Spyke
lemm.ee

(Not you OP, you = governments)

You want to block corporate social media sites as propaganda

I want to block corporate social media sites because they’re parasites on society.

We are not the same.

148
lemmy.world

Im actually quite upset that lawmakers havent used this to pass generalized privacy protection.

They have an opportunity to end mass survailance, but thats OK if its US survailance

65

Our tools of social connection vs their tools of propaganda.

Now fill in the possessive pronouns with either country and change them depending on the specific tool used.

18

Because the US government is more interested in picking who can spy on us for fun and profit, not whether anyone should.

15

I don't care what they are. I just think the internet in its current state sucks and I like the idea of there being less of it.

3

What sucks is I've imagined a social media platform that was built with good intentions to actually better being people together and make their lives better. It's one of the worst missed opportunities in recent memory.

4

Tankies like a lot of evil shit, so I really don't care about what they like or don't like.

3

IIRC China tried to stir up its internet users about the US blocking Tiktok and it fell flat because it's blocked for them too.

71
PatFustyreply
lemm.ee

I don't understand why you guys are trying to educate me on how Bytedance operates. It's the same as how Weixin and WeChat work. China wants to moderate and curate Douyin but you guys still expect China not to get involved in Tik Tok. Sure it's content is different but it's literally the same thing with the same backdoor accessibility. Anyone that argues 'bit China do good seeeeee' is obviously masking their love for the red boot flavor.

-2
lemmy.one

Hilariously, you can interpret what I said in two ways:

  1. China do good by blocking kid access

  2. China do bad by limiting kid exposure internally while letting tik Tok run amok internationally

I'm of the latter camp, personally.

6
PatFustyreply
lemm.ee

What I don't understand is the sentiment that China would want to let Tik Tok run amok but drills down on Douyin. All while at the same time they say "see China doesn't allow Tik Tok either, it's nothing like their child friendly great alternative Douyin".

-4
lemmy.world

China allows TikTok to run amok to do damage. Why would they want to do damage in their own country? Of course they would restrict it there.

3
lemmy.world

They're technically not banning tiktok, they're banning China from owning tiktok

78
bouhreply
lemmy.world

Which is somehow even worse : it's like only the USA is allowed to spy on everyone!

20
duffmanreply
lemmy.world

They can still spy, but why would we make it easier for them?

11
bouhreply
lemmy.world

So you don't ridiculise your country by promoting freedom of trade but seizing the assets of the countries you don't like when it's a better tech than yours.

6

our most and least popular politician is a sex predator who earned all his money by his dad dying and is currently at risk of losing his money because he can't stop lying about things.

The greatest monument to american shamelessness is Donald J Trump.

2

I'm not with my government on a lot of things they do. I want the same data rights and restrictions to apply to all companies that host people's personal information.

But what's this about Impressive tech? Tiktoc? First that's laughable, even more laughable is how you phrase is as if anyone would give a fuck if another country had some better tech. Sounds like you are projecting your own insecurities.

2

It will be just as easy for them, just less profitable. Now they'll just pay Zuckerberg or Musk for the information. If they aren't already.

5
lemm.ee

And it’s not like they can’t maintain use of the thing while not being owners. Come on. Like there’s some magic rule if a company’s not owned by China, it can’t be used as a Chinese intelligence source? Come on.

If social media is in cahoots with foreign intelligence, there are better ways to handle it in my opinion.

5
lemmy.today

The fact that China is using disinformation to stop the forced sale of TikTok is pretty telling that they will be negatively impacted by this.

3
lemmy.world

They're functionally forcing the sale of the company to a US Firm at fire sale prices.

16
Rinoxreply
feddit.it

Yeah, you are right. They should do like they do in China, sell to a JV with a local company at fire sales price... Oh wait

5

sell to a JV with a local company at fire sales price

The Chinese policy is to share ownership with locals, so that a firm isn't simply extracting wealth from the Chinese market.

The American policy is to seize a pre-existing firm after it has developed, by accusing its Singapore founder of being a secret Chinese Communist.

-1
lemmy.world

This is primarily intended as a hostile buyout of tiktok. It has literally nothing to do with China.

8
lemmy.today

Lmao, the USA doesn't operate the commercial sector outside of power, trains, rockets, and planes. It won't benefit from the sale in any way other than lowering Chinese involvement.

1
lemmy.world

The US government works for the billionaires that run the economy. Many billionaires want to buy tiktok. In fact, there's already teams of people set up for buying out tiktok. The government is just the tool for the hostile acquisition. No one said the US government is directly purchasing tiktok.

4
lemmy.today

The US Government and Billionaires are opposing forces, one political party wants to tax billionaires while the other is on the payroll.

-3
tbs9000reply
lemmy.world

They’re not at all opposing forces. Some billionaires are in competition with each other and political parties are tools at certain billionaires disposal.

The act of taxing income is but one political mechanism used to influence the power of some billionaires over another.

2
lemmy.today

So which of these shadow government billionaires is pro-government in your eyes?

2

I’m not sure I understand your question. They are both pro-government. If any one human could be the personification of government, it would be the President of the United States.

1
finniereply
lemmy.world

They're not going to sell though. The US only makes up a single-digit % of their users.

-23

Then you have no point? They're not going to sell their money machine because a tiny fraction of it went away.

-23
finniereply
lemmy.world

Then you agree that they're not going to sell? What does being the largest single market have to do with this? Fucking make a point, dude.

-25
finniereply
lemmy.world

Your source is fine 👍

Yours says that ~90% of their users are not from the US.

Despite the US being Tiktoks largest single-country user base they still only make up a sliver of their monthly-active users.

-10
lemmy.world

So just over 4% of the worlds population is making up 10% of the usage. I suppose the owners shouldn't care about that sliver of the users. They should care more about the smaller slivers, got it.

4
finniereply
lemmy.world

Tiktok is one of the largest social media apps on earth, they're not selling it over a sliver. Why does it matter how much bigger the sliver is than the other ones? Are you stupid?

-6

"TikTok" is an American Company. Their owners, ByteDance, also own a nearly identical product in china called 抖音 (Douyin). The Chinese version is much more closely operated by the military, their offices are literally military owned buildings and lots.

7
S_204reply

How much of their ad revenue comes from America though?

1
SMT42reply
lemmy.world

More like, tiktok is our specific version

Douyin is what China has. That came first, then the parent company developed tiktok for release outside of china.
Then they bought Musical.ly, merged it with tiktok, and that became the modern version of the app

22
PatFustyreply
lemm.ee

They blocked Douyin? That's news to me

-12

It's not the same platform. Douyin has a different, separate database of content. Even though they share the same idea of how the app should function, they are disjoint social media platforms.

1
lemmy.ml

I hate tiktok

but all these talks about keeping children off phones is restricting the flow of information to a point that it scares me. we have Enciclopedias in our pockets ffs.

if the bar kids from easily accessing the internet, they're effectively blocking 2mil people (14-17) from instant access to information. (I did some sleep deprived math, dont @me if its off)

19
KairuBytereply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

As far as I know, there’s no legislation being talked about to keep kids off their phones, or even social media. This is more of a concern about China having unfettered access to user data at the drop of a hat, which I can absolutely agree is an issue. Though I don’t know that current legislation is the solution.

That said, kids absolutely do need to spend more time off their phone than they do. We’ve seen legitimate issues arise from perpetual phone use. The issue is… you can’t really legislate that. It’s parents that need to get their heads out of the sand and actually parent.

9
lemmy.ml

If they actually cared about that, they would legislate data privacy laws that keep our data from being sold on the open market. As it is now, everyone from the FBI to your local cops, to the RNC to Chinese or Saudi companies can pay cash for user data. This legislation is largely protectionism for our own domestic surveillance capitalism industry.

5
KairuBytereply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Absolutely agreed, but that’s something republicans would never vote for. This is something that actually has a chance to be implemented.

Baby steps are better than no steps.

3
lemm.ee

I'm thinking of downloading Wikipedia for my kids to use offline. Apparently it's around 300gb, so I'll probably do it on work's wifi one day.

5
Nebulareply
lemmy.ml

Lol yeah its far smaller without the pictures - I think closer to 50GB? Not sure though you'd have to check, but much better than 300GB.

2

Well it should come as no surprise the dictionary is in one of the most recent pushes for book bans in Florida

3

Honestly the brain dead obvious political move outside of monied interests is strong legislation to protect peoples information.

But we won’t see that

18
lemmy.world

Well, do you want to be like China in that regard?

12
lemmy.world

Yes clearly the way you know you are always doing the morally correct thing is to sink to the level of the everyone else.

2
Zehzinreply
lemmy.world

And by everyone else you mean one country known for authoritarian censorship

2
lemmy.world

What I meant was a general operating principle, not to take a side in a pissing match.

The standard is good behavior, not other people. Pointing out that X country is doing something wrong does not mean every country gets to do that wrong thing. The alternative to this viewpoint is one where we are effectively or actually extinct from an escalating cycles of violence and a race to the moral bottom.

1
Zehzinreply
lemmy.world

See I thought you meant the exact opposite and thought "damn that's dumb, that person is being dumb, I should be snarky"

1

USA is not banning tiktok, it's banning china's ownership of tiktok. If Chinese stake is sold to someone else, tiktok will remain.

1
lemm.ee

My self hosted DNS does all of that banning too. But that's just my little quality of life thing (and whatever little that does fighting the global data overlords).

11
AeonFelisreply
lemmy.world

The fine line between "I don't want to do the thing" and "I don't want you to be able to do the thing".

12

Yes.

But it's a blurred lines between having to do something or being pressured or heavily encouraged to do something (otherwise you are left out of an important social system).

I'm totally agreeing with you, just adding that sometimes infrastructure matters (as it gives little choice to population) & can be especially bad if there is a single entity behind it with it's own agenda not aligned with users interests (eg for profit companies, or in this case I guess geopolitical stuff too).

5
lemmy.ml

The same could be said of the US. GAFAM works for the US just like TikTok works for China. I'd like to see the reaction of the US if the EU told Meta to sell the European branch so they "can't spy on EU citizens".

10
KairuBytereply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

There’s a difference here. Neither the US not the EU can just put their hands out and say “data pleeeeeaaase” and get what they want. There are legal and procedural protections in place for such things.

Chinese companies on the other hand, are required to do whatever the CCP says, when they are told to.

5
bufalo1973reply
lemmy.ml

Yeah, right. Like Meta will say "fuck you" to the NSA.

1
KairuBytereply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

If things go through the proper legal channels, no. But we are talking about anything not just specific things that go through the courts.

The CCP can say “Give me everything you have on bufalo1973, they bothered me one time and I want to bomb their house” and any Chinese company immediately hands over the data, because they have to.

In contrast, the NSA can still get some of that data, but they can’t demand it and expect it to be handed over without a good reason, and without jumping through hoops.

As an aside, trying to equate the CCP and the NSA is… odd. The CCP answers to no one, the NSA answers to the DOD, who answers to Congress.

6

Aside from Apple refusing to decrypt phones most tech companies seem to not have put up any resistance to providing the US (or even the saudi government in the case of X) with whatever info they ask for.

Like I think one of the regulatory agencies had to introduce a rule to bar US tech companies from selling user data to china.

1
lemmy.today

A FORCED SALE IS NOT A BAN.

I've said this like a thousand times and I hate repitition, but the USA as a whole has never tried to ban TikTok. Trump claims he did, it isn't allowed for military servicemembers, but it has never been banned.

9
Jyekreply
lemmynsfw.com

Forced sale only works if your government has any control over the organizational structure of your company which the USA does not. What they are effectively doing is forcing the American arm of Tik Tok to sell without access to it's technology which China can absolutely deny. If the sale doesn't go through, the US will ban its use. If they do sell, it will be without the technology and a company will be Tik Tok in name only having to essentially build the service from the ground up. This is an effective ban of Tik Tok regardless of the outcome.

7
lemmy.today

What makes you think the proprietary rights held by the Chinese hold any sway in the USA? If they want to try suing they can, heck they can even take it to international courts, but they won't have much luck given the evidence that China was using it maliciously.

1
Jyekreply
lemmynsfw.com

What I mean is, there is no way the Chinese headquarters of tik Tok will let the America arm of the company have access to its algorithm. Tik Tok is nothing without its algorithm. At best it's a large install base that will dwindle once they realize til Tok kinda sucks all of a sudden.

3

Oh that would be interesting, it seems very uneconomic for it to be that centralized because the US facilities would be useless but I suppose I could see it as a possibility. In that case, whoever they sell to could try to sue them with pretty unlikely odds of success. More likely China would just refuse to sell in that circumstance, in which case it would be the same as China themselves ending TikTok.

2
sopuli.xyz

TikTok is literally a weapon created and used to undermine the USA (among other democracies but mainly USA) and to brainwash its citizens. Anyone who doesn't see it is a useful idiot who bought into Chinese propaganda.

-2

I'd be happy with just a minor amendment to the Communication Decency Act that would make social media companies liable for content their algorithms recommend. It's fine for them to be shielded for liability for things posted by users on a site that's moderated to avoid the problems that act was designed to prevent. But as soon as a complex algorithm is recommending content to someone, it should be considered to be the same as traditional media publishing something.

And the libertarian techbros should be happy with this because it's actually less regulation. Though somehow I think their libertarian ideals would melt away when a regulation that shields them from liability is removed.

6

I literally watch cat videos and cooking videos on tiktok. Damn Chinese. Giving me cute cars and recipes.

4
Lemmyreply

If you think this is only about TikTok, you bought into US propganda instead.

2
lemmy.world

China controls speech to Censor Genocide : boooo

America controls speech to Censor Genocide : yaaaay

The irony of America doing exactly the same censorship as China when the roles are reversed, and people are cheering it on as if it's some gocha

-2
sh.itjust.works

They don't mean USA-made genocide, but Israel-made genocide that USA doesn't dare to pull its whole weight to stop.

2

Well yeah but that’s not being censored. It’s a pretty volatile and active conversation.

2

You’re already banned from buying Cuban rum, among thousands of other products (at least). This is just one more.

2

You're free to do what your government tells you I guess, exactly like the chineese I guess...

0
mlg
lemmy.world

Imagine blocking TikTok for being a competitor in a so called free market under the guise of national security and privacy

They didn't blink an eye when Facebook had to testify about blatantly abusing COPPA and doing the exact same thing.

And not even the platform itself, just the company so it can be liquidated or sold to an American megacorp so it can make money for the poor shareholders and let the NSA do their funny PRISM plugin.

-5

The company is allowed to operate under different ownership. It's pretty simple, and makes a lot of sense for the nation's interests given the amount of hostility from China.

4
lemmy.world

Americans are the most propagandized people on earth. They'll kick and scream about Chinese Censorship, then accuse a Singapore CEO of being a Chinese Communist and pass legislation to Censor an American company because it took money from Chinese investment group ages ago.

3
Fedizenreply
lemmy.world

Imo they should force a sale of twitter for taking saudi money as well, but I guess somehow the execution happy saudis are somehow better people?

6

Imo they should force a sale of twitter for taking saudi money as well

I mean, they should quarantine that whole site and sterilize it with napalm. But forcing the sale is another option.

2

But china doesnt claim to be a paragon of freedom unlike the united states. No one cares that china banned american social media becuase its expected. People care that america bans tiktok because its hypocritical.

Besides, tiktok isn't even "chinese", their government only has a 1% stake in the company while foreign investors(mostly american) hold 60% IIRC. Y'all can fact check me on that. This is an attempt by the American bourgeosie to force bytedance into being publicly traded so that Americans can have more sway over the companies decisions. This allows them to silence an alternative news source that often conflicts with their interests or make a shit ton of money if they give in and opem up to public trading.

The American bourgeosie is nervous about actually facing competition on the online market place. They've dominated it so long thanks to silicone valley and they got used to it.

-6

I wholly agree with you first paragraph.

But the 1% stake the Chinese government has in ByteDance is a golden share.

From The Economist:

More stunning are the terms of these investments. ciif’s 1% stake in a ByteDance subsidiary gives it the power to appoint one of three board members in a unit that holds key licences for operating its domestic short-video business.

To what extent the CCP will exert control or what ByteDance has agreed to is unclear. And who knows if any of that matters.

21
lemmy.world

The U.S. doesn’t claim to be a paragon of freedom for the CCP or Chinese-owned and operated enterprises lmao

7
bouhreply
lemmy.world

Ah yes, the famous "you're free as long as you obey me". Totally not imperialism.

3
lemmy.world

What freedoms granted by the Constitution have ever applied to foreign legal entities? And since when did sucking off 200 billion dollar corporations become part of the leftist playbook?

8
lemmy.ml

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/?sh=c8b4d9f4f1de

The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, *Boumediene v. Bush, *which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

Unless otherwise specified, the rights granted in the US constitution apply to all people of the world regardless of where they are.

If corporations are people as defined by citizens united, then these protections apply to foreign companies also.

4
  1. One can only speak for themselves. Is extremely weird to say “we support X now?”. I’m not a we, and neither are you.
  2. Nowhere did I say I supported it, the question was since when do foreign companies get rights, and my answer was merely showing a way in which they would under our current precedents.
2
bouhreply
lemmy.world

I'm not sucking any corporation. Many people here are licking USA ass though. In support of a shameless imperialist move.

2

Idk, I’ve looked through a lot of comments here, and there seem to be three prevailing opinions:

  1. “No social media company is a good social media company, let it burn”
  2. “I don’t actively want to see TikTok banned, but there are literally thousands of more important things to worry about than the legal troubles of an—again— $200,000,000,000 corporation
  3. ”Nooo u force ByteDance to sell TikTok that is hypocrite and liturally the same as the Great Firewall” (it isn’t, by the way; the U.S. will never block the website no matter what happens)
2

yes, because its being done for different reasons with different results.

-8
MisterMooreply
lemmy.world

It’s not being more like China. It’s treating them the way they treat us. Simple reciprocity. The same thing is often done when other countries level a tariff against our products.

16

What kind of brainwashed supporter can you be to say such thing? This is about freedom of speach and right of property, the things supposedly sacred in the USA.

USA is merely demonstrating its hypocrisy here.

4

Except blocking an app is also a treatment of your own citizens.

2
lemmy.world

It’s not being more like China. It’s treating them the way they treat us.

So..acting like China acts is not being like China?

The same thing is often done

Did nobody ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Or about the Appeal To Tradition logical fallacy?

when other countries level a tariff against our products.

Which rock were you living under when Trump waged his stupid tariff war with China? Nothing good came from that bullshit, least of all for the working class people of both countries.

-2

That doesn't apply here since Tiktok isn't being intolerant. The Chinese and US governments are.

-5
lemmy.world

It’s not “being like China” so long as the U.S. does not seek to ban platforms from countries that do not ban U.S.-owned platforms.

The freedom of information should absolutely be bilateral between states, otherwise the permissive state cedes undue influence to the restrictive one.

-2
lemmy.world

Again, Tiktok ≠ China.

While it can certainly be argued that its ties to the government are problematic, it's not Tiktok banning US platforms.

If Tiktok WAS banning platforms for xenophobic reasons (demonstrating intolerance), banning it for that would be prudent as per the paradox of tolerance linked above.

That isn't the case, though. The US ban is an intolerant and oppressive violation of the freedom of expression of the users of Tiktok and, yes, even the owners.

Even if the oppressive Chinese government has a big influence on the platform, that influence hasn't been proven to cause Tiktok to behave in an intolerant manner, so it's basically a case of declaring guilt by association.


The US government could and SHOULD introduce regulations to minimize the amount of data collection and -sharing that Tiktok, Facebook, Twitter, Google and others currently get away with and then punish all transgressions against those regulations.

AKA regulate and punish bad behavior from anyone doing it, not banning a popular platform guilty only of what congress refuses to try to stop them and others from doing.

2
lemmy.world

Again, Tiktok ≠ China.

Point to where I said TikTok = China lmao

it's not Tiktok banning US platforms.

I also never said TikTok is banning U.S. platforms, either…

The US government could and SHOULD introduce regulations to minimize the amount of data collection and -sharing that Tiktok, Facebook, Twitter, Google and others currently get away with and then punish all transgressions against those regulations.

Yes.

-1
lemmy.world

Point to where I said TikTok = China lmao

I also never said TikTok is banning U.S. platforms

What you DID say was that it's ok to ban Tiktok because of the actions of China, namely the banning of some American platforms. That would only make any kind of legal sense if Tiktok indeed WAS China.

-3

Dude, what?

You claim that banning TikTok would make sense if TikTok was China. How would the U.S. “ban” China if not for banning Chinese private enterprises from U.S. markets?

2
harkreply
lemmy.world

No way, only China and Russia (THE BAD GUYS) spy while the US is innocent and unaware of even how to spy because it's the GOOD GUY.

10
drislandsreply
lemmy.world

Huh, interesting. Thanks for that.

ETA: I realized I was unclear. I'm thanking the user for giving me such a clear reason to block them. It's not always so cut and dry.

0
lemmy.world

So China is fascist because it bans your tools. Now you ban china's tools. What do you think this means?

Yes, it means you're fascist too.

-12
NewDarkreply
lemmings.world

Ah yes, the classic definition of fascism, the banning of tools.

29
bouhreply
lemmy.world

The expropriation of tools of communication, with the aim of controlling them...

2

Ah yes, the classic other definition of fascism. Governmental control or restriction over communication software.

1

Do you think the U.S. controls Zuckerberg or Pichai or Musk?

They have no way to get to those companies either.

1

LoL. I am a fascist guy. I might kill you. But u are very peaceful guy. U should not attack me while defending yourself

2

So no different than any international corporation that offshores for best financial advantage?

Where a business is incorporated or operated from has no bearing on where the ownership money comes from.

12
lemmy.world

Oh look... the liberals are at it again.

Your whataboutism doesn't change the fact that the west's claims of valuing "press freedom" turning out to be completely false posits severe implications for your ideology, liberal - not anyone's living in China.

-52
lemmy.world

You're not communicating your point very well. Do you mean like neoliberal liberal or like fox news liberals?

33
masquenoxreply
lemmy.world

“non-tankies”

Perhaps it's best not to use terms you don't understand, liberal.

-21
lemmy.world

Alright fuck it, I'll ask: what do you think tankie means?

And more-importantly, what did you actually mean? lol

-12
popcap200reply
lemmy.ml

Like the other guy said, authoritarian communists.

Or authoritarian communists pretending not to be. The type of people to come out and defend everything China and Russia do while decrying "the west" at every opportunity. Constantly at it with "what aboutisms" and other bad faith arguments. People who claim we should vote third party/not vote while pretending they want to make the US better through these actions, when really they just want the US to fail. Jackson Hinkle types or Infra Haz types.

If I recall correctly, tankies are named because tanks were used to put down protests in Czechoslovakia under the USSR and tankies will defend it.

18

Interesting. I looked at the urban dictionary definition, which was super helpful from a historical perspective (people that support sending in the tanks). But appreciate the straightforward answer. Thanks!

Not sure why people were offended by my comment. Maybe I could've worded the question better. It's weird if people expect others to know this super obscure shit no one ever really talks about anywhere else.

4
lemm.ee

It's very simple. "Authoritarian Communists"

Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies.

The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

17

Sorry, I must be the dumbest person who ever tried to be a leftist.

So the first guy criticized libs (seems like the answer is fox news type libs) and then I asked him to clarify and another person replied saying he means not-tankies (so leftists that aren't neolibs/or just communists maybe?). At that point the first guy replies saying he knows what tankie means and that the other guy actually doesn't. That's when I replied again.

Now it seems like you (and voters) are saying the guy that replied to me was in fact correct in his usage meaning she didn't guy's actually a tankienor maybe a conservative? I get lost there. Surely the first guy isn't an authoritarian communist. Like what? Someone help!

I just want to communicate with other political junkies and nerds that want to fight capitalism... someday, somebow.

4
masquenoxreply
lemmy.world

neoliberal liberal or like fox news liberals?

Is there a functional difference?

-3
lemmy.world

Doesn't fox refer to anyone to the left of the American center as liberal? I'm not super versed but I was thinking it wouldn't make sense to call socialists, neoliberals, and communists all liberals and I def don't think fox is being that specific

10

Doesn’t fox refer to anyone to the left of the American center as liberal?

Yes, they do... but this doesn't change the fact that Fox itself peddles liberalism - ie, capitalism. That is, when it's not peddling outright fascism - liberalism's status quo-sustaining alter-ego.

I was thinking it wouldn’t make sense to call socialists

No, it doesn't make sense to call people such as socialists - who want to dismantle all aspects of liberalism (and with it, fascism) - "liberals."

0
lemm.ee

China isn't a good country either. I don't get why your so excited to back people up who commit genocide.

Also is banning TikTok really preventing freedom of the press? They are beholden to the Chinese government and used to suppress talk about the Uighyur cultural genocide.

How about we instead replace it with something like Lemmy but for video?

1

China isn’t a good country either.

China never claimed to have a "free press."

Also is banning TikTok really preventing freedom of the press?

What (alleged) "freedom of the press"? This (supposed) "freedom of the press" is a cornerstone of liberal ideology - not whatever it is that China is doing.

Again... the realization that liberal ideology is full of holes (and always have been) has implications for liberals - not people living in the PRC.

0