It was a Democrat caught stating the obvious, not a Republican caught admitting the obvious.
Anyone else feel like the article really didn't want to mention that part?
charonn0
joined 2 years ago
We’ve been covering many stories about a potential TikTok ban, including how unconstitutional it clearly is, how pointless it clearly is, and how even those who back it don’t seem to have a good explanation of why, beyond some vague handwaving about “China.”
The bill isn't nearly as bad as they want you to think. It bans companies in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from operating social media apps in US markets, forcing them to sell if they already do. These four countries are already restricted from accessing sensitive parts of the US economy, with forced sale being a legal option. Really, the only novel part of the bill is applying these kinds of restrictions to software.
And the bill doesn't actually punish or restrain users' speech. It does restrain the social media company's speech, but that may not be enough to overturn the bill on 1st amendment grounds. If you understand that social media exists to collect vast amounts of user data then you must also understand how the government has a legitimate interest in keeping that data out of an adversary's hands. The only real question is whether the government has a compelling interest, because that's the standard that a court would apply to this bill. And I daresay it might.
I can only hope that the DOJ is investigating her for corruption.
Abort, Retry, Fail?
Abort, Retry, Fail?
Perhaps. But that's several leaps of faith away from anything we can know.
According to the best current understanding of physics, atoms didn't come into existence until several hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. That would seem to rule out an atom-based creator.
I thought it was suspicious that the article doesn't mention anything about what he's been charged with. So I looked him up. Seems he made a lot of money from running a major hacking forum that traded in stolen credentials, credit card fraud, and other online crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaidForums
OK, one more response.
"Obviously not" refers to your question about whether being a hypocrite is irrelevant. It's obviously not irrelevant. You know this; the question wasn't even sincere. You're just being antagonistic for antagonism's sake. Hence your faux concern about whether I'm having a bad day, etc. You're not even trying to have a discussion; you're looking for a fight.
I think there's definitely a case to be made that recommendation algorithms, etc. constitute editorial control and thus the platform may not be immune to lawsuits based on user posts.