On: What if no one misses TikTok?

[ok123456]

Why is that insane? We should lead by example if we value free speech.

[ThrowawayR2 → ok123456]

Arguing for individual humans to have freedom of speech to express their views is one thing, arguing for mega-corporations (look at the valuation estimates for Tiktok) to have freedom of speech for profit is quite another.

[ok123456 → ThrowawayR2]

They do have freedom of speech—Citizen's United.

The more significant issue is that this is a bill of attainder. The fact that this was prima facia rejected by the courts is an indication that the NatSec state has corroded every branch of government, and we have a zombie government.

[Nasrudith → ThrowawayR2]

That is like saying we have freedom of speech but it doesn't apply if you are wealthy enough to afford a printing press. It is just a sleight of hand to avoid saying "we really don't".

[mupuff1234 → ok123456]

So if China would pay $100 a month to every teacher in the US to teach some subversive topic, would that also be ok?

The issue here isn't free speech, but control over what content is promoted, unless you think the CCP has the right to free speech in the US.

[Muromec → mupuff1234]

The moment EU will ban x/itter for the exact same reason it will be all about free speech again.

[tzs → mupuff1234]

> So if China would pay $100 a month to every teacher in the US to teach some subversive topic, would that also be ok?

It would not be OK, but not because it is China. It would not be OK because it is not OK for anyone to do that.

[ok123456 → mupuff1234]

Sorry, it is a free speech issue. TikTok is a gestalt product of the content on there.

Maybe Washington should figure out a way to make fewer "Foreign adversaries" so it doesn't have to subvert the fundamental rights of its citizens.

[mupuff1234 → ok123456]

If tiktok were to remove the recommendation algorithm than it wouldn't be banned, which means that it's not about free speech.