If I was being honest I’d add “literally anyone whos firm has any connections to a NATO government” but then I’d be called a consoiracy theorist. But as for GCC, that’s a more direct threat to lives of dissidents.

They should definitely not allow investment from anyone associated with Trump admin, the Pentagon etc.

deleted by creator

It needs A) same functionality B) ban all forms of racism, especially Zionism and C) refuse investment from undemocratic nations like GCC or China

deleted by creator

“I’ve definitely learned that gender classifiers are an unreliable and flawed technology, especially when it comes to trans people’s gender expression,” Ada Ada Ada said. “I regularly see my algorithmic gender swing back and forth from week to week.

Says the person changing themselves week to week to fit different classifications?

1. Chinese manufacturers makes modern cars with modern functionality.
2. The CCP doesn’t make cars.
3. UK has data localization laws.

deleted by creator

Tends to happen when you open the conversation by calling someone a “liar for their murderous leader.”

McCarthyism hasn’t been exlusively about the Kremlin since… well since way before McCarthy even died. And it’s a moot task for me to try to convince a paranoiac who eschews facts.

In the case of AfD and political polarization, that’s a problem on all platforms and has more to do with how algorithms and user engagement work.

The article is about China and TikTok’s behavior, not “the Kremlin”, and the behavior described in the article is mundane ad-buying. You can quite literally sift through the TikTok ad library yourself to confirm this. Instead you rely on vagueries and call people secret Kremlin agents who are very invested in changing your perspective, like a schizophrenic.

When it comes to deadly “mistakes” in a military context there should be strong laws preventing “appeal to AI fuckery”, so that militaries don’t get comfortable making such “mistakes.”

Anyone who uses Arabic-language social media has encountered this. They used to ban you for just making reference to “Al Aqsa” (Arabic name for Dome of the Rock) because their algorithm deemed it terror-related. They banned the word “shaheed” (martyr) too even though in Arabic it’s commonly used to refer to loved ones who died an untimely death, even in accidents. It’s also a name, which is hilarious because a member of their oversight board said in an interview that after they banned the word one of her coworkers named Shaheed had to explained that this was nonsense. Researchers did an experiment where they ran pages that used uncontroverdial Arabic keywords that would get censored, then do the same for Hebrew (including #death_to_arabs) which were left up and even gained traction.

You can blame Meta to some degree, but the chief issue are US federal institutions that use notices and scare stories aimed at making risk-averse firms shut down anything deemed anti-American (which essentially means anti-Israel.) Just recently they’ve been sending FBI agents to knock on journalists’ doors if they publish the leaked Vance dossier and give them a “friendly reminder” that it may have been leaked by Iran. Even when the journalists mentioned it in their reports on the dossier.

That’s always a rational and logical place to take the conversation - viscious McCarthyist paranoia! Who knows, I could even be Xi himself, trying to make you lower your guard so I can feed you an ad for my dastardly electric car companies while you scroll past memes and tits.

That’s fair, I’m also bored with the topic.

1. They were also fined 2,500 USD each.

2. The case against them that most relates to what you’re talking about is in Michigan. They’re charged in accordance to a Michigan statute that bans deterring voters through “corrupt means or device”, referring specifically to disinformation that the two individuals specifically engaged in and their stated goals. That’s a world of difference from having a social media platform whose policies cultivate a userbase that seeks to get out the vote for a candidate and whose owner uses as a platform to advocate for that candidate. The case is actually going to the supreme court because the statute may be overly-broad.

3. You haven’t provided any evidence or compelling argument that what they or Musk do falls outside of 1A protection. It seems to me that you’re implying that media institutions with a slant towards a political actor or party during an election is violating campaign laws? Please clarify.

4. Invoking 20511 implies you believe pro-Trump disinfo on X posted by thousands of users constitutes “intimidation” of prospective voters. 30101 makes the “X support for Trump constitutes campaign finance fraud” argument look ridiculous:

(B) The term “expenditure” does **not include-

(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

The articles simply describe Chinese media firms buying ads on Tiktok. You can literally search through the ad library and find media firms from basically every country that can afford it.

There is quite literally zero evidence that Tiktok “spreads propaganda” relating to the Russia-Ukraine war of its own volition. There are literally millions of pro-Russia users around the world - i.e India where a huge percent of users come from and where the population is split on which side of the war is to blame - who are responsible.

China doesn’t “write rules” even in its own region. Neither does the US. Newspapers like this one are trapped in a ridiculous false dichotomy. Go look at the regional agreements that govern trade and data which China and the US are both not a part of