"President Trump signed an executive order giving more time for TikTok to work out a deal to prevent a ban in the U.S.
"A document posted on the White House website says Trump was instructing the attorney general not to enforce the ban 'for a period of 75 days from today to allow my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown of a communications platform used by millions of Americans.' The TikTok ban went into effect Jan. 19 but the service is back up as Trump signaled he would take action.
The New York Times adds:
"The order could immediately face legal challenges, including over whether a president has the power to halt enforcement of a federal law. Companies subject to the law may determine that the order does not provide a shield from legal liability.
"The federal law banning TikTok, which is owned by Chinaâs ByteDance, mandated that the app needed to be sold to a non-Chinese owner or it would be blocked."
⢠From The Information:
"Chinese-owned bargain seller Temu has spooked Amazon by selling ultracheap household gadgets, electronics and more, oftentimes undercutting the e-commerce giant on price. Now Temu is looking to capitalize on its popularity by going head to head with Amazon in another business: advertising.
"Temu has started testing selling ad space to merchants that want to promote their products on its site, three people close to the company said, similar to how Amazon generates revenue from merchants that sell on its massive online marketplace. That could help Temu squeeze more revenue from sales, though it risks alienating merchants and shoppers alike if the ads translate into higher prices on its site."
"Squeezes more revenue" are three words that describe the whole retail advertising trend. No surprise that Amazon's rivals are doing it. If Amazon is lucky, those competitors will be equally as successful as diminishing their own shopper experiences.
I find all the handwringing a bit annoying and naive. After all, if we really fret about the "loss" of a social media service then we ought to also rend our garments over these.
I'm sure you'll recognize some of these, that folks "had" to have.
Maybe? I don't remember iTunes Ping but it seems like I would have used it.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Jan 19, 2025 - 12:02pm
I find all the handwringing a bit annoying and naive. After all, if we really fret about the "loss" of a social media service then we ought to also rend our garments over these.
I'm sure you'll recognize some of these, that folks "had" to have.
The justification for bringing back Trump was to hold China accountable (remember how Joe was a CCP sympathizer?) ... but now that he's on the take from people who earn from China and TikTok... Donnie is a free speech warrior. People are so F*#$@ing stupid.
Biden was Xi's biotch (mirroring Dems & Putin) according to one local commentator, but Trump will save the day...
Interestingly.... I get that notice when I go to TikTok on safari, but when I go using Firefox....it's up?
I don't have an account and have no idea if it's "live" or legacy, but seems strange?
The justification for bringing back Trump was to hold China accountable (remember how Joe was a CCP sympathizer?) ... but now that he's on the take from people who earn from China and TikTok... Donnie is a free speech warrior. People are so F*#$@ing stupid.
Hmm, perhaps not as involved, but certainly more belligerent.
On Monday, the House passed HR 1157, the âCountering the PRC Malign Influence Fund,â by a bipartisan 351-36 majority. This legislation authorizes more than $1.6 billion for the State Department and USAID over the next five years to, among other purposes, subsidize media and civil society sources around the world that counter Chinese âmalign influenceâ globally.
The general problem I see is that âweâ do not want the government regulating social media but âweâ also want it to be somehow regulated by someone.
i would make the distinction that it might be acceptable to regulate media (edit, media that is attached to sensitive personal information/devices) coming from a clear adversary, like China.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 15, 2025 - 12:41pm
The general problem I see is that âweâ do not want the government regulating social media but âweâ also want it to be somehow regulated by someone.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Jan 15, 2025 - 10:49am
Proclivities wrote:
True. As black321 wrote, people should self-regulate, though many don't seem to care. A lot of people reveal more than they should: when they'll be out of town, "extreme" opinions, criticisms of their workplace while still employed there, etc. It's one thing posting pictures of the lunch you had, but a lot of people give away too much. It's like this odd and annoying habit of people having phone conversations in public with their speakerphones turned on.
I see that older folks sometimes care quite a bit. (My mom cut her address off the boxes she received in the mail so someone? wouldn't know something? about her.) Then, I don't care too too much although passing out things that make fraud easy is something I'm careful of. After all, at this point what're they gonna do to me that I don't bring on myself?
But then kids these days: sharing pictures of their privates or whatever thinking it's just what people do - they don't get it, or don't care if they do. We used to be afraid if a camera was watching us - but these kids are afraid a camera isn't.
