Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
OK it's not a "BAN" but just forcing them to divest. We needn't get hung up on the technical jargon jibber-jabber.
Why should any "Social Media" company ever be forced to "divest" regardless who the owner might be? What's the worst possible owner of a "Social Media" company -- the Neo-Nazis? the Bolsheviks? the Satanists? the John Birch Society? the Zionists? the International Bankers? the Antichrist? the Watchtower Society? the Society for Cruelty to Animals (if it exists)? the National Association for the Advancement of Trolls?
Why should we care that some bad guys own a "Social Media" company? or that this might enable them to influence someone? If you don't like their "Social Media" company, then start up your own "Social Media" company to offer consumers a better alternative to that one.
The xenophobe here says "Anything that influences Americans and is owned by them damn foreigners is a THREAT" to our security and elections. (slight editing to that quote) -- This seems to be the only reason to ban Tik Tok (force it to divest). It is a threat to America for anything foreign to influence us. So all influences on Americans which come from foreigners need to be suppressed.
I can't find a website which gives a coherent reason why Tik Tok should be forced to divest but not owners of other "Social Media" companies. But I admit I didn't try very hard. So does anyone know what the real threat is from Tik Tok but not from other such companies which also might have bad people owning them?
What if other countries than China also set up "Social Media" companies? in the U.S. or wherever? to influence us? What is the threat? Maybe there already are several which keep a low profile about their political puppeteer-establishments which influence us behind the scenes. Europeans run video shows in the U.S. which seem to propagandize. The BBC can be heard in the U.S. and might be spreading pro-British propaganda disguised as objective educational material. Might Deutsche Welle also be threat?
Does the Catholic Church run some broadcasts or podcasts in the U.S.? There are claims that the TV show "Star Trek" was a Catholic Church propaganda show. Does this matter? that some such "Platform" might be under the control of some Entity thought to be a threat? Almost any TV show or anything popular could be used by its owners (or secret owners) to promote their ideology and influence the public, the voters, the elections. We don't really know who secretly controls it behind the scenes.
What about the soda pop companies? Did the Right-Winger Art Linkletter really own RC Cola? or did the Mormons own Coke? Or what about the convenience stores -- did Japan own 7-11? Maybe these propagandists or foreign competitors injected some "Kool-Aid" into their products to manipulate us. We can't be sure what those in power might be doing to influence us in some way.
SO WHAT if they do influence us? or some of us? and we change our vote because of it? Aren't there a million factors out there which can influence your political thinking so you change your vote? Should everything which might influence you to change be banned as dangerous?
Suppose we're even at war with China or someone, and they put out propaganda. Why couldn't there also be alternative propaganda platforms for others to counter the enemy propaganda? Why couldn't all others be equally allowed access to American (or British or French or Canadian) viewers and voters? why not allow Taiwan and Japan and Thailand and Singapore etc. to also operate "Social Media" companies or platforms to promote their propaganda if they want to? What's wrong with allowing anyone to promote their propaganda? Maybe some parts of their propaganda are true.
If the point is to suppress only the very worst propagandists, couldn't you argue that U.S. political parties or broadcast pundits are the most dangerous propagandists and the worst cases of someone influencing the public in a bad direction? and spreading the most lies? the most disinformation?
What is the reason to think that China is the worst case? doing the most damage? and the one most needing to be suppressed? Is there reason to believe that China has uniquely found a way to manipulate us like no other entity is able to? Only China knows the technique to psychologically influence people, making it a form of "unfair competition"? How has China come to be the most expert at this?
No one is giving any answers to these questions. It seems that China-bashing is the only common denominator to any of this.
Meanwhile it seems there are millions of businesses making profit using Tik Tok in order to sell something. All these must be suppressed because Tik Tok might influence someone? i.e. might influence people who are already being influenced and manipulated by hundreds or thousands of other propagandists?
Why should any "Social Media" company ever be forced to "divest" regardless who the owner might be? What's the worst possible owner of a "Social Media" company -- the Neo-Nazis? the Bolsheviks? the Satanists? the John Birch Society? the Zionists? the International Bankers? the Antichrist? the Watchtower Society? the Society for Cruelty to Animals (if it exists)? the National Association for the Advancement of Trolls?
Why should we care that some bad guys own a "Social Media" company? or that this might enable them to influence someone? If you don't like their "Social Media" company, then start up your own "Social Media" company to offer consumers a better alternative to that one.
The xenophobe here says "Anything that influences Americans and is owned by them damn foreigners is a THREAT" to our security and elections. (slight editing to that quote) -- This seems to be the only reason to ban Tik Tok (force it to divest). It is a threat to America for anything foreign to influence us. So all influences on Americans which come from foreigners need to be suppressed.
I can't find a website which gives a coherent reason why Tik Tok should be forced to divest but not owners of other "Social Media" companies. But I admit I didn't try very hard. So does anyone know what the real threat is from Tik Tok but not from other such companies which also might have bad people owning them?
What if other countries than China also set up "Social Media" companies? in the U.S. or wherever? to influence us? What is the threat? Maybe there already are several which keep a low profile about their political puppeteer-establishments which influence us behind the scenes. Europeans run video shows in the U.S. which seem to propagandize. The BBC can be heard in the U.S. and might be spreading pro-British propaganda disguised as objective educational material. Might Deutsche Welle also be threat?
Does the Catholic Church run some broadcasts or podcasts in the U.S.? There are claims that the TV show "Star Trek" was a Catholic Church propaganda show. Does this matter? that some such "Platform" might be under the control of some Entity thought to be a threat? Almost any TV show or anything popular could be used by its owners (or secret owners) to promote their ideology and influence the public, the voters, the elections. We don't really know who secretly controls it behind the scenes.
What about the soda pop companies? Did the Right-Winger Art Linkletter really own RC Cola? or did the Mormons own Coke? Or what about the convenience stores -- did Japan own 7-11? Maybe these propagandists or foreign competitors injected some "Kool-Aid" into their products to manipulate us. We can't be sure what those in power might be doing to influence us in some way.
SO WHAT if they do influence us? or some of us? and we change our vote because of it? Aren't there a million factors out there which can influence your political thinking so you change your vote? Should everything which might influence you to change be banned as dangerous?
Suppose we're even at war with China or someone, and they put out propaganda. Why couldn't there also be alternative propaganda platforms for others to counter the enemy propaganda? Why couldn't all others be equally allowed access to American (or British or French or Canadian) viewers and voters? why not allow Taiwan and Japan and Thailand and Singapore etc. to also operate "Social Media" companies or platforms to promote their propaganda if they want to? What's wrong with allowing anyone to promote their propaganda? Maybe some parts of their propaganda are true.
If the point is to suppress only the very worst propagandists, couldn't you argue that U.S. political parties or broadcast pundits are the most dangerous propagandists and the worst cases of someone influencing the public in a bad direction? and spreading the most lies? the most disinformation?
What is the reason to think that China is the worst case? doing the most damage? and the one most needing to be suppressed? Is there reason to believe that China has uniquely found a way to manipulate us like no other entity is able to? Only China knows the technique to psychologically influence people, making it a form of "unfair competition"? How has China come to be the most expert at this?
No one is giving any answers to these questions. It seems that China-bashing is the only common denominator to any of this.
Meanwhile it seems there are millions of businesses making profit using Tik Tok in order to sell something. All these must be suppressed because Tik Tok might influence someone? i.e. might influence people who are already being influenced and manipulated by hundreds or thousands of other propagandists?
Last edited: