It's the same fake argument every time they try to take away your rights

You're viewing a single thread.

163 comments

How is this itself not a fake argument?
The arguments in support of tick-tock are a bizarre amalgamation of just about every category of bad faith argument. I haven't seen one that suggests tick-tock it's actually a net benefit.
- it's not that tiktok is good, it's that banning it sets a bad precedent and will be used to justify further control and censorship of the internet
  
  That's a much better argument than what's presented in this meme. There's at least an argument to claim that the difference is about curtailing foreign interest through ownership. Ownership does heavily influence a platform. Unfortunately that hasn't prevented Murdock from owning more formal messaging platforms.
  On a side note, how do you feel about a handful of corporations controlling and censoring the Internet?
  
  I'm all for setting a precedent if it's about banning chinese spyware and propaganda weapons.
  
  They don't want to ban it, they want to seize controll of it and let it operate as is, just with different propaganda now.
- The net benefit is that people enjoy it.
  If there was some negative that outweighed that you'd think the bill would be banning that practice but the thing they don't like is its partially owned by Chinese companies so they're just trying to force it to be sold so it can cobtinye to operate in the exact same way but just for the benefit of an American billionaire instead.
  
  Ok, I agree there's a reasonable argument in there.
  On the one side of the scale is people enjoy it. Maybe that's enough. I feel similarly about drug policies (that is, people want to use it, consequences are on them, not something that should be forced on them by the state).
  I also think it's legitimate to say if there's a problem, policy should reflect that problem. The idea that it's about protecting American money is probably fair too. But those aren't really arguments in support of tick-tock. Those are arguments that others should be included if there's legislation. I would love to see something passed that actually protected privacy universally. A hope for constitutional protection there was one of the casualties of the Roe v Wade overturn.
  Last thing... a nation protecting it's interests is pretty legit in terms of legislative justification. One country protecting it's industry is very common and something both countries in question do all the time. Protecting from foreign interference is a pretty standard requisite for sovereignty. If you want to criticize US for not respecting others, I think you've got plenty of evidence. That's still different than saying a county shouldn't take steps to protect themselves.
  
  Cocaine is something that people enjoy, same with driving drunk or drinking while pregnant. Enjoyment shouldn't factor into any policy related discussions/ decisions.
  I'm not arguing for or against the app, I do not use it. Enjoyment shouldn't affect policy.
- Net benefit to whom? And by what metric? And who gets to apply said metric?
- Whataboutism is a form of informal fallacy.
  
  Whataboutism means nothing at this point. Risk analysis? Whataboutism. Considering consequences? Whataboutism.
  "Informal" means it's not actually a fallacy. Prooooobably because people use it way outside of its definition to dismiss arguments they don't like because they have not thought through whatever they are arguing about.

163 comments