| ▲ | gruez 8 hours ago |
| >is all about hiding information from the US public that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to. Are we talking about the Trump administration or the Biden administration? The current ban was passed under Biden with supermajorities in both houses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_ban_TikTok_in_the_U... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore... |
|
| ▲ | pshirshov 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| How can that be that during any single administration there always are bipartisan votes in favor of digital surveillance and censorship, oh, I mean online protection for kids and puppies? Pure coincidence I think. Boden's good, Grump's bad, simple as that. Or Grump's good, Boden's bad doesn't matter. |
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | One is clearly worse than the other on some issues — only one of them executed US citizens in the street for protesting, during both terms. | | |
| ▲ | pshirshov 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Choose your alignment wisely! You can only serve the Good or the Evil! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwforfeds 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Both. I'm not sure why the meme on the right is that the left wants to protect Biden or anyone else. Who cares, they all can come crashing down. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | >I'm not sure why the meme on the right is that the left wants to protect Biden or anyone else. No, the point isn't "protecting Biden", it's pure self interest. Tiktok is a social media platform that's very popular with Democrat's electorate and is already left leaning. Why risk it falling into the other party's control (especially near the end of Biden's term), just so you can maybe push more left leaning talking points? | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because the concept of limiting state power for when the other side takes power is not in the American political vocabulary. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The difference here is that unlike expanding the NSA or DHS, control of tiktok doesn't pass to the next administration, because it's held in private hands. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Why risk [TikTok] falling into the other party's control > control of tiktok doesn't pass to the next administration Huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | desolate_muffin 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am not sure. I think we're talking about the one where Trump illegally and unilaterally ignored the sale or de-list deadline passed in said bipartisan bill so he could figure out which Trump loyalists would be taking over. I'm glad they finally got it sorted out a little over a year after the January 19, 2025 deadline in the bill. |
|
| ▲ | duskdozer 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you'll find that pro-privacy, anti-right-wing people often don't have the highest opinion of "their" guy |
|
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | wat10000 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The current nonsense has been enabled by decades of overreach. A small minority kept saying, this stuff is going to be really bad if a bad guy takes power. Well, guess what happened. |
| |
| ▲ | asadotzler 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The bad guys would have done it anyway. That's the important part. "Good guys shouldn't make tools because bad guys might (or will) use them" isn't how we should operate. No more should we say "the [internet|source code|pen testing tools|etc] could be used by bad guys so good guys shouldn't have it." | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If by "tools" you mean technology or physical infrastructure, I largely agree. But I'm talking about political tools. Breaking down the norms about how power is supposed to be wielded. Concentrating more and more power in the executive because Congress would rather be powerless and blameless than have responsibility. For example, giving the President the power to set tariffs was done with the understanding that the President would use this power wisely in an actual national emergency. That created a political tool. Now we have a deeply unwise President who declared a nonsense national emergency and is playing havoc with trade using this tool. If the tool hadn't been created then I don't think we'd have that problem. I doubt Congress would be willing to pass sweeping emergency powers in an environment where there is no emergency and no need for those powers. And there was never a need for those powers. Tariffs don't need to be enacted so rapidly that they can't wait for Congress to convene and pass a law. In this case, we've created a political tool giving the President broad power to interfere in a specific private business. It's no surprise if that tool gets abused, and it was completely unnecessary to begin with. So I'd phrase it as: "Good guys shouldn't make political tools that are far more powerful than they need to be assuming that they'll be used wisely, because bad guys will happily use the full power of those tools." |
|
|
|
| ▲ | justonceokay 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why is it always a blame game? What dos that accomplish? There’s no “good guy” administrations. There’s just realpolitik. The current iteration of ICE is an outgrowth of the Obama admin, as is the problem with billionaires in politics. Biden put a target on Maduro's head before leaving office (continuing to fill a multi-administration powder keg re: Venezuela). Trump just had the panache to brazenly do the deed instead of waiting for the next guy to do it. Horrible? yes. Unprecedented? Hardly. Now I’m not saying things are inevitable. Trump has a bull-in-china-shop mentality. But he is only being manipulated to set the same agenda, just faster than any president in living memory. |
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "The current iteration of ICE…" Just murdered two protestors. A bit of a change there. | |
| ▲ | hbarka 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | // | | |
| ▲ | justonceokay 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe. I just find most “which administration really started XYZ” discussions are a way for people to feel better about their affiliations. Because ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ are continuous and not an inherent property of things, it is always possible to construct a causal chain that happens to start wherever convenient for your rhetorical purposes. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | saubeidl 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The Democrats always have been nothing but controlled opposition, designed to give you the illusion of choice. |
