I didnt say they should/would sell it, just that they had options. The data collection is actually important, thats the hand waving your doing by dismissing it. it is literally a national security problem. you can extrapolate state secrets from mobile location data.

If they cared they could have regulated data collection across the board.

they did. they regulated limits on data collection for foreign adversaries. but again that’d require you read and comprehend the bill.

in no way have they limited speech or prevented people from speaking. the fact the oligarchs control the media is absolutely a problem, but tiktok ban wasnt about information dissemination, it was about information exfiltration.

so again what information has the US government banned americans from accessing? Im honestly curious, because I’d love to know what information i can’t access.

lol, there absolutely is. you just dont partake in it. pray tell me what precisely am I prevented from doing on the internet in my US hellscape, that isnt illegal in general internet not withstanding, which you think should be allowed.

true! of course your hand waving why it was banned and the options they were given. tiktok could have divested from chinese control in the US region they chose not to. in no way has the US government censored information from individuals as a result of that bill. they censured the business operating procedures. two very different and distinct issues when it comes to access to content.

In no way have americans been prevented from accessing the information within tiktok. compare and contrast that with say trying to find tiananmen square information in china.

in fact i’ll help everyone out, here is the ruling

uh obviously? do you not understand the distinction between corporate and government mandates? I can explain it if you need me to because its kind of critical to this whole conversation. and if you do understand the difference, then wtf is your point.

dunno what your talking about ive never been blocked by government mandate only corporate mandates, and I can just vpn around those.

ah sorry 8 days ago. ;) my point about self-pity was in reference to your original assertion about there not being realistic paths forward. didnt mean to imply anyone here was. point was that just because you dont consider a path realistic doesn’t mean it isnt.

uh huh and what side of the fence is that? and what side am I on apparently? and who precisely is wallowing in self pity?

it’s a matter of ‘violence costs lives’ and you don’t change a system to one that you prefer and most other people don’t without organised and persistent violence

uh huh, and who are most people in this situation? because most people seem very fine with mr thompsons death. otherwise the media moguls wouldn’t be spending their breath trying to tell people it wasnt okay.

Zuckerberg, trump’s new butt boy, announces meta will stop fact checking.

na you’re just making assumptions instead of reading what is actually said. I have not made a statement about what paths I personally support, only that unless you take action personally non-sense about the practicality of a particular idea is self defeating. there are always challenges and struggles the point is to surmount them not wallow in self pity. again pointing to a personal issue with the person claiming impracticality. not with the person proposing and ideally taking action on a path.

all paths are practical and actionable, if you take action. but thats a you issue not a me or others issue. someone recently showed you a path to take that is effective and simple to do on your own. you’re just not willing to consider it.

there are paths you’re just not willing to consider them.