Don’t forget this line;

The social media platform told the BBC it had found no evidence the person who allegedly stabbed the 14-year-old boy, or the victim himself, had TikTok accounts.

It’s a huge failing by government regulators. It appears China is the only country capable of policing tech companies adequately.

Except no one involved uses tiktok

It’s not enough just to discuss it in the abstract, they need to interact with it in a controlled environment

I’d prefer for kids to learn to navigate social media whilst they have access to adult supervision and oversight. 16yos aren’t going to listen to their parents’ advice.

There are toilets that analyse your waste and send the results to your doctor. They ID you by scanning your anus since everyone’s anus is unique. Maybe one day the results can be sent to your kitchen and your fridge and airfryer can deny you access to unhealthy foods when your toilet tells them to.

That’s an immature argument. “If you don’t like guns don’t buy one.” “If you don’t like abortion don’t get one.” Maybe we could think a little deeper?

One of the reasons the internet is so centralised is due to network effects. I have a facebook account because everyone else has one and it’s difficult to maintain a social life and a family life if I exclude myself from that space. I can choose not to drive a car, too but again that would make life much harder for myself. Perhaps we could subject these businesses to some basic standards of accountability and oversight and put the public interest ahead of private profit once in a while.

Given that they can rewrite their T&C or sell to facebook at anytime avoiding practices you dislike isn’t practical.

I misspoke in my previous post. The tech companies conspired to act simultaneously when they banned Alex Jones to minimise the blow-back they’d suffer from his fans. Destroying his business/ career was a byproduct.

He/infowars broke their ToC so they acted accordingly.

How do we know that? Did they make their case in front of a neutral 3rd party? Did Jones have the oppourtunity to defend himself or appeal any decisions? No. If 20 gov’ts announced that Facebook broke their laws and its license will be suspended tomorrow Zuckerberg doesn’t just have to suck it up. He can go to court and appeal that decision. He’d even be allowed to continue operations whilst the case was pending as Uber, which is guilty of breaking numerous laws, did in London.

This bootlicking for the robber barons that dominate society is ridiculous. “It’s only oppression if it’s done by the gooburmint!” he said with Apple’s boot on his neck.

It’s interesting that this is happening to Info Wars after the tech companies conspired to destroy it and Alex Jones’ career by simultaneously banning it from all their problems at once. As I said at the time; it is very concerning that the tech companies could deny a business access to their platforms without proving their case in front of a neutral 3rd party, without offering their target a chance to defend themselves and without any oppourtunity to appeal their decision.

It was very difficult to say anything in defense of Alex Jones, even in the abstract, so they were able to set this precedent with ease.

I was thinking of Russia, which was the poorest and most backwards country in Europe when the communists came to power. Within 30 years they transformed it into a military and technological superpower that defeated the Nazis and launched the first human being into space.

Soviet Union, China, Vietnam

Communist governments took power in poor countries and had to endure ‘primitive accumulation’ before they could start building a socialist economy. At best they created workers’ states where employment and basic services were guaranteed to all.

Actually near nearsightedness is due to brightness levels being much indoors rather than focal points. Even on cloudy days it’s much brighter outdoors. There’s also evidence that natural light has a calming effect on people.