General CE Chat

[AfonsoAlves]

His point is that the bill got serious momentum only after they thought there was too much anti-Israel content. In other words, without the war, they wouldn't be in a rush to pass the bill.

But this is not true because Trump tried twice, there was already a federal ban and the only reason Trump's plan never got through was because the administration ran out of time.

Biden continued the process but then, you know, Covid and all that shit and parked in. In 2023 the FBI director put out a report citing severe threat of tiktok and the ban was moved to the front of agendas again.
Congress grilled TikTok over a year ago when the bill was already within draft phase, and there were already pledges that were Bi-partisan to have a bill ready by 2024.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Here it is, March 2023 was when the Bill was first being drafted

The House foreign affairs committee voted in March along party lines on a bill aimed at TikTok that Democrats said would require the administration to effectively ban the app and other subsidiaries of ByteDance. The US treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in March demanded that TikTok’s Chinese owners sell off the app or face the possibility of a ban. Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, and more than two dozen other senators in April sponsored legislation – backed by the White House – that would give the administration new powers to ban TikTok and other foreign-based technologies if they pose national security threats.

The target was for end of 2023 but the Israel-Gaza conflict actually slowed down the process.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

This discussion is quite literally the epitome of how dangerous misinformation on tiktok can actually be to discourse.

Conspiracy theories run rampant.

 

[Raoul]

His point is that the bill got serious momentum only after they thought there was too much anti-Israel content. In other words, without the war, they wouldn't be in a rush to pass the bill.

Not entirely accurate. Its been banned on government devices in the US since 2023. Further, a growing list of countries including India and China itself don't allow the app. Basically half the world's online population are in places where Tik Tok is in some way already restricted.

 

[VorZakone]

But this is not true because Trump tried twice, there was already a federal ban and the only reason Trump's plan never got through was because the administration ran out of time.

Biden continued the process but then, you know, Covid and all that shit and parked in. In 2023 the FBI director put out a report citing severe threat of tiktok and the ban was moved to the front of agendas again.
Congress grilled TikTok over a year ago when the bill was already within draft phase, and there were already pledges that were Bi-partisan to have a bill ready by 2024.

I mean, I don't know the intricacies of the bill and its history. If serious attempts were made before to actually get it passed, then fair enough. I was just saying what I think The Corinthian is arguing.

 

[Raven]

Can I ask why it's only tiktok being targeted? I've seen unbelievable misinformation on Facebook, Instagram, twitter, Reddit and YouTube. Is it because the misinformation being peddled on those platforms is good some how?

 

[VorZakone]

Can I ask why it's only tiktok being targeted? I've seen unbelievable misinformation on Facebook, Instagram, twitter, Reddit and YouTube. Is it because the misinformation being peddled on those platforms is good some how?

The specific thing with TikTok is its ownership by a Chinese company.

 

[Raven]

The specific thing with TikTok is its ownership by a Chinese company.

Surely that shouldn't matter in a free market capitalist state? Is big government thought of as a good thing in America now?

 

[Raoul]

Surely that shouldn't matter in a free market capitalist state? Is big government thought of as a good thing in America now?

Its not about free market or capitalism. Its about the Chinese government having access to the personal data of 150m Americans, which they can use for future hacking or cyber warfare purposes in a future conflict.

 

[VorZakone]

Surely that shouldn't matter in a free market capitalist state? Is big government thought of as a good thing in America now?

Well, that's an interesting debate in itself. TikTok has existed for years now, it's not like the US banned it from the get go. Relations between the US and China have gotten tenser in the last years.

Also, if I recall correctly, it's not necessarily an outright ban right away but they want to force ByteDance to sell TikTok. If they don't sell, then it gets banned.

According to the statute’s language, ByteDance would have nine months to divest and find an American buyer for TikTok once the bill is signed into law.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/tiktok-ban-bill-why-congress-when-takes-effect-rcna148981

 

[berbatrick]

For the many Atlanticists on here, a senator and SoS slipping up and admitting something in public that should be hidden behind a procedural pretext, isn't enough to make an obvious correlation into a causation. Their innate belief in "liberal democracy" and associated notions of an independent press, procedures and judiciary, matter more than any analysis of power or a basic occam's razor.

 

[Raven]

Its not about free market or capitalism. Its about the Chinese government having access to the personal data of 150m Americans, which they can use for future hacking or cyber warfare purposes in a future conflict.

But they're on the 'free' market so yes it does have to do with free market and capitalism. The market just isn't as free as some like to make out.

Well, that's an interesting debate in itself. TikTok has existed for years now, it's not like the US banned it from the get go. Relations between the US and China have gotten tenser in the last years.

Also, if I recall correctly, it's not necessarily an outright ban right away but they want to force ByteDance to sell TikTok. If they don't sell, then it gets banned.


https://www.nbcnews.com/business/tiktok-ban-bill-why-congress-when-takes-effect-rcna148981

So either sell up or we'll introduce a law that makes it illegal for your company to operate? Seems Un-American.

 

[VorZakone]

But they're on the 'free' market so yes it does have to do with free market and capitalism. The market just isn't as free as some like to make out.

So either sell up or we'll introduce a law that makes it illegal for your company to operate? Seems Un-American.

Yup. But again, it's in the context of national security amid rising tensions with China.

Whether a Chinese company's ownership of TikTok is a national security concern, people can agree or disagree on that. It's a social media app after all, not some sensitive defense tech company.

But the notion in itself that free market democracies must allow everything is in my personal view was never a credible argument. I'm not saying that is your point, I myself am making a general point. I think companies with critical infrastructure for health services or network communications and such should at least be (partially) domestically owned.

 

[Raven]

Yup. But again, it's in the context of national security amid rising tensions with China.

Whether a Chinese company's ownership of TikTok is a national security concern, people can agree or disagree on that.

But the notion in itself that free market democracies must allow everything is in my personal view was never a credible argument. I'm not saying that is your point, I myself am making a general point. I think companies with critical infrastructure for health services or network communications and such should at least be (partially) domestically owned.

Free market democracies, if we can even call the US that, should absolutely be allowing companies to compete on the free market. They allow other companies to do what Tiktok are doing. Why do we think they allow other platforms to spread misinformation? Why do they allow other platforms (run by private interests) to harvest our private information? I do get your point about national security but I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[VorZakone]

Free market democracies, if we can even call the US that, should absolutely be allowing companies to compete on the free market. They allow other companies to do what Tiktok are doing. Why do we think they allow other platforms to spread misinformation? Why do they allow other platforms (run by private interests) to harvest our private information? I do get your point about national security but I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Elon's Twitter has become one of the very biggest platforms where misinformation is rampant. But to my knowledge we're not really seeing any consequences for that.

The EU has laws for this and have warned Musk (for what it's worth anyway). But seems like US lawmakers aren't particularly concerned about Twitter. So yeah, hypocricy is there when it comes to concerns about misinformation.

As for the bolded, again, TikTok has existed for years and became one of the biggest apps in the US. They were competing.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

For the many Atlanticists on here, a senator and SoS slipping up and admitting something in public that should be hidden behind a procedural pretext, isn't enough to make an obvious correlation into a causation. Their innate belief in "liberal democracy" and associated notions of an independent press, procedures and judiciary, matter more than any analysis of power or a basic occam's razor.

But it’s not occams razor in any capacity.
It’s absurd to say a passing comment of “er yeah sure” with more words means more than a bill that got drafted a year before the Israel Gaza conflict began

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Free market democracies, if we can even call the US that, should absolutely be allowing companies to compete on the free market. They allow other companies to do what Tiktok are doing. Why do we think they allow other platforms to spread misinformation? Why do they allow other platforms (run by private interests) to harvest our private information? I do get your point about national security but I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

this is an insane take.

Cambridge analytica should be able to go do what they want then?
I can create a company that siphons US personnel data and sells it on to Vladimir putin. Free market after all right?

 

[berbatrick]

But it’s not occams razor in any capacity.
It’s absurd to say a passing comment of “er yeah sure” with more words means more than a bill that got drafted a year before the Israel Gaza conflict began

The bill had zero momentum before the Gaza conflict. Under Trump the bill went absolutely nowhere and became a vague un-enforced executive order.
Soon after Oct 7, Nikki Haley was saying something like "every Tiktok viewed makes a teenager 41% more anti-semitic" or something equally unverifiable and insane. The ADL and other influential organizations have also called out TikTok by name in the past few months.
I don't expect govt officials to come out and say "we are censoring opposing viewpoints." Even Chinese officials occasionally provide nonsense pretexts for obvious censorships, and westerners understand that those shouldn't be taken seriously. When lawmakers and officials hint at it, and when the timeline matches, I assume that's what they're up to.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

The bill had zero momentum before the Gaza conflict. Under Trump the bill went absolutely nowhere and became a vague un-enforced executive order.
Soon after Oct 7, Nikki Haley was saying something like "every Tiktok viewed makes a teenager 41% more anti-semitic" or something equally unverifiable and insane. The ADL and other influential organizations have also called out TikTok by name in the past few months.
I don't expect govt officials to come out and say "we are censoring opposing viewpoints." Even Chinese officials occasionally provide nonsense pretexts for obvious censorships, and westerners understand that those shouldn't be taken seriously. When lawmakers and officials hint at it, and when the timeline matches, I assume that's what they're up to.

This is not factual

As I posted earlier, the bill was sponsored by 37 Senators , Bipartisan in April 2023, with an aim to have the full reading and vote before 2023 was over.

The first bill, which didn't make it through, was first introduced in March 2023

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686

The CEO of Tiktok was bought for a hearing by the entirety of congress in March 2023.

The bill, like many others, were hugely delayed due to the events of 7/10, the en-passe regarding Ukrainian aid and heavy lobbying by TikTok to the sum of $100 million , which the co-sponsors of the say were the reason for it slowing down.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...hinese-owners-dont-sell-stake-wsj-2023-03-15/

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-lawmakers-considering-changes-tiktok-bill-senator-2023-07-10/

Warner said lawmakers have "a proposal on a series of amendments to make it explicitly clear" and address criticisms, including that individual Americans could be impacted or that the bill represents a broad expansion of government power.
"We can take care of those concerns in a fair way," Warner said.
The legislation endorsed by the White House would grant the Commerce Department new authority to review, block, and address a range of transactions involving foreign information and communications technology that pose national security risks.

"I will grant TikTok this - they spent $100 million in lobbying and slowed a bit of our momentum," Warner said, adding that initially it seemed it would be almost "too easy" to get the bill approved.
TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Warner's assessment of its lobbying.

You are simply morphing events to suit your narrative.

There was a huge push in the early part of 2023 before other things (like Israel/Gaza) and heavy TikTok lobbying slowed it down.

If by "Zero momentum" you mean "14 months of legislative work with multiple bills and re-reads" then sure. This wasn't a bill that got shoehorned into life post conflict, this was a bill that dragged on and on for over a year before it finally passed the line.

 

[berbatrick]

This is not factual

As I posted earlier, the bill was sponsored by 37 Senators , Bipartisan in April 2023, with an aim to have the full reading and vote before 2023 was over.

The first bill, which didn't make it through, was first introduced in March 2023

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686

The CEO of Tiktok was bought for a hearing by the entirety of congress in March 2023.

The bill, like many others, were hugely delayed due to the events of 7/10, the en-passe regarding Ukrainian aid and heavy lobbying by TikTok to the sum of $100 million , which the co-sponsors of the say were the reason for it slowing down.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...hinese-owners-dont-sell-stake-wsj-2023-03-15/

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-lawmakers-considering-changes-tiktok-bill-senator-2023-07-10/



You are simply morphing events to suit your narrative.

There was a huge push in the early part of 2023 before other things (like Israel/Gaza) and heavy TikTok lobbying slowed it down.

If by "Zero momentum" you mean "14 months of legislative work with multiple bills and re-reads" then sure. This wasn't a bill that got shoehorned into life post conflict, this was a bill that dragged on and on for over a year before it finally passed the line.

Bill co-sponsor speaking to Columbia donors:

Lawler, who co-sponsored a recent bill to ban TikTok, repeated Berkley’s claims about external organizers and said that was the type of thing that inspired Congress’s efforts to ban the app. “I don’t think there’s any question that there has been a coordinated effort off these college campuses, and that you have outside paid agitators and activists,” Lawler said. “It also highlights exactly why we included the TikTok bill in the foreign supplemental aid package because you’re seeing how these kids are being manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries to foment hate on their behalf and really create a hostile environment here in the U.S.”


Sorry. I will believe the people who voted for the bill when they slip up and admit something that they would rather hide behind PR.

 

[Raven]

this is an insane take.

Cambridge analytica should be able to go do what they want then?
I can create a company that siphons US personnel data and sells it on to Vladimir putin. Free market after all right?

I think we should be cracking down on all misinformation personally but I wouldn't leave it in the hands of US law makers.

 

[Raoul]

I think we should be cracking down on all misinformation personally but I wouldn't leave it in the hands of US law makers.

If there's no legal infrastructure to restrict misinformation then tech companies won't do anything about it. Just look at Musk's Twitter as a glaring example. Even Zuckerberg is pushing back against legislation because he knows it would impede his business model, and as such reduce Meta affiliated users and hit their stock price.

 

[Raven]

If there's no legal infrastructure to restrict misinformation then tech companies won't do anything about it. Just look at Musk's Twitter as a glaring example. Even Zuckerberg is pushing back against legislation because he knows it would impede his business model, and as such reduce Meta affiliated users and hit their stock price.

There's no legal infrastructure against what tiktok is doing. They're inventing it now. They could do the same with the rest.

 

[Raoul]

There's no legal infrastructure against what tiktok is doing. They're inventing it now. They could do the same with the rest.

Tik Tok isn't doing anything. Its merely a social network. Its the underlying data of Americans being accessed by the CCP because Byte Dance is based in China that is a national security risk, which is why its being done. At that point its no longer a free speech issue and one of state security.

 

[Raven]

Tik Tok isn't doing anything. Its merely a social network. Its the underlying data of Americans being accessed by the CCP because Byte Dance is based in China that is a national security risk, which is why its being done. At that point its no longer a free speech issue and one of state security.

Yes, so they're introducing new legal framework to deal with it. They could do the same to deal with the misinformation that caused things like Jan 6th, which was also a national security issue.

 

[Raoul]

Yes, so they're introducing new legal framework to deal with it. They could do the same to deal with the misinformation that caused things like Jan 6th, which was also a national security issue.

That's already in place by way of the Constitution and the fact that the person responsible is going on trial soon. The Tik Tok issue is related to a foreign government controlling user data, which so far hasn't been legislated.

 

[Raven]

That's already in place by way of the Constitution and the fact that the person responsible is going on trial soon. The Tik Tok issue is related to a foreign government controlling user data, which so far hasn't been legislated.

Evidently I'm less clued in, who is going on trial for that soon?

 

[Raoul]

Evidently I'm less clued in, who is going on trial for that soon?

That would be Trump. As long as he doesn't become President and cancel everything.

 

[Raven]

That would be Trump. As long as he doesn't become President and cancel everything.

And what about the people who own and run these platforms who seem to love the spread of misinformation? Allowing all of this propaganda to go unchecked has paved the way for the rise of the far right on a global scale as well as in America. Twitter before Musk used to put disclaimers about misinformation being spread about COVID for example... Could a law like that not be enforced?

 

[Raoul]

And what about the people who own and run these platforms who seem to love the spread of misinformation? Allowing all of this propaganda to go unchecked has paved the way for the rise of the far right on a global scale as well as in America. Twitter before Musk used to put disclaimers about misinformation being spread about COVID for example... Could a law like that not be enforced?

The people that run the platforms profit from having as many people as possible using them, so they're not financially incentivized allocate enough resources to moderate them for hate speech. That's where the government can play a role - especially the US government since most prominent social networks are based in or have large hubs in the US. If everything is left to the likes of Musk and Zuckerberg, they're not likely to do enough because it doesn't benefit them financially.

 

[berbatrick]

The people that run the platforms profit from having as many people as possible using them, so they're not financially incentivized allocate enough resources to moderate them for hate speech. That's where the government can play a role - especially the US government since most prominent social networks are based in or have large hubs in the US. If everything is left to the likes of Musk and Zuckerberg, they're not likely to do enough because it doesn't benefit them financially.

It will be a little difficult for the US govt to force private corporations to do anything about hate speech or "misinformation". These aren't universities getting federal funding. These are corporate persons with first amendment rights. Hate speech and non-libel misinformation are protected by the first amendment. If the corporation does not want to cooperate with the govt on this, as I imagine it is with Musk and the Biden govt, the idea is a total non-starter.
It's different for Zuckerburg, and will probably be different for Musk under Trump. Either way, it is the corporation, not the govt, calling the shots.

It is not as difficult when it comes to the govt invoking "national security" of course.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

There is a very interesting article on a very public court case in an American magazine. The court case was followed here too. Not going into more specifics because of laws of the country where the trial happened.

 

[Wibble]

There is a very interesting article on a very public court case in an American magazine. The court case was followed here too. Not going into more specifics because of laws of the country where the trial happened.

I think you may need to give a better hint. Why is even mentioning the case or the magazine a problem?

I now know that I'm almost instantly going to regret posting that.

 

[berbatrick]

I think you may need to give a better hint. Why is even mentioning the case or the magazine a problem?

I now know that I'm almost instantly going to regret posting that.

A few hours after I posted that, the thread here was bumped with the same article!
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/nur...murdering-7-babies-whole-life-sentence.439814

 

[Wibble]

Ahhh. I think that is safe to discuss as the court case has been resolved.

 

[africanspur]

Many people, both with power and without power, have expressed views that the likes of Nixon, Johnson, Kissinger etc should be hauled to the Hague. Kissinger being a war criminal is a very common and popular opinion.

Compare and contrast to that of the views of Ho Chi Minh?

Again, I'm not sure what your point is.

A bunch of leftists online and people generically across the global south, who hold no power, have called them war criminals and said they should be dragged in front of the Hague. Of course, none of them were and instead, one of them was awarded the nobel peace price.

I also think you massively overstate how much the average 'Westerner' knows about the My Lai massacre. Maybe the Americans talk about it all the time but I imagine most Europeans wouldn't have a clue. Its also not generally spoken about by people from the Global South that I know, in the same way they speak about the atomic bombs for instance, or Guantanamo, or the Iraq war, when it comes to pointing out Western crimes.

A bit of patting themselves for talking about it doesn't really cut it as a major difference for me I'm sorry to say. Would have been better to just stick at the West is self-serving with their foreign policy, just as every other power is/ was in history.

 

[The United]

When was Indonesia in Africa?

The relationship in SEA with China and Africa are wholly different.

Probably a bit off topic in this thread. That dude talked about good stuff that the Chinese do in his country. But in my country which is also in the SEA and has land border with China has almost total opposite of his country's experiences but similar experiences in the Africa that you portrayed there. Almost no one in Burma think the Chinese are good guys for the coutry. In fact, they think they are one of the main factors causing one of the longest civil war in a country in modern history.

 

[RedTiger]

Probably a bit off topic in this thread. That dude talked about good stuff that the Chinese do in his country. But in my country which is also in the SEA and has land border with China has almost total opposite of his country's experiences but similar experiences in the Africa that you portrayed there. Almost no one in Burma think the Chinese are good guys for the coutry. In fact, they think they are one of the main factors causing one of the longest civil war in a country in modern history.

And yet the junta spread their legs for China like a 2 dollar whore.

 

[The United]

And yet the junta spread their legs for China like a 2 dollar whore.

It's why the common people of Burma don't like them. The Chinese legitimated the previous Junta and bribed them heavily and none of their dealings gave the population much of positive impact.

The current Junta doesn't like the Chinese much because they know the Chinese empowered some of the biggest rebellion groups in the North East where they lost a ton of territories lately. The leader of current Junta models himself on Putin and brought the relationship with Russia closer than ever. The Chinese doesn't like him for that. But of course, there's nothing the Junta can do when the Chinese really want to bully them. And guess who is getting all the shit?

Everyone and their dogs in Burma know that the Chinese wants them to be in this shitty situation when they can control and arm various rebellion groups across Burma from the border to the Indian Ocean which they want an access to. If the country is more united, they know that the majority of the population would want the Chinese to stay out of the country which actually happened under civilian governments.