Five Republican Presidential Candidates Call for TikTok to Be Banned in America 194
Wednesday five of the U.S. Republican candidates for president gathered for their third debate in Miami — where they again urged the banning of TikTok in America:
Moderator: Last week congressman Mike Gallagher, who is chairman of the House bipartisan select committee on the Chinese Community party, published a long essay on TikTok... [H]e called the app "predatory... controlled by America's preeminent adversary," used to push propaganda and divide America. It's "spyware," he said — a means of surveillance.
Governor Christie, do you agree with chairman Gallgaher, and if so would you ban or force the sale of TikTok.
Chris Christie: I agree 100% with chairman Gallagher, and let me say this. TikTok is not only spyware. it is polluting the minds of American young people, all throughout this country. And they're doing it intentionally... This is China trying to further divide the United States of America...
In my first week as president, we would ban TikTok. They want to go ahead and sell it, let 'em go ahead and sell it. But I'll tell you another reason we would do it. Facebook's not in China. X is not in China. They're not permitting a free flow of information to the Chinese people from our social media companies. Yet we just open the door and let them do what they're doing. TikTok should be banned because they are poisoning American minds, and I would do it Week One... [Applause from audience.]
Ron DeSantis: [DeSantis began by saying he would also ban TikTok.] I think that China's the top threat we face. They've been very effective at infiltrating different parts of our society... And as the dad of a 6-, 5-, and a 3-year-old, I'm concerned about the data that they're getting from our young people, and what they're doing to pollute the minds of our young people... Their role in our culture? If we ignore that, we're not going to be able to win the fight...
Vivek Ramaswamy: In the last debate [Nikki Haley] made fun of me for joining TikTok? Well her own daughter was actually using the app for a long time, so you might want to take care of your family first... [Audience boos]
Nikki Haley: Leave my daughter out of your voice.
Vivek Ramaswamy: The next generation of Americans are using it, and that's actually the point... Here's the truth. The easy answer is actually to say that we're just going to ban one app. We gotta go further. We have to ban any U.S. company actually transferring U.S. data to the Chinese. Here's a story most people don't know. Airbnb hands over U.S. user data to the CCP. Now that's a U.S.-owned company... Even U.S. companies in Silicon Valley are regularly doing it...
Tim Scott: What we should do is ban TikTok, period... If you cannot ban TikTok, you should eliminate the Chinese presence on the app. Period.
In the previous debate Nikki Haley made her own position clear. "We can't have TikTok in our kids' lives. We need to ban it."
Moderator: Last week congressman Mike Gallagher, who is chairman of the House bipartisan select committee on the Chinese Community party, published a long essay on TikTok... [H]e called the app "predatory... controlled by America's preeminent adversary," used to push propaganda and divide America. It's "spyware," he said — a means of surveillance.
Governor Christie, do you agree with chairman Gallgaher, and if so would you ban or force the sale of TikTok.
Chris Christie: I agree 100% with chairman Gallagher, and let me say this. TikTok is not only spyware. it is polluting the minds of American young people, all throughout this country. And they're doing it intentionally... This is China trying to further divide the United States of America...
In my first week as president, we would ban TikTok. They want to go ahead and sell it, let 'em go ahead and sell it. But I'll tell you another reason we would do it. Facebook's not in China. X is not in China. They're not permitting a free flow of information to the Chinese people from our social media companies. Yet we just open the door and let them do what they're doing. TikTok should be banned because they are poisoning American minds, and I would do it Week One... [Applause from audience.]
Ron DeSantis: [DeSantis began by saying he would also ban TikTok.] I think that China's the top threat we face. They've been very effective at infiltrating different parts of our society... And as the dad of a 6-, 5-, and a 3-year-old, I'm concerned about the data that they're getting from our young people, and what they're doing to pollute the minds of our young people... Their role in our culture? If we ignore that, we're not going to be able to win the fight...
Vivek Ramaswamy: In the last debate [Nikki Haley] made fun of me for joining TikTok? Well her own daughter was actually using the app for a long time, so you might want to take care of your family first... [Audience boos]
Nikki Haley: Leave my daughter out of your voice.
Vivek Ramaswamy: The next generation of Americans are using it, and that's actually the point... Here's the truth. The easy answer is actually to say that we're just going to ban one app. We gotta go further. We have to ban any U.S. company actually transferring U.S. data to the Chinese. Here's a story most people don't know. Airbnb hands over U.S. user data to the CCP. Now that's a U.S.-owned company... Even U.S. companies in Silicon Valley are regularly doing it...
Tim Scott: What we should do is ban TikTok, period... If you cannot ban TikTok, you should eliminate the Chinese presence on the app. Period.
In the previous debate Nikki Haley made her own position clear. "We can't have TikTok in our kids' lives. We need to ban it."
American Parents (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:American Parents (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you get the scope of the issue. Say half the parents of students in a given class enforce such a rule. Their kids will be looked down on by their classmates for not being on the 'right' app, just as happened with not wearing the right clothes, the right makeup, having the right phone, having the right gaming console, etc. School-age kids are RUTHLESS in creating an out-group the in-group can band together about disliking.
So what happens then? Either the kids are ruthlessly bullied, or they install the app without their parents' knowledge and make sure to wipe its existence regularly so the parents won't find out. You've now taught your kids to keep secrets from you, great job.
Re:American Parents (Score:4, Insightful)
Of all the things that kids use to tribalize over, app use is unlikely to ever be one. Apps are like fashion: they come and they go and the "cool kids" are always the drivers of "what's cool". If you're not a "cool kid", it doesn't matter what you wear, how you talk or what apps you use. You're not part of the clique, period.
If anything, these social media apps further erode one of the most important things that kids should be learning: how to be an individual and be comfortable with standing apart when needed. Self-awareness and self-confidence sure seem to be on the decline and they are critical life skills.
My personal opinion about all this "app banning" talk is that carriers should option an MDM platform to retail customers so that they can have fine-grained and absolute (i.e. survives a device wipe, or better yet, doesn't allow that action from the user) control over devices in their account. My kids are all grown now but if they were young today I'd sure like to have the ability lock down app installation and even set time-of-use rules up on their devices. They could apply to either parent for permission to install an app. If we were OK with it, into the MDM app catalog it goes. Once they're 18, if they don't want to live under MDM rule they'd be free to get their own device and pay for their own service.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah dude, the next generation is a write-off. Anyone brave or stupid enough to have had children should be taking extreme measures to protect them against the intentional hollowing-out of society, if they can. The stupid need not apply.
For stupid people, supporting some patriotic sabre-rattling against a scapegoat is, like, easier. Remember, it's fine for American corporations to sell, digest, lease, and derive products from your digital life. In fact it's great! As long as they don't sell it to them!
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to ban it has probably ensured that TikTok remians a must have app for at least a few more years.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have teen aged kids?
Your experience in that regard is very different than mine as a teen parent.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to, back when Facebook was the "app". As grownups, my offspring have kept social media to closed circles, for the most part.
Interesting story...as they reached "bar age" I asked them to make it a point to keep their phone in their pocket when they were out, either alone or with a group. It took a little time, but they each expressed some wonder at how entertaining the bar/club was when they actually sat back and people-watched or engaged in the real world. And how much easier it was attract people wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re:American Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
The concern is less over handing data to the PRC (they could simply buy it from data brokers) and more about the platform being used to spread disinformation. It's a very real concern but it would be more honest if the loudest anti-TikTok voices were making the same condemnations of Meta, X, etc. A handful are this honest and they should be commended. Sadly, many (most?) are more anti-PRC than anti-disinformation. Some of the loudest anti-TikTok voices have no problems with disinformation that benefits them politically.
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is less over handing data to the PRC (they could simply buy it from data brokers) and more about the platform being used to spread disinformation.
In which case it would be far more worthwhile to ban X - given how Musk decided to eliminate Twitter's moderation team giving free reign to literally any nutjob or troll farm with a keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of adults on tiktok is just as huge, if not more so.
Are you purposing all social media be limited to people over 18? That might be a good solution, though the only way to enforce this would be demanding either an ID or credit card to use a platform. I really dislike the idea of all Internet websites requiring me to upload my ID or credit card information.
Maybe we could develop an API for a universal login service that multiple companies could offer. You prove who you are to one of these services
Re:American Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
A possible solution could be that your ISP would be the login service provider as well, since they already know everything you do
My ISP only knows about me; the person who pays the bill. It knows nothing about the rest of the people in the household, their ages, etc., not to mention guests to our abode. My ISP doesn't do credit or ID checks, so, it doesn't know my age either. Possession of a credit card does not prove someone has attained the age of majority. There are prepaid credit cards. There are debit cards. And you can give a child a credit card in their own name via the authorized user [nerdwallet.com] process.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are valid points, though I bet your ISP could easily figure out a lot more about you by analyzing the data you send over their network.
So this brings us back to basically requiring all platforms to require ID to use them or possibly having a login service that does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Over 18? Nah, just shut them all down hard and be done with it. The social cost is so much higher than the benefits.
I've worked at more than 1 of these social media companies. Their inner workings are even more cynical than most people can imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of political leanings, never underestimate the desire for American parents to have their politicians ban something rather than taking any amount of personal responsibility and being a parent to their own children. Don't let your kids use TikTok, it's that simple! If someone is 18 and wants to use an app that may hand over their data to the Chinese government, that's their own business.
And whose business is it, if a country allows an app from an adversary country which systematically causes (say) a 5% shift in favorability at the election polls for certain topics?
Certainly not a matter of personal responsibility.
I'm not saying that TikTok is actively doing it right now. But it's certainly amassing the userbase to do so should it wants, already has the ML-powered models to do so, is in the pocket enough of the Chinese government that it could be made to should they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Parent here... that is not as easy as it sounds. Some will simply throw you the finger. In that case, TikTok is probably not the battle you want to pick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work, though. All of the most viral crap on TikTok ends up on Instagram and YouTube Shorts. You can't really block it all without going full Luddite and completely blocking access to the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
True. That one small group represents the other 150m conservatives.
Sure (Score:3)
Couldn't hurt
Re: Sure (Score:2)
I support your desire to go to such a place.
Ban (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning TikTok because it's TikTok is missing the point. The problem is their business and data privacy practices. Ban what TikTok is doing in that regard, and have all the US companies follow the same standards as well. Sorry Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
So a data protection law that regulates how data can be stored and handled? Sounds great. Good luck getting our politicians to do such a thing. They are pro business, not pro consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the US social media companies are part of unconstitutional citizen spying programs operated by the NSA. They're not going to do anything that will compromise that, permitting them to retain any and all of your data means they get access to it too.
Sounds like a moral panic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Nothing like that. It is about a hostile foreign power having unfettered access to our children's mushy brains.
Or we could actually make a policy... (Score:2)
None of them are going to be President (Score:2)
I wouldn't get wrapped around the axle by this. They're all competing for the flyover country stupid vote, but they won't even get on a ballot anyway. Most of them couldn't get elected Senator. Trying to make a splash and get headlines, mostly.
Fundamentally it's not about TikTok (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is more cynical. The Republican party is figuring out that its stand on abortion is deeply unpopular with the American populace, but they can't backtrack due to the strong anti-abortion sentiment in a very vocal subset of their base. So they are doing their best to find something - anything - they can hopefully get people outraged over which will (they hope) distract from their stance on abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
When? Every day. They talk about the economy every damned day.
When was the last time you listened to a Republican and didn't get a second hand description of what one said from your favorite progressive woke media?
Have you ever listened to a Republican? Ever?
There's only one GOP presidential candidate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get the feeling he likes any of them enough to make them VP. Probably will pick MTG.
That ends my support for republicans... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
You're a troll but I'll reply anyway because certain things need to be said over n over:
1) companies are not people despite the error of citizens united, they do not have free speech rights
2) democracy is not a suicide pact. We do not have to treat hostile foreign powers and their agents with respect or grant them any rights to influence our children or society in general
Think of the children ... (Score:3)
... is a great cover for thinking of the money. TikTok is doing better with a greater demographic than the big social media platforms. The solution is to build a "think of the children." and "think of the security," excuse to "think of the money."
The binary false choice, accept or ban, is too drastic to make sense. Republicans are supported by American social media companies and are obliged to defend profits. If we actually had a misdirected data stream that affects American security, Congress would be talking to the military - not the American people.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh sure yeah we'd bomb China over TikTok... uh huh.
Or we could just ban n block it.
Or we could do what was actually proposed which is force the sale to an American company so it isn't a tool of the CCP over our kids.
Or my solution is to shut down all social media for being the toxic cesspools they are.
Dumb ideas with dumbest implementation (Score:2)
Guns are a problem, solution we're hung up on: ban a certain style of gun that is behind many of the mass shootings.
Espionage is a problem: ban a particular app becaues the company that owns it has a particular connection with the CCP.
Politicians saying these things should be tarred and feathered, they're unfit to lead and are obviously too dumb to do their jobs. Banning TikTok guarantees only that five other companies, all doing exactly the same bad things will take its place.
If you want to control guns, y
Guns not Information (Score:2)
Major case of hypocrisy (Score:3)
They're basically saying that spyware is bad unless it's ours. Then it's fine. Another case of "do as we say not as we do."
Tik Tok is being used by young people (Score:3)
who overwhelmingly lean Democratic as an organizational and informational tool for political purposes, to spread ideas and actions that are inimical to Republicans and their policies. One example was when Tik Tok users punked a Trump rally in Tulsa in June 2020.
Granted, it's also spyware, and concerns that it could be used as a propaganda tool by the Chinese government are also fair. But that's just a smokescreen for the real reason, which is that Republicans want to shut down a communications tool that's overwhelmingly used by their opposition.
Re:Republican bans (Score:5, Interesting)
The calls to ban are bipartisan and based in concerns that the PRC could use the platform for disinformation. This ain't all that different from what Facebook and friends are enabling. TikTok's connections to the PRC just cut out the middleman.
I don't see how you can ban without running afoul of the 1st Amendment. What COULD be done and frankly SHOULD be done, IMHO, yank Section 230 protections from any platform that uses algorithms to organize content. Make them go back to the crazy concept of simply presenting content in chronological order. Disinformation would still exist, it exists here on /., but it would spread a lot less without the algorithmic hand on the scale.
Influence, not disinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
The calls to ban are bipartisan and based in concerns that the PRC could use the platform for disinformation.
Not quite true.
The concerns are about influence. TikTok can be used to mold and guide opinion and public perception in ways that benefit the goals of the CCP.
Disinformation is certainly one way to do that, but you can also get results by slightly suppressing positive info about one side, and slightly enhancing positive info about the other side.
As an example, we see lots of posts here that "soften" the emotional impact of some of the things that China is doing. People are quick to point out that the Uyghurs in concentration camps have been judged guilty of crimes in a court of law, or reference one study (among dozens) that Covid didn't come from a lab, and so on.
Additionally there are subtle psychological tricks that can be used to mold public opinion, you can check out "Influence" by Robert Cialdini for a good overview. There are lots of psychological tricks one can use, mostly with names and individual Wikipedia pages such as "foot in the door" [wikipedia.org] and Overjustification [wikipedia.org].
I'll outline one obvious one for discussion: People who see a "Vote!" icon are more likely to go out and vote, it's an aspect of priming [wikipedia.org]. If a social media company displays a "Vote!" icon on users with liberal views, it could swing an election. Twitter could do this in a heartbeat, and the effect would be huge, it would probably swing the vote ratio by more than 1%, which would be enough to change almost all the elections here in the US.
The priming effect is huge, non-conscious, and lasts for a long time: priming effects have been measured a full week after the priming incident. Derren Brown made a wonderful video [youtube.com] manipulating the effect in an astonishing way. The graphics artists (from the video) had no clue that this was being done - it was completely non-conscious. (The term "subliminal" means something else, but it's a similar concept.)
Concerns over TikTok are based on influence, not disinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Influence is fair game. Think about it what are we really talking about. We're talking about people choosing to influence each other through culture and media in an effort to bring change. This used to be toted as the civilized alternative to brutality and war. So if those methodologies are now evil, then we need to apply the same ban to all influence. Influencing each other through the sharing of ideas being banned, how can democracy function?
I see no reason why any government in the world should be required to tolerate influence campaigns of hostile foreign actors conducted against their state. While I would hope for maximal tolerance of noise countries have all the right in the world to control their borders. US internal rights and freedoms do not extent globally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Influence, not disinformation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disabling hostile foreign propaganda campaigns is a part of national defense. There is no reason to allow hostile foreign powers free easy access to influence your population. Not in this or ny country. Being a democracy is not a suicide pact.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, that's a good one. I see what you did there!
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the place of a government that claims to value democracy to shape influence.
I strongly disagree, defending against hostile foreign states is very much the "place of government".
Re: (Score:2)
Influence is fair game.
No.
Influence is inevitable. That does not make it fair game. Death is inevitable, but that does not make murder fair game..
Think about it what are we really talking about. We're talking about people choosing to influence each other through culture and media in an effort to bring change. This used to be toted as the civilized alternative to brutality and war. So if those methodologies are now evil, then we need to apply the same ban to all influence. Influencing each other through the sharing of ideas being banned, how can democracy function?
Your post is a good example of the parent's point about "slightly suppressing positive info about one side, and slightly enhancing positive info about the other side". Not false -but disingenuous and biased against the best interests of Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is not a suicide pact. Our government is not required to allow hostile foreign powers to influence or directly talk to our population. No country is.
Re: (Score:3)
Concerns over TikTok are based on influence, not disinformation.
Actually, it's both. You are correct that TikTok can be used -- and is being used --to influence people.
But there is a lot on TikTok (and all other social media) that is just good old fashioned disinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Concerns over TikTok are based on influence, not disinformation.
Actually, it's both. You are correct that TikTok can be used -- and is being used --to influence people. But there is a lot on TikTok (and all other social media) that is just good old fashioned disinformation.
Now do Facebook. Facebook's algorithms work hard to radicalize people. Make clicky clicky, and Facebook serves you up alots of stuff along those lines, and a bit further right or left. If you are vulnerable, it might take you from a bit right of center to storming the capitol building.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut em all down.
The negatives of social media far outweigh the positives.
Re: (Score:2)
Under what legal rationale in the US is such a thing possible? Sure, it's something to shout in the bar when you're drunk, but when sober and logical it's clearly impossible to do legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Because sensible middle of the road viewpoints don't make money as much as radical click bait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Concerns over TikTok are based on influence, not disinformation.
And you're being quite ignorant about that 'influence'. Disinformation is another word for lying. Also known as that shit we've told our kids since birth is not only wrong, but dead wrong.
TikTok has basically zero social value, regardless if it exists within the marketing genre of "social" media, which is quite ironically named given the suicide rate among teenagers these days because of social media 'influence'. The 20th Century offered up a Playboy-level of bullying, while social media offers the XXX h
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, we see lots of posts here that "soften" the emotional impact of some of the things that China is doing. People are quick to point out that the Uyghurs in concentration camps have been judged guilty of crimes in a court of law, or reference one study (among dozens) that Covid didn't come from a lab, and so on.
Hold on, you're lumping together defence of the Uyghur genocide with debunking the lab leak theory?
Additionally there are subtle psychological tricks that can be used to mold public opinion, you can check out "Influence" by Robert Cialdini for a good overview. There are lots of psychological tricks one can use
Such as implying that someone who debunks a conspiracy theory is actually pushing Chinese government propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Slashdot, comrade Xi.
Re: Republican bans (Score:3)
BTW the reason they have a first amendment defense hovering over them is the Trump Administration tried to take them down over a prank they pulled at one of Trump's rallies. Had they shown a lil restraint Tik-Tok might not be in operation right now, or at the very least the data collection issues might be addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since Snowden, the US has lost a lot of respect in that field.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have someone call you to discuss how you can further help with our goals? We need more Europeans to spread the word to break free of their USA shackles.
Re: (Score:2)
Red herring.
This isn't about spying. It is about a hostile foreign power influencing our children in their favor to the children's detriment.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how you can ban without running afoul of the 1st Amendment.
I'm not aware of anything in the 1st Amendment, or anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, which says that a foreign company can operate in the U.S. and there's nothing we can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The calls to ban are bipartisan and based in concerns that the PRC could use the platform for disinformation. This ain't all that different from what Facebook and friends are enabling. TikTok's connections to the PRC just cut out the middleman.
I don't see how you can ban without running afoul of the 1st Amendment. What COULD be done and frankly SHOULD be done, IMHO, yank Section 230 protections from any platform that uses algorithms to organize content. Make them go back to the crazy concept of simply presenting content in chronological order. Disinformation would still exist, it exists here on /., but it would spread a lot less without the algorithmic hand on the scale.
It's kinda rich to watch Ramaswamy call for TikTok to be banned, yet when Ukraine bans branches of the Orthodox Church for being allied with the country actually invading it's borders he says Ukraine isn't a Democracy [spzh.news]. Btw, I was shocked at how enraging it was to watch that smug little prick propose giving Russian all the lands it occupied in return for exiting its non-existent military alliance with China (if they had that alliance why are they buying arms from North Korea?).
Oh, and that's the same idiot w
Re: (Score:2)
It's a weird party to be sure. There's no real effective party leadership that tries to get everyone on the same party platform or even hold them to a loose set of ideals. Instead anything goes, and liars are ok as they get ahead. Santos was just following the mood that had already been set. The fact that this bozo gets listened to with seriousness by some people feels like a fluke, but then you look around and see so many other clowns in that posse with insane ideas. The less insane the candidate is the
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, yank Section 230 protections from any platform that uses algorithms to organize content. Make them go back to the crazy concept of simply presenting content in chronological order.
Presenting content in chronological order is an algorithm. You need to reword the way you state your idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Republican bans (Score:5, Insightful)
/. doesn't curate content with an algorithm. You set your display threshold and you see posts chronologically that fall within that threshold. My proposal is Section 230 should not apply to platforms that use algorithms to curate content because those platforms are not neutral publishers of information. They ceased to be such when they decided to control what their users would see.
An analogy, the New York Times runs a classified ad amongst the rest of the classified ads saying I am a pedophile. My issue is with the person who paid for that ad, not the Times. Now let us imagine the Times published that ad on the front page in 48 point type because they know it's highly inflammatory and will drive further sales of their paper. That's not the neutral publication of user created content. It's editorializing. I absolutely have a case for defamation against them now.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you wouldnt have an issue with a publication that printed slander about you? Whether it's in ad space or not is irrelevant, they'd still be printing unverified slander (assuming you're not really a child molester :) )
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If by content we mean to include the comments, then they are using an algorithm to curate content. Partly that is because they have staff moderators. You may set the threshold, but they can affect which comments are moderated up or down.
The other part of their moderation is meta-moderation. In Slashdot's system users who have been around a long time and have high "karma" scores are given the power to meta-moderate. I recently discovered that I have meta-moderating ability, but I don't really understand
Re: (Score:2)
Meta moderation is rating the moderation..
If we agree with the moderation as applied, it increases the likelihood of the moderator getting future moderation points.
If we disagree with the moderation as applied, we decrease the likelihood of the moderator getting chosen to moderate in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
My proposal is Section 230 should not apply to platforms that use algorithms to curate content because those platforms are not neutral publishers of information.
Section 230 has no requirement that publishers remain neutral. It was written (according to it's authors) to encourage sites to curate and block content that was inappropriate or offensive by shielding them from legal action based on their attempts to do so.
Re: Republican bans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And banning the protected political speech millions of people at the direct request of the government is perfectly OK, then? NOT an "authoritarian takeover?" LOL. You people blow my fucking mind with your rationalizations.
Re: (Score:2)
And banning the protected political speech millions of people at the direct request of the government is perfectly OK, then?
Sure is [imgur.com]. Because . . . reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, rationalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk should grow some balls and stand up for something other than profits. Tell Turkey to buzz off instead of kissing Erdogan's ass.
Re:Republican bans (Score:4, Funny)
"WTF is with these Republican bans? Banning books, banning web sites"
It's because they're passionate about freedom & personal responsibility
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahahahaha
Re: (Score:2)
I was especially amused when the Bible got banned from school libraries in one district because a few people demanded the same rules apply to it as conservative Republican Christians applied to other books that mentioned the gays.
When these people say they're passionate about freedom, they mean their freedom, not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if you applied standards uniformly you could get the bible banned in most schools for general smut, never mind homosexuality.
Re: (Score:2)
" when the Bible got banned from school libraries in one district because a few people demanded the same rules apply to it "
They're not wrong. An uncensored Bible is more inappropriate for pre-adolescents than a picture book about 2 males penguins parenting, especially if it includes the Apocrypha but even the better known books are replete with sex & violence.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously expect that most of these hardcore evangelicals don't often read their Bible except for select and approved versions. There are reports that some have been upset at preachers for teaching liberal concepts like loving your neighbor. https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08... [npr.org]
Sometimes the theology is just all messed up too. Trump was anointed by God, proof being that he got elected and therefore it was God's will through micromanaging the voters. Biden gets elected and clearly Satan is corrupting the s
Re: (Score:2)
No different than Elvis shaking his hips on tv in the 1950s.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the so called "book bans" that people talk about today are not "book bans" at all.
They are mostly calls to not use some books in public K-12 school curriculum or include them in public school library collections and, occasionally, in public libraries - at least in children's/YA sections.
If these calls were were to be granted, private schools would still be free to include them in their curriculum and libraries. They would still be available for purchase by anyone - including minors - if the retailer
Re: (Score:2)
It's called pandering to the voters, even if it means not being a leader. A real leader would know the facts and inform the voters if they were wrong. But the style is to say whatever you think the voters want to hear, no matter how silly it is. Thus all the people still firmly believing that a border wall will make a difference.
This rings of the old communist scare. A hollywood star or personality that might have leanings towards the left - ban them! Same silliness as those who thought JFK should be d
Re: Republican bans (Score:2)
Jail time for books being in a library. It is forcing people to quit because it's a fascist sledgehammer and not a fly-swatter.
Spare us your inevitable soap-box speech about how righteous you are, that's not how to handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
You ignored what he said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently to these knuckleheads, showing anatomical diagrams, especially ones that show genitals, are porn
Re: (Score:2)
Your link doesn't say that at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. CU was a *horrible* ruling we pay for every single day.
The sooner it gets overturned the better.
And no, corporations are not people.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure along with msnbc, cnn, vox, NYT, cst, wapo and lat.
Oh wait none of the things either of us listed are social media. But we can get rid of FB, Twitter and the rest of the companies in their industry.