charonn0

joined 2 years ago
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago

When in doubt, shut up.

The best way to make money in Vegas is to sell light bulbs.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What a hyperbolic, heavy-handed headline.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn't address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.

The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This part:

a desperate attempt to keep young people from discussing Joes pet genocide where they can’t be censored by the us govt.

suggests that users are being censored by the US government. Doesn't it?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired

That would be a very different kind of law from the one we're talking about.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago

It's almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

What do you mean?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

I've seen that too. But they're mistaken. "Censoring the internet" is not what this law does. That's hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.

Don't misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They could use their advertising platform to manipulate US public opinion and elections. And, again, this isn't to say it's fine for domestic companies to do this. But that's no argument against this law. In fact, I daresay the "gamer-to-far-right-radical pipeline" you identify is an example of this.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No, of course it's not fine.

But if it's not fine for domestic social media apps to do it, then it's even worse for a foreign adversary to do it. Right?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Which Tittok users has the US government censored?

view more: ‹ prev next ›