iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

I'm really not sure what you're asking, tbh. You keep trying to elicit answers out of me while staying cryptic about what your point is. Why not just come out with it already?

000

I'm guessing you're going to say "aha, you said 1A only protects Americans but actually it can also protect foreigners WHO ARE IN America" or some such thing. If so, I'm sorry every detail of the reply wasn't sufficiently detailed and qualified enough for you. Point is it doesn't protect Bytedance.

lol, if you refuse to connect all this to a ruling on the case I’ll pass on further engagement with you, sweetie. If you can’t circle back to the reality of a ruling it’s doubtful you have much of importance to say about the substantive issue. That’s the problem with a lot of 1A absolutists on here.

> Have justices on the Court never asked questions contrary to their own beliefs? Well that brings me back to my previous question, which you didn’t answer. Given your certainty this is unconstitutional, how do you think they will rule?

100

The problem is TikTok America refuses to disentangle themselves from ByteDance in China, which calls the shots. And they are not bound by US law or protected by the first amendment. The liberal justices seem to agree with that too.

100

I do think national security concerns can permit very minor abridgements to TikTok America’s 1A rights, yes. And I do think their 1A concerns here are minor and a front for a trade issue. How about you though? You seem very certain this would be unconstitutional. How do you think they will rule?

100

I thought this law had a much better chance of passing that other people here, but I thought that if so, it might be the usual 6-3 or maybe 7 to2. What is surprising is that even the liberal judges seem to share all these concerns. The 1A absolutists may have got this wrong.

000

I absolutely acknowledge I’m not an expert lol. That’s why I’m surprised that the court seems so strongly (and perhaps almost unanimously?) sympathetic to the all the same concerns I voiced here, even though professed experts here insisted it wouldn’t matter at all.

100

From the looks of things you might well find what you’re looking for after a ruling on the current case.

100

Yes, I am aware that people are trying to cast TikTok’s American operations as absolutely protected by the first amendment. But like myself it doesn’t look like the court agrees with you and others here on that.

100

About foreign adversaries (and for that matter bytedance, which is beholden to the orders of the CCP, not US law) not being protected by the first amendment? Yes definitely.

100

Well this entire time I’ve said the government’s argument would rest on national security concerns. We can haggle about the exact reasoning through which that overrides 1A issues, but that’s the long and short of it.

100

TikTok’s lawyer is indeed arguing that the US government has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda and seems to be saying that 1A rights for US citizens supersede any national security concerns. People here strongly agree with that sentiment, but we’ll see what the court says.

100

If you scroll upward through this thread (and upward, and upward, and upward) you can find it. Bottom line there’s evidence TikTok conduct surveillance for the CCP, and tweaks the algorithm for CCP propaganda. People here see those things as irrelevant but we’ll see if the court agrees.

000

So you would still say you see the government’s case as very weak?

000

I understand they ask hypotheticals. But presumably they ask hypotheticals that are relevant to the case at hand rather than absurd non-issues. I know you consider this anti-China hysteria, but there is evidence congress is justified in seeing China as a problem.

100

Well, we’ll see what the court has to say about this soon enough. I would expect a 6 to 3 decision against TikTok regardless. But what’s interesting is the 3 liberal justices seem to share the majority’s concerns.

100

Yes, I’m aware many people here share your opinion, and very forcefully and adamantly. Let’s wait and see what the court says.

Here you go. This is actually a good example of a Blindspot of 1A advocates here. A lot of you don’t seem aware of these matters because you only deal in civil law. Mike Dunford didn’t know either. I replied to him with the same information but it didn’t seem to change his mind at the time.

200

The problem is TikTok is making it clear that they can’t divest from bytedance because bytedance owns the algorithm. And the justices are saying that bytedance is a Chinese company with no one a rights.

020

If you say so, Kathryn. I’d rather discuss the legal issues so I will decline to getting into a long interaction with you about your opinion of what trolling is.

100

I don’t see anything intrinsically trollish or even rude about following up and asking people if they’ve changed their opinions. But I suppose if one takes a lot of pride in their public legal takes getting something wrong could sting, and even a question as simple as that could feel like an attack.

200

What’s interesting to me is that they’re raising all the matters people here assured me were non-issues. My question stands though. In light of their questions, have you changed you opinion on how courts will view the government’s concerns? Before you seemed doubtful they had any case at all.

100

Well apparently I’m good enough at it that Sotomayor, Kagen and KBJ share my legal opinions. So to be honest with you I’m really not that concerned about you or your most belligerent followers’ opinion of how good I am at it. Not agreeing with you seems to be working out.

210

Not true! I’m legitimately interested in it or how people here have changed their opinion since then. But if people want to make this about who is an asshole instead, we can talk about that too.

000

I don’t care about owning Mike. I’m just surprised to see that the court seems to see this issue the same way I do, and was curious to see if people here had adjusted their opinions in light of this.

No, I knew what I was getting into when I argued with you guys. But I do find it interesting that even as an amateur with no legal background, I was able to predict how the court would react to TikTok‘s arguments, despite being repeatedly told I didn’t know what I was talking about

000

For you, I think the learning experience is that you shouldn’t be so confident and snide when you Dogpile on a “chew toy“ user who disagrees with you and other 1A fanatics. Because when you act that way, you really lose the moral high ground to call others assholes when you turn out to be wrong

120

No I get it – you and your friends were completely wrong about how even liberal judges would assess the government’s arguments, they appear to be siding with them for all the reasons I gave myself, and that hurts your feelings, so now you get emotional and call me an asshole. I totally understand.

000

Lol, how is it a “total asshole“ move, Mike?

200

Saw recent headlines and thought of this old argument. Are you still certain the government has an uphill battle in court against TikTok? Because it looks like even SCOTUS’s liberal judges are taking their side for all the same reasons I listed 7 months ago x.com/Ryry916/stat...

x.com

Saw recent headlines and thought of this old argument. Are you still certain the government has an uphill battle against court against TikTok? Because it looks like even SCOTUS’s liberal judges are taking their side for all the same reasons I listed 7 months ago x.com/Ryry916/stat...

x.com

000

Saw this recent story and thought of this old argument. Are you still certain that it’s implausible the government can convince the courts to carve out a 1A exception to TikTok on national security grounds?

000

jjrs.bsky.social @jjrs.bsky.social · 27/09/2024

Just saw this headline and remembered this old argument. Are you still 100% certain no judge would ever consider existing national security concerns re: TikTok worth abridging 1A rights over? Because it sure seems like SCOTUS is.

000

What the NYT and Post are really angry about is that Harris won’t give exclusive interviews about her detailed policies to *them*. When she gives them to their competitors it just makes them even angrier.

000

jjrs.bsky.social @jjrs.bsky.social · 27/09/2024

The more interviews she gives to their rivals the madder they get. You can feel them seething with every word.

000

jjrs.bsky.social @jjrs.bsky.social · 13/09/2024

I really hope the NYT covers the genesis of this lie and how it was spread in depth.

jjrs.bsky.social @jjrs.bsky.social · 31/08/2024

My guess is they had that clip all picked out before the interview even aired, and decided to run with it even though she was perfectly easy to understand.

000

I hate to say it but these guys usually make more than you can imagine. His Racket News substack has implied earnings of at least $500k a year.

000

Quit pandering to incumbent homeowners who already got theirs and build more housing. What they are really mad about is that the infill and resultant new housing means more people are going to move to Dartmouth.

100

Almost anybody can learn. People with Down Syndrome can learn. People with ADHD can learn. But if you think they can learn every bit as easily as people who don’t have those things, it means you don’t actually understand what they are and who has them and who doesn’t.

Well on average will always imply there are some people doing a lot worse than average…but overall fewer than in 2019. So why are we still pretending inflation is killing us as if more people are suffering now rather than fewer?

000

First I’d like to hear you admit people’s income are not in fact falling behind inflation. Then we can talk about how big of a gain it is.

100

Autism is a spectrum disorder. Asperger’s was proposed as “autism lite” but rejected by the APA on the grounds it was poorly defined. Actual autism is much more serious than just nerding out on trains and missing social cues a lot.

It could mean that for example that you have poor social skills, but (unlike a truly autistic person), you could improve a lot if you worked at it rather than declaring yourself autistic and throwing up your hands. People are too quick to assume an extreme.

210

Literally every decile has seen at least small real income gains and the effective min wage (bottom income) is rising. So where do you think the losses are happening? You have no actual theory, let alone evidence “the quintiles” (actually mostly deciles here) are skewed. Just grabbing at straws.

100

Or maybe you’re saying this precisely because you don’t care how numbers are calculated; you just want to keep on believing what you already believe. You haven’t even settled on a theory for why it’s wrong, just grabbing at straws about Simpson’s Paradox etc with no backing: