Comment by idle_zealot
10 hours ago
> Yet people are arguing that we should allow the people who did that to continue to install apps on millions of Americans phones
This paternalistic framing is the disconnect between you and those opposed to the ban. The idea that it's TikTok insidiously worming its way onto American phones like a virus. In reality, people download the app and use it because they like it. This ban will, in effect, prevent people from accessing an information service they prefer. You must acknowledge this and argue why that is a worthy loss of autonomy if you want to meaningfully defend the ban to someone who doesn't like it.
If it helps, reframe the ban as one on a website rather than an app. They're interchangeable in this context, but I've observed "app" to be somewhat thought-terminating to some people.
For the record - I would totally support a ban on social media services that collect over some minimal threshold of user data for any purposes. This would alleviate fears of spying and targeted manipulation by foreign powers through their own platforms (TikTok) and campaigns staged on domestic social media. But just banning a platform because it's Chinese-owned? That's emblematic of a team-sports motivation. "Americans can only be exposed to our propaganda, not theirs!" How about robust protections against all propaganda? That's a requirement for a functional democracy.
Sure, but why can't my teenager smoke cigarettes?
The point of my response is: sometimes you have to be paternalistic, and the federal government doesn't need to meaningfully defend the ban to someone who doesn't like it because those people don't matter. They meaningfully defended the ban to the courts.
I don't think we really disagree in general. I specifically said that I would favor a broader ban. Just that if you're going to be paternalistic you need a good reason. In the case of smoking, "it's literal poison" is a pretty good reason to ban it (which we haven't done, lol).
My point is that I don't think "access to this information services will stoke negative sentiment towards the US government" is a good reason to ban access to said service in a liberal democracy. It would be a good reason to ban the service in an autocracy of some sort, but standards for individual freedoms are higher (though not infinitely high) here. At least, they ought to be higher. That's where the disagreement comes from: I do not care that access to TikTok threatens the US Government. I care about US citizens generally. The interests of these two parties are increasingly disconnected, a sign of a decaying democracy.
Your argument sounds like it's straight out of a CCP playbook.
Ah yes, CCP, the glorious protectors of autonomy and independent thought.
Parent sort-of has a point. Pro-autonomy messaging could be promoted cynically overseas in order to stoke negative sentiment towards policy that would hurt the CCP's interests. Never assume honesty when it comes to messaging.