[SOTGO]

I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps). If America is opposed to the way China handles social media then we shouldn't seek to emulate them

[Supermancho]

> I think they're trying to say that you don't respond to bad behavior (China banning apps) with your own bad behavior (US banning apps).

This presumes an assumption. I don't consider the banning as a lever for ensuring US controls Tiktok as bad behavior. America has a vested interest in snooping on and having direct control over popular mediums of communication. Giving Chinese ownership access to the methods used (like the physical devices, et al), is a security issue. It's a cold war game that seems a little sophisticated for this day and age (somehow). The lack of understanding explains a lot of these wandering conversation about tangents.

[Gormo]

> America has a vested interest in snooping on and having direct control over popular mediums of communication.

So this is the sort of statement that needs to be whacked a couple of times with a rolled-up newspaper.

The US government does not have a vested interest in doing things expressly prohibited to it by its own constitution.

[Supermancho]

Interest and action are separate. There was interest, so action was taken. Was the mechanism controversial? The mechanism, a law passed by the legislative body and upheld by the court seems like any other law. That's the qualifier in the US Constitution to know if it is constitutional or not.

Don't whack me, it won't change my beliefs.