The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The Emergency Backup US [Election] 2024 thread: Part Two
Minnesota, I am irked with you for keeping Tim Walz all to yourselves. I have been reading up on him, and this is one just plain good dude here. He term limits out as MN Gov, yes? If that’s the case and he doesn’t get Veep I’d love to see him as Sec Ag or Sec Ed. Frankly he’d be dope in either.
I think that the opinions of this board do not matter, if a candidate for US president cannot afford to be seen supporting a ban anymore, well, that's it.
+2
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Teamregular
Nah TikTok still sucks and has a lot of security issues that need to be addressed, but in politics you have to go where the people are and it is a terrible move to not engage on the most popular platform for the younger demos.
I 1000% expect Kamala's TikTok to be maintained by staffers who are using a device only logged into that TikTok account, and never allowed to join their Wi-Fi.
edit: to be clear, this is probably good policy for all of their social accounts.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+59
JoshI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
think, it is, in fact, quite possible to think something is bad and anyone who does it/uses it is making a big mistake against their own self interest...
...and not think the government should ban it.
RatherDashing on
+3
JoshI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
The Obamas have endorsed Harris for president
So pretty much the last of the big names are on board
I'm increasingly suspicious we're gonna get a Vance dump here soon. My guess is he's getting desparate to get back in the news cycle on a positive note and Vance has proven to be about as popular as a pube in soup.
My prediction is he'd try to swap Couches for Haley but I have no idea how that would work. I imagine he hates her and she's a bit of a pariah in the party for holding out so long. She'd be eager to bend the knee and get back in the GOP's good graces and Trump might be desparate enough to think he could use her more "moderate" temperament and the facts she's a woman to steal back some of the Thunder Kamala yoinked.
Pure speculation on my part, but I think he's feeling the stress.
I feel like there are a few problems for Trump in dumping Vance for Haley.
1. The racists and nazis in Trump’s base can’t even handle Vance having a South Asian wife or Trump praising a Muslim cop who died on duty, they are going to freak out at a south Asian vp.
2. Dumping Vance is really going to piss off the technoauthoritarians like Thiel and Musk that are a good part of Trump’s bankroll.
3. Given that Trump at a rally accused Kamala Harris of wanting to raise the retirement age (part of Haley’s Social Security plan), I am honestly not even sure if he realizes the two women are different people.
think, it is, in fact, quite possible to think something is bad and anyone who does it/uses it is making a big mistake against their own self interest...
...and not think the government should ban it.
Thankfully there are more than two possible positions to take on the matter.
Trump already immediately appeared weaker after Biden dropped, just backed out of the debates, which also makes him look weaker, and then dropping Vance would make him look in disarray
Whereas Dems are rallying around Kamala , I don’t think there is any pick that would do that for Trump
It would just look like he threw another coffee boy under the bus
nah, the only thing that trump could do to lose votes is pass away.
he could roll through a VP every week and his cult would praise him for keeping stupid dems in confusion
think, it is, in fact, quite possible to think something is bad and anyone who does it/uses it is making a big mistake against their own self interest...
...and not think the government should ban it.
Conversely, setting age limits on things like alcohol and tobacco, warning labels, requirements like seat belts, all in the defense of public health and safety, are broadly accepted as ok. These statements are directly analogous to all social media IMO and we would be wise to have broad regulations and controls over use of social media and penalties for those companies breaking the rules.
And putting all of that aside as well, protecting national security from outside actors is well within the rights of the government. This directly speaks to the TikTok situation.
I am glad the Harris Campaign is using TikTok because that is a major hype engine in the world right now and she has lots of good buzz happening there.
They still need some significant reforms for me to be comfortable with them operating in our borders, and I am curious to see how Harris chooses to thread the needle over the next few months.
I could see a temporary ban reversal followed by much more comprehensive social media regulation that contains all sorts of shit that TikTok is in violation of to force them to change or get fined into nonexistence here. The GDPR/EU approach.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I would target the largest social media company that has had numerous data breaches, handed info over to hostile governments, and actually is a threat to peoples privacy and security in Facebook.
I would target the largest social media company that has had numerous data breaches, handed info over to hostile governments, and actually is a threat to peoples privacy and security in Facebook.
Trump already immediately appeared weaker after Biden dropped, just backed out of the debates, which also makes him look weaker, and then dropping Vance would make him look in disarray
Whereas Dems are rallying around Kamala , I don’t think there is any pick that would do that for Trump
It would just look like he threw another coffee boy under the bus
nah, the only thing that trump could do to lose votes is pass away.
he could roll through a VP every week and his cult would praise him for keeping stupid dems in confusion
You’re misreading my post - the risk has nothing to do with votes, but narrative
There was this overwhelming sense that Trump was inevitable in the media two weeks ago
Now? The momentum has completely shifted
He already looks weaker, trading VPs accomplishes nothing, but, as others have noted, would risk alienating technocrats and would keep the narrative of Kamala front and center
minor incidentyou can't swim whenyou've been dead a hundred yearsRegistered User, Transition Teamregular
I mean, yeah. Better regulation and overall social media reform instead of just straight up banning a single company was exactly what some of us kept saying we'd prefer the last time this came up and we were told, repeatedly, that we should be happy with the "incremental" step of just banning TikTok.
But regardless, while you could make an argument that the Democrats were using TikTok before the move to ban it took hold, you can't make that argument with Kamala, so hopefully this puts a significant damper on that and pushes her administration to aim for more effective legislation to protect us better from social media corporations in general.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I mean, yeah. Better regulation and overall social media reform instead of just straight up banning a single company was exactly what some of us kept saying we'd prefer the last time this came up and we were told, repeatedly, that we should be happy with the "incremental" step of just banning TikTok.
But regardless, while you could make an argument that the Democrats were using TikTok before the move to ban it took hold, you can't make that argument with Kamala, so hopefully this puts a significant damper on that and pushes her administration to aim for more effective legislation to protect us better from social media corporations in general.
If you were paying attention you would have realized that the people fine with banning TikTok were also in favor of better regulation as a long term solution too.
Minnesota, I am irked with you for keeping Tim Walz all to yourselves. I have been reading up on him, and this is one just plain good dude here. He term limits out as MN Gov, yes? If that’s the case and he doesn’t get Veep I’d love to see him as Sec Ag or Sec Ed. Frankly he’d be dope in either.
He's got two years left *and* we don't have term limits, though I believe that no one's been elected three times since '58, and no one really tries since '90 (weird to have people follow norms). I agree that he'd be a great addition to the cabinet in '26 though.
Thinking it's good or bad if TikTok is banned is a completely separate axis from thinking it's good or bad if, not being banned, Harris uses it to reach people on TikTok.
Still completely behind it being banned and completely behind Harris using it if it's not.
Same thing with Twitter.
This is a campaign to win, even if it's distasteful use the tools that work and don't intentionally hobble your campaign.
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
There is a ton of inherent sinophobia in going only after TikTok, and I feel the government was stupid for doing it.
I'm very much of the camp that all social media needs to be regulated, or at least observed. IMO, social media tech should be open source, especially when it comes to the content algorithm and how the various apps collect and transmit data. The ad delivery modules also should be transparent and be sandboxed off so that they cannot access memory or state that isn't needed for the delivery of the message itself.
This is easy enough to say in a vacuum, though, and is perhaps infinitely hard to do at scale while still maintaining the companies as independent entities. But maybe as younger generations come into power, and more importantly come in as aides for the policymakers, we can see them start doing proper management and not just knee-jerk stuff. Sadly, corporate lobbyists will always be there to fuck things up.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
In general classic forums aren't considered social media in the way people use it (Twitter, Facebook, TikTok) because they don't have the built in follower / network effects and don't have an algorithm that promotes / demotes content.
+34
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Although to be fair considering the issues yesterday this site may be burning?
I was about to say, this place isn't all that social these days.
I keep debating making a GDST for othering in debate and how hard it is to track individual people's opinions, but I think that flies a little too close to the SE++ discussions.
But to say this is incredibly off-topic for an elections thread is an understatement.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
Although to be fair considering the issues yesterday this site may be burning?
All algorithmically controlled social media. If it's just timelines, follows and friends chronologically it's not harmless, but it's controllable by the user.
TikTok would still be harmful, because it's Chinese government Spyware, but it would be less harmful since as it is now it is also a potent tool to allow them to shape national policy.
Really calling Trump's bluff. But I also think debating him is a trap. Hilary thought debating him was a winning move but he is in his element where he can appear strong by talking utter bollocks as loudly as he can, ignoring etiquette and disparaging his opponent. We saw it in the ancient 2016 primaries, he just takes control and moderators let him.
She's better off sassing him from out of reach.
I just can't see any benefit for debating trump. He just goes up there and gibbers for an hour spewing non stop lies so fast there is no way to ever call him on anything. The moderators are not going to do anything about he is just going to go out there do his thing and be weird and his base will eat it up.
For the Harris meeting Israeli Trump, you can't communicate with someone you don't meet with. And you can't affect change if you don't win elections.
Reality can suck, sometimes.
Additionally, there's a difference between meeting with a world leader and hosting them for a state dinner. One can be anything from Hello to Stop or I'll Shoot, while the other is a parade. Context matters.
It's going to be really, really awkward for Bibi if Kamala takes a more neutral stance on Israel and wins the presidency after he stumped for Trump.
Even if Trump died tomorrow, he'd still be the party. Maybe even distilled into something more pure(ly awful), the way Reagan was.
They couldn't run a Mitt Romney type as a bland "lower taxes for the rich, strong military, corporations are people, my friend" guy for the same reason the dems couldn't - that just in no way reflects who the party is or what its base wants. The party is fucking insane. They have to run a fucking insane candidate.
Insane candidate yes, Trump is a maniac and so are his supporters. But, a sensible and different VP who could try to talk to a different crowd would have made the ticket more broad. Trump is still Trump, and he will bring in his cultists.
No sensible candidate would work for Trump since he's an irrational actor who appears to have problems with object permanence.
Really calling Trump's bluff. But I also think debating him is a trap. Hilary thought debating him was a winning move but he is in his element where he can appear strong by talking utter bollocks as loudly as he can, ignoring etiquette and disparaging his opponent. We saw it in the ancient 2016 primaries, he just takes control and moderators let him.
She's better off sassing him from out of reach.
I just can't see any benefit for debating trump. He just goes up there and gibbers for an hour spewing non stop lies so fast there is no way to ever call him on anything. The moderators are not going to do anything about he is just going to go out there do his thing and be weird and his base will eat it up.
debate wouldn't be about trump, it would be about introducing Kamala to independents
In general classic forums aren't considered social media in the way people use it (Twitter, Facebook, TikTok) because they don't have the built in follower / network effects and don't have an algorithm that promotes / demotes content.
Also a key difference is most things considered (or attempting to be) social media have userbases that can be measured in the millions or significant fractions of a billion. We probably don't crack 4 digits over here any more if ever.
(also side note: Ramius pushed out a workaround for the quote on desktop bug just a bit ago which seems to have fixed that particular issue for now)
In general classic forums aren't considered social media in the way people use it (Twitter, Facebook, TikTok) because they don't have the built in follower / network effects and don't have an algorithm that promotes / demotes content.
I don't say that to be obtuse, but to remind people they do utilize a form of social media and not to hate it just because they don't utilize the popular forms of it.
Social Media has ills, but it's also a great way to find community online and introduce people to new ideas.
If it wasn't for twitter we wouldn't have these JD Vance couch fucking jokes.
I keep seeing people call tiktok chinese spyware but have never seen an adequate explanation for
a) why this is meaningfully worse than american social media companies handing info over to the us govt
or
b) what harm they think the ccp is going to do with the search history of, say, some guy in idaho
like, nobody's posting about how it sucks that kamala has to use twitter, and that's owned by a single exceptionally evil dude, and it's well documented what he does with it! and that's not even touching facebook's crimes, both literal and moral
it really just seems like a lot of folks finding a socially acceptable avenue to be racist about china!
I mean, yeah. Better regulation and overall social media reform instead of just straight up banning a single company was exactly what some of us kept saying we'd prefer the last time this came up and we were told, repeatedly, that we should be happy with the "incremental" step of just banning TikTok.
But regardless, while you could make an argument that the Democrats were using TikTok before the move to ban it took hold, you can't make that argument with Kamala, so hopefully this puts a significant damper on that and pushes her administration to aim for more effective legislation to protect us better from social media corporations in general.
If you were paying attention you would have realized that the people fine with banning TikTok were also in favor of better regulation as a long term solution too.
I don't really love you implying I wasn't paying attention to a conversation I spent many hours and dozens of pages carefully explaining my position in, just because you disagree with me. Try to be less condescending when you talk to people, please.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+9
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Posts
I think that the opinions of this board do not matter, if a candidate for US president cannot afford to be seen supporting a ban anymore, well, that's it.
Nah TikTok still sucks and has a lot of security issues that need to be addressed, but in politics you have to go where the people are and it is a terrible move to not engage on the most popular platform for the younger demos.
I 1000% expect Kamala's TikTok to be maintained by staffers who are using a device only logged into that TikTok account, and never allowed to join their Wi-Fi.
edit: to be clear, this is probably good policy for all of their social accounts.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
nope. TikTok still sucks, and is essentially spyware for a foreign government.
i hope that Kamalas team has any device that is accessing the platform locked down.
pretty much the same as Twitter.
The TikTok ban was incredibly dumb and shortsighted, and it’s good that Kamala at least sees that. Evidently.
Who's "you guys" here? Cause I'm not a fan of it being used at all.
...and not think the government should ban it.
So pretty much the last of the big names are on board
I feel like there are a few problems for Trump in dumping Vance for Haley.
1. The racists and nazis in Trump’s base can’t even handle Vance having a South Asian wife or Trump praising a Muslim cop who died on duty, they are going to freak out at a south Asian vp.
2. Dumping Vance is really going to piss off the technoauthoritarians like Thiel and Musk that are a good part of Trump’s bankroll.
3. Given that Trump at a rally accused Kamala Harris of wanting to raise the retirement age (part of Haley’s Social Security plan), I am honestly not even sure if he realizes the two women are different people.
Thankfully there are more than two possible positions to take on the matter.
nah, the only thing that trump could do to lose votes is pass away.
he could roll through a VP every week and his cult would praise him for keeping stupid dems in confusion
Conversely, setting age limits on things like alcohol and tobacco, warning labels, requirements like seat belts, all in the defense of public health and safety, are broadly accepted as ok. These statements are directly analogous to all social media IMO and we would be wise to have broad regulations and controls over use of social media and penalties for those companies breaking the rules.
And putting all of that aside as well, protecting national security from outside actors is well within the rights of the government. This directly speaks to the TikTok situation.
I am glad the Harris Campaign is using TikTok because that is a major hype engine in the world right now and she has lots of good buzz happening there.
They still need some significant reforms for me to be comfortable with them operating in our borders, and I am curious to see how Harris chooses to thread the needle over the next few months.
I could see a temporary ban reversal followed by much more comprehensive social media regulation that contains all sorts of shit that TikTok is in violation of to force them to change or get fined into nonexistence here. The GDPR/EU approach.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I'd go for more than one personally.
oh, I see, yes I was misreading
also, desktop quoting works again!
But regardless, while you could make an argument that the Democrats were using TikTok before the move to ban it took hold, you can't make that argument with Kamala, so hopefully this puts a significant damper on that and pushes her administration to aim for more effective legislation to protect us better from social media corporations in general.
Nah, it can still burn like all social media.
If you were paying attention you would have realized that the people fine with banning TikTok were also in favor of better regulation as a long term solution too.
He's got two years left *and* we don't have term limits, though I believe that no one's been elected three times since '58, and no one really tries since '90 (weird to have people follow norms). I agree that he'd be a great addition to the cabinet in '26 though.
Still completely behind it being banned and completely behind Harris using it if it's not.
Same thing with Twitter.
This is a campaign to win, even if it's distasteful use the tools that work and don't intentionally hobble your campaign.
You are posting this on social media.
Although to be fair considering the issues yesterday this site may be burning?
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I'm very much of the camp that all social media needs to be regulated, or at least observed. IMO, social media tech should be open source, especially when it comes to the content algorithm and how the various apps collect and transmit data. The ad delivery modules also should be transparent and be sandboxed off so that they cannot access memory or state that isn't needed for the delivery of the message itself.
This is easy enough to say in a vacuum, though, and is perhaps infinitely hard to do at scale while still maintaining the companies as independent entities. But maybe as younger generations come into power, and more importantly come in as aides for the policymakers, we can see them start doing proper management and not just knee-jerk stuff. Sadly, corporate lobbyists will always be there to fuck things up.
You know what Mazzyx means, don't be obtuse.
In general classic forums aren't considered social media in the way people use it (Twitter, Facebook, TikTok) because they don't have the built in follower / network effects and don't have an algorithm that promotes / demotes content.
I was about to say, this place isn't all that social these days.
I keep debating making a GDST for othering in debate and how hard it is to track individual people's opinions, but I think that flies a little too close to the SE++ discussions.
But to say this is incredibly off-topic for an elections thread is an understatement.
All algorithmically controlled social media. If it's just timelines, follows and friends chronologically it's not harmless, but it's controllable by the user.
TikTok would still be harmful, because it's Chinese government Spyware, but it would be less harmful since as it is now it is also a potent tool to allow them to shape national policy.
I haven't, my only complaint for the hunt against Tiktok is that they aren't going after facebook and twitter as well
Big "yet you participate in society" energy in this post.
I just can't see any benefit for debating trump. He just goes up there and gibbers for an hour spewing non stop lies so fast there is no way to ever call him on anything. The moderators are not going to do anything about he is just going to go out there do his thing and be weird and his base will eat it up.
It's going to be really, really awkward for Bibi if Kamala takes a more neutral stance on Israel and wins the presidency after he stumped for Trump.
No sensible candidate would work for Trump since he's an irrational actor who appears to have problems with object permanence.
debate wouldn't be about trump, it would be about introducing Kamala to independents
Also a key difference is most things considered (or attempting to be) social media have userbases that can be measured in the millions or significant fractions of a billion. We probably don't crack 4 digits over here any more if ever.
(also side note: Ramius pushed out a workaround for the quote on desktop bug just a bit ago which seems to have fixed that particular issue for now)
I don't say that to be obtuse, but to remind people they do utilize a form of social media and not to hate it just because they don't utilize the popular forms of it.
Social Media has ills, but it's also a great way to find community online and introduce people to new ideas.
If it wasn't for twitter we wouldn't have these JD Vance couch fucking jokes.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
a) why this is meaningfully worse than american social media companies handing info over to the us govt
or
b) what harm they think the ccp is going to do with the search history of, say, some guy in idaho
like, nobody's posting about how it sucks that kamala has to use twitter, and that's owned by a single exceptionally evil dude, and it's well documented what he does with it! and that's not even touching facebook's crimes, both literal and moral
it really just seems like a lot of folks finding a socially acceptable avenue to be racist about china!
I don't really love you implying I wasn't paying attention to a conversation I spent many hours and dozens of pages carefully explaining my position in, just because you disagree with me. Try to be less condescending when you talk to people, please.
It's got about as much in common with "social media" as a musket does with an AR-15