QuaternionsRock

I’ve thought about that too, and to be honest, I can’t identify what makes TikTok special in that regard. TikTok’s moderation policies aren’t substantially different from other platforms (except maybe Twitter… fuck Twitter), and I don’t see how it became known as a hub for activists.

In either case, relying on a hyper-capitalist platform that is controlled in no small part by an a authoritarian, imperialist, and hostile foreign government through so-called “golden shares”, was always a bad idea.

Also, since you claim to care about the users rather than the corporation, you should be happy to know that the U.S. isn’t banning TikTok! They’re banning ByteDance from owning it. TikTok will live on.

What freedoms granted by the Constitution have ever applied to foreign legal entities? And since when did sucking off 200 billion dollar corporations become part of the leftist playbook?

Don't overcomplicate it. I'm not trying to systematically determine some deep truth here.

You probably should be, if you care about it so much.

17 year olds should not grab guns and go to dangerous riots. Simple as.

Yes, and reducing that argument to

17 year olds should not go to dangerous riots. Simple as.

Is still not wrong, per se, but totally eliminates any mention of his illegal activity.

Wrongdoing, I guess?

There are two components, really: legal guilt and moral guilt. Legally, he definitely purchased and transported a firearm illegally, and then shot three people with said illegally-purchased firearm. Morally, you generally don’t bring a rifle somewhere unless you expect you may have to use it, and you don’t bring a rifle to a riot unless you expect you may have to use it against rioters.

In the best case, he grossly underestimated the probability that he would have to use it, which turned the small net benefit of his presence as a “medic” into a major detriment in that two people are now dead. He also failed to recognize that possessing, brandishing, and using a firearm at a riot would directly lead to being attacked (in 2 of the 3 shootings, IIRC). It should have been obvious that an angry crowd wouldn’t have all the facts, yet would know that the person who just fired an AR-15 is dangerous and attempt to subdue them.

In the worst case, he went there specifically because of the possibility he would get to shoot people, rather than in spite of the possibility. The fact that he went without his parents’ permission—which hopefully wouldn’t have been granted—, as well as that he brought an illegally-obtained firearm, lends credence to this argument. IIRC, the prosecutors were unable to produce evidence that this was his intention, but the possibility can never truly be ruled out, and his publicity and associations following the trial suggest hey may have possessed malicious intent. After all, for someone who supposedly didn’t want to see BLM protestors dead, he sure works for/with a lot of people who basically do.

Would that justify the UK banning Google?

…Yes? It’s called a trade war, they happen all the time, and that’s exactly what would go down. What else do you expect them to do, nothing? (They usually end when a bilateral free trade agreement is established between the two parties that covers the industries in question.)

punishing Tiktok for them is by definition grotesquely unjust.

Oh no, my poor little $200 billion corporation! I must spend my days fighting for your justice!

Seriously, how do you expect people to react to that? How could anyone possibly give the smallest fuck about a faceless, soulless corporation unless they have a significant stake in it?

Dude, what?

You claim that banning TikTok would make sense if TikTok was China. How would the U.S. “ban” China if not for banning Chinese private enterprises from U.S. markets?

Right, but you wouldn’t be put on trial for endangering the sharks lol

Look, there are good arguments to be made of Rittenhouse’s guilt, you’re just not making them.

Part of me feels like the standard neoliberal talking points on the matter were engineered by conservatives to reduce the credibility of their conclusion.

He probably shouldn’t have bought the gun, but saying something is someone’s fault because they “shouldn’t have been” somewhere they have a legal right to be is cringe.

Again, Tiktok ≠ China.

Point to where I said TikTok = China lmao

it's not Tiktok banning US platforms.

I also never said TikTok is banning U.S. platforms, either…

The US government could and SHOULD introduce regulations to minimize the amount of data collection and -sharing that Tiktok, Facebook, Twitter, Google and others currently get away with and then punish all transgressions against those regulations.

Yes.

It kind of takes the wind out of the sails, though. Everyone freaked out when Photoshop became a thing because it made doctoring images easier than doing it by hand. If Photoshop didn’t break the world, I have a hard time believing that “easier Photoshop” will either.

The U.S. doesn’t claim to be a paragon of freedom for the CCP or Chinese-owned and operated enterprises lmao

It’s not “being like China” so long as the U.S. does not seek to ban platforms from countries that do not ban U.S.-owned platforms.

The freedom of information should absolutely be bilateral between states, otherwise the permissive state cedes undue influence to the restrictive one.