Can you guys tell me how this is *fundamentally* different than Parler or other takedowns, such as American Herald Tribune, RT, Telesur, press TV, the crippling of lbry, & many other lesser known domain seizures.
These were all "legal", adjudicated, sometimes even in the name of "national security".
When something is unwanted by a powerful interest, it's destroyed, regardless of the PR that accompanies the action.
This is easier in the Internet age.
There were a lot of lawsuits
There's really tons of bad information on this stuff.
It's not new.
@jazzilla as others seem to have said, The difference is that this is fundamentally different because our elected representatives passed a law specifically targeting TikToc.
This isn't mere harassment from the government that might be legal, if that's what you're talking about. This is a specific law signed by the president with the specific intention recognized by the courts to shutter this one platform as it exists today.
To me that's a striking difference. It's not a general law about how things should work, it was a targeted piece of legislation specifically trying to take down this company because it had connections to a specific other country.
It's fundamentally the same.
But there's an improvement:
It's official policy.
So now it's out of the dark and into the realm of supposedly representative democracy.
Now it infringes on ppl's sensibilities. It can't be easily sidelined or downplayed. It gets entangled with power interests, in the open instead of backroom deals between the NSA, CIA and doj.
If we're going to continue down this road, it's better that everyone see it.
We may have all been had in multiple ways here... Where the worst of all possibilities all come true.
Smells like miracle ear.
You get the public display AND the Savior.
Be sure you vote right. 🤦♂️
@volkris@qoto.org
Do you know of a good breakfown of the ruling?
Not familiar witht the law itself and the decision.