| CURRENT EVENTS Thoughts on Congress voting to "ban Tic-Tok?"
- Thread starter TerryP
- Start date
TerryP
Staff
That would be 98 of 100. I don't look at the government in China as communist: I do see where the confusion comes from. SME (Socialist Market Economy) was bantered about a lot when I was in Pol-Sci classes and I still don't agree with that wholeheartedly.
There's private ownership. That's not communism.
There's government owned and operated enterprises. That's not capitalism and since socialism is community based its eliminated.
In my view of history, things changed a lot after Mao. They realized that form of "government" wouldn't work.
Xi Jinping is known to look up to Stalin. A lot of their policies are rooted in Marxism: the founder of a Communist party. There's Leninism there as well.
All of these political belief systems have been pigeonholed into "Communism." In reality it no more "communist" than Ukraine is democratic.
Think about it for a second: how many different types of governments can people attach a title to with China? Dictator works. Authoritarian. Tyrannical.
On another note, this is why I hate "group think." The tendency to label every person R or D, the habitual use of umbrella's to cover a group of individuals.
ElephantStomp
Member
What the government failed to enlighten the American people about during their “this is for national security” diatribe is that Tik Tok has several American investors in the ownership group…..so the government is saying “we don’t trust the American owners anymore than we do the Asian owners”, there isn’t one single Chinese investor in the ownership group
TerryP
Staff
The last I read 60% was owned by International investors, 20% was owned by employees (which includes several thousand Americans) and 20% was owned by the Chinese co-founders.
TicTok confirmed this with Politico.
It's a tangled web with ByteDance. About a year ago when this was in Congress for one of the first times the AP reported that the company was based in Beijing. True. But it's registered in the Cayman Islands. It also has headquarters in LA as well as Singapore.
I remember the Carlyle Group represents some of the US investment. I know there's another one...can't think of the name (other than it sounds like a law firm.)
ElephantStomp
Member
And 3 out of 5 board seats are taken by Americans.
General Atlantic and Susquehanna International group are the other investors.
TerryP
Staff
There's one "talking point" that's caught my attention. It's a choice.
Would you rather have TicTok, X, and Meta or just have X and Meta?
When it comes to censoring content we could misspell Zuck with Cuck and we wouldn't be wrong.
While I agree there is content on TicTok I don't want kids exposed to that's no different than the other two. However, I do see a problem for political groups to have any sway on the content of TicTok: a good thing in my opinion.
ElephantStomp
Member
The political groups not having sway is the key reason for this bullshit overreach.
TerryP
Staff
The Murthy vs Missouri goes to show how far this has progressed. When we have members of SCOTUS voicing concerns with the interpretation of the First Amendment because it's "hamstringing the government in significant ways?" Members of SCOTUS.
In itself I'm not "riled" up about the questions: they were what I'd call tame given the context.
It does get to the core here. The government doesn't have the right to punish people for speech (though we are seeing that happen.) Does it have the right to persuade platforms to remove content?
IN a controlled context, I'd say yes. Free market. However ...control, and the action of government officials ... yeah, oxymoron.
Illegal content??? Yes!!!
The Murthy vs Missouri goes to show how far this has progressed. When we have members of SCOTUS voicing concerns with the interpretation of the First Amendment because it's "hamstringing the government in significant ways?" Members of SCOTUS.
In itself I'm not "riled" up about the questions: they were what I'd call tame given the context.
It does get to the core here. The government doesn't have the right to punish people for speech (though we are seeing that happen.) Does it have the right to persuade platforms to remove content?
IN a controlled context, I'd say yes. Free market. However ...control, and the action of government officials ... yeah, oxymoron.
physical threats against persons???? Yes!!!
Not much else,
TerryP
Staff
Those should be handled by the platform; no need for government involvement.
Your right….
TerryP
Staff
TerryP
Staff
Here's something I found funny in its own peculiar way.
The House is elected to represent the people.
One concern is how TicTok will brainwash people into certain beliefs.
81% of the House voted to ban TicTok.
I don't see the success rate for brainwashing here.
Couldn’t think of a better place for this opinion rant. Is Trump taking his network public?
ElephantStomp
Member
Voting for another speaker is going to help sink them is my hope
24and7
Member
They all need to be throw out.. they are all just actors..
RTB Twitter Bot
Member
TerryP
Staff
I don't expect ByteDance will actually sell in this ninth month span. I don't see how this doesn't go through several appellate processes and probably ends up before SCOTUS before all is said and done.
It's crazy how this story has changed since the original post.
Here's the lesson you should have learned. TicToc is dangerous because a government wants to get your private information without you knowing about it. Thankfully, the group that just approved the same against US citizens is on top of this.
April, 2025, is this a dead issue until the mid-terms?
It's crazy how this story has changed since the original post.
Here's the lesson you should have learned. TicToc is dangerous because a government wants to get your private information without you knowing about it. Thankfully, the group that just approved the same against US citizens is on top of this.
April, 2025, is this a dead issue until the mid-terms?
