05-17-2024, 02:57 PM
This post was last modified 05-17-2024, 03:51 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
(05-17-2024, 02:14 PM)Coop Wrote:
We have so many other issues more important, I just dont get this bs legislation.
However, I also dont give a rats ass if some "creator" cant make money by trying on clothes, or whatever other useless thing they film in videos.
You are correct... the important issue is not TikTok. It's just one other thing added to a mix of others...
TikTok, unfortunately, was afforded a novice-level opportunity to protract the struggle, which happens to affect those "monetizers" who hitched their wagon to the platform.
But first and fifth amendment considerations should have been a basic premise fundamental to the legislation they wrote. They seemed to ignorantly "skipped over that part" of the deliberations necessary to craft US Legislation... perhaps it wasn't "politically" productive.
Or perhaps they legitimately overlooked it - shudder the thought - because if so, these "our" bastion representatives in the US Government, these 'models' of "leadership" and "service to the nation," just plain suck as the 'lawyers' we pay them to be (and most of them are.)
My point to focus on isn't TikTok, their enabling exploitation of private information, their mighty and subtle manipulation of their 'audience/consumer base,' the fact that the financial benefit, at least in part, services our "foreign adversary" (welcome to the terminology of economic warfare.)
The legislators weren't content with creating a law to address foreign adversary activities, they specifically mentioned TikTok... Constitutional hazard number one (Fifth Amendment) They mad no provision to address the Constitutional need to curtail any communications service provider (Constitutional hazard number two) - they only summarized it as a "national security" matter... you can't be that vague in the Constitution... (they skipped over specificity where required, and provided it where it was wrong to do so...)
It's like they did this on purpose.... In which case, I would like to know why.
Yeah, we have other irons in the fire... but want our Constitution bullet proof... but I fear these people either just don't "get it," or "just don't care."
It is not the people who must be controlled, it's the government... It's the very reason for a Constitution.
The government must be restrained, or we will become the government's 'property' metaphorically speaking.
