President Biden signed a bill that states if TikTok doesn't cut ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance over the next nine months to a year, it will be banned in the U.S.
We could also feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick etc. we could ask why any law regarding healthcare, housing, nutrition doesn’t fix the issue, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
The FTC is putting in work this administration, and are poised to bring back Net Neutrality (obligatory Fuck Ajit Pai). This is a huge step towards protecting all Americans, so I think you’re confusing this issue (adversarial governments harvesting our data) with the larger issue of domestic policy (which will be much harder to tackle).
According to you, there should be only one law that protects people and protects them fully. If the law is specific to a sector, it’s bad because saving people’s data doesn’t give them healthcare. And if it doesn’t protect people in other sectors (foreign vs domestic) then it can’t possibly be a good move.
It’s an all-or-nothing mentality that is extremely idealistic to the point of ignoring incremental progress, and will make it so that no law is ever good or enough.
Stopping the bleeding of data harvesting to China is good. If you want other change alongside it, hold your elected officials to it.
There’s really no point in continuing a discussion with such an idealistic purist, as no law can be good enough.
When you could just generalize the law to include protecting us from our own oligarchs and they did not, it clearly shows who they work for.
We could also feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick etc. we could ask why any law regarding healthcare, housing, nutrition doesn’t fix the issue, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
The FTC is putting in work this administration, and are poised to bring back Net Neutrality (obligatory Fuck Ajit Pai). This is a huge step towards protecting all Americans, so I think you’re confusing this issue (adversarial governments harvesting our data) with the larger issue of domestic policy (which will be much harder to tackle).
Let’s open the can of worms. Right here right now.
If the goal of a law is to keep people safe should we pass laws that do that or pass laws that don’t? Answer the question.
If goal is X should we try to get X or try to get Y?
Really really simple and you should manage it. Come on brought-to-you-buy-Meta, simple question I am sure you can answer it.
Ah, a red herring.
According to you, there should be only one law that protects people and protects them fully. If the law is specific to a sector, it’s bad because saving people’s data doesn’t give them healthcare. And if it doesn’t protect people in other sectors (foreign vs domestic) then it can’t possibly be a good move.
It’s an all-or-nothing mentality that is extremely idealistic to the point of ignoring incremental progress, and will make it so that no law is ever good or enough.
Stopping the bleeding of data harvesting to China is good. If you want other change alongside it, hold your elected officials to it.
There’s really no point in continuing a discussion with such an idealistic purist, as no law can be good enough.
Can’t answer the question can you Meta-boy.