Submitted by HorrorCharacter5127 t3_125eg3o in technology
atwegotsidetrekked t1_je4losm wrote
Reply to comment by johnjohn4011 in US hands China easy PR win with TikTok show by HorrorCharacter5127
How is saying that China is a totalitarian state support for China? Wtf
I am a US Army Veteran honorable. So I will say what I think when I think it and you resorting to personal insults shows you lost the debate.
The United States with the restrict act is building the legal framework for a Chinese great firewall. This is a fact that isn’t debatable.
The United States could have instead implemented the EU GDPR, that actually protects citizens privacy.
Teftell t1_je4nhm4 wrote
Your Restrict act is far above Chinese and Russian laws in terms of opression and censorship, since non of those two jail people for visiting sites or using VPNs. And then your officials tell us to overthrow our totalitarian government, the irony.
[deleted] t1_je5kse4 wrote
[deleted]
manimarco1108 t1_je4tbda wrote
Peak reddit comment
johnjohn4011 t1_je5q03q wrote
What are you even talking about? Chinese citizens found creating or selling unapproved VPNs have received fines and prison sentences anywhere from three days to more than five years.
roflmaolz t1_je5su77 wrote
Want to know what the punishment will be in the Restrict bill? $250k to $1 million fine, and up to 20 years in prison. Also will be a federal crime.
Sounds a lot worse than 3 days to 5 years.
https://www.newsweek.com/does-tiktok-ban-allow-20-year-prison-sentence-1790932
johnjohn4011 t1_je5tpqk wrote
Why don't you read the whole article lol. Those fines are not for individual users, while the three days to 5 years is.
roflmaolz t1_je6rdqn wrote
I did skim that article tbh cause I'm at work, but let's look at the bill itself.
>(c) Criminal Penalties.—
>(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
That sure sounds like it isn't for individual users. Sounds like the wording is broad enough to allow for them to use it against anyone.
And yea, btw, politicians lie all the time. Just because he said it, doesn't mean it's true.
spectre1210 t1_je4xzsy wrote
Stick to Genshin and PCs - you know, the things you're actually midly informed about lol.
Teftell t1_je5159b wrote
No, I will make fun of 'murricans praising a totalitarian law, enjoy your democracy, while you can.
spectre1210 t1_je54uu7 wrote
Lol you'll make fun of Americans because you fail to comprehend what's being said? I figured when you used the label 'murricans' in this reply.
Please tell us, what beacon of democracy do you hail from? Don't worry, I'll wait...
Teftell t1_je5716v wrote
I do not live in a "beacon of democracy", I live in a totalitarian shithole of a country. And now as I saw your Restrict bill, I can not resist but laugh and make fun of you. A vague law, that will allow to ban any foreign site or software without disclosing a reason, allowing to jail you for a decade just for use of a VPN, for visiting restricted site, in a country, that sanctioned my shithole for totalitarian opression, that proclaims itself a spearhead of democratic and liberal values, what a treat!
spectre1210 t1_je57uv0 wrote
Ahh so it's just a game of whataboutism! Not surprising given your proximity to the former Soviet Union.
I'll certainly agree that this bill is too vague and needs refining language to specify its intent, but saying this makes us worse than China or Russia when it comes to digital privacy is laughable.
Teftell t1_je59zg1 wrote
I can use VPN, visit restricted sites without a threat of being jailed for 10 years or going bankrupt, will you be able to say the same in a near future?
spectre1210 t1_je5auf2 wrote
RemindMe! 2 years
Teftell t1_je5te86 wrote
May be like 2 months?
spectre1210 t1_je5u8xy wrote
Lol OK - then set a reminder and show me how wrong I am come June.
Edit: Or just scurry off to your corner, as was expected.
spectre1210 t1_je5arhx wrote
I also get all my news analysis from Twitter and social media lol.
roflmaolz t1_je5t7ns wrote
https://www.newsweek.com/does-tiktok-ban-allow-20-year-prison-sentence-1790932
Here is that Twitter source for you!
Btw I'm American and personally don't want to see another Patriot act in my lifetime.
spectre1210 t1_je5to6n wrote
Oh thanks! Did you read the actual article, or just the headline?
Here, I'll help you out:
> "Under the terms of the bill, someone must be engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S., causing 'catastrophic effects' on U.S. critical infrastructure, or 'interfering in, or altering the result' of a federal election in order for criminal penalties to apply," Warner's communications director, Rachel Cohen, said.
Lol OK, you're an American. So am I. Saying Patriot Act isn't going to be enough for me to disregard my entire point. I agree the language in this bill is a bit non-specific (often how legislation is crafted) and could be refined, but anyone claiming they won't be able to use a VPN in the next few months is being bombastic at best.
roflmaolz t1_je6s9zu wrote
Right, just like how the Patriot act was supposed to be just for anti terrorism and all of a sudden, NSA is wiretapping and gathering data on regular Americans.
That's the problem that you don't seem to understand. This vague and broad wording is giving unelected officials broad and sweeping powers to do so much all in the name of "national security", just like the Patriot act. You have to be really naive to think the government won't abuse this power and stretch the wording to do as much as they want.
spectre1210 t1_je75axn wrote
The failing of the Patriot Act is the act itself, or a failure to enforce it as was intended? I'd certainly argue the original intent of that bill was justified in its own right, as is the RESTRICT Act considering TikTok's proximity to the Chinese government. We've also ceased use of Huawei chips in federal devices for similar reasons, so it's not exactly like this is an immediate reaction over a singular event. But if you're genuinely concerned about surveillance and manipulation of regular citizens, just you wait until you learn about how China operates - at least one reason to put in the "pro" list of the RESTRICT Act.
So you see, the problem is that you don't seem to understand. In fact, it seems like all you want to do is compare this to the Patriot Act, and label anyone as naive who disagrees with you.
Amusingly, I think you're naive for failing to see the differences in these circumstances, rather than fixating on the similarities.
[deleted] t1_je5kiox wrote
[deleted]
johnjohn4011 t1_je5p8ka wrote
Thank you for your service. Otherwise, let me know when that great Chinese firewall has actually been implemented here. Otherwise you're just fear mongering in an attempt to undermine this country's attempts to police itself against such entities as the Chinese Communist party among another things... and that's a fact that isn't debatable. Also I stated no personal insults - but obviously you feel a need to take things as such. Victim much? The GDPR will be unenforceable without any direct proof. Do you really expect China to store the evidence of spying through TIkTok on servers here, where it can be detected?
itsallfairlyshite t1_je5et41 wrote
> I am a US Army Veteran honorable
How does facilitating the murder of innocent families for profit make you honorable?
atwegotsidetrekked t1_je5j35i wrote
Incoherent much?
Who said anything about facilitating murder or even once defending China’s human rights record?
[deleted] t1_je5jgl6 wrote
[removed]
spectre1210 t1_je6ly1x wrote
> I am [NOT] a US Army Veteran honorable.
Just going based off of typical Reddit and social media interactions.
So I will say what I think when I think it and you resorting to personal insults shows you lost the debate. "So I think I'm given carte blanche to run my ignorant mouth and demand it be treated equivalent as objective fact, but those considerations don't apply to you since you lost the debate...because army."
FTFY
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments