In short: Culture war
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
45 points (81.7% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36556 readers
1620 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
AIPAC wants it gone because Gen Z can't easily be manipulated into thinking Israel is a peace-loving democracy surrounded by savage terrorists.
It's about narrative control. Cia has tools to promote/restrict content with x and facebook. (read twitterfiles). They don't have it for tiktok.
And on the flip side it is very dangerous to give Chinese intelligence direct access to propagandize to Americans. Look at how successful Iranian intel was on getting people on Reddit to back The Houthi Militia.
the US government doesn't like how little control they have of the information flowing over there
This is the best answer.
So that Trump can swoop in and "save" it.
After seeing the video the ceo posted, as well as the messages from when tiktok got banned and then unbanned, I'm starting to think this is the reason
A motivation that hasn't been mentioned yet:
Every successful attempt so far by the US government to control what Americans may and may not access on the internet has been rooted in pre-existing legal restrictions on the content, or on access to it. It's just been things like piracy, CSAM, drug trafficking and the like - things that are illegal in and of themselves, so banning sites that are involved with them has just been a response to thecrxisting illegality.
This is the first time that the US government has succeeded in banning a site without pointing to violations of any existing laws, but simply because they've decided to do so.
That's a significant precedent, and to would-be tyrants, an extremely useful one.
This happens all the time. Almost every country has laws about foreign ownership of media and telecom. Here in Canada, Americans cannot come in and just buy up all the media companies. The consortium that bought my cell provider included a wealthy Egyptian national who was forced to divest before the sale could be finalized.
China was forced to divest from Grindr in the US like five years ago for the exact same reasons.
The only thing that's really weird here is that China is refusing to do so and would rather burn it to the ground than sell it. That's at least in part because having all that information - including granular tracking data - on 50% of the US population is an insanely powerful intelligence tool.
That’s not a motivation, but rather an (admittedly astute) comment on the legal context. Appreciated nonetheless.
Establishing that precedent just in and of itself would most certainly be more than enough motivation for anyone with a desire to manipulate or limit public discourse and access to the authority by which future bans can and will be implemented.
In Congress, during a private session, intelligence on their spying was presented.
That and the unanimous SCOTUS decision really say something as to what our government knows.
All social media apps generate enough data about their users to engineer effective disinformation campaigns, influence elections and sway public opinion.
The US would prefer that China has to ask Russia to do that, rather than having direct access.
It also helps the china hawks in the US government who want war by contributing to the perception of China as implacably malicious.
view more: next ›