Russia is not longer the USIC's focus. A Cold War with China is brewing...?
Or is it to protect Israel from criticism? (Excerpt from video:)
Here's the Wall Street Journal's explanation: "Jacob Hellberg, a member of a congressional research and advisory panel called the US China Economic and Security Review Commission has been working on building a bipartisan bi-coastal Alliance of China Hawks, united in part by their desire to ban Tik Tok." "It was slow going until October 7th. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against Tik Tok, Helberg said."
So, this was a bill that was having a great deal of difficulty until October 7th. October 7th, of course, was the day that Hamas attacked Israel setting off this horrific War that's still ongoing into its six month of Israel destroying Gaza. Why would October 7th, a conflict between Hamas and Israel, what would that have to do with suddenly taking a bill ostensibly about China, and that was slow going, and then suddenly accelerating it?
Here's the Wall Street Journal quote: "the attack that Day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against Tik Tok."
So, that's the answer so far from The Wall Street Journal. What changed in the last few months was October 7th. The Hamas attack on Israel, the ensuing Israeli attack on Gaza. The article goes on people who historically hadn't taken that position on Tik Tok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw is an increase in anti-semitic content posted to the app.
I just I have to stop here, again, because I just want to make sure this point gets across. And the Wall Street Journal is by far not the only credible Outlet reporting this. People who historically had not really cared about Tik Tok before that's why it wasn't making any progress in Washington suddenly became concerned with how Israel was portrayed on Tik Tok.
That is why it picked up so much steam in Washington. Because a lot of Democrats, a lot of Republicans, who did not think that Tik Tok Banning Tik Tok was a priority suddenly realized there was one platform that was allowing a lot of criticism of this foreign country called Israel, and when they saw that they said, "Wait a minute, Tik Tok actually does seem to be a problem to the United States. Not because of China, or anything having to do with the Chinese Communist party, but because it seems like there's a lot of criticism of Israel taking place on Tik Tok. And that is what we can't allow."
Now again this is not my saying this. This is reporting from The Wall Street Journal about why suddenly this bill has mad its way through Congress.
Anthony Goldblum, a San Francisco based data scientist and Tech executive, started analyzing data that Tik Tok published in its dashboard for, and buyers showing the number of times users watch video with certain hashtags. He found far more views for videos with Pro Palestinian hashtags than those with pro-israel hashtags. Now, what is the crime that Tik Tok was found to have committed in the last several months that suddenly caused the bipartisan obsession with punishing it, and even Banning it? Here's the Wall Street Journal: "there were far more views for videos with Pro Palestinian hashtags than those with anti-israel hashtags."
Remember when Nikki Haley said, in it seemed like such a laughably Preposterous assertion, that the more, that for every 18 minutes or whatever it was that you spend on Tik Tok, you become 32% more anti-semitic? She was responding to studies like these that show that a lot of people who use Tik Tok, more people who use Tik Tok were Pro Palestinian then pro Israel.
Now, the last time I checked the American Constitution and the current Supreme Court interpretation of it, as an American citizen you are actually allowed to be more Pro Palestinian than pro-Israel if you want to be. One of your rights as an American citizen is to take sides in a particular foreign conflict, or to not take sides at all. And people on Tik Tok were taking sides. And they were taking side the side of Palestine more than they were taking the side of Israel.
Now that is not a surprise. And the reason it's not a surprise is because polling data has shown for a long time that Young Americans including Young American Jews are becoming increasingly critical of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. You don't have to like that, but that is the reality. And since Tik Tok is a social media platform where more young people go to express their political beliefs and find political Community, it stands to reason that Tik Tok as a place where more young people are, would have more Pro Palestinian content than pro-Israel content, whereas social media Outlets that tend to cater to older people, like Facebook, probably you would expect to find the reverse.
[...]
Now "The Economist" in March reported something quite similar, which was an article entitled: "Will Tik Tok still exist in America?" And it began picking up on this sentiment in Congress as well. "As Congress starts the clock on a ban, the app must consider its options." And they, too ask the question of what suddenly changed?: "The Proposal gained momentum partly as a consequence of disquiet over the app's handling of misinformation on anti-semitic content following Hamas's attack on Israel in October. Tik Tok's effort to stall the bill failed spectacularly."
So, those are two major credible media Outlets telling you that the reason why this bill suddenly picked up steam is not because of concern about China, but because of concern about protecting Israel. Protecting Israel, not from foreign actors, but from the views of American citizens. Being concern that Tik Tock permits American citizens who are critical of Israel to freely Express their views about Israel and Palestine.
The executive director of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblat, who long before October 7th has been a crusader for censorship of things he doesn't like. He was urging Fox News to fire Tucker Carlson for years, went on to Morning Joe and essentially made clear that the concern of the pro-Israel Lobby in the United States, as that there are too many social media Platforms, in particular, the ones catering to a younger generation, that are allowing too much anti-Israel content in the United States.
Here's what he told Morning Joe: "Speaking frankly about it we've been on the show we've talked about Instagram, we've talked about Twitter or X, and you've seen my back and forth with Elon Musk, but we need to talk about Tik Tock. Tik Tock, if you will, it is the is the 24/7 news channel of so many of our young people and it's like Al Jazerra on steroids amplifying and intensifying the anti-Semitism and the anti- Zionism with no repercussions. I've got to ask Joe..."
Is it a coincidence that the Anti-Defamation League went on to MSNBC and announced that their main concern was Tik Tok and the fact that Tik Tok is allowing too much Israel anti-Israel speech?
Or is it what I believe to be even more true... to protect politicians from criticism over their support of policies that the American people don't support. Like "Israel v. Palestine". Or "Trump v. Deep State"? Or of Ukrainian war policy critics...
...but MOSTLY, I think that control of Tik Tok is desired specifically to protect Democrats from their own Leftist idiots boycotting and primary challenging them by erecting a politically controlled social media censorship monopoly.
trumpturds want the Chinese Communist party to control all social media? That is what Mystere claimed.
ReplyDeleteNo Butt Pimple Dervish. YOU wrote that!
DeleteCouldn't be worse than the USIC...
ReplyDeleteIs Elon a member?
ReplyDeleteOf course. You think he's NOT selling X User data to the FBI/NSA?
ReplyDeleteWhy pay for something one have might to take for free? ;-P
ReplyDelete...because it's legal that way?
ReplyDeleteJack may own the Magic Coffee Shop, but that doesn't mean he can roll around in all the beans.
ReplyDelete\\...because it's legal that way?
ReplyDeleteMight makes right.
Well... what difference it makes... from changing laws, just to judge one man, RETROACTIVELY!
. . . the advent of Law entails a kind of ‘disalienation’: in so far as the Other itself appears submitted to the ‘absolute condition’ of Law, the subject is no more at the mercy of the Other’s whim, its desire is no more totally alienated in the Other’s desire. . . In contrast to the ‘post-structuralist’ notion of a law checking, canalizing, alienating, oppressing ‘Oedipianizing’ some previous ‘flux of desire,’ Law is here conceived as an agency of ‘disalienation’ and ‘liberation’: it opens our access to desire by enabling us to disengage ourselves from the rule of the Other’s whim.
ReplyDelete- Slavoj Zizek, "For They Know Not What They Do"
Ones the people realize that the Other is not subject to its' own law, all bets are off. Everyone becomes an "outlaw".
ReplyDeleteBlah-blah-blah...
ReplyDeleteYawn.
You'd be surprised at how much people crave the approval of "the big Other". The CIA recruits on the basis of it.
ReplyDelete...for the 007 badge/ sanction.
ReplyDelete...a "license to kill".
ReplyDeleteMe? I'm an unlicensed sociopath.
ReplyDeleteGoogle search: Trump license to kill.
ReplyDeleteGoogle: Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity. Former President Trump's legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive's broad immunity to criminal prosecution.
Sounds about right.
ReplyDeleteThe real question to ask is, "would Seal Team 6 members follow the order?" Or would they refuse an unconstitutional order? And would DoJ permit a whistleblower to testify against the order giver?
ReplyDeleteI know that my oath as a commissioned USNR officer was always to the Constitution, never a man or office holder.
dotard donald: A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteMinus: I know that my oath as a commissioned USNR officer was always to the Constitution, never a man or office holder.
Bullshit. You said you thought it would be great for dotard donald to seize power and declare himself "president for life". What about the 22nd amendment, Minus?
In the 2024 presidential election, voters may decide to keep Joe Biden in office for the next four years. If they elect Donald Trump, though, he could be in office for … well, much longer than that.
Trump tried to stay in the White House despite losing the 2020 election, going so far as to incite a mob attack on the U.S. Capitol to overturn the result. But when his constitutional term ended on Inauguration Day, he left. It's a mistake he is not likely to repeat.
The 45th president did everything he could to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, a hallmark of American democracy for more than two centuries. In the end, he failed. But he and his confederates learned valuable lessons from the failure. Should he win this time, they'll have four years to implement a plan to keep the presidency for as long as he wants.
Liz Cheney, who lost her House seat after turning against Trump, recognizes the danger. Asked if she thought he would try to stay in power permanently, she replied: "Absolutely. He's already done it once". link
^^FAG^^
DeleteMinus: "would Seal Team 6 members follow the order?" Or would they refuse an unconstitutional order?
ReplyDeleterightturds love killing enemies. Both Mystere and Qtard advocate for it. Both project their desires to KILL onto Democrats. Biden would never issue such and order. While dotard donald would. And he'd be able to find military turds to do it. Why you wrote "Sounds about right". You'd love it if tRump got back in power and went Putin against his enemies.
tRump doesn't care about the Constitution. He called for it to be terminated.
Why then he going through elections???
ReplyDeleteQtard: Why then he going through elections???
ReplyDeleteHe wants to be president again.
Why do ask such cretinic questions?
But-but-but... you just said... that he want to be tyrant.
ReplyDeleteTyrants... do not need elections -- to come to power.
Elections -- that is right away admission of adherence to a democratic rule and procedures.
What an UNIQUE tyrant... that "tyrant" dRump are... trying to became tyrant... through election. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ONLY NewSpeak bullshit talker AKA "truth teller" can come up with such a cretinic quip.
But...
continue-continue, cretin. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Biden would never issue such and order.
ReplyDeletehe already has. Obama issued drone strikes against US citizens. Biden was his VP. He "went along".
It's easier to get away with a Constitutional violation when you have a virtual (drone) and remote operator. Seal Team 6 kills face-to-face.
Qtard: What an UNIQUE tyrant... that "tyrant" dRump are... trying to became tyrant... through election.
ReplyDeletePutin was elected. You don't view him as a tyrant? Yes?
Putin was first elected in 2000.
U.S. Embassy deemed process “reasonably free and fair”. Putin drew 53%... link
Viktor Orbán is another example. Elected, then changed the rules to keep himself in power. Easier than a coup.
Google: How do democracies turn into dictatorships?
Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government.
Getting elected then staying in power (refusing to leave) is something tRump ALREADY tried.
Yet Qtard thinks that can't happen? Has never happened in any other country? And Qtard thinks that because IT is a cretin, yes?
Minus: Biden would never issue such an order". ... he already has. Obama issued drone strikes against US citizens. Biden was his VP. He "went along".
Who was the political opponent that Obama killed with a drone? tRump is going to be killed with a drone assassin ordered by Biden?
Minus: Obama issued drone strikes against US citizens.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't. It was one person, not multiple US citizens. And he was not Obama's political opponent. He wasn't the target. His father was. You oppose killing al Qaeda terrorists?
Minus: Biden was his VP. He "went along".
Says who? Joe Biden? Said "I supported that decision"? You can give the quote?
\\Putin was elected. You don't view him as a tyrant? Yes?
ReplyDelete\\Putin was first elected in 2000.
BS.
You just a know nothing C-R-E-T-I-N.
Which DUNNO facts.
liliPut was ASSIGNED... to became "substitute president". By its predecessor... you even DUNNO who it was, isn't it? ;-P
And only AFTER THAT... faked elections was committed.
SAME.
As it was with Hitler.
\\U.S. Embassy deemed process “reasonably free and fair”. Putin drew 53%... link
Hah...
EVEN TODAY.
Bi-den DEMN POTUS from WH... APPROVED liliPut as president of RFia.
What a travesty!!!
\\He didn't. It was one person, not multiple US citizens. And he was not Obama's political opponent. He wasn't the target. His father was. You oppose killing al Qaeda terrorists?
First, they came for "al Queda terrorists"...
\\Says who? Joe Biden? Said "I supported that decision"? You can give the quote?
Not reporting trespassing Consitution is O.K. for cretin, yeah??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Viktor Orbán is another example. Elected, then changed the rules to keep himself in power. Easier than a coup.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But voting by mail... that is NOT "changing the rules to keep oneself in power"?
Ou'Yeah, baby!!! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
DEMN-OK-rats cannot do anything anti-democratic.
Because thay are DEMN-OK-rats -- and therefore EVERYTHING they do is DEMN-OK-ratsy. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Because DEMN-OK-ratsy... that is "rule of DEMN-OK-rats". %-))))))))))))))
... or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government.
Yeah.
Like what DEMN-OK-rats doing in USA. Today.
Yawn.
\\Yet Qtard thinks that can't happen? Has never happened in any other country? And Qtard thinks that because IT is a cretin, yes?
DEFINITE self-referential talks of totally totalitarian cretin... about its alter-ego "Qtard".
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\tRump is going to be killed with a drone assassin ordered by Biden?
ReplyDeleteNaaaah. He'll be killed with Novichok... as helping hand and thank you for all previous service. ;-P