House passes bill that could lead to a TikTok ban; fight shifts to the Senate

[Pierce Manhammer]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/house-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-a-tiktok-ban-fight-shifts-to-the-senate.html

Good fackin' riddance

It's a scourge. I know people that LIVE on that shyte. Everything new they try, news they hear of, everything they learned on TT. It's pathetic.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Not a TikTok fan or user, nonetheless it's tough to get elated over news that the government is banning something else again

 

[BaronOfHair]

Somewhat similar news
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...s-after-ag-sues-for-not-verifying-users-ages/

Let's all display an ample helping of compassion for folks living in the wilds of East Texas. With PornHub gone, indulging their long-held yet unconsumated fantasies of bringing the sheep out of the pasture, and into the bedroom, is the only viable option they have left

 

[Millard Fillmore]

Gov't should not be banning media.

 

[CornbreadFed]

Trampling on personal freedoms because of one’s sexual frustration is pathetic.

 

[Mertz09]

Not a TikTok fan or user, nonetheless it's tough to get elated over news that the government is banning something else again

I agree. The issue is that the Chinese Gov. are in control of TikTok and are spying on Americans. The Chinese Gov. controls just about every aspect of their citizens life. They control your bank account....look it up.

 

[Mertz09]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/house-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-a-tiktok-ban-fight-shifts-to-the-senate.html

Good fackin' riddance

It's a scourge. I know people that LIVE on that shyte. Everything new they try, news they hear of, everything they learned on TT. It's pathetic.

I agree 100%

 

[CornbreadFed]

I agree. The issue is that the Chinese Gov. are in control of TikTok and are spying on Americans. The Chinese Gov. controls just about every aspect of their citizens life. They control your bank account....look it up.

 

[Deep Dish]

Let's all display an ample helping of compassion for folks living in the wilds of East Texas. With PornHub gone, indulging their long-held yet unconsumated fantasies of bringing the sheep out of the pasture, and into the bedroom, is the only viable option they have left.

People simply buy a VPN. Internet searches for VPNs skyrocketed.

 

[MatureDJ]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/house-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-a-tiktok-ban-fight-shifts-to-the-senate.html

Good fackin' riddance

It's a scourge. I know people that LIVE on that shyte. Everything new they try, news they hear of, everything they learned on TT. It's pathetic.

So we need to trash the 1st Amendment because of that? That said, the ChiCom menace is a valid reason to take it down, or at least force it to be owned by Americans & regulated on a national security basis.

 

[MatureDJ]

Trampling on personal freedoms because of one’s sexual frustration is pathetic.

It's OVER for LibertyCels.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

An online property is not the “public square” it is private property so 1st Amendment rights do not apply, if they did I could demand that the New York Times publish my oped.

no shirt, no shoes, no service

p.s. the Chinese are up to no good, we know this they engage in spycraft in the US all the time - last week another scientist was convicted. If you think they’re not enabling in shady Shiite with TikTok you’re not paying attention.

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

People simply buy a VPN. Internet searches for VPNs skyrocketed.

But 99% of the VPNs don't actually secure your data, so it's a joke.

 

[CornbreadFed]

An online property is not the “public square” it is private property so 1st Amendment rights do not apply, if they did I could demand that the New York Times publish my oped.

no shirt, no shoes, no service

p.s. the Chinese are up to no good, we know this they engage in spycraft in the US all the time - last week another scientist was convicted. If you think they’re not enabling in shady Shiite with TikTok you’re not paying attention.

I like Tik Tok enough to not care enough about that lol.

 

[Deep Dish]

But 99% of the VPNs don't actually secure your data, so it's a joke.

VPNS encrypt your connection to a remote network, such as telecommuting to work. If you ever use public WIFI, a VPN helps protects you from hackers (unless the VPN itself is hacked, which sometimes happens). VPNs are only one layer of protection, though, nothing is a silver bullet. For the greatest protection, you have to use multiple layers of protection. VPNS advertise security as a selling point, which is largely moot because of HTTPS connections, although the primary reason somebody would use a VPN, other than telecommuting, is to spoof their geolocation. I use a VPN to watch foreign television.

 

[BaronOfHair]

An online property is not the “public square” it is private property so 1st Amendment rights do not apply, if they did I could demand that the New York Times publish my oped.

no shirt, no shoes, no service

p.s. the Chinese are up to no good, we know this they engage in spycraft in the US all the time - last week another scientist was convicted. If you think they’re not enabling in shady Shiite with TikTok you’re not paying attention.

The internet IS part of the public square though, at least if that term means anything still. Same way communication via telephone has been part of the public square, once that technology became ubiquitous in our society

There's a big difference between the government sticking it's nose into such things when they're being used in the commission of a felony, and Uncle Sam clamping down our collective capacity to express ourselves freely, under the guise of "national security"

 

[BaronOfHair]

Gov't should not be banning media.

https://sheckymagazine.libsyn.com/is-comedy-inherently-masculine What's described from 12:35-forward has become pervasive in just about every quarter of our society now. Our current fixation on purging "harmful speech" from the airwaves is part and parcel of this same phenomena

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

VPNS encrypt your connection to a remote network, such as telecommuting to work. If you ever use public WIFI, a VPN helps protects you from hackers (unless the VPN itself is hacked, which sometimes happens). VPNs are only one layer of protection, though, nothing is a silver bullet. For the greatest protection, you have to use multiple layers of protection. VPNS advertise security as a selling point, which is largely moot because of HTTPS connections, although the primary reason somebody would use a VPN, other than telecommuting, is to spoof their geolocation. I use a VPN to watch foreign television.

What I'm saying is, if a governmental authority request user data, 99% of VPN companies will comply immediately and share all their customers info. It wouldn't surprise me if they sell your data to advertisers, too. Mullvad is one of the few VPN services that refuses to share and in fact last time I checked, they don't even store the data to begin with.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

If you can destabilise a foreign economy by social media apps, it's also probably cheaper than war machines.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

The internet IS part of the public square though, at least if that term means anything still. Same way communication via telephone has been part of the public square, once that technology became ubiquitous in our society

There's a big difference between the government sticking it's nose into such things when they're being used in the commission of a felony, and Uncle Sam clamping down our collective capacity to express ourselves freely, under the guise of "national security"

So, when we talk about the whole "public square" idea in relation to the First Amendment, it gets a bit tricky with online forums. See, the First Amendment is all about keeping the government from messing with our speech and gatherings, ensuring we can speak our minds freely in public spaces. But here's the twist: online forums aren't really public spaces in the legal sense because private companies run them. It's like they're inviting us into their digital living rooms to chat.

These companies get to set the house rules, deciding what can and can't be said on their platforms. So, if they want to remove a post or moderate a discussion, they're totally within their rights without stepping on First Amendment toes. It's a bit like having a metaphorical digital public square, where we all gather to share ideas and opinions, but without the same legal protections you'd find in a physical town square.

Now, there's a ton of ongoing chatter about how these digital platforms fit into our world of free speech, especially considering how big a role they play in our conversations today. People are debating whether there should be some balance between allowing free speech and keeping the online world safe from harm, misinformation, and the like. And then there's the big question: should these digital gathering spots be regulated somehow because of their massive influence on public discourse?

The TikTok discussion also begs a question about The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that speaks of the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It states that this right shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This amendment provides a fundamental protection against arbitrary governmental intrusion.

Given the Chinese routinely breach privacy in collecting information from the US aka espionage.

All my points are made in the spirit of “you cannot have it both ways”.