Planned obsolescence isn’t even in my top 10. The worst things about Big Tech are existential, like its use for mass espionage and murder by evil regimes.

Take stories like this with a huge grain of salt until they’re verified by credible international organizations. This genre of story specifically is a classic wartime propaganda tale with not much precedent for being true.

It’s like nuclear fusion, always just around the corner…

1. Chinese manufacturers makes modern cars with modern functionality.
2. The CCP doesn’t make cars.
3. UK has data localization laws.

Tends to happen when you open the conversation by calling someone a “liar for their murderous leader.”

McCarthyism hasn’t been exlusively about the Kremlin since… well since way before McCarthy even died. And it’s a moot task for me to try to convince a paranoiac who eschews facts.

The article is about China and TikTok’s behavior, not “the Kremlin”, and the behavior described in the article is mundane ad-buying. You can quite literally sift through the TikTok ad library yourself to confirm this. Instead you rely on vagueries and call people secret Kremlin agents who are very invested in changing your perspective, like a schizophrenic.

That’s always a rational and logical place to take the conversation - viscious McCarthyist paranoia! Who knows, I could even be Xi himself, trying to make you lower your guard so I can feed you an ad for my dastardly electric car companies while you scroll past memes and tits.

That’s fair, I’m also bored with the topic.

1. They were also fined 2,500 USD each.

2. The case against them that most relates to what you’re talking about is in Michigan. They’re charged in accordance to a Michigan statute that bans deterring voters through “corrupt means or device”, referring specifically to disinformation that the two individuals specifically engaged in and their stated goals. That’s a world of difference from having a social media platform whose policies cultivate a userbase that seeks to get out the vote for a candidate and whose owner uses as a platform to advocate for that candidate. The case is actually going to the supreme court because the statute may be overly-broad.

3. You haven’t provided any evidence or compelling argument that what they or Musk do falls outside of 1A protection. It seems to me that you’re implying that media institutions with a slant towards a political actor or party during an election is violating campaign laws? Please clarify.

4. Invoking 20511 implies you believe pro-Trump disinfo on X posted by thousands of users constitutes “intimidation” of prospective voters. 30101 makes the “X support for Trump constitutes campaign finance fraud” argument look ridiculous:

(B) The term “expenditure” does **not include-

(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

The articles simply describe Chinese media firms buying ads on Tiktok. You can literally search through the ad library and find media firms from basically every country that can afford it.

There is quite literally zero evidence that Tiktok “spreads propaganda” relating to the Russia-Ukraine war of its own volition. There are literally millions of pro-Russia users around the world - i.e India where a huge percent of users come from and where the population is split on which side of the war is to blame - who are responsible.

China doesn’t “write rules” even in its own region. Neither does the US. Newspapers like this one are trapped in a ridiculous false dichotomy. Go look at the regional agreements that govern trade and data which China and the US are both not a part of

Yes, we are all very, very invested in your support and are seeking to trick you into taking sides. You are very intelligent and got one over on us 👌. Please keep contributing inane statements to signal that you’re not being fooled.

I could not think of a way you could have missed the point harder. The point of the article is that firms based in non-belligerent states are offering services to a government that has slaughtered children on an industrial scale for the past year. The article is talking about the legal and moral scrutiny that this monstrous cooperation demands and the ways in which this complicity is buried. You may as well have responddd to an article about 1930s IBM with this tripe.

There are no laws on the books that force social media platforms to tolerate all political expression. While there are laws allowing then to be sued for violating civil rights, that’s not the same thing. Selective bans on people of specific political background are still a common thing across the internet.

So until that’s remedied we’re trapped with billionaire cretins trying to swing politics with their huge platforms.

Wohl and Burkman were fined for sending threatening and intimidating robocalls. Not spreading misinformation.

Fox News is also providing measurable benefit to Trump. They also spread disinformation. If euther of those things were illegal they’d been shut down back when they were calling Obama a Kenyan Muslim.

Please identify exactly which law Musk is breaking and with exactly which action.

How does a US citizen “interfere” in a US election? Nothing described in the article is illegal. “Interfere” is usually used to denote actions by outside powers.

So long as the Israeli bot networks stay off of here. I don’t like how China is discussed here but it’s a function of the type of people this place attracts, i.e not fans of authority.