Soy [JFL] Zoomers in comment section crying about upcoming TikTok ban

[The Scarlet Prince]

I was just looking at a video and suddenly got this in my recommended. For those of you who don't know, Congress passed a bill that would ban TikTok sometime in January I believe, since they were concerned about it being Chinese spyware. I personally never downloaded it because I just hate it and think everything on there is unfunny, but it's hilarious to watch zoomers of all political beliefs run to the comment section to cry about how this ban is unconstitutional:

via some hard times

Thank you Amanda Brown. Although you look like a tranny, so I am going to assume that your time in the hospital was spent turning your dick inside out.

​

---

 

[AutistSupremacist]

Nothing will change, the damage has already been done

 

[Pancakecel]

They should ban reddit next

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

Nothing will change, the damage has already been done

Of course, it's just going to get replaced by something else. You're right, the damage has already been done, and the majority of the population are mindless NPCs now.

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

They should ban reddit next

Massive lifefuel tbh

 

[smegma producer]

if there is proof of foreign intervention in a attempt to undermine the electoral process or to usher foreign-state funded propaganda, then i see no issue in the ban. If evidence of malice of not just a foreign power, but one with a antagonistic stance, is proven then this is not a attack on free speech, then a ban is a safeguard from foreign intervention in public affairs.

If there is no proof of such involvement of a foreign power, then i will take issue with the ban, then i will argue along the lines of it being attack on speech and free commerce.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Wouldn't people just bypass it?

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

Wouldn't people just bypass it?

You have made the mistake of assuming zoomers are intelligent enough to figure that out.

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

if there is proof of foreign intervention in a attempt to undermine the electoral process or to usher foreign-state funded propaganda, then i see no issue in the ban. If evidence of malice of not just a foreign power, but one with a antagonistic stance, is proven then this is not a attack on free speech, then a ban is a safeguard from foreign intervention in public affairs.

If there is no proof of such involvement of a foreign power, then i will take issue with the ban, then i will argue along the lines of it being attack on speech and free commerce.

I'm just racist as fuck towards the Chinese.

 

[smegma producer]

I'm just racist as fuck towards the Chinese.

 

[SilverBullet]

Nothing will change, the damage has already been done

yea retards will just go watch JewTube shorts until the newest zogapp comes out

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

JFL, in all seriousness, you certainly raise a pretty good point—it very easily could set a precedent of censorship of certain apps. However, I think that your perspective is troubling for various reasons, particularly because if TikTok really wanted to scrub any association of how they may have maliciously used the private data of users, they very easily could.

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

yea retards will just go watch JewTube shorts until the newest zogapp comes out

The absolute state of zoomers

 

[lifeisfucked215]

Based
Fuck tiktok faggots

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

Fuck tiktok faggots

 

[kaijicel]

idk how people support censorship

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

idk how people support censorship

I feel like censorship of what either is (or has the potential to be) a massive hub of propaganda meant entirely to influence elections or the general public opinion of your country is a pretty good justification for censorship.

 

[BPJ]

They should ban reddit next

 

[somalikingcel]

If US bans TikTok doesn’t that mean they can’t spy on u or send a subpoena to request info on users. It might actually cause more radical political activism from US who can bypass surveillance by using Chinese app

 

[smegma producer]

JFL, in all seriousness, you certainly raise a pretty good point—it very easily could set a precedent of censorship of certain apps. However, I think that your perspective is troubling for various reasons, particularly because if TikTok really wanted to scrub any association of how they may have maliciously used the private data of users, they very easily could.

I think foreign platforms should be more scrutinized than domestic competitors, that goes for American media in lets say Europe or Asia as well. That being said if there is no evidence that can prove actually malice from a foreign power the service should be allowed to operate.

While discussing social media, i think there should be laws in place to ensure that the platforms conforms to freedom of speech laws, ensure that companies canot make terms of service that restrict what is allowed to be posted as long as the post does not break any laws, such as swear words or discussions of sensitive topics. Social media has become the Agora of the modern age, and such must denial of access would be denial of speech.

 

[kaijicel]

I feel like censorship of what either is (or has the potential to be) a massive hub of propaganda meant entirely to influence elections or the general public opinion of your country is a pretty good justification for censorship.

only propoganda i have seen on there is jewish propoganda, and thats basically the case with all media.

i cant think of any other propoganda i have seen, especially not chinese things

 

[The Scarlet Prince]

I think foreign platforms should be more scrutinized than domestic competitors, that goes for American media in lets say Europe or Asia as well. That being said if there is no evidence that can prove actually malice from a foreign power the service should be allowed to operate.

While discussing social media, i think there should be laws in place to ensure that the platforms conforms to freedom of speech laws, ensure that companies canot make terms of service that restrict what is allowed to be posted as long as the post does not break any laws, such as swear words or discussions of sensitive topics. Social media has become the Agora of the modern age, and such must denial of access would be denial of speech.

Pretty well made response that I agree heavily with, every country should err on the side of caution when it comes to media and/or platforms that are based in entirely other countries. However, since I am American myself, I only really care about what's going on here, but you are indeed correct on that front. And while I also like the idea of what you've said in the second portion, in application, it would be messy.

If you take away the rights of platforms to determine what to restrict, then that itself takes away many rights that are afforded to companies and people in general. The idea is nice, as I think that echo-chambers are destructive and lead to much of the division and problems in society today, but outright eliminating them is unrealistic and would kill any sense of differentiation and identity between the platforms. Imagine if we allowed foids on here because the law demanded that we must.

 

[smegma producer]

Pretty well made response that I agree heavily with, every country should err on the side of caution when it comes to media and/or platforms that are based in entirely other countries. However, since I am American myself, I only really care about what's going on here, but you are indeed correct on that front. And while I also like the idea of what you've said in the second portion, in application, it would be messy.

If you take away the rights of platforms to determine what to restrict, then that itself takes away many rights that are afforded to companies and people in general. The idea is nice, as I think that echo-chambers are destructive and lead to much of the division and problems in society today, but outright eliminating them is unrealistic and would kill any sense of differentiation and identity between the platforms. Imagine if we allowed foids on here because the law demanded that we must.

With the second statement i forgot to add that the service need to reach actual relevance, as in must pass a threshold of users. I forgot in the haste i wrote the post. To ensure that major players like X, a service that is deeply ingrained into online discussion with legitimate politicians and organizations on the platform, gets targeted by the law. While smaller niche "hobby" sites remain untouched, like this site.

X is a Agora a town square, while sites of this site being someones backyard.