Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WaitingForNormal t1_jec3hsp wrote

“We hate china, but we want to be exactly like china.”


Much_Schedule_9431 t1_jeclxt2 wrote

“First we tried to build the physical wall, now we’re gonna try to build the cyber wall as well!”


ron_fendo t1_jedq0r3 wrote

More like "We refuse to build the physical wall, but we want to build a cyber wall."


Jorycle t1_jefnm7q wrote

This is unironically what many people seem to have argued when defending TikTok bans and this bill.

Protip guys, "So? China bans our apps" is not the winning argument you seem to think it is.

I didn't even see there are already at least 3 guys in here saying almost exactly that before I hit post.


dogegunate t1_jeg3hsm wrote

I saw a fairly upvoted comment on /r/worldnews about wanting to basically balkanize the internet into "west vs east" and cutting off complete access to Russia and China. It's amazing how people are so ready to punish millions of innocent people and adopt very authoritarian measures just because they hate Russia and China.

It really makes me think of when Reagan made a speech saying "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". But nowadays, it's the West that wants to put up walls. So much for the ideas of freedom and liberty.


hw_convo t1_jecr4ol wrote

Yeah it does sound a lot like overreach


Rombom t1_jeemgn2 wrote

We call that feeling "envy".


VelveteenAmbush t1_jed4ffv wrote

Not sure why reciprocating protectionism is such a bad thing. We do that in trade all the time. But in apps specifically, China can ban all of ours but we can't ban theirs?


bigflamingtaco t1_jed69c1 wrote

If you think the bill is about banning security threats. I've got some ocean front property for you in Arizona.


VelveteenAmbush t1_jegt3yf wrote

Is that your actual objection or just an excuse? If there were a clean bill that banned TikTok but didn't do whatever other bad things you're worried about, you'd support it?


dragonmp93 t1_jedfilg wrote

Well, that's why we have to learn to leave with Facebook and TikTok despite their effects.


UsecMyNuts t1_jeddzdm wrote

The bill allows a punishment of 20 years prison and a $250k-$1m fine for posting anything, and I mean anything the government finds unsavoury online.

By this law it’s possible that playing a video game and talking about guns/bombs could land you in jail for 20 years and all of your property is seized by the government.

Once you’re labelled a threat to national security they can search any of your computers, phones, notebooks, social media’s for anything that they deem unsavoury and take quite literally anything out of context and use it against you.

Tweeted a meme about 9/11? Jail

Called a politician an asshole? Jail

Watching YouTube videos about Islam? Believe it or not straight to jail.


SpiritualOrangutan t1_jedvmxn wrote

Source? Saw nothing indicating that when I looked the law up


Bannon9k t1_jeeoldm wrote

Same source as all redditors... He made it up.

The law is shitty for sure, but not how this guy is thinking. It's shitty because it was written poorly, not because the "guvment comin to get ya"


ms1711 t1_jeevwkt wrote

Because it's definitely not written "badly" and vague on purpose! The government never oversteps its bounds!

Well-written laws are narrow and clear. Any room for "interpretation" is room for abuse.


atwegotsidetrekked t1_jee0h7a wrote

Because in a free society, the citizens can decide for themselves to use or not. You are welcome to boycott any app you want.

The biggest issue is that all the worries would be solved with mirroring the GDRP in Europe. Instead of passing a bill that protects its citizens from all the awful privacy issues from both Chinese and American apps, they chose to mirror China in a police state authoritarian approach.


VelveteenAmbush t1_jefpifg wrote

The biggest issue is programming, not privacy.

Should we have allowed the USSR to operate a major television broadcasting network in the US at the height of the Cold War?

The GDPR has nothing to do with that concern.

Anyway, "citizens can decide for themselves" is not how we usually handle trade disputes. If Country X tariffs or bans our widgets, we usually respond by tariffing or banning their doohickeys. It isn't up to our citizens to decide for themselves whether to use Country X's doohickeys.


atwegotsidetrekked t1_jefw86i wrote

Yes we had access to Soviet TV. I am GenX and grew up in the 80s. We even studied Soviet culture in Social Studies in High Schools. Because we are supposed to be the better system and not in fear of lesser authoritarian regimes.

But you obviously would rather live in China


VelveteenAmbush t1_jefz923 wrote

> Yes we had access to Soviet TV.

That isn't what I asked.


atwegotsidetrekked t1_jeg261s wrote

Obviously you have Fascist tendencies. You want to restrict freedom in some weird (and not true) attempt of safety.

But, the only social media that has actually been successful in supporting the overthrow of the United States was Facebook. The only social media that used personal data to manipulate an election was Facebook.

It’s absolutely absurd


dogegunate t1_jeg3ryj wrote

The West is supposed to be championing ideas of freedom and liberty. So yes, we should be allowing that because we have decided as a society that it is up to the people to decide what they want to think and not what the government dictates them to think. Or do you want to be like authoritarian China where we put up a Great Firewall to block anything that government deems a "threat"?


VelveteenAmbush t1_jegezam wrote

If your conception of freedom and liberty means that the US would have been required to allow the USSR to own and operate CBS during the Cold War, then you're living in another universe.


dogegunate t1_jegn7xs wrote

What the fuck are you talking about? You're talking about the Soviets acquiring and operating a major US news station, not that the Soviets have their own news station they operate that we can view if we want to in the US.

Go strawman someone else.

Also, allow doesn't mean required. But I guess you're so neck deep in straw that you can't read a dictionary.


VelveteenAmbush t1_jegos18 wrote

> acquiring

No, just owning would be enough

Cool it with the insults, they only make you sound fragile