I don't use social media, and don't know what it even is. But I thought that it was called a "national security threat" to Americans once before?
I think the law says it needs to be owned by an American interest. I guess the thinking is an American company would be subject to American privacy laws if those actually exist.I don't use social media, and don't know what it even is. But I thought that it was called a "national security threat" to Americans once before?
It's a cancer..just like facebook and x is
Yes. People need to start talking to each other face to face again.He wants Americans to buy it. For the record this website is Social Media. Is it a Cancer?
Supposed to be able to store info for possible future and possible blackmail down the lineHe wants Americans to buy it. For the record this website is Social Media. Is it a Cancer?
Supposed to be able to store info for possible future and possible blackmail down the line
Yes. People need to start talking to each other face to face again.
I don't disagree but be careful what you wish for. Some people are harder to deal with face to face.
Great, it's still a cancer.He wants Americans to buy it. For the record this website is Social Media. Is it a Cancer?
I mean we let Chinese spy Fang Fang screw a Rep for inside knowledge and Schiff to lie so what's the big deal.I don't know....just amazes me how people's opinions suddenly change.
I don't know....just amazes me how people's opinions suddenly change.
What-abouts. Love them..........first it was that Tik Tok was a "national security risk" and that nobody can trust Chinese owners.......to now saying we should have American "joint-ownership" in it with the Chinese?I mean we let Chinese spy Fang Fang screw a Rep for inside knowledge and Schiff to lie so what's the big deal.
Great, it's still a cancer.
I haven't said a word about crypto. The problem with TikTok is Chinese are playing a long game and 15 years isn't a long time to keep info in storage. I thnk it should be sold but what do I know,What-abouts. Love them.
Next flip-flop is crypto.......once said "a scam against the dollar" to now being called the "first crypto president".
What-abouts. Love them..........first it was that Tik Tok was a "national security risk" and that nobody can trust Chinese owners.......to now saying we should have American "joint-ownership" in it with the Chinese?
Next flip-flop is crypto.......once said "a scam against the dollar" to now being called the "first crypto president".
I think you are missing the point altogether.What-abouts. Love them..........first it was that Tik Tok was a "national security risk" and that nobody can trust Chinese owners.......to now saying we should have American "joint-ownership" in it with the Chinese?
Next flip-flop is crypto.......once said "a scam against the dollar" to now being called the "first crypto president".
He’s trying to play gotcha on a very nuanced discussion. By setting the boundaries of the discussion eliminating the context, he thinks he’s making a valid point. I haven’t weighed in on it because it’s so transparent it’s just dumb.I think you are missing the point altogether.
He’s trying to play gotcha on a very nuanced discussion. By setting the boundaries of the discussion eliminating the context, he thinks he’s making a valid point. I haven’t weighed in on it because it’s so transparent it’s just dumb.
If you try to apply nuance and context, it’s “derp, you’re flip flopping, derp derp.”
In other words...a day that ends in YHe’s trying to play gotcha on a very nuanced discussion. By setting the boundaries of the discussion eliminating the context, he thinks he’s making a valid point. I haven’t weighed in on it because it’s so transparent it’s just dumb.
If you try to apply nuance and context, it’s “derp, you’re flip flopping, derp derp.”