"Democrats are hobbled by a persistent inclination to actually follow laws." To me, this sentence best illustrates the intractable position of Democrats as well as any and every still law abiding entity. How do you follow the law and win when dealing with a lawless adversary. You have to find a way to get through and wake the sleeping giant that is (hopefully) the majority of the population who are and want to remain faithful to the laws that created and undergird democracy. And you have to do this while free speech is still allowed.
Who is responsible for implementing the Supreme Court decisions, in this case Tik Tok? If there is no implementation procedure, then there was no reason to follow Supreme Cours decision on the immunity of a President in office. This is just so weird. 🤦♀️
The president is responsible for executing the laws enacted by congress. If the SC determines the law is constitutional the president is bound to enforce it. Failure to faithfully execute the law is unconstitutional.
So what happens when the President refuses to follow SC? There is seemingly no repercussions, so Felon 47 can do whatever he likes - which of course he does anyway - 🤦♀️🙈🤦♀️🙈,
“So it's dangerous for China to have the ability to access our data and manipulate us via social media apps. But it's okay for America's billionaires to have the ability to access our data and manipulate us via social media apps.”
Trump wants to control us by controlling the people who control the algorithms!
Gosh, if only it were possible to predict how wrong things can go when algorithms on “free” websites are the major source of information to a public which votes….
Oh, the last chapter of “mindfuck” by Christopher Wylie did. Never mind
Trump explicitly stated that his about-face on TikTok was because it was helpful to him. Nothing about the reasons for the statute requiring it to be sold.
TikTok—I was forced to leave … and after the pre-inauguration thanking of “President” Trump, I’m not going back. Nor to Meta and the supine Zuck. O whatever will I do?
Here are two articles explaining the national security problem with a foreign company owning a media that is used to collect data on US citizens. One of in Journal of Democracy.
The argument I find compelling is that if we are in a military conflict with China, which we presume is possible given our opposing stances on Taiwan's independence, then we are being surveilled in a way that violates our national security, as well as they enemy then has access to our citizens and can manipulate them to commit treason.
Another piece was by Matt Stoller of the Big Substack.
He has a compelling argument that says that TikTok is not following the rules that they are supposed to be about data gathering. He also talks about the legal side of it which does not have to do with first amendment but protections from hostile foreign governments. I know that there are exceptions to the first amendment and this sounds like it could be one of them.
I also think that platforms that are global have to adjust to other countries as well because each country has its own constitution, its own laws. One does need to adjust.
"Democrats are hobbled by a persistent inclination to actually follow laws." To me, this sentence best illustrates the intractable position of Democrats as well as any and every still law abiding entity. How do you follow the law and win when dealing with a lawless adversary. You have to find a way to get through and wake the sleeping giant that is (hopefully) the majority of the population who are and want to remain faithful to the laws that created and undergird democracy. And you have to do this while free speech is still allowed.
The big point is Trumps failure to enforce a law of Congress upheld by the Supreme Court. It’s authoritarianism we should be discussing.
Endlessly … and, as before, to no avail.
Who is responsible for implementing the Supreme Court decisions, in this case Tik Tok? If there is no implementation procedure, then there was no reason to follow Supreme Cours decision on the immunity of a President in office. This is just so weird. 🤦♀️
The president is responsible for executing the laws enacted by congress. If the SC determines the law is constitutional the president is bound to enforce it. Failure to faithfully execute the law is unconstitutional.
So what happens when the President refuses to follow SC? There is seemingly no repercussions, so Felon 47 can do whatever he likes - which of course he does anyway - 🤦♀️🙈🤦♀️🙈,
As Robert Reich said …
“So it's dangerous for China to have the ability to access our data and manipulate us via social media apps. But it's okay for America's billionaires to have the ability to access our data and manipulate us via social media apps.”
Trump wants to control us by controlling the people who control the algorithms!
Gosh, if only it were possible to predict how wrong things can go when algorithms on “free” websites are the major source of information to a public which votes….
Oh, the last chapter of “mindfuck” by Christopher Wylie did. Never mind
Trump explicitly stated that his about-face on TikTok was because it was helpful to him. Nothing about the reasons for the statute requiring it to be sold.
TikTok—I was forced to leave … and after the pre-inauguration thanking of “President” Trump, I’m not going back. Nor to Meta and the supine Zuck. O whatever will I do?
I can't wait to see Tom Cotton asked about all of this, his reversal/ass kissing will be a sight to behold.
Here are two articles explaining the national security problem with a foreign company owning a media that is used to collect data on US citizens. One of in Journal of Democracy.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/why-tiktok-is-a-threat-to-democracy/
The argument I find compelling is that if we are in a military conflict with China, which we presume is possible given our opposing stances on Taiwan's independence, then we are being surveilled in a way that violates our national security, as well as they enemy then has access to our citizens and can manipulate them to commit treason.
Another piece was by Matt Stoller of the Big Substack.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-explaining-the
He has a compelling argument that says that TikTok is not following the rules that they are supposed to be about data gathering. He also talks about the legal side of it which does not have to do with first amendment but protections from hostile foreign governments. I know that there are exceptions to the first amendment and this sounds like it could be one of them.
I also think that platforms that are global have to adjust to other countries as well because each country has its own constitution, its own laws. One does need to adjust.
This pen is not doing anything but slashing, bashing, and ridiculing for a reason. To counter the mass psychosis stoked by Republicans. Join me in establishing a unified voice to messaging. In unison. https://open.substack.com/pub/hotbuttons/p/mentally-impaired-psychopathic-neo?r=3m1bs&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true