Ground2ChairMissile t1_jea8lyq wrote

> and they ARE working on legislation to enact a total ban.

Walk yourself through it. C'mon, what comes after that...

Got it yet?

Need some help?

Here it is:

...because they can't accomplish it with current anti-espionage laws.

Because federal law enforcement agencies can't find anything the app does that's against the law.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je84r5m wrote

>By your definition, to not be a "gun nut," one should want guns banned outright.

Point to where I said "in order to not be a gun nut, one should want to ban guns outright."

Bet you can't. It'd be an awfully hypocritical thing to say, since I own guns myself.

>Several gun nuts have outright refused to even consider this question.

The streak continues.

>Can you tell me I'm wrong?

You still haven't answered my last question.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je83o1d wrote

>if you're looking to have a discussion.

That presumes that I'm talking to a rational person. On that note...

>How do you define "gun nut" for the purpose of casually dismissing people?

Great question, shockingly! A gun nut is someone who values their own guns and/or access to guns above the lives of other people.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine. How many school shootings has, say, Canada had this week?

Several gun nuts have outright refused to even consider this question. Let's see if you can do better.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je80zp2 wrote

You're the one listening to the same politicians who've literally told you they won't solve any problems.

And yet you think they'll protect you from the big, bad, foreign boogeyman.

I'm tempted to say something like "you can't possibly be that stupid," but clearly you can. How unsurprising it is to find that you're also a gun nut.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je80dqz wrote

Delusional people are often unaware that they're deluded. For example, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be manipulated by a bunch of jingoist politicians taking straight from the McCarthy playbook, just two days after our latest all-American homegrown slaughter.

A slaughter that doesn't happen in civilized countries.

New century, same dumbasses.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7vc5r wrote

Lie to yourself all you want. I don't have to indulge your delusion.

Who is more likely to actually hurt you, the terrible Red Communist menace, or the nutjob who bought a gun with no trouble and decided he needed to rob a 7-11 for his next fix?

And which of these problems is Congress more interested in actually fixing?


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7oihn wrote

>Depends on who you are. If you in the military,

Uh huh. Which is why I said:

> especially since most government employees are now barred from using it.


>Just because YOU, PERSONALLY aren't aware of what is going on doesn't mean the US Government is also ignorant. There may be knowledge that the CIA or NSA picked up on that indicates that Tik Tok is a security threat.

If they had that information, they'd have already shut down the app with existing anti-espionage laws.

Congress banning it legislatively is a performance, nothing more.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7lihl wrote

It isn't. Not really, especially since most government employees are now barred from using it.

Trying to ban it outright is a symptom of pretty obvious xenophobia, and politicians looking for some kind of victory to claim without actually accomplishing anything.

It's possible that TikTok being owned by a Chinese company with ties to the state means that they have a means of getting user information. But if you're so important that your personal data is worth discovering, especially on the state level, there's no way you can protect it from every vector, from silly little video apps to your bank and investment accounts to the discount card at your grocery store.

There IS a danger of TikTok being used to deliberately spread misinformation. But again, if someone with the resources of an entire country wants to do that, they have plenty of options to accomplish it, none of which require backdoor access to a social media app. Merely spreading a few posts on Twitter or getting a sensationalist headline on Fox News will accomplish far more, and it's essentially free.

States are already engaging in these disinformation campaigns. Playing whack-a-mole with individual apps will not stop them.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_je5u9x0 wrote

I think you just described Next Generation.

Sure, they didn't have any old characters in the main cast, but characters and concepts from TOS showed up all the time, especially in the early seasons. And characters like Data and Riker were meant to be direct analogs to Spock and Kirk.

As for Discovery's time jump...I think that was just to give Strange New Worlds some room to play around without stepping on another show's toes. The producers saw how popular those episodes with the Enterprise were and decided that the fans would like to literally jump ship, but they'd already invested so much in Discovery as the flagship show of the franchise that they couldn't drop it right away.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_jdvwkjj wrote

You've got the wrong idea about how copyright works.

Re-publishing classic works with minor changes doesn't "re-up" the copyright on the original novel, it only asserts a new copyright on the new, changed edition. The original work will still fall out of copyright according to the laws of the nation you're in.

If you translate Les Miserables into English, you have a copyright on your translation. The descendants of Victor Hugo do not get a brand new copyright on a 150-year-old book, and don't get any slice of your translation, either. But anyone else can translate the book and publish it on their own.