• Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    No, this is just what it looks like when evil encoaches. Having no true ethical or moral obligations it decides everything on a case by case basis and if it can’t be controlled then it is destroyed.

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    If it’s that problematic with propaganda then banning it after an election was a meaningless gesture. It served it’s purpose and reversing the ban was simply transactional. They paid money and kissed the ring.

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The whole thing? No. The 14 hour temper tantrum? Absolutely.

  • seven_phone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why, he had no need of it whatsoever, unfathomably he has won control of everything and owes no one anything. Also the world is just not this well managed, it’s all just chaos and carnage and design in hindsight.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ah, but he does need something… continual attention and praise. Narcissists gonna narcissist.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Then why mention his name at all. It’s just like the covid checks, Trump demands/wants the attention.

  • Ulrich@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I feel like this is an incredibly obvious yes. They were down for 12 hours. They put Trump’s name as their savior in the error message… Then the CEO shows up to his inauguration. Trump freely admits that it is because he believes TikTok helped him win the election:

    “I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points,” Trump said in December. “And there are those that say TikTok had something to do with that.”

    So. Yeah. Of fucking course it was. Fuck national security and all that nonsense, ME ME ME!

  • kvasir476@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t think there was any grand Machiavellian scheme. Trump just capitalized on historic democrat incompetence to make himself look good.

    • Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Which part of Trump proposing, implementing and then yesterday delaying the ban was down to Democrat incompetence?

      • kvasir476@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Please explain how Trump managed to implement this ban with a democrat controlled senate and Joe Biden as president.

        • Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Thanks, I’ll field this extremely easy question - By executive order before it was a bipartisan bill supported by every level of government:

          In 2020, President Donald Trump proposed a ban of the app as he viewed it as a national security threat. In August, he signed an executive order instructing that ByteDance divest from the app, though the order was blocked by a court injunction in September and was reversed by the Biden administration in 2021.

          To me, making sure that everyone agrees with a new policy before it becomes law, and sending it through the proper channels to be debated and then enacted, doesn’t really seem like a dumb thing.

          The dumb thing would be to propose a new law, enact it unilaterally, have it revoked because it was enacted unilaterally, then have everyone agree on it anyway when you pass it through the proper channels, then toss it in the trash yourself at literally the first opportunity.

                • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  The law stipulates that the POTUS is the person who determines that a platform or app is in violation. Once that happens, an investigation is launched through the AG’s office and applicable agencies. After that the AG’s office makes a determination about whether or not the app/platform is in violation of the law. Once that happens, the platform or app can appeal. But if they lose that appeal then they have a limited time to divest to another entity before their platform is banned and the POTUS can pause not revoke this process for a period of time (to give the app time to divest as is required). So basically Trump now has given Tik Tok a stay of execution so to speak but that doesn’t mean they won’t be forced to shut down or divest.

                  This was a direct politically planned and intended effect of this push so close to the inauguration, so far as I can tell. It’s politicians doing political stuff.

                  Right now he looks like the savior (and that’s intentional, both Tik Tok and Trump get something out of that). But in the long term I don’t know that most Tik Tok users are going to remember that Trump bought the app back and to actually remove the law requires an act of Congress. That will take more time than the limited amount that Trump can essentially delay the removal of the app from app stores and American servers.

                  I honestly think this was a fuck you to Trump from Biden because essentially Biden’s political career is over. Trump is going to do a lot of damage over the next 4 years and do as much as he can to undo any of the progress that has been made. It’s kind of a petty move on Biden’s part, but Trump started this colossal movement against Tik Tok in the first place.

        • massive_bereavement@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think both of you are right: The idea of banning TikTok came during his presidency and he campaigned for it.
          However it was a policy supported by Biden and with bipartisan vote, which means Dems were playing at home, so it was on them to not look stupid.

          It is mentioned in some news that the Facebook people pushed a lot for TikTok’s ban so they could capitalize on a user exodus, though that TikTok feasts on user data and shares it back in China is also true. However you don’t solve that with a ban, you solve that with a proper privacy policy. But no US company wants that, no sir. So the Dems were played like the devil went down to Georgia and they were the proverbial fiddle.

          But… I guess saying this is preaching to the choir as most people in here are dutifully aware of privacy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    No, and that’s an incredibly stupid premise. Trump wasn’t the one to push the Ban. He wasn’t the one to keep it going to completion, and he sure didn’t PLAN on not having a second consecutive term. He’s just following his most basic programming of If Biden did(Thing); Undo(Thing)

      • Red_October@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        So you would suggest that Trump initiated the ban just so he could block it at the last minute, in an effort to make himself look good? If the Donvict hadn’t gotten himself thrown out of office and had been able to see if through, there is no reality in which he then overturns his own ban at the last moment. He purely and only overturned it here because it was not seen as something He did, but something Biden did.

        The premise that Trump pulled a bait and switch, deliberately initiating the ban specifically so he could “look good” by overturning it is absolutely idiotic. He overturned it because Biden finished it, and “Undo Biden” is one of his overriding directives.

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I will argue that so was the Israel cease-fire “strong-man” act. In fact my conspiracy theory is that Israel explicitly delayed the cease-fire so that Trump could look strong by finishing it, then whined a bit in the newspapers to sell it. This is not even the first time they GOP has done this, as per the Iran hostages affair.

    • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Headline from fox news: “Oliver North: Israel will have to put people on the ground and it will be bloody”

      Reality is truly stranger than fiction. If any writer continued to use a character like him for so long in such obvious ways without suffering any consequences, readers’ suspension of disbelief would be shattered.

      He was there for Iran-Contra. He is still here for Israel-Hamas. The exact same playbook. Place political gain over national interest. Put lives needlessly in danger and extend suffering for an easy win.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        because Trump and Bibi said they didn’t talk about delaying it

        Oh well, if the two known liars said so…

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah and it’s not far-fetched considering how openly Netanyahu endorsed Trump. With Trump in office Netanyahu can do whatever he wants, waging a costly in terms of PR war will be no longer necessary.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Can someone explain to me how they believe the Trump team convinced Biden to sign the ban?

    If you think it was a stunt for the benefit of Trump, you’re implying the Biden admin was in on it. Doesn’t make sense to me. Seems the more likely scenario is Biden just royally fucked up again to the point of somehow making Trump look good.

    • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I thought the stunt was on the part if TikTok. They shut down when they didn’t have to and then came back on all chummy with Trump when he announced the 90 day extension. The play was to kiss Trump’s ass. Biden signed it and they took advantage of the situation.

  • CixoUwU@lemmy.cixoelectronic.pl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes, I also think that was bait, because ban started few days before begin of Trump term and ban was not really working. It had a lot of bugs, simple VPN could byoass it, “YES, user who logged in ONLY from USA and now loggin from Europ REALLY IS NOT AN AMERICAN NOW!!!”. That two things make me to think it was a bait.

  • Freefall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, the super obvious political stunt was a political stunt. It only fools those that don’t pay any attention or don’t know how anything works. Biden said he would not enforce the order, that trump signed during his first term, to ban tiktok. Then tiktok chose to shut itself down for a day and chose to turn itself back on with its political pandering notice. It is all to manipulate it’s users while also paying fealty to the incoming president (because China knows that is how easy he is to control).