Microblog Memes

Well, the TikTok lawyers kinda said the quiet part out loud during their SCOTUS brief:

Mr. Francisco contended that the government in a free country “has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda” and cannot constitutionally try to keep Americans from being “persuaded by Chinese misinformation.” That is targeting the content of speech, which the First Amendment does not permit, he said.

It's not a great look for your app when your argument before the Supreme Court is "yeah, we're a propaganda machine for a hostile foreign power, but free speech says you can't stop us. Neener neener."

$5 says Elon or Meta buy TT and turn it into yet another GOP echo chamber.

Just something to think about when it comes to the influence social media has on society

TikTok has already transformed how Americans communicate, influencing language and behavior in ways that may have broader implications. The Chinese government, known for using censorship and language control to maintain social order and suppress dissent, leverages euphemistic language as a tool for manipulating public opinion and silencing critical discourse.

Phrases like “unalive” for suicide or “grape” for rape dilute the meaning and impact of language, making it easier for powerful entities to control narratives and obscure uncomfortable truths. This process, known as “language laundering” or “semantic bleaching,” strips words of their emotional weight and original meaning, making it harder to address sensitive or urgent issues effectively.

This trend has extended beyond language to visuals, with people obscuring letters or censoring words in pictures and posts—using terms like “s**cide” or “r*pe.” While this may help users navigate algorithms designed to suppress certain keywords, it completely erodes the clarity and impact of critical conversations.

The normalization of this behavior on TikTok has permeated Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, and other social media platforms, spreading a culture of diluted language and indirect communication. These practices hinder meaningful discourse, desensitize users to serious issues, and ultimately make it more challenging to engage with sensitive topics in a direct and effective manner. Recognizing and resisting this shift is essential to preserving the integrity of public discussions and fostering authentic engagement.

Because he paid for his influence while China is not. They are “stealing data” they have not paid for and are competing with the NSA/FBI/CIA without sharing.

It doesn't have to be our biggest problem for us to want to fix it. We can fix other problems as they come.

Also, server location. If TikTok reorganized in the USA it wouldn't be banned, they know that and still chose to go under.

America bad ooga booga. Really they both should be banned lol. Like yall slinging shit at each other when they both should be gone. Great use of energy Lemmy

I mean, if that’s the question you want answered…

X uses a native browser controller when you open a link, so the app can’t see what you do in there.

Whereas TikTok uses a managed webview… which they have been caught injecting keyloggers into.

Back in the olden days, we called this a cross-site scripting attack.

This was never about national security. It’s about money. Most of congress owns Meta stock and meta lobbied the fuck out of trying to get the app banned. It’s extremely annoying that people buy this crap about national security.

Ask yourself when in the history of our country did 85% of congress agree on something? 85% of these fuckwads agreed that banning this app is more important than literally anything else. Stopping school shooting, fixing our economy, providing affordable healthcare or housing, are all not important.

Bc CHYNA

Tiktok aren't giving Trump loads of money

They are all problematic. My disagreement with the removal of TikTok is that it should not stop with TikTok. Meta's apps are an absolute nightmare. Google, Xitter, Amazon, etc., they all need to be curbed when it comes to data collection.

Data brokering needs to be made illegal or VERY tightly regulated.

They are both security risks. The difference is the SA oligarch has already successfully infiltrated our national security and installed himself in a position of power so we can't do anything about it anymore.

Honestly the way he did it was pretty perfect. Create technology and weapons and R&D for the country you want to infiltrate, ingratiate yourself to it's people, government, and military. Then start throwing money into politics to buy yourself a spot on the cabinet.

This is a game any bad state actor with a huge wad of cash can play thanks to Citizen's United.

Serious answer: because it's owned by a US citizen and is operated and HQ'd in the US, so the the US government has effectively full control over it and can monitor it.

That's not a lot better from an end user privacy and security point. But is wayyyyyyyyyy better from a national security standpoint.

He's not Chinese.

Or so he says.