[troyvit]

I think we're disagreeing about what real solutions are. To me, banning TikTok won't change anything because Instagram, Youtube, etc. will take over what they did and/or VPNs will become the new awesome. To you, altering how families are formed or making child care free, or establishing UBI are (probably accurately) impossible dreams.

So what would systemic changes and improvements would you make, keeping in mind the First Amendment?

[xurias]

> keeping in mind the First Amendment?

The first amendment doesn't apply to companies. Shutting down TikTok doesn't prevent you from exercising free speech. That's not how it works. Like, I'm not going to bother with this conversation if this is the direction you're going to take it.

And the fact that "Instagram, Youtube, etc." will just do it shows that regulations and laws are required. Systems that prevent companies from doing whatever they want in controlling the opinions of citizens in other countries. How is that compatible with the first amendment? Do you even understand the issue? Do you even understand the first amendment?

[troyvit]

> The first amendment doesn't apply to companies.

It does apply to corporations (https://reason.com/video/2019/09/05/corporations-and-the-fir...).

While Tik-Tok writes the algorithms that allows advertisers and influencers to manipulate people, it's the advertisers and influencers who are doing the manipulating, and it's their speech that would be affected by any laws.

So yeah I guess we aren't going to be continuing this conversation. We just disagree on what is systemic and how to go about fixing it.