Then they should ban that, not pass an extremely broad law as I detail in another comment.

The thing people aren’t getting about this law is it’s extremely broad, with no due process. The definition they use for organizations that are subject to this law could literally include the New York Times. And designating an organization as controlled by a foreign adversary is a declaration by the Secretary of Commerce.

There’s no court, no hearing, no public notice, no juries, and only one judge (the secretary).

The point of taking down TikTok is twofold. One, they have a Boogeyman they can use to push it through. Two, if they can shut down an app with 170 million users then they can shut down anyone. That’s half the country that uses TikTok. If they can do that without protests then they can shut down anyone.

Nah, midnight orders are a thing. But the event isn’t on the 20th, it’s on the 19th. The administration could absolutely shut it down.

A. Counter-Intelligence is when you are countering intelligence gathering activities.

B. Nobody has released any evidence that TikTok is an intelligence gathering tool.

C. This law is unconstitutional by the plain text of the Constitution. SCOTUS has truly gone over the edge.

Well yeah, why do you think we’re all buying prepper books and guns? Gotta get ready to be the old guy in the water wars.

Healing of all kinds. Ageing, sickness, and wounds.

Lmao. GoW live service? Fucking hell it’s video games by committee.

Oh gosh, I thought you meant .world World News for a minute there. Yeah the problem is .ml, they’re tankies.

That is not true. That would still be either a subsidiary or a sell off. In the first case it doesn’t satisfy the law. In the second case it’s a very extreme fire sale, more extreme than was actually expected.

What’s your phone number?

That law forced a fire sale of TikTok by name. I wouldn’t follow it either, it’s blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution very clearly, in plain English, bans the practice of punishing specific people and organizations via legislation instead of the justice system.

This is also like citing the laws against Marijuana when asked for evidence the laws against Marijuana are necessary. Entirely circular. There’s still no evidence there.

Threads made up accounts. I’m wondering if Red Note juiced their numbers .

Yeah and I remember when Bush expressed concern there would be mushroom cloud over New York city. Lawmakers saying vague shit isn’t evidence. Hell politicians saying specific shit isn’t evidence without the evidence. We just spent a year debunking half the shit Biden said about the Gaza war because he insisted on straight up repeating whatever lame excuse the war criminals thought up.

It would just be absolutely hilarious, in the darkest way if Trump turned out to be the most progressive leader we’ve had since FDR. Like the universe is giving Monty Python energy.

It’s really starting to look like we didn’t land a recovery. We just put a temporary plug in the hole and called the job done.

Hilarious story. I had that happen to me. I argued it so passionately they thought I actually believed in it. Surprised the hell out of them a year later when I wrote an opinion paper from the exact opposite direction.

Real politics. None of this Mr. Bill stuff. How to find and get involved with your state party, how to get a protest permit, how to get signatures for a campaign, how to read statistics and polling, and finally factual primers on issues.

Trump has expressed a keen interest in being seen as rescuing a platform on which he’s been told he’s widely admired…

Whoever did this is a fucking genius. They love you on TikTok, you gotta save them!

Meanwhile on TikTok, another update of old labor movement songs.

I think you have that reversed. You’re the one with the provable position.

Haha, fair enough