Yes, it's the ads. After all, we know how economical and fast it is for people to access healthy meals. I look forward to the speedy eradication of all obesity problems
"We are not influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese government."
It is laughable to suggest that the basis for this ruling is anything less than fear and paranoia about Chinese government softpower. Nothing they could have said, and no fact they could bring to bear, would change the outcome of the court, which has been predetermined, for better or worse, by the current American political climate.
Search tiananmen on any app and then on TikTok.
It is ridiculous that China can block all these sites but the US can't block TikTok
Facebook (and Messenger)
Instagram
Pinterest
Twitter
Blogger
Tumblr
Tinder
Blogspot
New York Times
The Financial Times
The Economist
The Wall Street Journal
Bloomberg
Google News
Wikipedia
YouTube
Netflix
Vimeo
Google Search
Bing
Yahoo
DuckDuckGo
Messenger (and Facebook)
WeChat
SnapChat
Telegram
Signal
But in practice, that means the only global social network—one that is accessible in both the US and in China—is one that agrees to Chinese censorship laws. IMO, this is a massive backfire to the purpose of freedom of speech.
>TikTok, whose mainland Chinese and Hong Kong[3] counterpart is Douyin,[a][4] is a short-form video hosting service (...)
>While TikTok and Douyin share a similar user interface, the platforms operate separately.[28][4][29] Douyin includes an in-video search feature that can search by people's faces for more videos of them, along with other features such as buying, booking hotels, and making geo-tagged reviews.[30]
If social media sites had identity proofing (e.g. IAL2) and you can definitely say who is saying what - then you can talk
A) About “Americans”
B) Freedom of Speech
If TikTok bans a post from user846859347 which American’s freedom of speech are we talking about. 98.65% of shit on TT is bot-generated propaganda and removing it isn’t violating anyone’s freedom of speech
Plenty of countries don't have the First Amendment that are still liberal democracies that adhere to more or less free trade principles. The PRC does it because they are totalitarian State subject to the control of the Communist Party of China and their censorship regime does not stop at the border:
That's a hell of a lot of milieu control. Seems they are just trying to prevent an understanding and ultimately a blending of cultures and are effectively controlling language and therefore the people's world view.
What TikTok offered was abhorrent to American sensibilities:
America: we don’t want ccp censorship of people’s content
ByteDance: no problem, here are the knobs for US gov censorship, should be ok!
America: you have missed the point entirely, pls go away
Have a think why this might be, thinking about…
rule of law, acceptability to the public, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, authoritarian states and arbitrary rules.
There is a reason why one place must carefully plan policy, and another place can arbitrarily restrictions on anyone or anything. State violence can be used in both cases, but typically the later will use friends and family for leverage with such state violence.
I just wish for a world without bytedance and its patrons stamping on the worlds faces forever.
What TikTok offers is compliant with American sensibilities considering it follows US laws and is massively popular with US audiences. You know rule of law... acceptability to the public etc etc. If anything PRC restrictions are less arbiturary since it applies to all platform operators, while US is arbiturary since it doesn't.
One can point out the existence of the law is designed to be not about equal application, and highlight that is reflection on quality of law and the interests behind it. Ultimately, it's applier's perogative to push unequal application. Highlighting this scenario is one where US is more rule by law vs PRC rule of law is certainly going to seem like a mistake to those who want to interpret it as the opposite.
Again, you are missing the point, which may be a product of your environment. It’s not about systemic differences, or who is doing rule of law “properly”.
One side is pointing at knobs with the word China crossed out and replaced with USA.
The other side is shocked that someone would make such knobs in the first place, regardless of their label.
The issue is not the shape of the knob, or the color, or its size. The issue is the knobs existence.
Who is shocked? It's extremely not surprising the knob exists, it's surprising so many people think the knob is one shape when it's another. The original chain is about discussing the shape, not the existence.
Getting closer!! You are not shocked, and can’t see why anyone would be surprised the knob exists. This is closer to the root issue.
I want you to think about people that might be shocked,
Not for the shape, but the existence. Or why one might even desire such knobs. Think about why this might be.
It’s all very abstract now. You are not trying to convince me of anything, and all I am trying to do is expand your perspective. Peace to all.
When did I suggest US didn't have sovereign right to ban tiktok? I'm merely pointing out the reality that PRC didn't specifically craft legislation to ban US platforms - they block platforms that doesn't comply with PRC laws. Whereas US has to specifically single out TikTok because TikTok complying with the same US laws as other US platforms still undermines US interests. It's fine to accept US can do what it wants, but let's not pretend they're the same thing.
I’ll start by saying that I’m honestly largely ambivalent about this entire situation (potentially more than I should be - but I find it more difficult to care about things outside of my immediate control as I get older), but I’m really finding it difficult to understand what point it is you’re trying to make. Is your only issue that the US has far less restrictive commercial laws and so has specifically targeted TikTok in this case?
I don't have issue with US specifically targetting TikTok - it's USsovereign right, I have issue with people who forwards the argument that this is the same as PRC not specifically targetting US platforms who chose not to comply with PRC laws that also apply to domestic plaforms, which btw FB and Google both had initives to comply with (i.e. project dragonfly for Google) but was killed due to internal dissent, i.e. it's US companies that doesn't want to deal with PRC laws. At the end of the day, at least PRC requirements are "fair", they don't have to resort to wild requirements like divestment. At most they required local JV/warehousing, i.e. what TikTok offered with Oracle.
So it sounds like if the US had a far more restrictive system, like China currently has, that was applied across the board you would be OK with this? (That’s an actual question, I’m not trying to be combative). I’m also still unsure why targeting TikTok specifically is “wild”, unless again you think the US should simply never be targeting corporations directly - foreign or otherwise - and instead should always be legislating more broadly?
In case it’s not clear, even though I think I disagree with you I want to again say that I’m trying to understand your opinion, not tear you down.
I'm OK with US banning TikTok on whatever legal lawfare/loophole it chooses to conjure, the goal is afterall to ban TikTok, realstically not just from US but from world via US control of app stores. The "wildness" is not targetting TikTok per say, but the specific tactic of requiring divestment, i.e. literally trying to nationalize (or rather de-nationalize) another countries company (and let's be real ByteDance is PRC even if incorporated in Singapore). Even PRC doesn't go further than a 51/49 JV. They'll have sectoral black/white lists, but that includes/precludes everyone, not country specific. It's just comes off as extra fragile rule-by-law behaviour on platforms even relative to PRC, but as I reiterate elsewhere, that's US perogative, I don't find it "wrong", just highlighting how it's extreme even by PRC standards.
"I'm merely pointing out the reality that PRC didn't specifically craft legislation to ban US platforms - they block platforms that doesn't comply with PRC laws"
This says a lot about how restrictive Chinese laws are vs US laws.
And? It's restrictive but equal - hire 100ks of local moderators at extraordinary cost vs cheap out on human moderation and wrecklessly cause anti-social events. If anything PRC laws are prescient considering the reason they existed was lax US platform enforcement causing 2009 minority riots in PRC after which western platforms (twitter/fb) were blocked for literally refusing to censor calls for violence. Wouldn't be until NZ shooting and Rohingya genocide years later that western platforms took a page from PRC model and increased human moderation - incidentally after which when both FB and Google had internal programs to build PRC compliant services - after they learned unlimited speech is stupid, and human moderation was neccesary cost. After realizing scaling up human moderation made complying with PRC laws possible. And the only reason those initiatives failed was corporate internal drama, i.e. it wasn't PRC that stopped them from reentering market. At the end of the day - western plaforms are converging towards PRC model, not vice versa because restrictions fine. They just can't square PRC platforms operating on same local restrictions which says a lot about US laws.
It's Uncle Sam's bootprint... it's as free as any other boot western platforms wears. Except as we learn the boot doesn't matter if it's a Chinese foot.
Who cares who owns the foot. It’s the action, and the boot, that is the problem.
Don’t make this about the owner, make it about the action. And maybe get rid of the boots?
This site isn't the place for Reddit-quality mudslinging. From the guidelines:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.
Oh no, fear and paranoia about a dictatorial regime with extrajudicial police stations in the US to hunt down family members of domestic political dissidents putting media in front of our children's eyes 24/7 while walking around our streets with space age sensor arrays! Oh no! So unjustifiably fearful!
Who could possibly take issue with such a technology!
> But the jury awarded [...] $250 in damages - the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States.
> Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling.
Based on this intent, Masimo's statement:
> Masimo touts the jury’s ruling as a victory as Apple failed to win an injunction.
$250 in damages is the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States.
> Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling.
This is a good point. Aside from the 3 specific incidents where they claim exactly that on page 13 of the document, the first amendment doesn’t get brought up. If you choose to skip reading those bits it is as if it isn’t mentioned at all.
Respectfully disagree. The sparse mention of alleged 1A violations is just how the pleading stage of pretrial litigation works. This pleading (Defendant's Answer to Complaint) serves to (among other things) (1) explicitly respond to each of the allegations that the Plaintiff raises in their initially filed complaint (p. 1-10), and (2) preserve any defenses that they might raise in the subsequent proceedings here (p. 13). You shouldn't read any correlation between how much a certain defense is discussed in this doc and how strong they perceive that argument to be- at trial (or in the summary judgement motions that Amazon will inevitably file here), they could focus their entire argument alleging 1A violations, or dispose of this argument entirely. Point is, they preserved that choice with this single, albeit short paragraph.
Dropping it here for posterity:
> 3. The meeting referenced in Complaint ¶ 13 was voluntary, but in any event, any Board Decision and Order concluding that it is unlawful to conduct mandatory meetings about unionization or unions or any particular union or about the actual subjects of the meeting in question would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 8(c) of the Act.
Random google converter tells me the amount mentioned by OP for average developer salary of INR 4,20,000 gets to be $18,152 when PPP converted to USD. Is that an average developer salary in US? Something tells me it is not.
I think most modern Python codebases are using dataclasses/ something like Pydantic. I think dicts are mostly seen, like the author suggests, because something which you hacked up to work quickly ends up turning into actual software and it's too much work refactor the types
Meta is already a target for regulators - they are going to have to be very careful around this. I think this is why the "metaverse" is still more likely to be decentralized than created by a tech giant. Even if Meta wanted to take a libertarian, "dream whatever you want", stance or even a "dream whatever you want so long as it is more or less legal" stance, they would see a regulatory deluge come pouring down on them. There is no way VR will be able to go mainstream without a drawn out fight over content prohibitions. I think the early internet was a bit of a historical outlier in this sense, where it happened to come about when a relatively laissez-faire attitude towards censorship was prevailing and people did not realize the full impact it would have. That is not the case now. People understand on all sides that this technology has the potential to revolutionize our systems of social relations once again, and I suspect that they will be fighting tooth and nail to shape that outcome as they most desire.
> There is no way VR will be able to go mainstream without a drawn out fight over content prohibitions
Could be, but it's a bit dystopian to imagine that the government would have a say on the images you can generate- locally and in realtime- and send straight to your own eyes, don't you think? Dystopian and very difficult to enforce, too.
