America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

Having experienced the lovely few hours of the US ban it became very clear that the vast majority of the propaganda (and bots/ads/trolls) were of American origin. The rest of the world would be very happy for the ban to return.

Seeing that Zuckerberg is intefering in your free speech by suppressing Democrat content, perhaps you should be more concerned with the enemies within.

The Chinese already operate "secret police stations" in America and that's just what the public is told. There's no doubt they have a stronger influence than just that. And if the Russians can pay idiots to spout crap on social media, the Chinese are likely doing it too and we already know the CCP manipulates the algorithm to make people see what they want them to see. The CCP wants America to be at odds with one another and to fracture our government so it can swoop in and become the world leader while we're all squabbling like idiots.

As for Zuckerberg, he's not interfering with free speech. Free speech means the government can't suppress it. Facebook....errr Meta is a private company that can suppress whatever it wants. Do I agree with it? Nope, but it's not doing anything illegal. Also, Facebook can post whatever propaganda it wants because it's protected under the First Amendment. TikTok isn't American nor are the people who run it, they shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. So, while both apps are terrible for humankind, at least in America, Facebook can continue to exist doing what it's doing. TikTok should not. If Meta wasn't an American company and if Zuckerberg wasn't an American citizen, I'd be in agreement that we could go ahead and ban Facebook, too.

And yes, Facebook collects all kinds of data on its users, you agree to that when you sign up. However, unlike TikTok, you can theoretically sue Meta if they do something illegal with your data (it probably wouldn't be that successful or cheap). If anyone tried to sue a Chinese company, it would end up like how it does when automakers sue Chinese companies for stealing their designs. The Chinese courts would just say, "nope there's nothing wrong here," and then completely ignore the case.

 

[TexRex]

The Chinese already operate "secret police stations" in America and that's just what the public is told. There's no doubt they have a stronger influence than just that. And if the Russians can pay idiots to spout crap on social media, the Chinese are likely doing it too and we already know the CCP manipulates the algorithm to make people see what they want them to see. The CCP wants America to be at odds with one another and to fracture our government so it can swoop in and become the world leader while we're all squabbling like idiots.

As for Zuckerberg, he's not interfering with free speech. Free speech means the government can't suppress it. Facebook....errr Meta is a private company that can suppress whatever it wants. Do I agree with it? Nope, but it's not doing anything illegal. Also, Facebook can post whatever propaganda it wants because it's protected under the First Amendment. TikTok isn't American nor are the people who run it, they shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. So, while both apps are terrible for humankind, at least in America, Facebook can continue to exist doing what it's doing. TikTok should not. If Meta wasn't an American company and if Zuckerberg wasn't an American citizen, I'd be in agreement that we could go ahead and ban Facebook, too.

And yes, Facebook collects all kinds of data on its users, you agree to that when you sign up. However, unlike TikTok, you can theoretically sue Meta if they do something illegal with your data (it probably wouldn't be that successful or cheap). If anyone tried to sue a Chinese company, it would end up like how it does when automakers sue Chinese companies for stealing their designs. The Chinese courts would just say, "nope there's nothing wrong here," and then completely ignore the case.

This is stupid and you should feel bad.

 

[Joey D]

This is stupid and you should feel bad.

I don't feel stupid over that, so care to give me a better explanation?

 

[Danoff]

Also, Facebook can post whatever propaganda it wants because it's protected under the First Amendment. TikTok isn't American nor are the people who run it, they shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where's the US citizen or US company part? Lots of companies are technically irish, or operate in other countries. It's hard to say what country is based in the US anymore or how much. The first amendment is a limitation on the types of laws congress can make.

 

[Joey D]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where's the US citizen or US company part? Lots of companies are technically irish, or operate in other countries. It's hard to say what country is based in the US anymore or how much. The first amendment is a limitation on the types of laws congress can make.

Non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens, nor should they. ByteDance is a Chinese company, and the CCP directly controls every company in China by its very nature. They don't get afforded these rights.

It's legally debatable how much protection non-citizens in the US get, but ByteDance isn't in the US; it's in China and the Cayman Islands.

 

[Danoff]

Non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens, nor should they. ByteDance is a Chinese company, and the CCP directly controls every company in China by its very nature. They don't get afforded these rights.

It's legally debatable how much protection non-citizens in the US get, but ByteDance isn't in the US; it's in China and the Cayman Islands.

The first amendment is a restriction on the kinds of laws congress can make. The target of those laws is not listed. All of us are entitled to "protection" from congress making any laws abridging freedom of speech of anyone.

 

[Fezzik]

As this is (sometimes) a site about gaming, some thoughts on tariffs and game prices from an industry expert .

(screencapped because I don’t know if Bluesky works here and I don’t use the Nazi’s service)

That rumored $100 price for GTA 6 is looking rather plausible.

 

[Joey D]

The first amendment is a restriction on the kinds of laws congress can make. The target of those laws is not listed. All of us are entitled to "protection" from congress making any laws abridging freedom of speech of anyone.

I brought up free speech because @Fezzik said I should be worried about Zuckerberg suppressing free speech. Zuckerberg can't suppress free speech because telling someone they can't say something through a private company isn't a violation of free speech. Congress couldn't ban Facebook either since Facebook is an American company based in America and run by an American citizen. The Constitution protects them to allow people to say whatever they want on their platform.

TikTok isn't American, it's not based in America, nor is it run by an American. It doesn't get the same rights afforded to it, nor should it. Congress can and should ban TikTok and it wouldn't be at odds with free speech because the First Amendment doesn't protect TikTok since it's not American. TikTok is also a national security concern since it gives a backdoor into networks and China is an enemy nation. The fact that politicians have TikToks is alarming, especially when I'm not even allowed to have it and our security team has proof of it being used as a backdoor into our systems. I won't even allow it on my home network and it's blocked across the board.

 

[Pupik]

Although I'm probably not supposed to feel any remorse whatsoever for Trumpists. You get what you deserve.

Democrazy

 

[Danoff]

I brought up free speech because @Fezzik said I should be worried about Zuckerberg suppressing free speech. Zuckerberg can't suppress free speech because telling someone they can't say something through a private company isn't a violation of free speech. Congress couldn't ban Facebook either since Facebook is an American company based in America and run by an American citizen. The Constitution protects them to allow people to say whatever they want on their platform.

This part is right.

TikTok isn't American, it's not based in America, nor is it run by an American. It doesn't get the same rights afforded to it, nor should it. Congress can and should ban TikTok and it wouldn't be at odds with free speech because the First Amendment doesn't protect TikTok since it's not American.

This part is wrong.

Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. It doesn't say congress can make all the laws it wants abridging the speech of non-citizens or non-"American" companies.

TikTok is also a national security concern since it gives a backdoor into networks and China is an enemy nation. The fact that politicians have TikToks is alarming, especially when I'm not even allowed to have it and our security team has proof of it being used as a backdoor into our systems. I won't even allow it on my home network and it's blocked across the board.

It is fully acceptable for the US government to place limitations on US government employees accessing certain materials as a parameter of their employment.

 

[TexRex]

Nationalism is a cognitive rot.

 

[Joey D]

Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. It doesn't say congress can make all the laws it wants abridging the speech of non-citizens or non-"American" companies.

The Constitution only applies to Americans and, to some extent, non-Americans residing in the US. So when it says Congress can't establish a law preventing free speech, it can't censor American citizens who the Constitution protects. Non-citizens and non-American companies aren't protected by the Constitution, and why would they be?

It's the same reason we can detain terrorists in Gitmo for decades under terrible conditions. They aren't Americans, they don't get the same rights under the Constitution.

 

[Danoff]

The Constitution only applies to Americans

It applies to congress.

and, to some extent, non-Americans residing in the US. So when it says Congress can't establish a law preventing free speech, it can't censor American citizens who the Constitution protects. Non-citizens and non-American companies aren't protected by the Constitution, and why would they be?

The first amendment is a restriction on congress's actions, not who is protected by it.

It's the same reason we can detain terrorists in Gitmo for decades under terrible conditions. They aren't Americans, they don't get the same rights under the Constitution.

This is a very different argument. The language there reads:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Who is a person as it pertains to the constitution? The same question for the first amendment would be who is a congress as it pertains to the constitution. The answer of course is that it's the US congress which shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. American citizens are harmed by laws abridging freedom of speech even when they are applied to non "American" companies, whatever that is anymore.

 

[doblocruiser]

never ever imagined that I would live in something similar to the 1930s and for sure never thought that the fascists would be put in power by vote and in the US of all places.

You're not

 

[Sprite]

As this is (sometimes) a site about gaming, some thoughts on tariffs and game prices from an industry expert .

(screencapped because I don’t know if Bluesky works here and I don’t use the Nazi’s service)

View attachment 1422613

View attachment 1422616

That rumored $100 price for GTA 6 is looking rather plausible.

Also a lot of the movies in disc in the USA are printed and packaged in Mexico.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It doesn't really matter because it will probably reverted again next time somebody sane is in the white house, if it even makes it that far...but just what exactly is the point of naming Denali McKinley? Other than the most rabid Ohio fans (sorry @Keef you have too much of a conflict of interest to weigh in here) who cares about McKinley at all? Nobody in Alaska should considering he never went to the mountain nor had any significant connection with Alaska (Alaska reverted to calling it Denali in 1975). Nobody in the USA should because Mckinley was an unremarkable President. Denali has far more cultural cache than McKinley at this point anyways. And if we're gonna go down the "STOP CHANGING HISTORY" path, then why did we change history in the first place? The mountain is Denali, full stop. Naming McKinley was just dumb cheap political theater and changing it back to Mckinley is just the same.

I get why Trump wants to do it, but can anyone from the Trump side give me an even somewhat convincing argument why its a good idea?

 

[wowbaggerBR]

You're not

A fascist as president of the most powerful country in the world qualifies as similar in my opinion. You are free to disagree, not that I care, to be honest.

 

[Keef]

I get why Trump wants to do it, but can anyone from the Trump side give me an even somewhat convincing argument why its a good idea?

It's a good idea because McKinley was a white man and the natives aren't.

Are you convinced now?

 

[Blitz24]

It's a good idea because McKinley was a white man and the natives aren't.

Are you convinced now?

I guess we should be grateful he isn't demanding we call it Mount Trump?

 

[Pupik]

It's a good idea because McKinley was a white man and the natives aren't.

Are you convinced now?

Trump's renaming spree is mere laundry detergent: get the Whites even Whiter, while eroding the fabric of society. Also, just create massive confusion over mostly minor things to distract you from all the promises he can't keep, agenda items which will not get solved, and those ideas which may ineptly cause more issues until they come up with a new and unrelated distraction.

 

[MoLiEG]

Also a lot of the movies in disc in the USA are printed and packaged in Mexico.

I am Mexican and I didn't know that