906
Priorities
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
906 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6034 readers
1983 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They aren't protecting you. They are protecting themselves from what you may give their enemies. Don't think just because the federal government is doing something "for the people" that nominally it's not about the government itself. National security is literally the government protecting itself by protecting its citizens.
Pretty much this! Also it is much easier and cheaper to tell Google to stop offering tiktok in their app store then it is to build affordable housing where it is needed..
Yea but where? There’s a push for it in my state. Drove past a new area that will be a neighborhood of cookie cutter SFH, probably with driveways too short to contain full size vehicles. And they’ll cost more than half a million so I’m not sure how that’s affordable. Anyway. It’s being built on the flood plain. 8/10 flood factor.
We really need more high density housing closer to urban centers, but Americans seem to be allergic to it. Everyone wants their single family house. Also too, without subsidies they're is no profit incentive for developers to build the necessary housing stock, they all shoot for "luxury" housing because it's the most profitable.
I've always wanted like... A townhome. But the problem is anything like that (even away from city/population centers but still near enough to commute is astronomically expensive.
If only we made a school for teaching people how to do the things we need most. It could be run by the government as a nonprofit. We could incorporate medical and all the other industries we are getting gouged by.
I mean, public state universities could fulfill this role if they could get past their admin rot
So cap rent. If a developer wants to build, they need to build what people actually need. You don't need to hand them boatloads of money to make affordable housing more profitable than non-affordable housing, just ban the unaffordable housing nobody needs.
Ah yes, the obvious solution: more suburban blight.
Facebook sold personal data to a foreign organization called Cambridge Analytica who used it to influence our elections. If their motivations are to protect us via protecting themselves, why is Facebook not banned, and not even in the discussion of being banned?
For one thing, today isn't 2015
Did occurring in 2015 happen to make it less bad somehow? We sure as hell weren't passing laws to ban facebook back then either, so I'm not sure what point you think you've made.
Hindsight and foresight are identical I always say
Foresight? We’re talking about the present and the recent past dude are you okay or do you just argue in weird slogans?
We know now what we knew in 40000 bc, obviously
Aren't they the opposite? Unless you are saying we should use past experiences to protect ourselves in the future then shouldn't we still ban Facebook? Regardless of how you feel about tiktok, Facebook was never neutered.
We didn't have the same stance on data privacy back then as we do today. GDPR wouldn't be a thing for another year, not implemented for two more after that (2018). Legislators largely didn't understand the risks associated with unrestricted exchanges of seemingly benign user data at the time. Yay for hindsight being 20/20.
That’s great. Nothing has changed about Facebook so nothing is stopping them from banning it now for the same reason as TikTok. The only reason they wouldn’t is if they had a motivation that had nothing to do with protecting elections from foreign influence.
And we should ban them too. I love this argument. We need better user data privacy laws, and this whataboutism does not change the fact that China is a hostile foreign nation.
I can appreciate that people view Google and Meta and so on as very similar in their transgressions. But as was pointed out in the original comment, this is a cost to benefit ratio type of analysis for the federal government and they gain more by keeping Meta and Google going and can enact other measures to prevent that from hurting them (usually reactionary), so to them this is fine. It is and always has been about what the US government can to do protect itself and enrich itself. Enrichment doesn't always come in the form of monetary value.
If you're upset at your own government (or government adjacent tech entities) gathering this type of data from users, you should be for banning them too, not keeping tik tok.
I am for severely restricting the ability for all corporations to gather and sell user data. You think I’m making a whattaboutism or whatever debate buzzword you want to conjure up; what I’m taking issue with is the argument that the reason they’re getting banned has anything to do with that data collection or “national security”. If that had any truth to it, Facebook would have gotten the same treatment, or at the very least would be in the conversation now since they do the same exact shit. If this was about data collection they would pass regulations about that instead of targeting one specific site to unilaterally ban.
I think you brought this up as a *whatabout" to something I said as a rebuttal rather than an agreement so maybe check your tone. You didn't say anything in your comment necessarily agreeing with the original comment at any point.