What’s your phone number?

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

Most of big tech actually falls under the TikTok ban possibility. He may have lobbied for it but Congress put him square in the cross hairs. So Trump effectively has a veto on Zuckerberg owning Meta.

Speak for yourself. I’d love an easy to read screen.

So you just spread misinformation on purpose and run away when pressed?

So you’re saying I’m invited to your next party?

Abu ghraib specifically was because of a general officer’s investigation. And it was 12 soldiers because they were the idiots that got mixed up with CIA Contractors doing most of the stupid stuff.

Yeah well I like my rights well protected.

Did you know they defined this to cover any organization running a website that allows you to create an account, has a million users, at least 1 person can share content, and at least 1 person can view that shared content?

With the exception of product, business, and travel reviews.

Does that sound an awful lot like a news organization to anyone else?

Furthermore we already decided that companies have first amendment rights when we let Hobby Lobby have a religion.

If they decide this is good enough then we open the path to any organization in that incredibly broad description being banned. Daily Kos certainly falls under it too. People think Meta dropping fact checkers and going anti immigration just in the US is because Zuckerberg went MAGA? No, he sees the writing on the wall.

This kind of law is how Authoritarian states lock down media in their country.

I’m a simple person. I see rhetoric being passed as fact and I cannot help myself. I know, super popular, invited to every single party.

I think you should if you’re going to make such statements. All you need to do is save your comments where you’ve used those links. Then you can link to those comments.

I’m not asking you to do research. I’m asking you to show research you’ve presumably already done.

So people who didn’t want to see LGBTQ content didn’t see it? Seems like the algorithm was doing it’s job.

Not really. It demonstrates that this is useless and probably not the real intent.

It’s called a bill of attainder.

Merriam Webster is literally using TikTok as an example definition.

Surely you’d be willing to share those studies then? Because the only one I’ve seen was NCRI who didn’t make that claim and are hilariously biased.

Oh they also put TikTok’s name directly in the legislation. Which is unconstitutional. Not even by interpretation. The Constitution directly, and in plain English, bans the practice.

This entire thing is a giant cesspool of constitutional fuckery.

You have evidence of that? Because I saw all of that in my feeds on the daily.