TikTok is back in the App Store(theverge.com)
theverge.com
TikTok is back in the App Store
https://www.theverge.com/news/612768/tiktok-app-store-apple-google-us-ban
245 comments
I hope all the people working in tech today realize that once you let the executive ignore laws that you dislike, it's a very clear path to them ignoring laws that protect you and your companies. You WILL be a target eventually and nobody is going to protect you.
This is a slow-motion disaster but too many people are complacent because they think it's not going to affect them. No matter your political leanings we cannot allow a constitutional crisis to go unchecked. Things that we take for granted dissolve rapidly if institutions start grabbing power without consequences.
It's insane that Congress isn't stepping-up here.
This is a slow-motion disaster but too many people are complacent because they think it's not going to affect them. No matter your political leanings we cannot allow a constitutional crisis to go unchecked. Things that we take for granted dissolve rapidly if institutions start grabbing power without consequences.
It's insane that Congress isn't stepping-up here.
This isn't a politics forum, but abolishing USAID without congress was also insane. I don't care if you dislike something USAID does or did, it would require congress to legally abolish it.
And a few other things, that's just a prominent example.
Congress is pretty much ignoring this. Both parties.
And a few other things, that's just a prominent example.
Congress is pretty much ignoring this. Both parties.
We're in this position because Congress (very pragmatically) ceded their power to the executive.
I'm afraid everyone has lost the plot at this point though.
I'm afraid everyone has lost the plot at this point though.
How does Congress ceding power work? Is there a due process for this? Or do they just sit back and chill?
Probably like the apparatchik of the Soviet "parliament", that just rubber stamped everything, and can then enjoy the luxury of being the elite the rest of the day. Just needs more mistresses (corruption is already there), anyone got Matt Gaetz' number?
Alcoholic (speaking of Russian stereotypes!) wife-abuser as defense minister? Rubber-stamped! RFK as health minister? Rubber-stamped! Glory to the union!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Soviet_of_the_Soviet_U...
Alcoholic (speaking of Russian stereotypes!) wife-abuser as defense minister? Rubber-stamped! RFK as health minister? Rubber-stamped! Glory to the union!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Soviet_of_the_Soviet_U...
I'm not sure if there's a definitive cause, I'm more describing the overall effect.
If you read the source: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
On the "legislative" side:
> All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
> Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Meanwhile on the "executive" side:
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
To me, this is pretty clear, at least about things like war and treaties and land acquisition. But it's easy to come up with a ton of examples from all parties that seem to violate these very basic rules.
What I would read as very fundamental "violations" of the document are often upheld by courts as being in agreement with it.
So, to answer your question, yes, they just sit back and chill with a 76% disapproval rating, but it took 119 congresses to get there. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
If you read the source: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
On the "legislative" side:
> All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
> Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Meanwhile on the "executive" side:
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
To me, this is pretty clear, at least about things like war and treaties and land acquisition. But it's easy to come up with a ton of examples from all parties that seem to violate these very basic rules.
What I would read as very fundamental "violations" of the document are often upheld by courts as being in agreement with it.
So, to answer your question, yes, they just sit back and chill with a 76% disapproval rating, but it took 119 congresses to get there. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
By the majority in Congress voting to block any attempts to challenge the executive branch.
Judges are acting to stay executive orders, but judicial processes are deliberately slow and the current administration seated several current Supreme Court judges.
Civil disobedience and mass unrest seems inevitable when the rule of law and balance of powers is systemically undermined.
Judges are acting to stay executive orders, but judicial processes are deliberately slow and the current administration seated several current Supreme Court judges.
Civil disobedience and mass unrest seems inevitable when the rule of law and balance of powers is systemically undermined.
Ceding power is certainly a choice.
Long excerpt:
Yet initially the two current leaders of the Democratic Party seemed determined to broadcast their own weakness. Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries spent last week at a donor retreat with billionaire tech leaders, only to emerge whining, ‘What leverage do we have? They control the House, the Senate, and the presidency.’… Jeffries’s conflation of “leverage” with “holding a majority in a chamber” is jaw-dropping. Power—the ability to change the behavior of another—comes from information, charisma, law, attention, procedure, expertise, and the ability to convene and organize. … What could they have done? Here are four suggestions: First, vigorous procedural delay….. Second, convene and spotlight. They should not see their power just through the lens of how it has traditionally been used. Congressional Democratic leadership should also make full use of their own convening power, holding hearings taking testimony from fired and pressured employees…. Congressional Democrats can also do more on basic legal protection of the institution. The people’s house is under attack, and they should be wielding law like swords to defend it. While Democratic state attorneys general have been filing lawsuit after lawsuit, congressional leadership—whose own power as the lawmaking arm of the American public is being decimated—should understand they also need to play a key role in making sure lawsuits are brought to block the destruction. Whatever their legal abilities, they are all astute fundraisers, and can play matchmaker between constituents, possible plaintiffs, lawyers, and donors to make sure that effective and well-resourced lawsuits are brought to stop the illegal power plays….. Finally, they can go on offense, forcing Trump and Republicans to either help Americans, or clearly demonstrate that they don’t want to. That means being willing to work with Republicans—if they can get laws passed that make people’s lives better, and not focus on Democratic Party branding.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-musk-democr...
Yet initially the two current leaders of the Democratic Party seemed determined to broadcast their own weakness. Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries spent last week at a donor retreat with billionaire tech leaders, only to emerge whining, ‘What leverage do we have? They control the House, the Senate, and the presidency.’… Jeffries’s conflation of “leverage” with “holding a majority in a chamber” is jaw-dropping. Power—the ability to change the behavior of another—comes from information, charisma, law, attention, procedure, expertise, and the ability to convene and organize. … What could they have done? Here are four suggestions: First, vigorous procedural delay….. Second, convene and spotlight. They should not see their power just through the lens of how it has traditionally been used. Congressional Democratic leadership should also make full use of their own convening power, holding hearings taking testimony from fired and pressured employees…. Congressional Democrats can also do more on basic legal protection of the institution. The people’s house is under attack, and they should be wielding law like swords to defend it. While Democratic state attorneys general have been filing lawsuit after lawsuit, congressional leadership—whose own power as the lawmaking arm of the American public is being decimated—should understand they also need to play a key role in making sure lawsuits are brought to block the destruction. Whatever their legal abilities, they are all astute fundraisers, and can play matchmaker between constituents, possible plaintiffs, lawyers, and donors to make sure that effective and well-resourced lawsuits are brought to stop the illegal power plays….. Finally, they can go on offense, forcing Trump and Republicans to either help Americans, or clearly demonstrate that they don’t want to. That means being willing to work with Republicans—if they can get laws passed that make people’s lives better, and not focus on Democratic Party branding.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-musk-democr...
Congress is also ignoring the principles laid out in the Constitution by acting like presidents have unilateral power when they do not, and were never intended to. Many members of Congress have defended Trump's actions on these issues by implying that voters gave him a mandate, but the voters also voted for Congress, and they are supposed to check the President in some ways. Congress is probably supposed to be the most impactful branch of federal government, not the weakest.
Laws are just words on paper if no one decides to enforce them. What is Congress going to do to Trump, impeach him? lol
Okay, so Congress could pass a resolution saying they consider the dissolution of USAID a violation of the law… but the silence speaks for itself. The law is not what is written, the law is what we do and what we tolerate.
Okay, so Congress could pass a resolution saying they consider the dissolution of USAID a violation of the law… but the silence speaks for itself. The law is not what is written, the law is what we do and what we tolerate.
The billionaire doing the abolishing also called it a nest of Marxist vipers.
Really just the wild stuff that Elon and Trump post to their social media is terrifyingly unhinged. I feel most people get the sane-washed version via the media but it's genuinely mind boggling to read their directly published public comments about stuff.
Direct quote for the record:
> USAID was a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America
Really just the wild stuff that Elon and Trump post to their social media is terrifyingly unhinged. I feel most people get the sane-washed version via the media but it's genuinely mind boggling to read their directly published public comments about stuff.
Direct quote for the record:
> USAID was a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America
USAID changed overnight from a CIA front to a vipers nest of radical-left marxists. Maybe tomorrow, CIA are marxists too?
Good thing USAID wasn’t abolished.
Isn't this a slippery slope into authoritarianism? How are people not more worried about this? The whole of checks and balances is this, this is democracy literally eroding away isn't it?
We’re in the authoritarianism part already, the 3 branches are aligned on this. The democrats whole campaign this election was to worry , but they are too committed to process and impartiality to have any effect (and let’s face it, most of congress is too old and/or too rich to give a damn what happens to our democracy in the first place)
Many of us made peace with this road a couple decades back and have been focused on building communities locally to survive it. Obama, Trump, Biden, GW ... they were all building the road to this moment together.
It's like watching one of those hydraulic press videos - the slow build up of the squeeze has been happening for awhile, we've finally arrived at the point where the pressure is really deforming stuff. But it was predictable for a long time.
It's like watching one of those hydraulic press videos - the slow build up of the squeeze has been happening for awhile, we've finally arrived at the point where the pressure is really deforming stuff. But it was predictable for a long time.
[deleted]
What could Congress do? Make another law that might also be ignored?
Just for completeness, Congress’ check on the executive and judicial is impeachment, but this check is somewhat defeated by party politics, a weakness President Washington was prescient enough to warn us about in his farewell address
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
[0] https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
[0] https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
[deleted]
Obama, Trump and Biden have ignored federal cannabis laws for years. Laws and even the Constitution are ignored routinely Snowden showed us that.
While this is true (to some degree anyway), it seems qualitatively different from Congress (and then backed up by SCOTUS) explicitly banning a specific company (and explicitly banning other companies from doing specific things related to that company) and then being completely ignored by an incoming president who just says "wut? no worries, carry on tiktok".
this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
[deleted]
Biden refused to enforce the law as well.
Edit: you all are out here downvoting provable facts.
Edit: you all are out here downvoting provable facts.
It's somewhat different to not enforce a general law against a multitude of possible targets and enforcing a law literally imposed against a single target.
A lot of people don't get fined for jaywalking and it's not a big deal because it's understood that it's a lot of work to actually cite all of them everywhere, so the difference between the normal level of not enforcing everything and intentionally not enforcing isn't 0 vs 100.
This is passing a law that John Smith should go to jail and then deciding you don't actually want to send him to jail. Why did you bother passing the law if you didn't care. Trump literally started all this TikTok banning stuff and now is against it, but isn't actually repealing the law. Congress seems to have just given up too. It's fully lawless.
A lot of people don't get fined for jaywalking and it's not a big deal because it's understood that it's a lot of work to actually cite all of them everywhere, so the difference between the normal level of not enforcing everything and intentionally not enforcing isn't 0 vs 100.
This is passing a law that John Smith should go to jail and then deciding you don't actually want to send him to jail. Why did you bother passing the law if you didn't care. Trump literally started all this TikTok banning stuff and now is against it, but isn't actually repealing the law. Congress seems to have just given up too. It's fully lawless.
He is a servant of chaos to use fantasy terminology (due to lifelong mental imbalances that were glaringly obvious way before he got power). Maybe chaotic neutral after all + and - will eventually be summarised, but for now, for most of the world he veers towards evil scale.
Maybe something good will come out of this like Europe finally waking up, even now in 2025 here on HN I got attacked for warmongering if I dare say that we should increase defense (literally in our case) budgets.
Elephant in the porcelaine shop will make a room for new products for sure but thats not the most important thing that happens.
Maybe something good will come out of this like Europe finally waking up, even now in 2025 here on HN I got attacked for warmongering if I dare say that we should increase defense (literally in our case) budgets.
Elephant in the porcelaine shop will make a room for new products for sure but thats not the most important thing that happens.
The law went into effect on the last day of the Biden administration. If you are going to traffic in provable facts, “Biden declined to implement enforcement of a new law on his final day in office” is a more descriptive provable fact to share.
I'm not denying what Biden did (or did not do).
I'm noting that there is a qualititive difference in Trump's behavior with respect to this law compared with ... well, anything anyone has been comparing it to.
I'm noting that there is a qualititive difference in Trump's behavior with respect to this law compared with ... well, anything anyone has been comparing it to.
No, we're downvoting a bad-faith argument. Typical Trump-supporter nonsense, trying to equate Biden's and Trump's actions when they are qualitatively and quantitatively completely different.
That's a very good point. There are certainly more examples of laws that go un-enforced to reinforce your point. For example jaywalking laws are routinely flouted with little enforcement. Likewise buggery laws are routinely ignored by law enforcement.
Along that axis, you are certainly right that it is basically the same as the president unilaterally choosing to exempt a specific multibillion dollar company controlled by a powerful foreign adversary from laws passed by congress with the intent of shoring up national security.
This insight is well received by me and I'm sure others.
Along that axis, you are certainly right that it is basically the same as the president unilaterally choosing to exempt a specific multibillion dollar company controlled by a powerful foreign adversary from laws passed by congress with the intent of shoring up national security.
This insight is well received by me and I'm sure others.
[deleted]
The executive branch is explicitly granted the power to choose which drugs are or aren't scheduled. The law already having provisions to allow the executive to choose which drugs to ban or not makes the choice not to enforce very different qualitatively.
Yeah, *whatabout* the other guys - they did this too!
[deleted]
The great thing is, if a president can unilaterally decide a law doesn’t matter, they can also decide that an imaginary law applies.
It requires the same violation of personal privacy by the state to prevent someone from having an abortion as it does to compel one.
Most people don't realize this.
Most people realize this.
Most people don't:
Most people don't:
* think it will impact them.
* have any idea what to do about it when the most powerful
person in the country can do literally whatever they want
with little to no pushback.> the most powerful person in the country can do literally whatever they want with little to no pushback
"President is the main person end has exceptional power". That's the mental model for most people. There is no any internal conflict with law violation and any space for reflection what's wrong with it.
"President is the main person end has exceptional power". That's the mental model for most people. There is no any internal conflict with law violation and any space for reflection what's wrong with it.
> have any idea what to do about it
They could start with:
1) Peaceful protest, and
2) Boycotting anything related to Musk, Trump and anyone that bends a knee. (When that's literally impossible, as in "I have to buy food somewhere", pick the least bad)
Simple, but inconvenient. Better to make excuses and hope someone else fixes the problem at no cost to me.
They could start with:
1) Peaceful protest, and
2) Boycotting anything related to Musk, Trump and anyone that bends a knee. (When that's literally impossible, as in "I have to buy food somewhere", pick the least bad)
Simple, but inconvenient. Better to make excuses and hope someone else fixes the problem at no cost to me.
There's a lot of middle ground between the righteous protesters putting their lives on the line and the lazy, complacent bourgeoise with their contemptible heads in the sand.
I don't have the energy or time to join protests. I donate substantially enough that it's noticeable in my finances to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Fair Fight, and a handful of others. Tell me I'm not doing enough, that's fair. Tell me I'm doing nothing, and that's a little insulting.
I don't have the energy or time to join protests. I donate substantially enough that it's noticeable in my finances to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Fair Fight, and a handful of others. Tell me I'm not doing enough, that's fair. Tell me I'm doing nothing, and that's a little insulting.
[deleted]
I guess the basis in law is "I fired the entire DOJ so there is nobody to enforce it, we'll just have to wait until those positions are filled again".
I’m a little surprised by this action because the White House can’t protect platforms from state charges. There are plenty of state laws on the books that make violation of federal law a state law violation as well. I suppose the calculation is that no state AGs will want to wade in?
He can’t fire state AGs, but can at the federal level. He just fired a dozen of them at the federal level. State AGs may not want to deal with trump appointed feds. That’s why people are just straight resigning. So in a way he’s firing them.
No feedback loop here guys, seriously.
No feedback loop here guys, seriously.
I think there are many people fine with simply removing federal enforcement over states. One possible outcome of this is the federal government us just a joke and laws are relative to where you live.
I mean. This weird-ass country is already like that, despite the states themselves making zero sense. It'll just get worse.
I mean. This weird-ass country is already like that, despite the states themselves making zero sense. It'll just get worse.
Any step towards a Great Firewall of America is infinitely worse than supposedly improper non-enforcement of an internet censorship law.
I'd argue this is worse than a "Great Firewall of America". The law is poorly thought out and poorly written, but it's something that any company's legal team can point to and understand why they may fall out of compliance.
An arbitrarily enforced law throws that out the window. You're incentivized to cozy up to each administration and hope they don't turn on you, be it Republicans or Democrats.
An arbitrarily enforced law throws that out the window. You're incentivized to cozy up to each administration and hope they don't turn on you, be it Republicans or Democrats.
As far as I remember, the law allowed the president to postpone the law once for up to 90 days. So this particular act is not illegal.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The president can extend the deadline by up to 90 if certain conditions are met. You can argue if those conditions were met, but to argue that Trump had no legal authority to do with without even mentioning the 90 extension provided for by the law is pretty clearly just more useless partisan bullshit.
Apple is breaking the law. Clearly defined by Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Just because the president said "Yeah no worries".
I feel like this is a huge risk for Apple. The president can change his mind, you can have a new president, Congress or the supreme court could decide they actually wanted that law enforced.
Also, If it comes out that sensitive data was exfiltrated from the US via tiktok, or whatever natsec concern saw it banned realizes, then Apple's position is suddenly even worse because the president can say "Apples clearly breaking the law! Lets throw the book at them".
I don't understand the risk/reward calculations Apple did that came up with this decision.
I feel like this is a huge risk for Apple. The president can change his mind, you can have a new president, Congress or the supreme court could decide they actually wanted that law enforced.
Also, If it comes out that sensitive data was exfiltrated from the US via tiktok, or whatever natsec concern saw it banned realizes, then Apple's position is suddenly even worse because the president can say "Apples clearly breaking the law! Lets throw the book at them".
I don't understand the risk/reward calculations Apple did that came up with this decision.
I imagine the calculation was “people are not buying new iPhones because they can’t get TikTok on their new phone”
Unlikely. The thinking is, "If we antagonize Trump, tariffs will make our products too expensive."
One thing I'll add is that lots of kids deleted tiktok when the servers went offline for a bit right when the ban happened. Now they regret it and maybe Apple got wind of this perhaps.
I personally was asked to help a young girl who would cry all day because she lost the app and it was her salvation due to her unique circumstance.
Was interesting for me to learn after asking some middle/high schoolers how important the app is for them emotionally/personally/culturally/etc.
I personally was asked to help a young girl who would cry all day because she lost the app and it was her salvation due to her unique circumstance.
Was interesting for me to learn after asking some middle/high schoolers how important the app is for them emotionally/personally/culturally/etc.
That sounds like a lot like an addiction.
Maybe we need to create "Methadone apps" to help people slowly get off the Pavlovian dopamine machine?
Maybe we need to create "Methadone apps" to help people slowly get off the Pavlovian dopamine machine?
Its is addiction, plain and simple, whole app is designed to be so by psychology experts. Same goes for all Meta products for same goal of course, no need to bash tiktok specifically, its all brain or more like soul cancer destroying a bit young generation and they dont even know any better. A bit, more than a bit a collective and specific parenting failure too.
Ever dealth with proper addict? They live in their own world where all is good, normal and justified. Similar here. In addicts communities, 'normal' bar is set very low but from inside its day as usual.
Now I dont claim there can be no good happening, ie those 'special circumstances' really sound like it, but it would sound way better if some proper child psychologist was there, instead of anonymous communities who may (eventually will like elsewhere) turn toxic and beyond, with consequences.
Ever dealth with proper addict? They live in their own world where all is good, normal and justified. Similar here. In addicts communities, 'normal' bar is set very low but from inside its day as usual.
Now I dont claim there can be no good happening, ie those 'special circumstances' really sound like it, but it would sound way better if some proper child psychologist was there, instead of anonymous communities who may (eventually will like elsewhere) turn toxic and beyond, with consequences.
Couldn’t they download it from the past purchases?
The US government has kompromat on them now
Congress and the Supreme Court already decided they wanted the law enforced. It's up to the executive branch to enforce it and if they decide not to there isn't much the others can do.
There are certainly things that can be done, but the executive can of course escalate their disobedience. If this ends up in court (though I'm not sure who has standing to sue), the courts could order the executive branch to enforce the law. If they don't comply, the courts can find specific people responsible for enforcing the law in contempt of court, and jail them. Of course, they need some appropriate law enforcement agency to arrest them, and there may not be one with jurisdiction that is willing to go against Trump.
Ultimately Congress can impeach and convict Trump and Vance if their shenanigans go too far for even their tastes, but I doubt that will ever happen. (And even then, we'll get Mike Johnson as president, which is not really an improvement.)
Ultimately Congress can impeach and convict Trump and Vance if their shenanigans go too far for even their tastes, but I doubt that will ever happen. (And even then, we'll get Mike Johnson as president, which is not really an improvement.)
I’m sure Apple has done the math and calculated where the true power lies.
More than that, let's say the following sequence of events happen:
1. This whole situation with Trump flouting every Congress-passed law under the sun becomes understood by the general public as what it is: a coup.
2. There is massive (and effective) backlash, in whatever form that may be.
3. Now the next administration wants 100% justice for everyone who aided and abetted in the coup, no exceptions whatsoever. Apple, Google, Oracle, and Akamai will be asked to pay the fines they owe even if it threatens their existence.
It is astounding that Apple is just fine with this kind of tail risk for... no gain at all? Apple stock should have nosedived after the decision to re-allow TikTok downloads. It makes them liable for something like $5k per download.
1. This whole situation with Trump flouting every Congress-passed law under the sun becomes understood by the general public as what it is: a coup.
2. There is massive (and effective) backlash, in whatever form that may be.
3. Now the next administration wants 100% justice for everyone who aided and abetted in the coup, no exceptions whatsoever. Apple, Google, Oracle, and Akamai will be asked to pay the fines they owe even if it threatens their existence.
It is astounding that Apple is just fine with this kind of tail risk for... no gain at all? Apple stock should have nosedived after the decision to re-allow TikTok downloads. It makes them liable for something like $5k per download.
You missed the risk that by following the law, the Trump administration could and likely would put sanctions on Apple for opposing free speech. It’s a huge business risk to oppose Trump just to follow the law, maybe an existential risk.
It’s clear by now that the Executive Branch is taking a very selective approach to what laws they will enforce or not. That’s dangerous. Today you might agree with them, tomorrow you might not, but it’ll be too late.
The 3 branches balancing each other is the reason why the US has worked relatively well as a democracy for 250 years.
The 3 branches balancing each other is the reason why the US has worked relatively well as a democracy for 250 years.
So it was all utterly useless? Unless they did something to the app. Anyone in the US redownloaded and saw any differences?
I feel sorry for Zuckerberg.
Trump was totally going to ban TikTok but then didn’t.
Congress banned TikTok.
Now Trump assures companies they can violate the law without consequences.
Rules for thee, not for Trumps friends / Chinese companies.
Congress banned TikTok.
Now Trump assures companies they can violate the law without consequences.
Rules for thee, not for Trumps friends / Chinese companies.
Wasn’t just congress. Law was signed by president as well. Just like all laws unless vetoed and it’s overridden.
Can somebody educate me on why Trump would be interested in not enforcing the ban at this point, given that he was the first to propose it? That 1.5M followers really worth it?
Because TikTok bent the knee. It's really that simple. It's a timeworn "carrot or stick" proposition that up-and-coming dictators always use to buy consent: create a crisis (tariff, banning, etc.) then remove the crisis when they say how great you are. Rinse and repeat and you can get away with anything because everyone, on paper, is backing you.
How did they bend the knee? I must be out of the loop on this. Aren't they still owned by a Chinese company?
There were alert messages on the app directly referencing Trump as a savior pre-ban, during the one day they dropped service, and post-ban.
What exactly did these messages say?
Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now
A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
Jan 19, 2025
A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now.
We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!
Jan 19, 2025
This shows that Trump reversed course on the ban, but it doesn't explain why.
Most likely that TikTok in some for or another helped him win the election.
Which is not unprecedented for TikTok: https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romania...
Not to discount the valid theories other have touted but… there’s a reason he is described as a “popularist”. He has always had a certain level of savvy, I think he knows TikTok is popular and he looks good if he’s the saviour of it. Doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.
He’s working to force a sale to a crony who will kick back cash. Anything that devalues TikTok reduces his cut.
trump won big among young people during the election, the biggest win in republican history, he believes that it has everything to do with his popularity on tiktok.
with elon controlling x, he needs a social media platform under his control. the best he can possibly do is to create that US sovereign wealth fund and use it to control tiktok.
with elon controlling x, he needs a social media platform under his control. the best he can possibly do is to create that US sovereign wealth fund and use it to control tiktok.
Just to clarify, Trump didn't win young people, he just performed better than expected. In fact, the youth vote was his weakest demographic.
https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-election#youth-vote-+4-for-har...
https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-election#youth-vote-+4-for-har...
To further clarify, both the above can be true. Trump can do something because he believes an unlikely lie.
He might also be intentionally lying to create the impression of support, but he has publicly stated:
> I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok, because I won youth by 34 points … Republicans are always 30 points down in youth. I don’t know why. But we ended up finishing. There was one poll that showed us down about 30. We were 35 or 36 points up with young people. So I have a little bit of a warm spot in my heart, I’ll be honest.
He might also be intentionally lying to create the impression of support, but he has publicly stated:
> I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok, because I won youth by 34 points … Republicans are always 30 points down in youth. I don’t know why. But we ended up finishing. There was one poll that showed us down about 30. We were 35 or 36 points up with young people. So I have a little bit of a warm spot in my heart, I’ll be honest.
“might” be intentionally lying? Look at Trumps record, there is no “might”.
Trump (or more likely Musk) almost certainly made a deal with TikTok. TikTok gets back the US market in exchange for changes to the US feed, and possibly other concessions.
TikTok showed a message thanking Trump when restoring service to US users, and users have been commenting on certain topics getting much fewer recommendations by the algorithm since then.
TikTok showed a message thanking Trump when restoring service to US users, and users have been commenting on certain topics getting much fewer recommendations by the algorithm since then.
Look up Jeff Yass. Mega donor to Trump and large shareholder in ByteDance.
I honestly think Trump always saw this (and most things) as an opportunity to personally profit in some form.
I don’t think there’s any real ideology or principle at play. He’s happy to sell out the US if he gets to do it.
His first term time and again on some topics he talks big, like repealing Obamacare, china tariffs… and walks away after some small action.
I don’t think there’s any real ideology or principle at play. He’s happy to sell out the US if he gets to do it.
His first term time and again on some topics he talks big, like repealing Obamacare, china tariffs… and walks away after some small action.
Because Trump only does things that benefit him or make him look good.
If banning TikTok made him look good in the eyes of most people, TikTok would be banned the first day he was in office. And that might still happen.
If banning TikTok made him look good in the eyes of most people, TikTok would be banned the first day he was in office. And that might still happen.
From what I can tell, Trump believes, rightly or wrongly, that the reason why he did decent, for a Republican, with young people is because he had a decent number of supporters on tiktok who weren't banned or censored.
Because TT very publicly crediting Trump with them getting back online. That fed Trump’s ego (most important) and also put Trump in a position of being seen as saving them (popular). Clever move.
It’s probably because Tesla depends on being able to sell in China. The CCP can control Elon - it’s why he never says anything negative about them and why he signed their pledge to uphold socialist values. Trump in turn is influenced by Elon. China is America’s main adversary so this is a serious issue.
Not just selling in China, Tesla makes more than half their cars there and exports some to other countries like Australia.
What's wrong with socialist values per (the apparent implication in) your statement? I can understand the rest.
John Adams: "We are a nation of laws, not of men,"
Trump: Hold my beer!
Trump: Hold my beer!
The coup is complete. Laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court now mean nothing.
The sooner people stop talking about it as if the US is still only "sliding down the path", and start publicly admitting the reality that they now live in a single-party dictatorship á la Russia and China where the rules are whatever the leader says they are, the better.
I know this isn't easy as it takes time to change decades of reinforcement of the tribal ingroup/outgroup neural pathways where "Russia and China" were seen as contrasts to the US. But y'all can do it. Start by uttering the words out loud to yourself. Break through that first "denial" stage of grief.
The sooner people stop talking about it as if the US is still only "sliding down the path", and start publicly admitting the reality that they now live in a single-party dictatorship á la Russia and China where the rules are whatever the leader says they are, the better.
I know this isn't easy as it takes time to change decades of reinforcement of the tribal ingroup/outgroup neural pathways where "Russia and China" were seen as contrasts to the US. But y'all can do it. Start by uttering the words out loud to yourself. Break through that first "denial" stage of grief.
The elections aren't known to be broken yet, so don't panic just yet but rather watch out very carefully and do whatever you realistically can do (aka bug your representatives) so those remain as safe as possible if you notice any attacks on it.
The foundation of democracy is term limits and fair elections as means of non-violent change of power. Within the terms, people can elect all sorts of monsters - the key point is that there's a certain end to that, as long as the foundations are upheld and next term new people can come and take over the mess. Unlike Russia, there's no long history of massive election fraud.
And that is not broken yet, as long as Democrats don't mess it up too bad and cease to be (turning it into one-party system and then autocracy).
Remember, headlines are fighting for views. It is natural that they spread "we're all fucked real real bad" vibes, as they capture attention really well, but also have this side effect of spreading panic. That's not to say I'm happy about the way things are (things are bad), but that it's not as bad as you say it is - so far.
The foundation of democracy is term limits and fair elections as means of non-violent change of power. Within the terms, people can elect all sorts of monsters - the key point is that there's a certain end to that, as long as the foundations are upheld and next term new people can come and take over the mess. Unlike Russia, there's no long history of massive election fraud.
And that is not broken yet, as long as Democrats don't mess it up too bad and cease to be (turning it into one-party system and then autocracy).
Remember, headlines are fighting for views. It is natural that they spread "we're all fucked real real bad" vibes, as they capture attention really well, but also have this side effect of spreading panic. That's not to say I'm happy about the way things are (things are bad), but that it's not as bad as you say it is - so far.
Do you consider elections in Hungary to be broken yet? After all, they still happen in a way that roughly corresponds to the way they did 10 years ago. Talk to people who don't support the current leader of that country however, and you'll get a totally different story about the elections that happen there.
GOP is definitely looking to the Orban approach as their guiding methodology for e.g. Project 2025.
Most authoritarian countries have been formal democracies(/republics) for a while. There are a LOT of ways to heavily influence elections short of rigging them. (Though, of course, ballot stuffing remains a concern too.)
Sadly, I cannot give you an answer to your question. I understand that I have way too limited understanding what’s possibly happening in Hungary (no clue about the actual corruption levels, election laws or, honestly, anything except that it’s said to be not in a good shape), so my opinion cannot possibly be an educated one. I’m sorry.
Either way, Hungary and US are certainly different enough so even similar things could work out differently in the end.
Either way, Hungary and US are certainly different enough so even similar things could work out differently in the end.
> Either way, Hungary and US are certainly different enough so even similar things could work out differently in the end.
This mindset is one of the reasons why the US are sliding into authoritarianism and repeating mistakes that were made by many other countries in the last century or so. No, the US are not exceptional and there is nothing unique about American people that makes them intrinsically democratic. You should in fact get yourself familiar with Orban’s Hungary because your future is likely to be quite similar. Also, Mussolini and Putin.
This mindset is one of the reasons why the US are sliding into authoritarianism and repeating mistakes that were made by many other countries in the last century or so. No, the US are not exceptional and there is nothing unique about American people that makes them intrinsically democratic. You should in fact get yourself familiar with Orban’s Hungary because your future is likely to be quite similar. Also, Mussolini and Putin.
I believe you misunderstood me. I did not mean to imply that American people are somehow born with democracy in their genes (figuratively, of course), if that's what you thought I meant.
Sadly, I have a non-pleasure of being quite familiar with what happened in Russia in the last few decades. And despite my limited knowledge of the US' political system (that I'm still learning about - it's not a small topic) one thing that I'm very certain that some things that worked in Russia are simply impossible in the US, at least in the way they happened. Let me show you:
Putin formed a new KGB (FSB), taking over a decade to slowly grant it more and more powers. He also suppressed the independent media, events including literal police raids of the major television company. He grew the low-level bureaucracy (which seems to be exact opposite of what's happening in the US) and because election process in Russia de facto relies on poorly paid government-ran school teachers (afraid of doing anything to not get fired) he got control of the elections. He also used similar principles to put a lot of pressure on the judicial system. Then he grew the police force (all under Federal government control - different design than US) and took his time training them in extreme brutality (including literal torture). He also took full control of both houses of the Federal Assembly to legislate for him, replaced elections for state-level governors with his own assignments, and did a lot to expand Presidential powers even further. And only then, when he was sure he can contain almost anything, he pulled out an illegal (for some reason he did not follow the legal process but rather made a mockery of it) Constitutional amendment to grant himself his current term.
All that said, I hope you can see what I mean when I say that US' situation is somewhat different and things that worked in Russia aren't perfectly applicable. If Trump wants to make himself an American Tsar, he needs to figure his own way to do so, for most Putin's recipes simply won't work for him because all the preconditions are different.
I suspect (though, of course, I cannot be sure of it) that Hungary also has a lot of its own nuances. At the very least, Orban is not a President and is operating in a whole different political system.
When I said that "similar things could work out different" I was not arguing about or suggesting any course of action or inaction. I've merely stated that we shouldn't think it's all over because some things, events and personalities have some resemblance to other and those others ended badly. This is really complex systems we're talking about, and all the context matters. US still has some safeties left.
Sadly, I have a non-pleasure of being quite familiar with what happened in Russia in the last few decades. And despite my limited knowledge of the US' political system (that I'm still learning about - it's not a small topic) one thing that I'm very certain that some things that worked in Russia are simply impossible in the US, at least in the way they happened. Let me show you:
Putin formed a new KGB (FSB), taking over a decade to slowly grant it more and more powers. He also suppressed the independent media, events including literal police raids of the major television company. He grew the low-level bureaucracy (which seems to be exact opposite of what's happening in the US) and because election process in Russia de facto relies on poorly paid government-ran school teachers (afraid of doing anything to not get fired) he got control of the elections. He also used similar principles to put a lot of pressure on the judicial system. Then he grew the police force (all under Federal government control - different design than US) and took his time training them in extreme brutality (including literal torture). He also took full control of both houses of the Federal Assembly to legislate for him, replaced elections for state-level governors with his own assignments, and did a lot to expand Presidential powers even further. And only then, when he was sure he can contain almost anything, he pulled out an illegal (for some reason he did not follow the legal process but rather made a mockery of it) Constitutional amendment to grant himself his current term.
All that said, I hope you can see what I mean when I say that US' situation is somewhat different and things that worked in Russia aren't perfectly applicable. If Trump wants to make himself an American Tsar, he needs to figure his own way to do so, for most Putin's recipes simply won't work for him because all the preconditions are different.
I suspect (though, of course, I cannot be sure of it) that Hungary also has a lot of its own nuances. At the very least, Orban is not a President and is operating in a whole different political system.
When I said that "similar things could work out different" I was not arguing about or suggesting any course of action or inaction. I've merely stated that we shouldn't think it's all over because some things, events and personalities have some resemblance to other and those others ended badly. This is really complex systems we're talking about, and all the context matters. US still has some safeties left.
> I believe you misunderstood me. I did not mean to imply that American people are somehow born with democracy in their genes (figuratively, of course), if that's what you thought I meant.
It’s not quite what I meant and I was not careful enough when I wrote, sorry. I meant that recent Hungarian history is actually quite similar to what a happening in the US, all things considered, despite some differences.
> one thing that I'm very certain that some things that worked in Russia are simply impossible in the US, at least in the way they happened.
Sure, there are some differences in the details, and I hope the US can still change path. Completely curtailing freedom of the press, for example, would be significantly more difficult than in Russia, and thus is not the path of least resistance (though they have powerful propaganda outlets, an the oligarchy that is forming could make this happen quicker than we think). You make very good points.
> All that said, I hope you can see what I mean when I say that US' situation is somewhat different and things that worked in Russia aren't perfectly applicable.
Indeed. I just think we disagree on the extent of the similarities.
> When I said that "similar things could work out different" I was not arguing about or suggesting any course of action or inaction. I've merely stated that we shouldn't think it's all over because some things, events and personalities have some resemblance to other and those others ended badly.
Fair enough.
> US still has some safeties left.
Indeed, and I hope it won’t go that way. Still, many of these safeties were broken (like he whole legislative branch being made useless and the judiciary being rapidly captured) and the whole political system is in crisis with no end in sight. I am not too optimistic.
It’s not quite what I meant and I was not careful enough when I wrote, sorry. I meant that recent Hungarian history is actually quite similar to what a happening in the US, all things considered, despite some differences.
> one thing that I'm very certain that some things that worked in Russia are simply impossible in the US, at least in the way they happened.
Sure, there are some differences in the details, and I hope the US can still change path. Completely curtailing freedom of the press, for example, would be significantly more difficult than in Russia, and thus is not the path of least resistance (though they have powerful propaganda outlets, an the oligarchy that is forming could make this happen quicker than we think). You make very good points.
> All that said, I hope you can see what I mean when I say that US' situation is somewhat different and things that worked in Russia aren't perfectly applicable.
Indeed. I just think we disagree on the extent of the similarities.
> When I said that "similar things could work out different" I was not arguing about or suggesting any course of action or inaction. I've merely stated that we shouldn't think it's all over because some things, events and personalities have some resemblance to other and those others ended badly.
Fair enough.
> US still has some safeties left.
Indeed, and I hope it won’t go that way. Still, many of these safeties were broken (like he whole legislative branch being made useless and the judiciary being rapidly captured) and the whole political system is in crisis with no end in sight. I am not too optimistic.
It's probably more grey than that.
There are lots of ways to tilt an election without breaking existing laws, especially if you have all 3 branches of government and an execute that'll selectively enforce laws and out in the open go after political opponents.
There are lots of ways to tilt an election without breaking existing laws, especially if you have all 3 branches of government and an execute that'll selectively enforce laws and out in the open go after political opponents.
Of course, I can’t disagree - that’s all true. But this hasn’t happened yet, so rather than panicking (which, surely, doesn’t help, unless I’m missing something, e.g. if it, say, helps to spread more awareness?), it’s probably best to see what can be realistically done about it, try to do our part, and hope that it will be sufficient. At least I’m not aware about any better alternative.
It's been happening from day 1 kinda:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5124328-trump-ad...
> Some of the first actions from the new leadership at the FBI and DOJ have targeted those who worked on President Trump’s two criminal prosecutions as well as agents and lawyers involved in charging the 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants, who have since been pardoned by the president.
Not even "just" political enemies: also people just doing their job, should that happen to go against the interests of the new regime.
Still agree with your point that panic doesn't help, and I love that you insist on it. Not even worrying helps! And especially when things are kinda bad people need to find their strength, and each other.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5124328-trump-ad...
> Some of the first actions from the new leadership at the FBI and DOJ have targeted those who worked on President Trump’s two criminal prosecutions as well as agents and lawyers involved in charging the 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants, who have since been pardoned by the president.
Not even "just" political enemies: also people just doing their job, should that happen to go against the interests of the new regime.
Still agree with your point that panic doesn't help, and I love that you insist on it. Not even worrying helps! And especially when things are kinda bad people need to find their strength, and each other.
I think one saving grace is that the US federal government doesn't administer elections. Sure, there are things they can do to interfere, but elections are run by the states, and that means 50 different electoral systems to subvert and tilt.
Not only does that not need to be the case, he only needs to subvert a few swing states to interfere successfully.
He already tried once to overturn an election. This time he's way more ruthless and out for revenge.
> The elections aren't known to be broken yet
Sweet summer child. Let me unfold a very precise prediction:
* By the end of 2nd-3rd year. Trump/congress/republican party would propose an amendment that president could rule two consecutive terms. It would be accepted.
* Trump would be elected to the next term.
* By the end of 6th-7th year there would be proposal to extend presidency to three terms.
* Rinse and repeat.
If you think it's unreal I have very bad news for you: how often it happens in real world.
Sweet summer child. Let me unfold a very precise prediction:
* By the end of 2nd-3rd year. Trump/congress/republican party would propose an amendment that president could rule two consecutive terms. It would be accepted.
* Trump would be elected to the next term.
* By the end of 6th-7th year there would be proposal to extend presidency to three terms.
* Rinse and repeat.
If you think it's unreal I have very bad news for you: how often it happens in real world.
There are people in the GOP already talking about a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to serve a third term, so your first point is already happening.
The problem is in getting 2/3 of the state legislatures to ratify it. I don't see how that could reasonably happen.
Many other countries have constitutions that can be changed directly by their central/federal government. We don't have that. It's a lot harder to amend the US constitution.
The problem is in getting 2/3 of the state legislatures to ratify it. I don't see how that could reasonably happen.
Many other countries have constitutions that can be changed directly by their central/federal government. We don't have that. It's a lot harder to amend the US constitution.
> Remember, headlines are fighting for views. It is natural that they spread "we're all fucked real real bad" vibes
I disagree with this. What spooks me out about headlines in Germany is how relatively silent they are about this. I'd say there is WAY more money in oligarchy than there is in all the media in the world selling every single paper and ad, every day. Because in the end, it will include that profit, too.
But I still agree that it's never over, but not because there is a hope that some other group might do something, but because tens and hundreds of millions of people can actually do a lot, if they do something.
I disagree with this. What spooks me out about headlines in Germany is how relatively silent they are about this. I'd say there is WAY more money in oligarchy than there is in all the media in the world selling every single paper and ad, every day. Because in the end, it will include that profit, too.
But I still agree that it's never over, but not because there is a hope that some other group might do something, but because tens and hundreds of millions of people can actually do a lot, if they do something.
Germany, besides domestic topics like an upcoming election, is more concerned about the havoc Trump is heaving on the international stage and how it impacts Germany and the EU (see Tagesschau, SpOn, FAZ, TAZ, etc. the whole spectrum). I can't blame them.
The USA has itself basically downgraded from "friend and ally" to "necessary partner", still better than Russia or China, but we are not done yet ;)
The USA has itself basically downgraded from "friend and ally" to "necessary partner", still better than Russia or China, but we are not done yet ;)
Trump firing FBI and DOJ staff for doing their job, deleting archives, all that stuff? If you just translated English reports on that, just translated some choice quotes and put it on page #1 Germans would probably be more shocked than Americans. And it's directly connected with upcoming elections, and the meddling with them. Media that don't find a coup in the US terribly noteworthy would probably enable the same here.
Definitely in a coup, if not completely taken over. Check this https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/13/politics/danielle-sassoon-eri...
> they now live in a single-party dictatorship á la Russia and China where the rules are whatever the leader says they are, the better.
"single-party dictatorship" in the US? You need to read your comment again as this is just beyond hysterical.
You're telling everyone here that the Democratic Party currently has now ceased to exist and there is no opposition against the current administration.
"single-party dictatorship" in the US? You need to read your comment again as this is just beyond hysterical.
You're telling everyone here that the Democratic Party currently has now ceased to exist and there is no opposition against the current administration.
> You need to read your comment again as this is just beyond hysterical.
Absurd thing to say, are you really this unfamiliar with other countries, such as Russia? Never heard of Navalny? Don't know that he was an opposition leader? Or that Russia is indeed a single-party dictatorship?
Absurd thing to say, are you really this unfamiliar with other countries, such as Russia? Never heard of Navalny? Don't know that he was an opposition leader? Or that Russia is indeed a single-party dictatorship?
I'm afraid you failed to read the first sentence in my comment which I was referring to the US and NOT Russia or China:
> "single-party dictatorship" IN the US?
The parent comment believes that the US is in a so-called "single-party dictatorship" which really is just absolutely false.
> "single-party dictatorship" IN the US?
The parent comment believes that the US is in a so-called "single-party dictatorship" which really is just absolutely false.
I am the parent commenter, I'm afraid you failed to read that.
Russia having an opposition party doesn't make it less of a single-party dictatorship. Same goes for the US.
Russia having an opposition party doesn't make it less of a single-party dictatorship. Same goes for the US.
Your ultimate claim is that the US IS in a "single-party dictatorship", comparable or equivalent to Russia or China. Anyone with sense knows that IS false.
Both house and senate representatives made up of republican or democrat parties (not just ONE single party) were elected in November 2024 and that election had multiple parties involved and the ones before it with congress still here afterwards.
Yet you comparing that process being equal or even worse than Russia or China and what they have in their countries is just nonsense.
What's clear here is that I don't think you know what a "single-party dictatorship" really is when you posted that comment and just only speaking in complete hysteria.
Both house and senate representatives made up of republican or democrat parties (not just ONE single party) were elected in November 2024 and that election had multiple parties involved and the ones before it with congress still here afterwards.
Yet you comparing that process being equal or even worse than Russia or China and what they have in their countries is just nonsense.
What's clear here is that I don't think you know what a "single-party dictatorship" really is when you posted that comment and just only speaking in complete hysteria.
> Both house and senate representatives made up of republican or democrat parties (not just ONE single party) were elected in November 2024 and that election had multiple parties involved and the ones before it with congress still here afterwards.
Again, the exact same can be said for Russia. All of your arguments can be applied to claim Russia is not a one-party dictatorship. Following your exact line of reasoning, either both are, or neither are.
Besides, the exact event this article is discussing has the ruling party completely ignoring decisions by congress, meaning there isn't even the veneer of it mattering in the first place.
Again, the exact same can be said for Russia. All of your arguments can be applied to claim Russia is not a one-party dictatorship. Following your exact line of reasoning, either both are, or neither are.
Besides, the exact event this article is discussing has the ruling party completely ignoring decisions by congress, meaning there isn't even the veneer of it mattering in the first place.
> Again, the exact same can be said for Russia.
False. The US is not the exact same as Russia or China's dictatorial regimes.
Russia actually jails their opposition to maintain complete "single-party" power in their elections; making it close to impossible for a different party to think about winning. This sort of thing doesn't come close to happening in the US under any ruling party. Even you bringing in China doesn't even begin to compare and such a comparison to the US and believing the US is equivalent or worse than both Russia or China's form of government is just laughable.
> Besides, the exact event this article is discussing has the ruling party completely ignoring decisions by congress, meaning there isn't even the veneer of it mattering in the first place.
Once again, your original claim comparing the US to actual "single-party dictatorships" and concluding that it is one, is false by the actual definition of the term: [0] or even the one you probably got confused on which is the 'Dominant-party system' which fits Russia [1] and is also still a "single-party dictatorship":
"A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a governance structure in which only a single political party controls the ruling system. In a one-party state, *all opposition parties* are either outlawed or enjoy limited and controlled participation in elections."
In 2025, The United States does not fit in with either of those systems and isn't even close to a "single-party dictatorship" as you keep falsely claiming it to be.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system
False. The US is not the exact same as Russia or China's dictatorial regimes.
Russia actually jails their opposition to maintain complete "single-party" power in their elections; making it close to impossible for a different party to think about winning. This sort of thing doesn't come close to happening in the US under any ruling party. Even you bringing in China doesn't even begin to compare and such a comparison to the US and believing the US is equivalent or worse than both Russia or China's form of government is just laughable.
> Besides, the exact event this article is discussing has the ruling party completely ignoring decisions by congress, meaning there isn't even the veneer of it mattering in the first place.
Once again, your original claim comparing the US to actual "single-party dictatorships" and concluding that it is one, is false by the actual definition of the term: [0] or even the one you probably got confused on which is the 'Dominant-party system' which fits Russia [1] and is also still a "single-party dictatorship":
"A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a governance structure in which only a single political party controls the ruling system. In a one-party state, *all opposition parties* are either outlawed or enjoy limited and controlled participation in elections."
In 2025, The United States does not fit in with either of those systems and isn't even close to a "single-party dictatorship" as you keep falsely claiming it to be.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system
> and there is no opposition
There’s opposition everywhere, including places with single party rule.
There’s opposition everywhere, including places with single party rule.
Democratic Party does not control the Senate or House.
They have no ability to oppose anything.
They have no ability to oppose anything.
Senate needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Democrats have enough votes to stop any bill from passing except budget reconciliation.
Do bills still matter, whether they pass or not? Apparently it's rule by executive order from here on out.
Yea, I remember the whole Biden forgiving student loans fiasco that bypassed Congress several times and argued in court that the President has extensive powers via executive orders.
I'm not sure there's much really stopping 51 members of the Senate from ramming through a rule-change to completely do away with the filibuster.
That filibustering is still a valid political instrument is so weird as a non american. Maybe the us wouldn't be in this mess if it wouldn't cling to political process from the 1800s
Latest is that their budget would include 4.5T in tax cuts, 2T in spending cuts which makes up the majority of what Trump wants from Congress anyway.
It's not like they were ever looking to pass giant infrastructure bills. Everything else e.g. border security can be done through Executive Order.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-budget-resolu...
It's not like they were ever looking to pass giant infrastructure bills. Everything else e.g. border security can be done through Executive Order.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-budget-resolu...
Elections have consequences. The Democrats should have listened to what the people wanted instead of just being anti Trump.
How is it a single party dictatorship? There was JUST an election with multiple parties.
In April 1933, Germany had JUST had an election with multiple parties.
In December 1917, Russia had just had such an election.
In May 1924, Italy had just had such an election.
In June 1946, Czechoslovakia had just had such an election.
And almost immediately afterwards, each became a single-party dictatorship.
In December 1917, Russia had just had such an election.
In May 1924, Italy had just had such an election.
In June 1946, Czechoslovakia had just had such an election.
And almost immediately afterwards, each became a single-party dictatorship.
In 1921 Portugal has elections, then until 1974 we enjoyed a dictorship, war in the colonies across multiple fronts, with political prisioners either landing on island prision Tarrafal, or sent to the front.
As someone that was a child when transition back to democacry came to be, it is really surprising how quickly people forget history.
As someone that was a child when transition back to democacry came to be, it is really surprising how quickly people forget history.
Now do every other election in history.
Did the US just end all future elections from 2024 "immediately afterwards"?
Are all senate and house congressmen/women of only just one single party and no other, currently elected into congress right now?
Did congress also just cease to exist "immediately afterwards"?
Seriously, comparisons like this are really just completely something of delusion and comparing the US in 2025 to Nazi Germany in 1933 is a tired stretch worthy of just dismissing altogether to be honest.
Come on.
Are all senate and house congressmen/women of only just one single party and no other, currently elected into congress right now?
Did congress also just cease to exist "immediately afterwards"?
Seriously, comparisons like this are really just completely something of delusion and comparing the US in 2025 to Nazi Germany in 1933 is a tired stretch worthy of just dismissing altogether to be honest.
Come on.
It is an expression of fear. Just as democracies are well advised to take fears about immigration seriously, they are well advised to take fears about authoritarian overreach seriously (this used to be a core strength of the GOP). Many people fear the USA is on a trajectory of dismantling its democratic institutions and into an authoritarian single-party dictatorship.
If you are interested in a working democracy it would be wise to not dismiss these concerns out of hand just because they draw comparisons to historical regimes where authoritarian overreach ended democracies. The comparison might be wrong, yet the concerns are real.
If you are interested in a working democracy it would be wise to not dismiss these concerns out of hand just because they draw comparisons to historical regimes where authoritarian overreach ended democracies. The comparison might be wrong, yet the concerns are real.
I think their point is the current GOP is behaving like they're members of a dictatorship in that they won't speak out or against their dear leader and allow him to easily break laws daily which they would have impeached Biden for in an instant, and have completely given up their job of governing in service to the leader.
Sure the USA is still a two party system right now, but unless something completely drastic happens between now and four years from now, I fully expect Trump to say "the Constitution says a POTUS can only serve two consecutive terms", and he won't leave office and the GOP will be completely fine with that.
Sure the USA is still a two party system right now, but unless something completely drastic happens between now and four years from now, I fully expect Trump to say "the Constitution says a POTUS can only serve two consecutive terms", and he won't leave office and the GOP will be completely fine with that.
This was true for the lead up to many dictators. By itself, just having an election doesn't really mean much. We'll see if there are future (fair) elections.
rvz(1)
It’s not a single party dictatorship, it’s a single populist leader dictatorship. The original GOP hates Trump but they care more about being re-elected because his fan base is so rabid and he and Musk are so retaliatory. Look what happened to Liz Cheney. The only people who can defy him now are the few about to retire/die and not seeking reelection (McConnell).
It is a single party dictatorship, and you're already implying it:
>The original GOP...
Is not the current party in power. Hence why you're making that distinction - the party of 10 years ago doesn't matter anymore, it's irrelevant. If you believe that Trump getting a deadly heart attack tomorrow would bring the coup to a sudden end, I've got bad news for you.
>The original GOP...
Is not the current party in power. Hence why you're making that distinction - the party of 10 years ago doesn't matter anymore, it's irrelevant. If you believe that Trump getting a deadly heart attack tomorrow would bring the coup to a sudden end, I've got bad news for you.
We only live in a single-party dictatorship now if the electoral system has been subverted by Trump as well. It's not clear if that's the case yet; I guess we'll see when November 2026 rolls around. If Democrats retake control of one or both houses of Congress, I think that would be decent evidence that the system is still working, even if it's damaged.
Of course, if the GOP retains control, we can't really say much either way, unless there is strong, incontrovertible evidence of enough voter suppression or fraud that would swing the election.
So we'll see. I'm not ready to give up on the US just yet, for all its faults.
Of course, if the GOP retains control, we can't really say much either way, unless there is strong, incontrovertible evidence of enough voter suppression or fraud that would swing the election.
So we'll see. I'm not ready to give up on the US just yet, for all its faults.
I’ve always thought it was crazy when either side said they were leaving the country based on who won the presidency.
Last time between moderate old school Republicans, business interest and the bureaucracy, they were able to keep Trump in check. But it is different this time.
Trump is no normal Republican and neither are his flunkies in Congress. I’ve seriously been looking at retiring to Costa Rica or Panama City. It’s stable. It’s relatively easy to become a permanent resident and buy into their health care system.
Last time between moderate old school Republicans, business interest and the bureaucracy, they were able to keep Trump in check. But it is different this time.
Trump is no normal Republican and neither are his flunkies in Congress. I’ve seriously been looking at retiring to Costa Rica or Panama City. It’s stable. It’s relatively easy to become a permanent resident and buy into their health care system.
As a person who left the US almost 9 years ago (part of my reason was I saw the writing on the wall and knew a big political mess was coming. Part was similar to you with wanting good health care), one thing that's bothering me about a lot of the nü-emigrants from the US is they're bringing the politics with them that they're claiming to escape from. I've been feeling American politics creep more and more into my life here despite thinking I escaped them nearly a decade ago, and it's due to more Americans moving abroad and not really adapting to the mindset of their new home.
There are some good people who leave out there. But it's feeling like the world is becoming more and more uniform with this bizarre political worship and cult of personality all centered on America.
There are some good people who leave out there. But it's feeling like the world is becoming more and more uniform with this bizarre political worship and cult of personality all centered on America.
I strongly doubt those immigrants are causing any of that, rather than the enormous online reach of Tate et. al alt-right along with Russia-backed campaigns, and now Musk over the last decade. Those have left a large impact even in countries with zero American immigrants to speak of. That's a much more likely cause.
English speakers keep pinning the blame solely on Russia. Russia has some degree of influence and that's undeniable. But the word of mouth bizarre chatter online and in real life is very organic. Until people accept that their own culture has problems, nothing will change. Pinning the blame on some other culture that they don't like and blaming them for everything has a long history but it never fixes the problem.
Go to some bars or even random discord servers and you'll quickly find that it's not Russians trying to proselytize everyone with their political beliefs. They're actual people.
And I'm not only talking about the right wing stuff that Russia does promote. There are bizarre political brainworms leaking out of America in many political directions.
Go to some bars or even random discord servers and you'll quickly find that it's not Russians trying to proselytize everyone with their political beliefs. They're actual people.
And I'm not only talking about the right wing stuff that Russia does promote. There are bizarre political brainworms leaking out of America in many political directions.
When this discussion comes up I always like to remember that the founding fathers also fled England to escape political turmoil.
A bit like the guy that “always seems to run into dysfunctional teams”, that should give food for thought.
A bit like the guy that “always seems to run into dysfunctional teams”, that should give food for thought.
The difference is that always being on a dysfunctional team is caused by people who can’t judge the company before they work there or make the team dysfunctional. Either way, they had some amount of power over their own situation.
We are at a third scenario, the second law of thermodynamics, everything goes to shit over time including teams and countries.
When that happens it’s usually time to leave. It often happens when the company is acquired like the US has been bought by President Musk with his useful idiot puppet.
I’m 50 and I’ve never seen anyone - Republican or Democrat - try to wreck the US either domestically or internationally like President Musk has.
Don’t get me wrong, even at retirement I would be hedging my bets and should be able to keep my by then paid off condo in the US and rent in another country and go back and forth.
We are at a third scenario, the second law of thermodynamics, everything goes to shit over time including teams and countries.
When that happens it’s usually time to leave. It often happens when the company is acquired like the US has been bought by President Musk with his useful idiot puppet.
I’m 50 and I’ve never seen anyone - Republican or Democrat - try to wreck the US either domestically or internationally like President Musk has.
Don’t get me wrong, even at retirement I would be hedging my bets and should be able to keep my by then paid off condo in the US and rent in another country and go back and forth.
Americans can’t vote in other countries. What would Americans want to bring to other countries? A shitty expensive health care system?
I fully plan to learn more than the little Spanish I know if I move.
I fully plan to learn more than the little Spanish I know if I move.
They can take citizenship and vote.
What I've encountered is more and more Q style thinking these past few years. Sometimes outright support of it. Sometimes even pro-Q demonstrators in the middle of town. The worst part is these people talk about it at their workplaces, they talk about it with their friends, they teach it to their kids and spouse. The whole line of thinking is a mindvirus.
It went from happily being detached from American stuff entirely to random locals saying, "You're American, right? What do you think about (bizarre conspiracy theory originating in the US)? It makes a lot of sense to me and I'm glad (politician) will take care of it. We need a guy like that here." When I ask where they're hearing about this, it's often "This American friend of mine tells me about it and he makes a lot of good points."
And this is just the more extreme kind of thinking that's spread. There are various other americanisms creeping in that I wish I could've escaped forever.
What I've encountered is more and more Q style thinking these past few years. Sometimes outright support of it. Sometimes even pro-Q demonstrators in the middle of town. The worst part is these people talk about it at their workplaces, they talk about it with their friends, they teach it to their kids and spouse. The whole line of thinking is a mindvirus.
It went from happily being detached from American stuff entirely to random locals saying, "You're American, right? What do you think about (bizarre conspiracy theory originating in the US)? It makes a lot of sense to me and I'm glad (politician) will take care of it. We need a guy like that here." When I ask where they're hearing about this, it's often "This American friend of mine tells me about it and he makes a lot of good points."
And this is just the more extreme kind of thinking that's spread. There are various other americanisms creeping in that I wish I could've escaped forever.
> I’ve seriously been looking at retiring to Costa Rica or Panama City. It’s stable.
Panama? Did you forget about https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/26/panic-and-defi...?
Panama? Did you forget about https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/26/panic-and-defi...?
I’m looking at a least a 10 year time horizon. Trump has talked about taking over Greenland, Gaza, Canada and Panama.
> I’m looking at a least a 10 year time horizon. Trump has talked about taking over Greenland, Gaza, Canada and Panama.
I'm confused, how does a 10 year time horizon make Panama look more stable w.r.t. Trump's threat? Wouldn't it be worse? If negative impact on Panama is going to unfold, I'd expect it to be more painful over the long term than the short term, not less.
I'm confused, how does a 10 year time horizon make Panama look more stable w.r.t. Trump's threat? Wouldn't it be worse? If negative impact on Panama is going to unfold, I'd expect it to be more painful over the long term than the short term, not less.
I think their point was a military incursion is just as likely in Panama as Canada Greenland and Gaza. Can you honestly picture boots on the ground in any one of these? The man is the definition of “mouth writes checks he can’t cash”
> I think their point was a military incursion is just as likely in Panama as Canada Greenland and Gaza. Can you honestly picture boots on the ground in any one of these?
Military is irrelevant here. You don't need boots on the ground to throw a country into chaos. Did Russia and China send soldiers on American soil to make the US as unstable as it is right now (...leading to people's desires to seek a more stable country)?
The concern was regarding stability, healthcare, etc. which means economic and political stability. How stable do you think Panama would be in (say) an economic war with the US that is focused on controlling their canal? What if the US decides to covertly influence their government (or worse)?
But to answer your question directly anyway: for Canada he specifically said "economic force", not military. For Gaza, he said Israel would handle the military aspect and hand it over. For Greenland, the military is already there, but also it's not like they would meet any resistance via combat there. For Panama... it seems unlikely but it's also hard to put anything past him. Not because of his word, but because his actions are just so unpredictable.
Military is irrelevant here. You don't need boots on the ground to throw a country into chaos. Did Russia and China send soldiers on American soil to make the US as unstable as it is right now (...leading to people's desires to seek a more stable country)?
The concern was regarding stability, healthcare, etc. which means economic and political stability. How stable do you think Panama would be in (say) an economic war with the US that is focused on controlling their canal? What if the US decides to covertly influence their government (or worse)?
But to answer your question directly anyway: for Canada he specifically said "economic force", not military. For Gaza, he said Israel would handle the military aspect and hand it over. For Greenland, the military is already there, but also it's not like they would meet any resistance via combat there. For Panama... it seems unlikely but it's also hard to put anything past him. Not because of his word, but because his actions are just so unpredictable.
> Did Russia and China send soldiers on American soil to make the US as unstable as it is right now
Wait a minute. We did this to ourselves. Of course do Russia and China meddle in the USA's infosphere (just like we meddle in their infospheres), but there are always two involved: those meddling and those believing it. I mean, Reptiloids, blood-harvesting, Pizzagate... Seriously, what would China have to put in your china to make you gullible enough to believe that? Yet there are obviously people out there that do believe. It made headlines!
Unlike China or Russia it still matters in the USA what the population believes. Thus we, as members of the general public, regardless of our political leaning, cannot exculpate us from the state of the nation by pointing at some foreign power and say "they made me do it". As an expat I thought, I could keep out of it, but I can't. We have to face up to the fact that all of this is our doing and nobody forced us to do it.
Wait a minute. We did this to ourselves. Of course do Russia and China meddle in the USA's infosphere (just like we meddle in their infospheres), but there are always two involved: those meddling and those believing it. I mean, Reptiloids, blood-harvesting, Pizzagate... Seriously, what would China have to put in your china to make you gullible enough to believe that? Yet there are obviously people out there that do believe. It made headlines!
Unlike China or Russia it still matters in the USA what the population believes. Thus we, as members of the general public, regardless of our political leaning, cannot exculpate us from the state of the nation by pointing at some foreign power and say "they made me do it". As an expat I thought, I could keep out of it, but I can't. We have to face up to the fact that all of this is our doing and nobody forced us to do it.
> Wait a minute. We did this to ourselves. Of course do Russia and China meddle in the USA's infosphere (just like we meddle in their infospheres), but there are always two involved
I have no clue what this has to do with the current discussion. Yes, there are two involved. Panamanians could also become similarly involved in any instability the US decides to sow there. How does that imply Panama is going to be stable? Are you under the impression that Panamanians are somehow immune to to this?
I have no clue what this has to do with the current discussion. Yes, there are two involved. Panamanians could also become similarly involved in any instability the US decides to sow there. How does that imply Panama is going to be stable? Are you under the impression that Panamanians are somehow immune to to this?
It's not that he threatens things he can't go through with. It's that he presents himself as unhinged and capable of any sort of messed up thing. So when he says he's going to send troops to Panama to retake the canal, he probably doesn't expect he'd ever actually do it. But Panama's government can't be sure, so when Trump asks for something perhaps a bit more "reasonable" than returning the canal to US control, Panama will look at that as better than risking a military incursion, and capitulate.
This has already happened with lower-stakes stuff, like the tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods that Trump never even put into effect once he announced them but immediately got concessions from Canada and Mexico. Whether or not those concessions are actually useful or will materialize is another matter, but that's almost irrelevant: Trump knows he can push them around now, and pretty easily at that.
This has already happened with lower-stakes stuff, like the tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods that Trump never even put into effect once he announced them but immediately got concessions from Canada and Mexico. Whether or not those concessions are actually useful or will materialize is another matter, but that's almost irrelevant: Trump knows he can push them around now, and pretty easily at that.
Trump caved and really didn’t get anything
https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-shein...
> But many of those outside the White House looking at the tariffs drama say little was accomplished, arguing that the measures taken by the two U.S. neighbors were already in place or likely could have been achieved without Trump’s ultimatums. Even the financial markets seemed to shrug off the showdown with a modest sell-off on Monday.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-shein...
> But many of those outside the White House looking at the tariffs drama say little was accomplished, arguing that the measures taken by the two U.S. neighbors were already in place or likely could have been achieved without Trump’s ultimatums. Even the financial markets seemed to shrug off the showdown with a modest sell-off on Monday.
Only 25% of Democrats want TikTok banned vs 38% of republicans, it's the opposite of a coup with the President siding with the opposing party. Politicians of all colors are reading the room. Not hearing Democrat politicians calling for an immediate TikTok ban.
Is lack of federal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws a coup too?
Is lack of federal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws a coup too?
If that were truly the case they would pass another law overturning the ban.
Not sure if the GP was talking about what people want or what Congresspeople want. If the former, that's not really indicative of much. Congress often doesn't pass laws based on what a majority of their constituents want, but based on their own interests (or the interests of their financial backers).
I'm all for acknowledging that we are at the bottom of the slippery slope and have been for some time
but I think people should be focusing on what they can do with it, people put their energy into arguing about it or these semantical distinctions
when the reality is that we will have this supreme court, or its rulings, for the next 50 years at least. like, okay, work with that
you don't love all federal agencies, only some. so instead of lamenting the ones you find beneficial, focus on the ones you hate and Chevron the shit out of them. sure, go ahead and start with obscure regulations that moderately inconvenience you, but go further and get their entire charter declared unconstitutional, shoot, get the interstate commerce clause interpretation adjusted if that's what you feel like. we know what this supreme court is going to do, stop worrying about whether you agree and worry about how you can use it, for example
I don't know why people use their energy any other way, this is the most egalitarian Oligarch-level event in history.
but I think people should be focusing on what they can do with it, people put their energy into arguing about it or these semantical distinctions
when the reality is that we will have this supreme court, or its rulings, for the next 50 years at least. like, okay, work with that
you don't love all federal agencies, only some. so instead of lamenting the ones you find beneficial, focus on the ones you hate and Chevron the shit out of them. sure, go ahead and start with obscure regulations that moderately inconvenience you, but go further and get their entire charter declared unconstitutional, shoot, get the interstate commerce clause interpretation adjusted if that's what you feel like. we know what this supreme court is going to do, stop worrying about whether you agree and worry about how you can use it, for example
I don't know why people use their energy any other way, this is the most egalitarian Oligarch-level event in history.
You still don't get it, and aren't acknowledging the bottom of the slippery slope. You're part of the group I was targeting.
Laws have been shown to now be entirely meaningless, yet you continue to suggest energy should be put into going through the courts.
That's the whole point, this entire action entirely ignores both Congress and SCOTUS, the law doesn't matter.
Laws have been shown to now be entirely meaningless, yet you continue to suggest energy should be put into going through the courts.
That's the whole point, this entire action entirely ignores both Congress and SCOTUS, the law doesn't matter.
I wasn’t referring to this case
I was referring to navigating the structure of the country, yourself, not as the president
I was referring to navigating the structure of the country, yourself, not as the president
The law specifically allowed for this extension, so I think you may be getting ahead of yourself.
Only before Jan 19th and if a sale was in progress. After Jan 19th the law went into effect, and whatever Trump said or wrote in executive order became legally irrelevant
By Jan 19, which has passed, so I think you may not be fully aware of that law.
It only allowed for the extension if TikTok had plans underway to diverse from ByteDance.
Not seen any reporting this is the case so we are relying on Trump's Executive Order to the DOJ to not enforce the ruling.
And it's in the context of JD Vance's recent statements that the Supreme Court should have no power to curtail the President's actions.
Not seen any reporting this is the case so we are relying on Trump's Executive Order to the DOJ to not enforce the ruling.
And it's in the context of JD Vance's recent statements that the Supreme Court should have no power to curtail the President's actions.
> Supreme Court should have no power to curtail the President's actions
I read "should" as a mere wish. Now, putting Vance in Pence's place, I don't think he'd have certified that election.
I read "should" as a mere wish. Now, putting Vance in Pence's place, I don't think he'd have certified that election.
[deleted]
The TikTok law was meant to force divesture to a US company. The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of it at the very last minute, so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer, including Biden saying he won't enforce it on the last day in office.
They know a lot of Americans depend on it for both livelihood and entertainment/information. How many people in the general public even want it immediately banned apart from those doing it to score political points?
They know a lot of Americans depend on it for both livelihood and entertainment/information. How many people in the general public even want it immediately banned apart from those doing it to score political points?
> The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of it at the very last minute, so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer,
How does that follow? The law passed in Congress with "broad bipartisan support", including a strict and limited window for an acquirer to be found. That window has closed.
How does that follow? The law passed in Congress with "broad bipartisan support", including a strict and limited window for an acquirer to be found. That window has closed.
I support the ban. Other podcasters I've listened to do as well, or at least understand the rationale light of the leaks and double standard.
> so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer, including Biden saying he won't enforce it on the last day in office.
It’s tempting to view this as “support”, but a simpler explanation is that it was just pragmatic to wait one additional day for the incoming administration to carry out enforcement actions.
That one-day delay was neither a miscarriage of justice nor was it a political statement. It was just timing.
Really, we should ask why on earth congress decided that the 19th of January was the deadline.
It’s tempting to view this as “support”, but a simpler explanation is that it was just pragmatic to wait one additional day for the incoming administration to carry out enforcement actions.
That one-day delay was neither a miscarriage of justice nor was it a political statement. It was just timing.
Really, we should ask why on earth congress decided that the 19th of January was the deadline.
> It’s tempting to view this as “support”, but a simpler explanation is that it was just pragmatic to wait one additional day for the incoming administration to carry out enforcement actions
The Biden administration was specifically looking for ways to keep TikTok running during the last days.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-administrat...
Only 25% of democrats want TikTok banned. The Biden admin didn't want to be blamed for shutting down TikTok.
The Biden administration was specifically looking for ways to keep TikTok running during the last days.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-administrat...
Only 25% of democrats want TikTok banned. The Biden admin didn't want to be blamed for shutting down TikTok.
>so there is broad bipartisan support for more time to find an acquirer,
Huh? No such law has passed congress.
Huh? No such law has passed congress.
Congress can pass a law removing the exception for the extension in the bill they already passed. There is zero appetite for such a law.
The extension is over. Congress pass the bill they passed not the one you think they passed.
ByteDance has made it clear they don't want to sell.
So we have a situation where Trump is ignoring the will of Congress and the Judiciary.
And what the public wants is irrelevant. They elected the Congress who have made a decision on their behalf.
So we have a situation where Trump is ignoring the will of Congress and the Judiciary.
And what the public wants is irrelevant. They elected the Congress who have made a decision on their behalf.
Congress can pass a bill immediately removing the TikTok exception and also criminalizing the App store.
Are even Democrats calling for TikTok to be immediately banned? All this feels so bizarre as how something that absolutely no one in real life wants being heavily pushed for talking points.
Are even Democrats calling for TikTok to be immediately banned? All this feels so bizarre as how something that absolutely no one in real life wants being heavily pushed for talking points.
[deleted]
It's neat that we've decided laws don't matter and Congress can just be ignored.
With the president's immunity and expansive pardon powers, unfortunately, that is where we are. Laws don't matter when you can be pre-emtively pardoned for breaking them.
Congress has spent many decades expanding the power of the president. This is what people have been warning about for a long time.
The best part is we already tried impeaching him in his first term. As long as at least 1/3rd of Senators support him there is no way to remove him from office.
Well, except a coup maybe. While normal soldiers swear allegiance to the president, officers only swear to protect the constitution. But that seems unlikely.
The best part is we already tried impeaching him in his first term. As long as at least 1/3rd of Senators support him there is no way to remove him from office.
Well, except a coup maybe. While normal soldiers swear allegiance to the president, officers only swear to protect the constitution. But that seems unlikely.
Normal soldiers also swear to defend the constitution. The enlisted oath also says says they'll obey orders from the President though.
[deleted]
All the more convenient, isn't it?
Jokes aside, I always thought the ban/force-sale was ridiculous short of an actual privacy law that regulates all social media. But, regardless of your stance on that front, one should indeed be worried of the ever-growing power of the executive.
Jokes aside, I always thought the ban/force-sale was ridiculous short of an actual privacy law that regulates all social media. But, regardless of your stance on that front, one should indeed be worried of the ever-growing power of the executive.
Wait until you find out that in many states, you can walk into a business and buy a schedule I controlled substance, and the federal government has been ignoring it for over a decade!
Also you can go 60 in a 55.
Where is the executive order or written letter from the DOJ saying they have voided schedule I or speed limits?
Failure to enforce due to prioritization is not at all the same thing as the President saying a law no longer exists.
Where is the executive order or written letter from the DOJ saying they have voided schedule I or speed limits?
Failure to enforce due to prioritization is not at all the same thing as the President saying a law no longer exists.
Yeah, there’s a huge difference between not enforcing federal laws and not enforcing federal laws.
Reductionism is so juvenile. Now do fake outrage that muggers go to jail for knifing someone while surgeons get paid: “eiteher it’s ok to cut someone with a knife or it’s not!”
Corrupt intent is the crime. We all know this. It’s embarrassing when someone rediscovers reductionism and pretends to believe it’s a magic argument.
Corrupt intent is the crime. We all know this. It’s embarrassing when someone rediscovers reductionism and pretends to believe it’s a magic argument.
Though most of the comments are about Trump, I’m happy to see TikTok back (for now). I don’t think Trump ignoring the law is the answer or the right way to go about this, but I’ll take it for now if it keeps TikTok around. What’s most shocking to me, whether you think TikTok should be banned or not, is that Congress was so willing to act directly against the interests of more than half of Americans.
> I don’t think Trump ignoring the law is the answer or the right way to go about this, but I’ll take it for now if it keeps TikTok around.
Put differently, “The ends justify the means.”
It’s a dangerous bargain, even in the best of times. And what a price we’ve paid in this instance: the rule of law, in exchange for TikTok videos.
I sure hope it was worth it.
Put differently, “The ends justify the means.”
It’s a dangerous bargain, even in the best of times. And what a price we’ve paid in this instance: the rule of law, in exchange for TikTok videos.
I sure hope it was worth it.
Well, the assumption is that an acceptable divestiture is going to happen, but these things take time. And yes, TikTok is pretty special to me and has positively impacted my life in a variety of ways.
Why would they sell? Biden spent 4 years trying to get them to sell. Microsoft, Oracle, etc. Tiktok told them no. Tiktok's game is to delay the actual ban because the law is already passed. All they have left on the table is the hail mary support for Trump. Trump has no other moves other than to do what Biden tried doing for 4 years or change the law that Congress and the Supreme Court just pushed through.
I’m pretty sure it’s against china law for them to sell.
> I don’t think Trump ignoring the law is the answer or the right way to go about this, but I’ll take it for now if it keeps TikTok around.
I don't really know what to say anymore. Like literally just staring at this comment and realizing how utterly cooked we are as a country.
I don't really know what to say anymore. Like literally just staring at this comment and realizing how utterly cooked we are as a country.
> Congress was so willing to act directly against the interests of more than half of Americans
National security is in the interest of all the Americans
National security is in the interest of all the Americans
> National security is in the interest of all the Americans
No it isn't (there are plenty of people who'd be better off in a less secure America), and certainly not at any cost.
No it isn't (there are plenty of people who'd be better off in a less secure America), and certainly not at any cost.
I don’t think the national security concerns have been well asserted. What’s the specific national security issue, and the evidence of TikTok doing it?
> What’s the specific national security issue
The app is owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Basically the equivalent of a Chinese citizen using a CIA-controlled app to get their news. It's a very bald-faced security threat.
Furthermore, China has explicitly banned any American social media from the Chinese market for years. They know it's dangerous letting foreign nationals control your narrative, probably because they've been exploiting social media for years.
Oh, and there's also the electoral controversy: https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romania...
The app is owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Basically the equivalent of a Chinese citizen using a CIA-controlled app to get their news. It's a very bald-faced security threat.
Furthermore, China has explicitly banned any American social media from the Chinese market for years. They know it's dangerous letting foreign nationals control your narrative, probably because they've been exploiting social media for years.
Oh, and there's also the electoral controversy: https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romania...
> The app is owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.
It’s not. It’s 60-something percent owned by international foreign investors outside of China. TikTok user data in the USA is held under TikTok USDS and managed mostly by Oracle as far as I know.
It’s not. It’s 60-something percent owned by international foreign investors outside of China. TikTok user data in the USA is held under TikTok USDS and managed mostly by Oracle as far as I know.
Those 60-something percent do not control the development of the app or the moderation or the feed or the compliance with American law. It's a given that ByteDance is being used to toe the party line in the same way America might use Meta or Apple to export faux privacy.
We are in a standoff situation where the only smart move is to call China's bluff. It will hurt Apple, it will hurt TikTok users, but it will match China's policy of fighting market infiltration by foreign adversaries. A more functional administration would have this rubberstamped and banned in a week's time, regardless of free speech or 90% of Americans losing their FYP. Just look at how fast the EU and UK acted against Huawei. There is no such thing as a free lunch, in router technology or social media.
We are in a standoff situation where the only smart move is to call China's bluff. It will hurt Apple, it will hurt TikTok users, but it will match China's policy of fighting market infiltration by foreign adversaries. A more functional administration would have this rubberstamped and banned in a week's time, regardless of free speech or 90% of Americans losing their FYP. Just look at how fast the EU and UK acted against Huawei. There is no such thing as a free lunch, in router technology or social media.
That line stopped working after they lied us into the Iraq war.
> Congress was so willing to act directly against the interests of more than half of Americans.
Welcome to American politics, you seem to be new here. This is a regular occurrence and always boils down to framing:
[X] Tiktok is making America look bad vis-a-vis Palestine.
[?] China is a domestic security threat and must be stopped.
Congress will happily axe your favorite doomscrolling app if it's framed as an anti-pedophile move or domestic security issue. That hasn't shocked people in decades.
Furthermore I wouldn't say that "half of Americans" necessarily know whats right for them. We are the fattest nation on the planet, voted Donald Trump into office (twice) and are addicted to social media that we know is harmful. Representative democracy is really a dignified way of letting Americans pretend to control the government while not killing themselves with their own legislation. If direct democracy controlled America's foreign policy, the nation would probably have crumbled by now.
Welcome to American politics, you seem to be new here. This is a regular occurrence and always boils down to framing:
[X] Tiktok is making America look bad vis-a-vis Palestine.
[?] China is a domestic security threat and must be stopped.
Congress will happily axe your favorite doomscrolling app if it's framed as an anti-pedophile move or domestic security issue. That hasn't shocked people in decades.
Furthermore I wouldn't say that "half of Americans" necessarily know whats right for them. We are the fattest nation on the planet, voted Donald Trump into office (twice) and are addicted to social media that we know is harmful. Representative democracy is really a dignified way of letting Americans pretend to control the government while not killing themselves with their own legislation. If direct democracy controlled America's foreign policy, the nation would probably have crumbled by now.
Good. The law banning TikTok is unconstitutional.
Didn't SCOTUS already rule on it 9-0?
Went to RedNote. Never looked back. I hear TikTok now censors a lot more than it used to.
So, you are saying that RedNote censors _less_ than Tiktok?
Try kuaishou!
>I’m surprised but not shocked by this. But I’d sure like to see what exactly that letter says. The PAFACA Act — the law that bans TikTok in the US now that the deadline has passed for ByteDance to sell it to a US company — hasn’t changed or been rescinded, and the current delay in enforcement has no basis in law.
From this post: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/02/13/apple-google-ti...
No basis in law hyperlinks to this post: https://daringfireball.net/2025/01/npr_trump_tiktok