CottageHore Posted December 28, 2024 Posted December 28, 2024 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Antonini said: This isnt a freedom of speech issue when you're just using the app as a social media platform. You have no "rights" to the use of a private company's product. Why do idiots online always try to use Free Speech as a defense? What oppression have you pushed back on btw? Seems like all the oppression continues on? Youre not doing anything meaningful through the app, people making money there can try and hustle elsewhere, they have OPTIONS. your argument is surface level fluff. The First Amendment isn't about guaranteeing access to a specific app, duh. Let's use those context clues, babe! The first amendment is about protecting citizens from government overreach that suppresses speech or expression. TikTok, like any social platform, isn't just a place to mindlessly scroll. It's a modern public square where people organize, educate, protest, and push back on oppression by using their voices on the app to "spread word", raise awareness, and assemble. And banning the app would take that space away for 70+ million Americans. Not to mention it would send millions of small businesses crumbling because TikTok shop is supporting them. A government overreach like this hasn't happened with social media ever. By your logic, if the government banned The New York Times tomorrow, it wouldn't be a First Amendment issue because, hey – we could all just read a different newspaper!!! And let's not pretend this is just about 'hustling elsewhere.' The government choosing to block access to a platform where millions of Americans communicate is a direct restriction on speech and members of congress have voiced their distain with the pro-Palestine narrative that dominates the app. TikTok may be privately owned, but banning it at a national level isn't the free market doing its thing – it's state censorship. You're just being intentionally ignorant if you think TikTok hasn't amplified important social issues and allowed social movements to spread more quickly in recent years. From exposing police brutality to raising awareness about Palestine to providing unbiased information about current events directly from your average American citizen. Brushing off a blatant overreach by labeling it 'not meaningful' is a precedent you'd have to be insane to wanna set. They really got you, don't they? Yikes! Edited December 28, 2024 by CottageHore
Antonini Posted December 28, 2024 Posted December 28, 2024 1 hour ago, CottageHore said: your argument is surface level fluff. The First Amendment isn't about guaranteeing access to a specific app, duh. Let's use those context clues, babe! The first amendment is about protecting citizens from government overreach that suppresses speech or expression. TikTok, like any social platform, isn't just a place to mindlessly scroll. It's a modern public square where people organize, educate, protest, and push back on oppression by using their voices on the app to "spread word", raise awareness, and assemble. And banning the app would take that space away for 70+ million Americans. Not to mention it would send millions of small businesses crumbling because TikTok shop is supporting them. A government overreach like this hasn't happened with social media ever. By your logic, if the government banned The New York Times tomorrow, it wouldn't be a First Amendment issue because, hey – we could all just read a different newspaper!!! And let's not pretend this is just about 'hustling elsewhere.' The government choosing to block access to a platform where millions of Americans communicate is a direct restriction on speech and members of congress have voiced their distain with the pro-Palestine narrative that dominates the app. TikTok may be privately owned, but banning it at a national level isn't the free market doing its thing – it's state censorship. You're just being intentionally ignorant if you think TikTok hasn't amplified important social issues and allowed social movements to spread more quickly in recent years. From exposing police brutality to raising awareness about Palestine to providing unbiased information about current events directly from your average American citizen. Brushing off a blatant overreach by labeling it 'not meaningful' is a precedent you'd have to be insane to wanna set. They really got you, don't they? Yikes! "Government overreach" hasn't happened with social media because it's SO NEW. They haven't even really set up any modern laws to deal with the modern problems with social media, the gig economy, and other online transactions. I don't agree that they should outright "Ban" it. But you freaking out like it's the craziest thing that's happened and the biggest affront to American's rights is hilarious.
Recommended Posts