[JumpCrisscross]

> since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products

Big Tech aren’t Chinese. There is no public coalition civically engaged against Big Tech’s surveillance. There is a solid bloc concerned about China.

If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote).

[dylan604]

> If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote).

But the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work. It is the absolute ultimate anti-democratic tool I have ever seen.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work

Sure, but they have the right to self select out of the civic process (as well as to hear and repeat such things). I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked; the speech still has a right to the light of day.

[falcolas]

> I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked

Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up? There are a lot of catchall clauses built into the bill which could easily cover the website as well.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Do we have anything other than "it wasn't explicitly called out in the bill" to back this up

The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera. The closest thing that could happen is the domain is seized and it winds up behind TikTok.cn.

[falcolas]

> The specificity of the enforcement language, the First Amendment, how Trump’s attempts floundered, et cetera

All of which can be argued for the app as well. Frankly, I'd want something a bit more specific. Especially since the government has used vague laws and language to quite effectively nuke specific websites before.

The thing that could happen is TikTok being findable only at 205.251.194.210 or its ipv6 equivalent.

[dylan604]

TIL tiktok.com was a thing. I had assumed it was app only. <shrug>

[phendrenad2]

Would you support regulating or banning a conspiracy theory website, hosted in AWS US East 2?

[dylan604]

I don't like the content, but I would NOT support banning it.

To me, there are things that a fun to play what if with for entertainment purposes and hanging out while puff-puff-passing, but only if there's a strong link to reality with the individual reading it. For those without that link and they conspiracy seems tangible that they accept that as their reality it is no longer entertainment.

With the dumbing down of critical thinking in education, things that get pushed on the interwebs become much more accepted as normal instead of being able to say maybe someone is pushing an agenda instead. The ability of someone being a shill and not know it is just a sad state of affairs.

[phendrenad2]

So you'd support censorship if enough people took it seriously. It's a good thing the government has never lied and said something was a conspiracy theory when it was actually true. What was that guy's name? Snedword Owden?