• lautan@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    This isn’t good, now we’re only left with the tech giants dictating what people can see.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      How is it any different for before the law? TikTok is a tech giant.

      • lautan@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        From what I know, certain special interests want TikTok under their control so they can censor certain topics. People keep saying this is happening because of CCP, etc. But I believe they want this platform “censored” before the elections. The other major players already play ball with censorship but TikTok caught them by surprise.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Why would it have unanimous bi-partisan support in the Senate if the bill had weight on the election results?

          • bassomitron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            To be devil’s advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin’ in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.

            That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don’t consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.

              • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).

                Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    If I was Biden and I wanted to make sure absolutely nobody under 35 voted for me, first thing I’d do is genocide.

    If that didn’t work, then I’d restart student loans.

    If that didn’t work, I’d ban Tiktok.

    Edit: To the people downvoting me: Do you think giving Israel the bombs they use to carry out genocide, restarting student loans, and banning tiktok helps Biden’s reelection chances?

    Are you republicans who don’t want him to change course? Are you democrats perpetually stuck in 2016, blaming voters rather than asking “What policies caused us to lose? What changes do we need to make to win?”

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Whew the propaganda smokescreen almost fully fell apart with people waking up and seeing us support Genocide. Good thing we went full authoritarianism to stop it!