It was never about ability, you brought it up and I countered with the fact that ability means nothing if you don’t enforce it… Aaaaaaand then you brought up ability again like it’s relevant.
You don’t think it’s important for them to have the ability, the assurance of that? I’m not circling back but rather just trying to help you to understand their pov.
What, you think the government thinks “oh we don’t care about having more control over social media, we’re not going to use that anyway, might as well let China have that control”? I mean come on lol.
You still think this is about exerting a control they have yet to exercise, instead of the far more obvious thing I’ve repeated about 5 times and you’ve ignored each time:
THIS IS PROTECTIONISM FOR AMERICAN SOCIAL MEDIA MAGNATES.
It’s both, just that it’s really about one of them and the other is just a cherry on top.
Don’t try to frame this as a hangup of mine and act like you haven’t been thoroughly participating in this debate in a way entirely hyperfixated on “it’s about control”. You’re better than that.
Don’t try to frame this as a hangup of mine and act like you haven’t been thoroughly participating in this debate in a way entirely hyperfixated on “it’s about control”
I’m not sure how you’ve been reading this whole thing but it’s sorta the part you disagreed with so that’s what the discussion became about
It was never about ability, you brought it up and I countered with the fact that ability means nothing if you don’t enforce it… Aaaaaaand then you brought up ability again like it’s relevant.
Why in god’s name would you think ability to exert control over a company wouldn’t matter to the US government…?
Because they never exercise it in respect to social media?
See how you can’t see past this one simple concept and keep circling back?
You don’t think it’s important for them to have the ability, the assurance of that? I’m not circling back but rather just trying to help you to understand their pov.
What, you think the government thinks “oh we don’t care about having more control over social media, we’re not going to use that anyway, might as well let China have that control”? I mean come on lol.
You still think this is about exerting a control they have yet to exercise, instead of the far more obvious thing I’ve repeated about 5 times and you’ve ignored each time:
THIS IS PROTECTIONISM FOR AMERICAN SOCIAL MEDIA MAGNATES.
I mean I’ve always held the view that it’s both. It was just the control thing that seemed to be a hangup for you.
It’s both, just that it’s really about one of them and the other is just a cherry on top.
Don’t try to frame this as a hangup of mine and act like you haven’t been thoroughly participating in this debate in a way entirely hyperfixated on “it’s about control”. You’re better than that.
I’m not sure how you’ve been reading this whole thing but it’s sorta the part you disagreed with so that’s what the discussion became about