WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court heard arguments Friday over whether TikTok can be banned in the U.S. later this month in a case pitting two major issues − freedom of speech and national security − against each other.
At the end of two and a half hours of questions, the justices appeared ready to uphold a law requiring TikTok's Chinese parent company to sell off its U.S. business or face a ban.
Some of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok say the court has never confronted a free speech case that matters to so many people.
The Biden administration defended the law, saying the wildly popular short-form video app is a grave threat because China can use it to gather data on Americans or manipulate content to shape U.S. opinion.
Lawyers for TikTok and for a group of TikTok creators argued Friday the law deprives users of their preferred digital publisher, infringing on the right to free expression. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said that as long as TikTok is owned by China-based ByteDance, U.S. national security is at risk.
Unless the high court intervenes, Google, Apple and internet providers won't be allowed to make TikTok available after Jan. 19.
meanwhile apps like facebook are meant to specifically gather data and the fbi has the info of everyone on social media, i bet you thats true on each of the fbi's children given to Beelzebub this life and the next, ON GOD! AMEN! I SPEAK! BEELZEBUB WILL LOOK AFTER THOSE CHIDLREN BETTER THAN MANIPULATED FBI AMEN, IF THATS NOT TRUE MAY GOD STRIKE ME DOWN WITH LIGHTNJNG AS I SPEAK THIS AMEN! IN JESUS NAME I SPEAK!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So glad to hear the Biden administration stands against social media aps manipulating content to shape US opinion
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Will shitty youtube shorts finally take off thanks to this? No, but I'm sure they hope it will.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ive been harvesting YT shorts in my mind, i post more and more different psots than I see, and i HIGHLY RECCOMED taking every sound out of context and using different original videos to the sound and competely start a youtube channel thats not mainstream only because its all schizo posts lmao, but i keep getting more and more viewers the more schizo my uploads are so idk, maybe the world is just crazy
Id also like to point out the heavily implicated adult/ child ratio, and how its so messed up how many chidlren spend time on there, its basically just all alpha and boomers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What's your channel king?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://youtube.com/@miss.leading
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You should double down on kitty posting. Get some cute videos and whatnot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thnx for the good advice, il try and let you know how that goes!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
All jokes aside im not saying to actuakky do what im doingx but im just looking at this like its al boomers and alpha, and i gotta start making YT shorts like hybrid tiktok mixes because all the bs i see besides cat videos are just nonsencial cringe bs dancing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
YouTube shorts are already pretty big tbh. I really hope they absorb most of the TikTok viewerbase though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
lmaooo the first amendment doesn't give you a right to "your preferred digital publisher" frick off lol
this whole thing is particularly funny to me bc of how r-slurred the chink laws are, like we should just ban it on principle and refuse to allow it until china lets US companies operate there
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
One common response when it's pointed out that you can't always tell is "well we can tell 99% of the time", or some other high percentage pulled out of nowhere. This is a clear overestimate of how often someone can tell, but let's charitably assume that that number is true for a moment and do some maths. If you could tell who was trans or not 99% of the time, that would still lead to nearly two thirds of the people you read as trans actually being cis.
The mathematics is clear, using Bayes theorem.
Even if we very charitably assume that the sensitivity and specificity of "we can always tell" in detecting a trans person is both 98% then they are still wrong 50% of the time and accuse a cis person of being trans.
This is because there are vastly more cisgender than transgender people.
Snapshots:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/10/supreme-court-tiktok-oral-arguments-live-updates/77543920007/:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context