Pardon my phrasing, but that's some bullshit buck-passing.
If 100 russians or whomever can subvert our democracy, we never really had it together to begin with, did we?
Maybe, and this sounds crazy, but maybe it's domestic people trying to whip up a fallacious outside threat for insider political reasons. A totally unheard of phenomenon.
Considering spies and espionage literally turned the tide of two world wars, you might be selling the effectiveness of it short when conducted at a nation-state level.
Again to your reply, I don't think you understand how pervasive and wide reaching it has become. We are talking about entire groups of protesters and counter-protesters being organized and subsequently funded through donation platforms solely by foreign social accounts.
Though sometimes it ends up making the target stronger if it can overcome the complaints E.g. Soviet propaganda highlighting racial injustice in the US probably forced some real changes in the 60s.
Afaik they still have it, but it isn't used to blast propaganda anymore (just play music for tourists). I haven't found any more recent news articles saying it was removed or taken down, and wikipedia doesn't mention its removal.
It literally says in the first article you posted:
> until it was taken off duty in the 1970s
Followed later by:
> Kinmen stopped using the speakers for such things sometime in the 1970s, opting instead to occasionally play the songs of the Taiwanese pop star Teresa Teng, at moderate volume, for the benefit of tourists.
Taiwan ended martial law in 1987, it's been a democracy ever since. They don't spread propaganda, they are too busy worrying about themselves and trying to ensure they have a good image to distance themselves from china.
Ah I was confused because your suggestion of "Taiwain had" implies that they no longer have it, whereas they do have it but no longer use it. So technically this should be the sentence:
> Also, Taiwan has a huge speaker array pointed at mainland china which [used to blast] propaganda
This isn't cracking enigma, this is shit-posting on social media.
I'm fine with the fun and games and industrial espionage, let the best man win. It's not a threat to our democracy unless our democracy is critically weak. Where's the accountability?
> Tiktok is not a US-based software company, they're a private company from China
It doesn't really matter, because the app code is repackaged at the Google/Apple level. At that point, it is from US-company to US-consumer. There are no "import restrictions" or customs on code (speech) like there are on hardware.
What point are you trying to make here? That the US Government does not have the sovereign authority to determine what companies operate within its borders?
Edit: Yeah, instead of downvoting this into oblivion, how about making an argument that the US Government doesn't have the authority to determine what companies operate within its borders.
> What point are you trying to make here? That the US Government does not have the sovereign authority to determine what companies operate within its borders?
My point is that the US president does not have the authority to tell a US company (Google/Apple) to "stop distributing this code (speech)," because that is the only way a ban like this could be implemented.
Well, there are other ways, but all of them involve legislation by congress and things like Great Firewalls that we don't really want to see happen here. At least, I don't. That is why that any travel down this path I see as an erosion of western democracy, and especially when that travel comes from the executive branch swerving way out of its lane.
If congress were convinced to make a Ban TikTok law, I would still object but it would not be because I think they lack authority, it would be on 1st Amendment grounds.
And to be clear, I despise the app and am a little sketched out by it. But I don't think either of those are good reasons to corrode our liberties.
> My point is that the US president does not have the authority to tell a US company (Google/Apple) to "stop distributing this code (speech)," because that is the only way a ban like this could be implemented.
Yes they can. Who is going to stop them? If the judges/supreme court says that it is legal, then there is nothing that these companies can do to stop the US justice system telling them to do so, and fining or arresting them if they refuse to comply.
> Well, there are other ways, but all of them involve legislation by congress and things like Great Firewalls
No. All you have to do is bring it up in US court, and fine/arrest people if they refuse to comply.
This is how the law works. If you don't follow it, you get fined. And if you continue to not follow it, then mens with guns, known as the police, come to your house, grab you, and put you in a jail cell.
The law is enforced by force. And you really can't just ignore US law like that, if you have any presence at all in the US. Which major companies do.
> I would still object but it would not be because I think they lack authority
You can "object" all you want. But if the judges of the US disagree with you, then none of that matters. You don't decide what the police do. Thats what the courts are for.
I flatly disagree that this is some kind of First Amendment issue. I would love to be proven wrong here, but I'm not aware of any SCOTUS opinion or any related case law that would apply to the argument you are making. That "distributing code" is somehow protected speech.
>That is why that any travel down this path I see as an erosion of western democracy, and especially when that travel comes from the executive branch swerving way out of its lane.
This is naive. Power is power, and the executive branch did much more restrictive things during WWII. We're in Cold War II now and it is absolutely reasonable to expect moves like this, and while I share your apprehension for the erosion of liberties (I really do), at some point you have to make sure you have a winning hand before you put the cards on the table.
> What authority does a US president have to tell a US-based software company to not distribute code from its US servers?
Well it has the authority that is backed up by both the most powerful economic nation, that has the most powerful military in the world, and which is the nation that contains many of the most valuable companies in the world, which will absolutely follow the orders of our judges.
I don’t think this is a particularly helpful path to take the conversation down. Both Trump and China can be threats to democracy, we don’t need to play one off the other to make one look better by comparison.
Only if you drink Trumps racist FUD propaganda. All I see is US bullying China clearly
If Tiktok is the greatest "threat" than obviously there is less than meets the eye. More likely NSA can't spy on US citizens. Its so obviously easy to check out and block. If I were China, I just make things transparent in the age of built in backdoors would be huge untapped market.
It wouldnt work on five eye, but the other 200+ nations would be won [keep it coming haters]
