HelixDab2

joined 1 year ago
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 43 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Even worse, the famine was entirely caused by landlords and especially the English. It wasn't a natural disaster, but a product of monoculture that was forced on the people through no fault of their own.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 22 points 2 months ago

Functionally? No. Legally? Yes.

When I'm applying for jobs, I do check the box that says disabled, because according to the US gov't, developmental disorders like autism spectrum disorder are considered disabilities. (Probably ADHD also, but that evaluation isn't complete yet.) OTOH, it's unlikely to help if i am subjected to some kind of workplace discipline that's the direct result of being on the autism spectrum, or if I fuck something up because i have severe ADHD. The kind of accommodations that they would need to make are... Pretty limited, TBH.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And this is covered by freedom of the press.

Their freedom of the press isn't what's in question. Their ownership is. They are welcome to continue operating as long as they are not owned by a Chinese company based in China and subject to Chinese national security laws.

But, even if it's really, truly, a 1A issue, no rights are absolute. You can not, for instance, publish classified information, and then claim that it's a free speech issue. National security interests can, and do, outweigh individual and especially corporate rights to free speech.

especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app

But that's not the justification. The justification is first, access to data, and second, manipulation of that data. The gov't is arguing that TT is hoovering up massive amounts of data on users, and then is manipulating the content that is shown to them in order to unjustly influence international policy, and all done with no transparency at all. It's on-par with Russian election interference, although perhaps a little longer lasting and more subtly done.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

...That does not, in fact, make it any better.

That makes it even more terrorism.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not a war crime; terrorism. Hezbollah is a political organization.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

After all its not hard to make a corporation in the US

...A US corporation is subject to US laws.

ByteDance is subject to Chinese laws.

If TikTok wants to do everything that it's currently doing, but under US law and under US scrutiny, they're more than welcome to do so. But they're currently evading any serious scrutiny. Hence the reason to shut them down if they refuse gov't oversight.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

National security interests are the interests of the people though.

The fundamental issue is that, assuming I'm not leaking national security information, I can say nearly anything I want on Facebook, Twitter, etc. (as long as I'm not in violation of their terms of service). The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov't. If I am an authoritarian communist, I'm more than welcome to spread these views on any American social network that I choose without gov't interference. I can spread anti-vax and Q nonsense if I wish, and the worst-case scenario is that my neighbors will stop talking to me. I can attack the very foundation of the country if I want, as long as I'm not spreading military secrets.

This is not the case in China. Spreading pro-capitalism and pro-democracy messages can quickly get you arrested. Trying to share accurate information about what really happened in Tianamen Square in 1989 can result in you disappearing. Words and phrases are actively censored by the gov't on social media. The Chinese gov't takes a direct role in shaping social media by what it promotes, and what it forbids. Anything that's perceived as an attack on the political system of the country, the party, or any of the leaders (remember the internationally famous tennis player that abruptly disappeared when she accused a local party leader of sexual assault?) will put you at risk.

This isn't a case of, "oh, both sides are the same".

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone

Uh, no. It doesn't protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn't guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.

...And this isn't about which speech they're allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov't inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they're no longer based in China and subject to China's laws and interference, then there's no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov't (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it's collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.

As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they're no longer connected to China, then they're more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Until it doesn’t.

...And that point is often what we call "genocide", when you've killed so many people that there simply aren't enough left to effectively resist, and then you forcibly assimilate the remainder into your culture.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Are you okay with losing the majority of battles and having x10 the casualties?

The thing is that having 10x the casualties tends to create more fighters.

This is why Israel needs to commit total genocide in order to "win" in Gaza and the West Bank. Every time they kill a legitimate Palestinian fighter--versus an uninvolved civilian--they're killing someone that had a family, and friends, people that knew the person, people that loved the person, had probably heard about the injustices (real or perceived; mostly real in the case of Palestinians) from them, and knew why they were taking up arms. These people don't end up being cowed by the violence. Then you add in the people who have their whole families killed by indiscriminate bombing, and no longer feel like they have anything to lose except their shackles.

We know this already. We've known this since WWII. The Axis and Allies both through that bombing civilian population centers--London for the Axis, Dresden for the Allies--would break the will of the people, but instead it hardened them. The concept of total war and mass casualties simply Does. Not. Work.

You can't win wars like this through military force alone, unless you're willing to commit total genocide.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

and your relying on sympathetic locals

This would also be true of a guerilla civil war in the US though. You'd be relying on locals--people that had probably had friends and families killed by gov't military operations and indiscriminate bombing--to help you root out insurrectionists.

Would a large number of 2A supporters be in favor of tyranny as long at it had an (R) next to it? Sure. Certainly not all of us though.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Huh?

Are you suuuuuure about that?

I'm pretty sure that most coups involve the military.

As far as civil wars go, oh, there's at least one going on right now in Myanmar, and the gov't def. has an air force there.

view more: ‹ prev next ›