US lawmakers introduce bill to ban TikTok

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, their lives are much more precarious than ours so they probably will have more mental health issues. The example you gave (young guy worried about losing his job) kind of supports that.

I'm going to take a stab and say you're early/mid 30s (based on you working with people ten years younger)? I'm 41 and my life is so much more stable and secure than that of a 25 year old (and it was at 25 too, because I'd already been able to buy a house because you could do that then and I wasn't living one grumpy landlord away from homelessness).

39 actually. When I was 10-15 years younger and life was more precarious (just due to having less work history/experience), I never had mental issues about getting fired nor do I recall any friends having panic attacks besides really just one that had/has mental issues. Another guy at work that now left for another job would have his heart rate or blood pressure or both get high when he couldn't figure out some IT issue. He's also on medicine for ADD. It's all about being in the wrong mental state, just step back and work through the problem. Same thing with the guy that had a panic attack over getting fired, just step back and think it out how this other guy did this way worse thing than you and he totally didn't get fired so why'd you get panicked over it if you just logically think things through.

OK, but the content issue is not related to this bill.

I do tend to try to avoid apps/programs with shady data-harvesting red flags. I refused to get the UK government's promoted "contact tracing" app, for instance, because they handed the contract to an unqualified mate of theirs, and the Tory party had very recently been shown to be involved with shady data harvesters during the EU Referendum.

I'm just for the banning of TikTok because it's just really bad for people. I don't really care what excuse the bill is making to do that, though I don't really disagree with the Chinese reasoning to ban it either.

Which is precisely why I am not bothering to be up in arms about this despite it being a clear violation of First Amendment rights. It's not going to go anywhere and that's obvious, so why get upset about it?

Why is it a violation of the 1st Amendment?

The government telling what is allowed and not allowed on stuff like Facebook and Twitter are 1st Amendment violations.

I honestly don't get the point to tictoc when youtube exists. Is it liked because it's easier to record a video on it with your phone or what? I can only see it being liked if you are someone who is new at having access to the internet and just never used any website before, and also doesn't have a pc but just a phone, and in that sense I guess I can see why some would gravitate towards it. All it is is a more limited and less feature-rich version of youtube. In china where a lot of people are super poor and only have phones but no computer or internet lines it can flourish but here I don't see why you wouldn't just go to youtube.

But yeah all that aside you obviously wouldn't wanna ban it, that's idiotic.

TikTok causes tons of mental health problems.

I can say that the US is better than China. Does not mean they are good here

I don't want the CCP to be in control of Tiktok. I think it's a terrible idea. I dont want it to go to the US either so the GOP or DNC can get their hands on it. They fail their own country regularly and have their finger on the invasion trigger all the time. They will literally make up evidence to invade/assassinate presidents

The problem with China is that the government has so much control so it doesn't matter who (if it's a "private" Chinese company) owns/runs the software, the government can go to the company and the company is forced to give over or do whatever the government wants. If your data goes through a Chinese server, the government has access to it if they want it.

 

[Baffle]

39 actually. When I was 10-15 years younger and life was more precarious (just due to having less work history/experience), I never had mental issues about getting fired nor do I recall any friends having panic attacks besides really just one that had/has mental issues. Another guy at work that now left for another job would have his heart rate or blood pressure or both get high when he couldn't figure out some IT issue. He's also on medicine for ADD. It's all about being in the wrong mental state, just step back and work through the problem. Same thing with the guy that had a panic attack over getting fired, just step back and think it out how this other guy did this way worse thing than you and he totally didn't get fired so why'd you get panicked over it if you just logically think things through.

I can't speak for your life experience obviously, but what I mean is that at 25 my life was much more precarious than it is now, but not as much as a current-day 25-year-old. Things have changed a lot (i.e. gotten worse) housing- and employment-wise in that time. And whether I was having mental health problems (that I wouldn't have described that way at the time) would depend on how you looked at it. Certainly I would go weeks without sleeping properly because my job was so awful and I had to deal with unbelieveable tossers all the time and I just felt completely fucking trapped. And my precarity meant I couldn't tell people to just get fucked so I had to forge on with shit sleep, huge stress and terrible money. And now it's worse (for young people, not me).

I don't strictly disagree that TikTok is harmful for mental health, I think all social media is to a degree. Seeing how big the gap between the haves and the have-nots is isn't good for the have-nots. It's not aspirational, it's demoralising. Arguing all the time with strangers isn't good. Getting wrapped up in misinformation and radicalisation isn't good. Just getting plain fucking obsessed with stuff you can't do anything about isn't any good. I don't care if they ban TikTok specifically, but the mental health angle applies to all social media. Ban Twitter, ban Facebook, no comment sections on YouTube or news articles. Just fucking ban all of it, go live in the forest and whittle little stick effigies (prob, a tutorial on YouTube).

But if you've got ADD you've got ADD. Like, that's not TikTok's fault.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm just for the banning of TikTok because it's just really bad for people. I don't really care what excuse the bill is making to do that, though I don't really disagree with the Chinese reasoning to ban it either.

So you don't actually care about legality, consistency, etc. Good to know. The impact of Tiktok on wellbeing has nothing to do with the suit, as you know.

Why is it a violation of the 1st Amendment?

The government telling what is allowed and not allowed on stuff like Facebook and Twitter are 1st Amendment violations.

No, they're not. The 1st Amendment doesn't cover private company Ts and Cs. This has already been extensively covered in court.

 

[Dreiko]

TikTok causes tons of mental health problems.

Sure, tons of cool stuff do that. It's people's responsibility to man up and tough it out or to abstain. If we started banning things because they have a potential to cause mental illness we'd have to ban everything fun. And also theater.

 

[Chimpzy]

Damn Elvis and his gyrating hips corrupting the youth.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I can't speak for your life experience obviously, but what I mean is that at 25 my life was much more precarious than it is now, but not as much as a current-day 25-year-old. Things have changed a lot (i.e. gotten worse) housing- and employment-wise in that time. And whether I was having mental health problems (that I wouldn't have described that way at the time) would depend on how you looked at it. Certainly I would go weeks without sleeping properly because my job was so awful and I had to deal with unbelieveable tossers all the time and I just felt completely fucking trapped. And my precarity meant I couldn't tell people to just get fucked so I had to forge on with shit sleep, huge stress and terrible money. And now it's worse (for young people, not me).

I don't strictly disagree that TikTok is harmful for mental health, I think all social media is to a degree. Seeing how big the gap between the haves and the have-nots is isn't good for the have-nots. It's not aspirational, it's demoralising. Arguing all the time with strangers isn't good. Getting wrapped up in misinformation and radicalisation isn't good. Just getting plain fucking obsessed with stuff you can't do anything about isn't any good. I don't care if they ban TikTok specifically, but the mental health angle applies to all social media. Ban Twitter, ban Facebook, no comment sections on YouTube or news articles. Just fucking ban all of it, go live in the forest and whittle little stick effigies (prob, a tutorial on YouTube).

But if you've got ADD you've got ADD. Like, that's not TikTok's fault.

Jobs are a lot easier to find and get now, everyone is paying like at least $15/hour and everyone seems to be hiring. I couldn't care less about getting fired now because I can just go to Target and make a few bucks less an hour, still plenty to survive and pay everything. Problem with housing is so many people look to rent when you can own for less than it costs to rent. My condo costs less per month than an apartment of it's size to rent and I own it so I can sell and make money back unlike an apartment. It has gotten more expensive to buy because the interest rate is so jacked up for no reason, though that has happened very recently.

TikTok just really has so little legitimate value. At least on Facebook, you can use it to plan an event and stuff and actually use it to keep in touch with friends/family that aren't local. TikTok is just super short videos with a comments section I believe (as I've never used TikTok myself). I wasn't implying TikTok caused the co-workers ADD, just an example of so many young people with mental issues that I never seen with my age group growing up. Whatever medicine he was taking made him so much worse it wasn't even funny.

So you don't actually care about legality, consistency, etc. Good to know. The impact of Tiktok on wellbeing has nothing to do with the suit, as you know.



No, they're not. The 1st Amendment doesn't cover private company Ts and Cs. This has already been extensively covered in court.

I'm aware but also said it's a good idea to ban Chinese software though.

I'm aware that it's not technically a 1st amendment violation but it really needs to be. The government shouldn't be going to public forum tech companies and even requesting anything be banned. The government controls a lot of things and companies will be obliged to agree to stuff because the government can make it a lot harder and costly for them to operate. The things you weren't allowed to say the last 2 or so years was beyond ridiculous.

Sure, tons of cool stuff do that. It's people's responsibility to man up and tough it out or to abstain. If we started banning things because they have a potential to cause mental illness we'd have to ban everything fun. And also theater.

We do the same stuff for physical harms yet nobody is required to walk around in bubble wrap.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

 

[Silvanus]

I'm aware but also said it's a good idea to ban Chinese software though.

Because of security (or data harvesting) concerns or because of user welfare?

I'm aware that it's not technically a 1st amendment violation but it really needs to be. The government shouldn't be going to public forum tech companies and even requesting anything be banned. The government controls a lot of things and companies will be obliged to agree to stuff because the government can make it a lot harder and costly for them to operate. The things you weren't allowed to say the last 2 or so years was beyond ridiculous.

Except you were allowed to say them. You just also had to accept the direct consequences.

 

[Gergar12]

Bro if you're not planning on running for office, or in a national security-related job. No one cares about your data.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because of security (or data harvesting) concerns or because of user welfare?



Except you were allowed to say them. You just also had to accept the direct consequences.

Both. And it's not really the data harvesting part either.

No you weren't. Tons of very well respected doctors weren't allowed to say things in the "public forum". Same thing happened on other places than just say Twitter or Facebook or Reddit, but much small sites and forums as well. DeSantis' video talking with very respected doctors from the very best colleges was removed off of Youtube.

Bro if you're not planning on running for office, or in a national security-related job. No one cares about your data.

It's not all about the data. Don't you understand how much influence you have over people if you control the content/information they are being fed?

 

[Silvanus]

Both. And it's not really the data harvesting part either.

So just user welfare?

Why not apply the same approach to the shitty, welfare-abusing apps developed in the US and UK (and to a lesser extent Europe) then?

No you weren't. Tons of very well respected doctors weren't allowed to say things in the "public forum". Same thing happened on other places than just say Twitter or Facebook or Reddit, but much small sites and forums as well. DeSantis' video talking with very respected doctors from the very best colleges was removed off of Youtube.

Ah, so they just weren't given a big platform.

That's not the same thing.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Damn Elvis and his gyrating hips corrupting the youth.

They'll start listening to Negro Music next, mark my words.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So just user welfare?

Why not apply the same approach to the shitty, welfare-abusing apps developed in the US and UK (and to a lesser extent Europe) then?



Ah, so they just weren't given a big platform.

That's not the same thing.

I'm always for doing stuff on a case-by-case basis. Do these other welfare abusing apps have legit function and how much do they actually abuse people's welfare? We allow tons of things that abuse welfare, there's usually a certain line where anything past that isn't allowed. At least Twitter (even though it sucks) has some legit functions to it, not so with TikTok. TikTok also gives a foreign government the ability to push selected content to the population unlike Facebook.

You do realize that if Twitter was owned and run by the government, what happened would be a legit 100% 1st amendment violation, right? You don't see any issue in the government being able to basically do a reach-around of the 1st amendment? Stuff like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc are today's public forums, that's where public discourse is at. A third party candidate isn't going to be able to win an election if they don't get news coverage, aren't allowed on debates, etc. Just because they can technically spread a message via other means doesn't make them part of the real public discourse for that election.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm always for doing stuff on a case-by-case basis. Do these other welfare abusing apps have legit function and how much do they actually abuse people's welfare? We allow tons of things that abuse welfare, there's usually a certain line where anything past that isn't allowed. At least Twitter (even though it sucks) has some legit functions to it, not so with TikTok. TikTok also gives a foreign government the ability to push selected content to the population unlike Facebook.

But you didn't say you wanted to do "case by case" before. You said you justed wanted to address apps from China.

Why the difference in approach depending on where its made, if your sole concern is welfare?

You do realize that if Twitter was owned and run by the government, what happened would be a legit 100% 1st amendment violation, right?

Yes, obviously. The law very clearly holds different requirements for government bodies and private corps.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

But you didn't say you wanted to do "case by case" before. You said you justed wanted to address apps from China.

Why the difference in approach depending on where its made, if your sole concern is welfare?



Yes, obviously. The law very clearly holds different requirements for government bodies and private corps.

Chinese software has unique issues to it that if you find said issues a reason to ban one software, you have to apply it to most other software too. Apps from US and UK that you mentioned don't have said issue. My sole concern isn't welfare, it just happens to be the main issue with TikTok. If China or any other country can control a content feed to your population, you think they are going to control it in a way that's positive for a foreign country's population? Welfare is a part of the China aspect as well.

And a government influencing what can be said on a private company's platform is ok in your world? Like I said, it's probably not a legal 1st amendment violation (there are cases concerning it though) but it is a violation of the 1st amendment in essence. If Twitter themselves wants to ban certain speech, then that's perfectly in their right on their platform, but that's not how this went down. With how big and important these platforms have become for public speech, the government should buy them out and run them (or at least have some share in them) so all the rights must be applied to these platforms.

 

[Buyetyen]

And a government influencing what can be said on a private company's platform is ok in your world?

As it turns out, using a public platform to send things like death threats (just for the sake of example) is still a felony. That government criminalization certainly has influenced most social media companies to ban threatening speech from their platforms. Let's be real: in any market, the government is the one setting the terms.

If Twitter themselves wants to ban certain speech, then that's perfectly in their right on their platform, but that's not how this went down. With how big and important these platforms have become for public speech, the government should buy them out and run them (or at least have some share in them) so all the rights must be applied to these platforms.

So you believe that these private companies should be publicly owned? Na zdrovye, comrade!

Jokes aside, I'm not sure you understand what you're asking for here.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

As it turns out, using a public platform to send things like death threats (just for the sake of example) is still a felony. That government criminalization certainly has influenced most social media companies to ban threatening speech from their platforms. Let's be real: in any market, the government is the one setting the terms.



So you believe that these private companies should be publicly owned? Na zdrovye, comrade!

Jokes aside, I'm not sure you understand what you're asking for here.

In what situation do you have to make a death threat to convey your position or your idea on a topic?

You guys can't get it through your heads that I'm very progressive. I'm fully aware of what I'm saying. I'm for any essential good/product or service to be publicly or state run and don't believe such things should be run in a for-profit manner. I'm fully on board for basically copy-pasting a very very very large percentage of say Sweden or Denmark (and a few other countries) policies straight over to the US. The reason I don't like democrats is because they won't do that.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You guys can't get it through your heads that I'm very progressive. I'm fully aware of what I'm saying. I'm for any essential good/product or service to be publicly or state run and don't believe such things should be run in a for-profit manner. I'm fully on board for basically copy-pasting a very very very large percentage of say Sweden or Denmark (and a few other countries) policies straight over to the US. The reason I don't like democrats is because they won't do that.

That just makes you some flavor of a socialist. That doesn't mean you're progressive, especially when you have a hard on for Sweden and Denmark's conservative positions.

 

[Buyetyen]

In what situation do you have to make a death threat to convey your position or your idea on a topic?

Ask the people who send death threats, not me.

You guys can't get it through your heads that I'm very progressive. I'm fully aware of what I'm saying. I'm for any essential good/product or service to be publicly or state run and don't believe such things should be run in a for-profit manner. I'm fully on board for basically copy-pasting a very very very large percentage of say Sweden or Denmark (and a few other countries) policies straight over to the US. The reason I don't like democrats is because they won't do that.

More accurate to say you support some progressive positions that would benefit you directly. Which makes you not so much progressive as just self-interested.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That just makes you some flavor of a socialist. That doesn't mean you're progressive, especially when you have a hard on for Sweden and Denmark's conservative positions.

Not a socialist at all... Those countries I refer to are more capitalist than America...

What Swedish and Denmark conservative positions do I have a hard on for?

Ask the people who send death threats, not me.



More accurate to say you support some progressive positions that would benefit you directly. Which makes you not so much progressive as just self-interested.

What ideas can't they convey if you limit their speech to not include death threats?

Seriously what the fuck are you on? Unless I'm in like the top 1% of course progressive policies will benefit me. I can say the same exact for you and probably everyone here that's for progressive policy (because chances are very slim to impossible that this forum is composed primarily of elites). Are you able to actually have a discussion with someone other than trying to one-up them? It's like you would hear someone say they like something you like and instantly be the douche type person who goes "well, I liked it before it was popular."