[cscurmudgeon]

Do you think the govt. has zero responsibility in the welfare of our nation's children?

If a foreign adversary attacks, can parents alone protect their children?

Let me get this clear:

1. you don't want govt to act for children because "parents", 2. you don't want govt to act for adults because they are "rational".

[hellojesus]

> 1. you don't want govt to act for children because "parents"

> 2. you don't want govt to act for adults because they are "rational".

Yes. This is absolutely correct from my perspective. Parents have agency over their children. They are there to guide or, if necessary, inact tyrannical laws.

Adults have agency. Nobody is a victim of TikTok involuntarily. Adults are making a choice to use it or allow their children to use it.

From what exactly is the government saving US citizens by banning TikTok from the app store, or more generally? And how can we be sure that this banning power won't expand over time?

[cscurmudgeon]

By your logic, we should remove all regulations?

(As parents can have agency over children and adults have agency)

> From what exactly is the government saving US citizens by banning TikTok from the app store, or more generally

The CCP accessing their data. The CCP pushing propaganda by silently altering the recommendations.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin/2023/07/26/tiktok-ch...

[hellojesus]

> The CCP accessing their data. The CCP pushing propaganda by silently altering the recommendations.

But I contest that people are freely and knowingly giving that data to the CCP. It's been a common topic for years at this point.

The US government isn't saving their citizens from the CCP. They just don't want the CCP to have the data that Americans want to give them.

Regarding propaganda, it's obvious that it's content Americans want. They would leave the platform if they didn't.

[cscurmudgeon]

> But I contest that people are freely and knowingly giving that data to the CCP

I contest otherwise. Even if that is the case, how does that prevent the govt from acting correctly or morally?

People would love to pay no taxes, should the govt then tax no one? What kind of logic is that?

> The US government isn't saving their citizens from the CCP. They just don't want the CCP to have the data that Americans want to give them.

Strawman argument. Once again it is not just data! It is an oppressive foreign adversary that can push harmful propaganda. And has done so as pointed above!

> Regarding propaganda, it's obvious that it's content Americans want. They would leave the platform if they didn't.

Not all Americans. Americans want to ban TikTok. Thats who democracy works. The house has proportional representation.

> it's obvious that it's content Americans want

Nope, it is not obvious at all. In fact, the other way is more obvious given the majority (352-65-1) with which this passed in the House. It is obvious Americans want TikTok banned or divested from China.

(You may be unfamiliar with democracy and how it works, if so, my apologies.)

[hellojesus]

> I contest otherwise. Even if that is the case, how does that prevent the govt from acting correctly or morally?

The govt already acts profoundly immorally. Social security is unconstitutional! My view of the government is that it exists to enrich itself, regardless of morals. While this legislation is narrowly worded, which I appreciate, it still goes so far as to prohibit a voluntary transaction. To me that is immoral.

> Not all Americans. Americans want to ban TikTok.

The Americans that want to ban TikTok aren't trying to ban it because they don't like the content. If that was the case, they could simply not use it. Instead they want to ban it because they don't like others using it, and that is categorically different.

> Democracy

I do understood how democracy works, especially federalism. This does fall under the purview of the commerce clause as it has often been interpreted by the Supreme Court, so I fully expect it to withstand legal challenges. I just think it's bad policy and hypothesize the precedent is what's needed to push for more and more.

Thank you for your response. We disagree, and that's okay.