I really dislike point by point breakdowns, it’s too easy to take individual statements out of context and the lack of a clear thesis makes it incredibly difficult to respond without resorting to comments of even greater length.

In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it’s okay to still use it because it’s extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? “The good outweighs the ill” as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.

(That’s not me being bitchy, I just genuinely do not have the time to respond to every single thing you’ve said there. Explaining the literary difference between explicit and implicit dismissal of evidence would alone take us beyond the character limit, as my self indulgent explanation spiraled further and further into the jargony depths of academic tedium…)

Bud we’re lemmy users. We don’t get invited to parties, even ones thrown by other lemmy users.

Nah, you just come into every interaction cloaked in a miasma of confrontational obstinance. It can be really tiring to deal with.

That is interesting, I didn’t realize that was how it was being argued.

In response to the other constitutional argument TikTok is making, DOJ said the law is not a bill of attainder because addressing national security concerns is not a form of punishment and bills of attainder apply to people, not corporations. (via Merriam Webster)

It does sound like there’s some contention about that, and although the national security bit is as cringingly craven as usual, the applicability of the restriction to corporate entities is going to be an interesting decision to see ruled on.

Glad to see you’re up to your usual form, buddy. Keep on fighting the good fight.

(um, name calling?)

Anyways, my criticism was not time delineated, you asked for evidence, and now are claiming the evidence I provided to support my initial claim isn’t good enough because of a new condition you’ve brought out. That’s… I don’t have another colloquial term to describe it besides “shifting the goalpost”. You’re changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid. There’s a term for that (a point I think I’ve amply belaboured by now).

And sure, poor behavior can absolutely be learned from. Thats a core tenet of society. But, just for fun, could you please give me an example of a massive multinational corporation, or a social media platform, voluntarily becoming less evil? There’s been absolutely no indication that TikTok has ever stopped these practices, too. So why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they ever done anything to justify such high regard?

Look I’m sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist? Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You’d think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human. So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?

But the inquisition said it’s to root out heresy, so that means its okay when imperial apps do it.

It’s exhaustively well documented that they did this, I’ve linked to one reputable source a couple comments up.

(FWIW putting users in those categories into a walled garden where their content is only shown some similarly-minded users is a popular form of suppression and you, one of the users in question, would still see that content on your feed. This is what TikTok was caught doing. Anecdotal evidence and all that.)

Wait, what about that is unconstitutional?

Shifting the goalpost much

Sorry I insulted your app waifu with my… substantiated claims about it’s conduct? How disingenuous of me. I should be ashamed, presenting its previous actions as things that it has done in the past.

It’s pretty well documented that they did/do this. I’m sorry, you’ve fully bought into the PR TikTok spin. They present themselves as somehow an egalitarian organization. They aren’t.

I confess I phrased my intial comment a tad too harshly. There are many, many good reasons to criticize this; the loss of an advertising platform is not one of them.

You got some suggestions on where to look? We’re speedrunning the fall of rome over here, it’s pretty much to the point that even hope is an unreasonable thing to hope for…

Its a platform that was secretly suppressing people for being disabled, black, queer or ugly. Cheering it’s death is reasonable, defending it on the grounds that people will have to advertise somewhere else really isn’t.

It’s so nice having a stable OS to fall back to on for those rare occasions where I screw something up on my arch laptop my arch laptop magically borks itself (How did that happen? Who could have done this?).

This sounds like a great place to mention Linux Mint Debian Edition!

The problem is that other 10% where I have to spend my time trawling the arch wiki to fix my OS instead of like… doing cool things on my computer. If that’s what you enjoy that’s great, but your hobby is not my hobby. I’ve used arch on several of my devices, it can be great! But there’s this idea that arch is the perfect solution to pretty much everyone’s desktop problems and it’s crazymaking to see repeated over and over on here.

The only thing that can stop a bad fortune teller is a good fortuneteller.
…
With a gun.

Dang it, you gotta come in here and tempt me to distrohop… That’s a dang attractive choice.

Canada had anti-fraudulent witchcraft laws. Legit fortune tellers would have been fine.