Any chance this is just an exposure of a built in backdoor?
solarvector
joined 1 year ago
That's a much better argument than what's presented in this meme. There's at least an argument to claim that the difference is about curtailing foreign interest through ownership. Ownership does heavily influence a platform. Unfortunately that hasn't prevented Murdock from owning more formal messaging platforms.
On a side note, how do you feel about a handful of corporations controlling and censoring the Internet?
Ok, I agree there's a reasonable argument in there.
On the one side of the scale is people enjoy it. Maybe that's enough. I feel similarly about drug policies (that is, people want to use it, consequences are on them, not something that should be forced on them by the state).
I also think it's legitimate to say if there's a problem, policy should reflect that problem. The idea that it's about protecting American money is probably fair too. But those aren't really arguments in support of tick-tock. Those are arguments that others should be included if there's legislation. I would love to see something passed that actually protected privacy universally. A hope for constitutional protection there was one of the casualties of the Roe v Wade overturn.
Last thing... a nation protecting it's interests is pretty legit in terms of legislative justification. One country protecting it's industry is very common and something both countries in question do all the time. Protecting from foreign interference is a pretty standard requisite for sovereignty. If you want to criticize US for not respecting others, I think you've got plenty of evidence. That's still different than saying a county shouldn't take steps to protect themselves.
How is this itself not a fake argument?
The arguments in support of tick-tock are a bizarre amalgamation of just about every category of bad faith argument. I haven't seen one that suggests tick-tock it's actually a net benefit.
You might look into the apps they have already banned.
It's pretty clear that it's Apps, not iPhone. But also... iPhone is responsible for holding application developers to their terms of service. It's absolutely appropriate to criticize them for failing to deliver what they're selling in terms of claims to a more private ecosystem.
Generally agree, but when one of the two participants in a market is actively hostile to users and the other is actually competing for market share, seems like that's worth acknowledging. Especially when we so many examples of either outright collusion or as soon as one corporation introduces a new hostile feature all the others in the market follow.
On that note, I'm waiting for the day Nvidia announces a subscription service for unlocking cores or clock speeds.
Why is there an apostrophe after the "M"?
Is this a fedora tipping version of the US?