National security is literally the government protecting itself by protecting its citizens.
Pretty much this! Also it is much easier and cheaper to tell Google to stop offering tiktok in their app store then it is to build affordable housing where it is needed…
Yea but where? There’s a push for it in my state. Drove past a new area that will be a neighborhood of cookie cutter SFH, probably with driveways too short to contain full size vehicles. And they’ll cost more than half a million so I’m not sure how that’s affordable. Anyway. It’s being built on the flood plain. 8/10 flood factor.
We really need more high density housing closer to urban centers, but Americans seem to be allergic to it. Everyone wants their single family house. Also too, without subsidies they’re is no profit incentive for developers to build the necessary housing stock, they all shoot for “luxury” housing because it’s the most profitable.
I’ve always wanted like… A townhome. But the problem is anything like that (even away from city/population centers but still near enough to commute is astronomically expensive.
without subsidies they’re is no profit incentive for developers to build the necessary housing stock
So cap rent. If a developer wants to build, they need to build what people actually need. You don’t need to hand them boatloads of money to make affordable housing more profitable than non-affordable housing, just ban the unaffordable housing nobody needs.
If only we made a school for teaching people how to do the things we need most. It could be run by the government as a nonprofit. We could incorporate medical and all the other industries we are getting gouged by.
I mean, public state universities could fulfill this role if they could get past their admin rot
Ah yes, the obvious solution: more suburban blight.
Facebook sold personal data to a foreign organization called Cambridge Analytica who used it to influence our elections. If their motivations are to protect us via protecting themselves, why is Facebook not banned, and not even in the discussion of being banned?
For one thing, today isn’t 2015
Did occurring in 2015 happen to make it less bad somehow? We sure as hell weren’t passing laws to ban facebook back then either, so I’m not sure what point you think you’ve made.
Hindsight and foresight are identical I always say
Foresight? We’re talking about the present and the recent past dude are you okay or do you just argue in weird slogans?
We know now what we knew in 40000 bc, obviously
Aren’t they the opposite? Unless you are saying we should use past experiences to protect ourselves in the future then shouldn’t we still ban Facebook? Regardless of how you feel about tiktok, Facebook was never neutered.
We didn’t have the same stance on data privacy back then as we do today. GDPR wouldn’t be a thing for another year, not implemented for two more after that (2018). Legislators largely didn’t understand the risks associated with unrestricted exchanges of seemingly benign user data at the time. Yay for hindsight being 20/20.
That’s great. Nothing has changed about Facebook so nothing is stopping them from banning it now for the same reason as TikTok. The only reason they wouldn’t is if they had a motivation that had nothing to do with protecting elections from foreign influence.
And we should ban them too. I love this argument. We need better user data privacy laws, and this whataboutism does not change the fact that China is a hostile foreign nation.
I can appreciate that people view Google and Meta and so on as very similar in their transgressions. But as was pointed out in the original comment, this is a cost to benefit ratio type of analysis for the federal government and they gain more by keeping Meta and Google going and can enact other measures to prevent that from hurting them (usually reactionary), so to them this is fine. It is and always has been about what the US government can to do protect itself and enrich itself. Enrichment doesn’t always come in the form of monetary value.
If you’re upset at your own government (or government adjacent tech entities) gathering this type of data from users, you should be for banning them too, not keeping tik tok.
I am for severely restricting the ability for all corporations to gather and sell user data. You think I’m making a whattaboutism or whatever debate buzzword you want to conjure up; what I’m taking issue with is the argument that the reason they’re getting banned has anything to do with that data collection or “national security”. If that had any truth to it, Facebook would have gotten the same treatment, or at the very least would be in the conversation now since they do the same exact shit. If this was about data collection they would pass regulations about that instead of targeting one specific site to unilaterally ban.
I think you brought this up as a *whatabout" to something I said as a rebuttal rather than an agreement so maybe check your tone. You didn’t say anything in your comment necessarily agreeing with the original comment at any point.
deleted by creator
Then you should have voted blue, idiot. This situation exists because of apathy and antigovernment sentiment.
Did Clinton ever undo all the load of crap Reagan and Bush gave us?
Clinton is one the few presidents in the last 100 years that has operated on a SURPLUS. Meaning he’s the only president to lower the national debt
H. W. actually fought against the Reaganomics himself, so while the two didn’t agree on foreign policy there wasn’t much that had to be undone between Bush and Clinton.
*40 year inflation brought on because the government wanted 14 years of free money for Corporations.
Monetary policy and Corporate price gouging are the drivers for inflation. Everything else is noise.
Ok because I see a lot of stupid shit in here, you don’t get to talk about banning tiktok if you don’t talk about banning Instagram, Reddit, X and YouTube, who use the same formula, with equal fervour.
Now please talk about healthcare, climate crisis, the Palestinian ethnic cleansing by that cancerous, land grabbing, terrorist Israeli state and the shrinking buying power of the people all around the world.
“a genocide” LOL…this palestine propaganda is really getting out og hand. it is one of the many current genocides. russians wiping out cultures and nations, china on tibet or the uigurs, shit syria on aramaics and assyrians, fucking turkey on kurds and armenians. but yeah…it is “one” genocide now. kids are fucking stupid.
You had me in the first part, NGL.
How can Steve ban tiktok if Doug won’t let him mitigate homelessness? Why is Bob talking about housing when Alex is gung-ho on genocide?
Sorry, I meant to ask: how can the government ban tiktok when the government won’t do anything about homelessness? How can the government be proud of mitigating homelessness when the government supports genocide?
Citizens United must be a curse from a Greek god. A funny little jab to highlight our tendency to oversimplify.
Got news for you, their not protecting us from Tik Tok either.
Im down with the idea of social media being a threat to citizens for so long as the algorithms optimize for anger.
On the other hand, I’m not sure I’d prefer another “opiate of the masses”.
Mostly agreed, but is anyone really getting minimum wage? Walmart pays double that to start in my little town.
Idaho has federal minimum and iirc laws preventing county or city minimums to be higher than the state minimum. Lots of service and farmhand jobs there are at minimum wage. One of the places I used to work was saught after in the town because they pay higher than minimum. I made $7.50/hr
Go to places like KY, IN, TN, WV. Probably LA, and MS. They regularly start people @ minimum wage, and the rents are about 2/3 what I would pay in San Diego.
Watch? That would imply looking at the situation, so no I don’t think that’s quite the right word…
For one side it’s more like “stand back and stand by”, if you catch my drift, while for the other it’s somewhat like claiming every four years to always have a ready supply of hot sauce stored in one’s purse. (you see, a “purse” is a bag that we poors, specifically women, use to carry things - basically it’s a nonmoving car where your butler puts all the “things” that you need for the entire day, except you are your own butler, and the purse doesn’t drive to anywhere, and it gets heavy!)
I think the funniest thing that happens if Trump wins is everyone is all the journalists being forced to make truth social accounts. Then they can ask the worlds oldest president to clarify his new ban on cat ladies and trans people.
If he does win, he will be removed within 2 weeks after inauguration if not sooner. Trump is losing his marbles fast to dementia. Anybody who votes for Trump better love Vance.
When did they protect us from TikTok? They didn’t. Other than that it would be a great point
They’re trying to get it shut down?
And I hope they succeed. But this has been talked about for 3-4 years now and hasn’t happened
It’s an actual case now though. They have until Jan 19 to sell US data to a US broker or else Apple and Google have 6 months from that date to remove it from the App Store.
Ah okay. Thanks
deleted by creator
