The way it’s written, it sounds like we could download it in the US, after the law was passed, for 180 days, and then do whatever we want with it. Unfortunately, after that point, the test of it being “developed” in China would probably be met for anything but a near-total rewrite.

Sure, if you say so.

Oh, now it’s owned by the Chinese military?

Which part of “freedom of speech” involves precluding us from ingesting content from a country our government decided it doesn’t like? Or electing to send our own device data or interactions to that country?

That unanimous decision made it perfectly clear that the government knows something we don’t,

Yeah, they know who pays their checks.

My bet is on the genocide being much worse than even TikTok was showing,

TikTok showed them incinerating an entire civilization. Not sure what you saw on there.

If that were true then they wouldn’t have given ByteDance the option to sell 80% to citizens and continue operating.

Except the entire point of that is the U.S. ownership would succumb to that pressure.

Sidestep providing the evidence and go straight for the personal attack. Nice.

Bytedance’s long-term hope is naturally to be able to continuing operating everywhere without violating any laws. Right? Therefore, their strategy is to stay as compliant as possible with various national laws (within reason), right? Therefore they have to take a conservative reading of the bill (PAFACA). So let’s look at the text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text

(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following: […]

Now, the actual distribution of TikTok is done by a U.S. corp, incorporated in California and Delaware. That corp has to stay compliant with these laws. Therefore, to maintain or update or enable the distribution of an app as defined in this bill, is legally punishable. Make sense? Particularly because the law mentions them by name, there is basically zero legal defense against it besides contesting its constitutionality. Which the horrifically corrupt Supreme Court upheld.

So, probably the only way they felt comfortable resuming operations in the U.S. was with some kind of written agreement with the Trump admin - as of yet undisclosed.

Yeah, but the ban passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, randomly jammed inside of the global military spending package including funding the Ukrainian war effort and the genocide in Gaza (which is a must-support bill for Democrats and Republicans alike I guess).

Who decides when the content is “hateful”? The perpetrators of genocide characterize themselves as marginalized and their victims as a force seeking to eradicate them. That is the problem with censorship. Those are the people who end up with the control of speech. You end up with an Orwellian inversion of concepts like hateful speech for the exact reason that they can be weaponized for profit and power.

You show me which fascist government is going to censor the fascists living under it. It’s a paradox. They will not. They will censor the resistance.

Doesn’t really seem to help when it still shows their username…

I didn’t vote for Harris because she’s one of them. I also don’t use food delivery. Enjoying your feeling of superiority from pointing out the hypocrisy of random group intersections?

That should have come across as critical of the commodification.

People still love cult movies and other classics from 100 to 50 years ago, with handcrafted or minimal budget special effects, no CGI. It’s because it’s an entire art form and it can’t just be reduced solely to aesthetic appeal. That kind of approach is just a result of the commodification of art. You want to reduce a successful work of art to some quantifiable metric besides popularity/sales, so that you can create repeatable processes around producing it and selling it, and optimize them for cost, but art defies quantification. Even just basic “enjoyable gameplay” defies that.

In contexts where mistakes don’t cost people’s lives.

deleted by creator

If you wanted a privacy angle.

Turns out “move fast and break things” doesn’t work that well in the auto industry

I meant something a little more peer-to-peer than lemmy/mastodon actually. Each person self-hosting their own.

So in other words this is a tech issue.

As someone who’s written in-browser player and transcoding/server code…the lemmy/mastodon etc. version of this can work, especially if flexible bitrate handling is baked into it (i.e., bitrate offer/acceptance matching over a protocol). You can get this down to YouTube interface + install some software + open a port on your firewall.