Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!

  • 1 Post
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle






  • Melllvar@startrek.websitetoScience Memes@mander.xyzdegree in bamf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.

    Isn’t she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the “prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her” part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?











  • We’ve been covering many stories about a potential TikTok ban, including how unconstitutional it clearly is, how pointless it clearly is, and how even those who back it don’t seem to have a good explanation of why, beyond some vague handwaving about “China.”

    The bill isn’t nearly as bad as they want you to think. It bans companies in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from operating social media apps in US markets, forcing them to sell if they already do. These four countries are already restricted from accessing sensitive parts of the US economy, with forced sale being a legal option. Really, the only novel part of the bill is applying these kinds of restrictions to software.

    And the bill doesn’t actually punish or restrain users’ speech. It does restrain the social media company’s speech, but that may not be enough to overturn the bill on 1st amendment grounds. If you understand that social media exists to collect vast amounts of user data then you must also understand how the government has a legitimate interest in keeping that data out of an adversary’s hands. The only real question is whether the government has a compelling interest, because that’s the standard that a court would apply to this bill. And I daresay it might.