I'm not fan of barriers but this is coming down to "ban or regulate".
Whatever TikTok is to the USA, Meta and the rest is the same for EU. TikTok has known links to the Chinese Communist Party and the American social media and tech in general has proven links to US intelligence and mass surveillance programs. You may say that CCP is adversary and US-EU are ally but then again the US has proven to be able to elect anti European government, so EU can't afford to rely on not having Trump or similar once again in power.
The Americans are considering to ban TikTok, do you want EU to adopt the same approach and ban TikTok along with Meta and the rest?
I like the EU approach better, even if it's not ideal its better than complete ban. Honestly, I'm terrified from banning becoming the norm because this will mean completely fragmented internet and this will mean the end of global society because the countries will be able to shape their society the way it suits them for internal politics.
The big and critical difference between TikTok connections to CCP and Meta connections to three letter agencies is that US and EU are military allies while US and China are strategic adversaries with chance of real hot war in the next 5 years.
Military umbrella that US provides to EU that includes military bases, transfer of military technology and freedom of navigation for middle east oil forces all parties to play much nicer. Fines to tech companies are fine (and often are supported by US regulators) but drastic steps like even seriously proposing banning big US tech companies are obviously over the line and are unacceptable.
Even beyond alliance, EU can start trade war but do not be surprised if then BMW and Mercedes cars surprising develop safety issues that requires full recall and compensation to all car buyers for harm.
The argument is that the EU cannot and should not even attempt to prevent unaccountable spying on its citizens by foreign states, or it will have its legs broken?
I'm assuming "having its legs" broken refers to having german car companies treated by the US like silicon valley tech companies are treated by the EU?
Are the German car companies spying in the United States?
(OK, that's snarky, but the car companies did actually have to pay out .. because they defrauded US consumers! Not all "crime" committed by companies is made up to sell trade restrictions!)
So... like they already do? EU car and airplane manufacturers already produce their US models in the US due to tariffs rendering importing EU models uncompetitive.
That's how European leaders saw IRA. They didn't retaliate because of the current context, but I find it surprising that US technologists are so oblivious to this kind of context, while resenting so acutely when US companies are asked to respect EU law.
> Military umbrella that US provides to EU that includes […]
…and also includes spying on EU citizens on EU (and the Five Eyes) leaders' behalf (aka "sharing intelligence"). Don't forget that data transfer to the US also provides European leaders a way to circumvent their own privacy regulations, which is unacceptable.
The trade wars have already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist and subsidising its own industry to the detriment of its allies' industry. I wouldn't put it past a future government to take more drastic action, whether or not the EU takes a hard stance on US tech.
The US is still a vital ally of Europe and I'm optimistic that this relationship will continue. But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests have demonstrated that this relationship is no longer rock-solid. Even the Democrats are shakier than they used to be, and orienting for a more self-reliant US.
The US is preparing itself for the end of the post-Cold War liberal global order. The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not. Drastic action against US tech is absolutely still premature, but we should be prepared for European interests to no longer necessarily be the same as American interests.
>>But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests
hmmm
>>> already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist
you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican.
I have no love loss for the republicans, but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans (or worse the Trump bogey man) is moronic and ignorant.
>The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not.
This shift has to take place with Europe advancing more of it national defense itself, America simply can not afford to be the world police anymore. The American People are demanding ever increasing social programs, EU Style Social programs, which the EU has been able to have due to the protection umbrella the US as provided at great cost since WWII, to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP defense spending, when they should be closer to 10-15%, but most are at 1-2% (or less)
@32 Trillion Dollars in debt, the US Bank is collapsing, and closed...
>"but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans"
Maybe the problem is for people not realizing that they are dealing with 2 buttocks of the same butt. And it does not look like said butt is by the people / for the people. Instead of fighting between each other people could be better off doing something productive about it.
How is this possibly the case when there are vastly different laws and rhetoric from both sides? I get you are implying that both are there are too benefit the wealthy, which is true, but they also do other things that affect people. Abortion, gay rights, spending, taxation, gun laws. How are they the same???
Then you ask people to do something productive, what? Revolution? That will likely destroy the US economy and possibly the global economy for years. It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive. Look at France, post revolution they had a bunch of shitty governments/dictators and then the king came back.
The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. The only option to get something done in the US is to shack up with one of the political parties and hope you can get enough altruistic people elected to dismantle the broken two party system. "Both sides the same" wants to preempt you from thinking there is a "less bad" side to choose, so that you don't choose a side, so that nothing ever happens.
Both sides are OBJECTIVELY not the same. You can easily look at voting history and see that, even if you don't believe anything you hear on the news.
Think long and hard whenever someone tells you this fallacy.
"The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. "
I also believe this is the goal of many of the "both sides" people. Since not voting benefits Republicans[1] I believe those people have an ulterior motive to help them win
Your link is completely different argument to the one being made here about "non-voters"
Non-voters are people disgruntled with the current 2 party system, the largest voting block in that group are libertarian leaning people who do not break democrat.
Your link it talking about various voting laws, which largely impact densely populated cities, things like ballot harvesting, out-of-precinct ballot disqualification, and other such rules that have an outside impact on voters in urban cities which are largely democrat.
"things like ballot harvesting, out-of-precinct ballot disqualification, and other such rules that have an outside impact on voters in urban cities which are largely democrat."
What about local elections, most elections are isolated to a particular area? The reason the Republican lawyer made that statement was to show standing. Meaning , why would the Republican party be effected by the various voter restriction laws. They said because it benefits them if voting rights are restricted.
If you are saying that the laws in question reduce the ability of democrats to vote vs republican (as in reduces the numbers more in cities vs rural?) What's the difference? I'm connecting turnout to their success.
Here's a more clear analysis though it is an opinion piece showing that young voter turnout is important for the democrats.
> Then you ask people to do something productive, what?
Use direct democracy at the state level, where state constitutions provide for this, to replace single-member FPTP systems with multimember proportional systems, creating multiparty democracy, and then advance it state by state until it becomes a national norm.
Since when productive means Revolution? Productive in my book means forming new party with the proper platform and winning the election. Meanwhile protests against most egregious actions will do.
>"It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive."
That had never stopped the US from instigating and supporting numerous revolutions and coups.
As for your last comment first - that's something the US government has done in the past and I'm talking about what the population might do. Completely unrelated.
I mentioned revolution as an example. Forming a third party will cause one of the main parties, probably the one whose voters are least fundamentalist, to lose. That's what happened in the past.
> you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican.
I addressed this - the Democrats are also orienting towards a more protectionist, isolated US. The European-American relationship is also deteriorating under the current administration. But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia, it's factions of the Republican Party.
The reality of which party does what is frankly irrelevant though - the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were, and this kicked off under the Trump administration. Europeans believe that a Republican administration is less supportive of a strong alliance, and this perception of flakiness is driving a push for European self-reliance.
> to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP
This is already happening. Several of the biggest freeloading countries have promised massive increases in spending in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most notably Germany. They haven't met their targets yet, but an era of European self-reliance in defence is coming, in spite of current struggles with inflation and supply issues. Things are moving slowly, but European governments largely no longer believe they are safe without playing an active role in their defence.
> when they should be closer to 10-15%
That'd be an insane spending on defence - for reference the US spends 3.5% and Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34% and they're currently locked in a desperate struggle for survival.
>>the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were,
It is not a perception, it is reality and people need to understand that. The US can not afford it any more.
>>But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia,
I dont know about "acquiescing to Russia" but some member of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money, and debt do not matter and the government can just spend spend spend, with no limit.
>>most notably Germany
I will believe it when they actually do it, they have been promising that for almost a decade now. They still have not promised 3%, only 2%, and they will IMO never get there.
I hope Poland emerges in EU leadership taking it from Germany
>> Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34%
Now lets talk about corruption...
>That'd be an insane spending on defence
Maybe, but the US has been spending between 3-6% for decades building up the military to what is today, while the EU has been spending sub1% for those same decades, just matching US Spending is not going to cut it IMO.
Current US Military spending is at a all time low since WWII in % of GDP numbers, largely because the growth in the US Economy, in real numbers we still spend an INSANE amount of money.
Saying Republicans understand fiscal reality when Bush pissed away unimaginable amounts of wealth in the middle east is ludicrous. I'd like some of what you're smoking.
There's currently some noise about costs because the president isn't Republican and it's an easy way to score asinine political points. None of that is coming from any sort of principled belief system, though.
>>*some* members of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money
See that second part, where "other members of the republican party" i.e the Bush "republicans"... the ones many refer to as "RINO's" in common political rhetoric today...
Or they do not care about ethnic war on periphery of Europe that affects none of US vital interests? Making irrelevant war in far remote country existential good vs evil struggle is how US got into Vietnam. The fact that there were zero negative consequences for US after fall of South Vietnam tells you that it was bullshit from beginning.
The same with Afghanistan. I disagree with Biden on many points but getting out of that country was the best possible course. Same situation as with Vietnam - with Taliban in power in Afghanistan there are zero negative consequences for US. What's more Taliban is apparently better than US or former "Afghan" government in suppressing actual terrorist activities that can threaten US.
Not every war is WW2 and struggle for world domination.
Thanks for reminding me of the book “War is a racket”. American farm boys being brainwashed into Americana,and send off to die to prop up American Businesses.
From the Banana Wars for the American Standard Fruit company, to getting PTSD in Iraq to make Dick Cheney wealthier, to who knows where next to defend Meta.
Nothing has changed in America. The military umbrella is watered with blood of lower and middle class boys and girls, but only to project Tycoons and Billionaires.
They could repel NATO, but if Europe slides with China then things will look very shitty for the Western Hemisphere.
I don't know of good solutions. I'm deep in the "ban on regulate" camp, but I don't know what those bans or regulations should be. Honestly, I'm less concerned about Chinese and Russian agents than simple, capitalist free market forces.
Web sites which grab eyeballs grab dollars. There is no connection to truth, integrity, or honesty there. Right now, even with humans and Facebook-grade algorithms, that's leading to polarizing hatred. Things will get worse once LLM-style algorithms start generating content to optimize engagement.
We need individual free speech, but I'm much less sold on corporate free speech (or speech from algorithms optimized to a capitalist markets).
i think the worse part of all this is that it won't be a real ban. you will immediately see the news apparatus telling stories about how teenagers get long prison sentences for downloading tiktok illegally. Real people will be punished for the theatrics of global politics.
Whatever TikTok is to the USA, Meta and the rest is the same for EU. TikTok has known links to the Chinese Communist Party and the American social media and tech in general has proven links to US intelligence and mass surveillance programs. You may say that CCP is adversary and US-EU are ally but then again the US has proven to be able to elect anti European government, so EU can't afford to rely on not having Trump or similar once again in power.
The Americans are considering to ban TikTok, do you want EU to adopt the same approach and ban TikTok along with Meta and the rest?
I like the EU approach better, even if it's not ideal its better than complete ban. Honestly, I'm terrified from banning becoming the norm because this will mean completely fragmented internet and this will mean the end of global society because the countries will be able to shape their society the way it suits them for internal politics.