An interesting thread on Hamas using TikTok
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
I oppose giving feckless criminals a way to further censor internet content in an election year, as they have done for quite some time now.
Ok. So what? Is that supposed to be a self-evident refutation of the question: why allow China to own and operate a social media/propaganda tool in the U.S.?
What if a hostile, communist regime controlled America’s largest media platform, would you intervene in the market then?
This bill is pretty narrow from what I’ve seen. Applies only to companies incorporated or domiciled in Iran, China, Russia or North Korea.
I don’t believe there is much pretext to go after conservative content creators on other apps/ websites.
It should be.
But you are willing to exist in your silo, which is your prerogative
The Uniparty allows China to operate police forces, biolabs, and buy land near or adjacent to military bases,
The real reason for this bill is intense lobby pressure from the ADL and AIPAC. Surveys are showing that TT users in the younger demographic are changing their sympathetic views of Israel to sympathetic to Gazans.
75 years of propagandizing is being noticed, and being discredited. TT must be destroyed.
I don’t think your characterization of me is valid. I just recognize that diverse interests can be motivated to agree on the same policies and it is a logical fallacy to find a policy unjustified because another party you don’t like agrees to it.
I.e. cause or motivation =\= justification
America2100 is one guy...former Giuliani/Marco Rubio flunky Michael Needham.
Meaningless propagandizing.
People need to wake the fvck up.
Another word salad pretending to be meaningful debate.
The Zionists at AIPAC and Nosferatu at ADL don't give a rat fvck how much China abuses the USA, so long as the $4Billion annual grift continues.
The Zionists are losing the propaganda war as younger Americans increasingly oppose their genocide against Gazan children, and Tik Tok must be silenced.
"Another word salad pretending to be meaningful debate" means you don't understand what I wrote. The rest of your message confirms that. It's the difference between motivation and justification.
Let me try again: one can be motivated by the wrong reasons (hate, greed, etc.) and still back the "right" policy.
An example: A basketball coach has a friend who supplies him with cigars. He tells the coach he would like him to change his offensive system from standing around and dumping it into the post to a motion offense with off-ball movement, screens, etc. The coach changes, motivated by the promise that he will now have access to the world's best cigars for free.
His choice to change systems would be (1) motivated for the wrong reason, but also (2) the justified choice (through reasons that have nothing to do with, or are in addition to, his motivational reasons).
Overwhelming support for the bill forcing China to divest
Similar threads
