TikTok is Banned in China, Notes X User Community - Along With Most US Social Media (newsweek.com) 148
Newsweek points out that a Chinese government post arguing the bill is "on the wrong side of fair competition" was flagged by users on X. "TikTok is banned in the People's Republic of China," the X community note read. (The BBC reports that "Instead, Chinese users use a similar app, Douyin, which is only available in China and subject to monitoring and censorship by the government.")
Newsweek adds that China "has also blocked access to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Google services. X itself is also banned — though Chinese diplomats use the microblogging app to deliver Beijing's messaging to the wider world."
From the Wall Street Journal: Among the top concerns for [U.S.] intelligence leaders is that they wouldn't even necessarily be able to detect a Chinese influence operation if one were taking place [on TikTok] due to the opacity of the platform and how its algorithm surfaces content to users. Such operations, FBI director Christopher Wray said this week in congressional testimony, "are extraordinarily difficult to detect, which is part of what makes the national-security concerns represented by TikTok so significant...."
Critics of the bill include libertarian-leaning lawmakers, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), who have decried it as a form of government censorship. "The Constitution says that you have a First Amendment right to express yourself," Paul told reporters Thursday. TikTok's users "express themselves through dancing or whatever else they do on TikTok. You can't just tell them they can't do that." In the House, a bloc of 50 Democrats voted against the bill, citing concerns about curtailing free speech and the impact on people who earn income on the app. Some Senate Democrats have raised similar worries, as well as an interest in looking at a range of social-media issues at rival companies such as Meta Platforms.
"The basic idea should be to put curbs on all social media, not just one," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) said Thursday. "If there's a problem with privacy, with how our children are treated, then we need to curb that behavior wherever it occurs."
Some context from the Columbia Journalism Review: Roughly one-third of Americans aged 18-29 regularly get their news from TikTok, the Pew Research Center found in a late 2023 survey. Nearly half of all TikTok users say they regularly get news from the app, a higher percentage than for any other social media platform aside from Twitter.
Almost 40 percent of young adults were using TikTok and Instagram for their primary Web search instead of the traditional search engines, a Google senior vice president said in mid-2022 — a number that's almost certainly grown since then. Overall, TikTok claims 150 million American users, almost half the US population; two-thirds of Americans aged 18-29 use the app.
Some U.S. politicians believe TikTok "radicalized" some of their supporters "with disinformation or biased reporting," according to the article.
Meanwhile in the Guardian, a Duke University law professor argues "this saga demands a broader conversation about safeguarding democracy in the digital age." The European Union's newly enacted AI act provides a blueprint for a more holistic approach, using an evidence- and risk-based system that could be used to classify platforms like TikTok as high-risk AI systems subject to more stringent regulatory oversight, with measures that demand transparency, accountability and defensive measures against misuse.
Open source advocate Evan Prodromou argues that the TikTok controversy raises a larger issue: If algorithmic curation is so powerful, "who's making the decisions on how they're used?" And he also proposes a solution.
"If there is concern about algorithms being manipulated by foreign governments, using Fediverse-enabled domestic software prevents the problem."
Newsweek adds that China "has also blocked access to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Google services. X itself is also banned — though Chinese diplomats use the microblogging app to deliver Beijing's messaging to the wider world."
From the Wall Street Journal: Among the top concerns for [U.S.] intelligence leaders is that they wouldn't even necessarily be able to detect a Chinese influence operation if one were taking place [on TikTok] due to the opacity of the platform and how its algorithm surfaces content to users. Such operations, FBI director Christopher Wray said this week in congressional testimony, "are extraordinarily difficult to detect, which is part of what makes the national-security concerns represented by TikTok so significant...."
Critics of the bill include libertarian-leaning lawmakers, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), who have decried it as a form of government censorship. "The Constitution says that you have a First Amendment right to express yourself," Paul told reporters Thursday. TikTok's users "express themselves through dancing or whatever else they do on TikTok. You can't just tell them they can't do that." In the House, a bloc of 50 Democrats voted against the bill, citing concerns about curtailing free speech and the impact on people who earn income on the app. Some Senate Democrats have raised similar worries, as well as an interest in looking at a range of social-media issues at rival companies such as Meta Platforms.
"The basic idea should be to put curbs on all social media, not just one," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) said Thursday. "If there's a problem with privacy, with how our children are treated, then we need to curb that behavior wherever it occurs."
Some context from the Columbia Journalism Review: Roughly one-third of Americans aged 18-29 regularly get their news from TikTok, the Pew Research Center found in a late 2023 survey. Nearly half of all TikTok users say they regularly get news from the app, a higher percentage than for any other social media platform aside from Twitter.
Almost 40 percent of young adults were using TikTok and Instagram for their primary Web search instead of the traditional search engines, a Google senior vice president said in mid-2022 — a number that's almost certainly grown since then. Overall, TikTok claims 150 million American users, almost half the US population; two-thirds of Americans aged 18-29 use the app.
Some U.S. politicians believe TikTok "radicalized" some of their supporters "with disinformation or biased reporting," according to the article.
Meanwhile in the Guardian, a Duke University law professor argues "this saga demands a broader conversation about safeguarding democracy in the digital age." The European Union's newly enacted AI act provides a blueprint for a more holistic approach, using an evidence- and risk-based system that could be used to classify platforms like TikTok as high-risk AI systems subject to more stringent regulatory oversight, with measures that demand transparency, accountability and defensive measures against misuse.
Open source advocate Evan Prodromou argues that the TikTok controversy raises a larger issue: If algorithmic curation is so powerful, "who's making the decisions on how they're used?" And he also proposes a solution.
"If there is concern about algorithms being manipulated by foreign governments, using Fediverse-enabled domestic software prevents the problem."
Tik Tik? Oh noes! (Score:2, Funny)
Wait until they find out about Tik Tok!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until they find out about Tik Tok!
To be fair, TokTok is also banned.
Re: (Score:1)
Ban social media (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone should go back to playing Pokemon Go
We were at war with Japan once, too. Are we really sure Pokemon are not actually an espionage tool of the Japanese government? Better ban that too, just to be certain.
In case anyone gets the wrong idea, that was intended to be satire, but it certainly seems to be the slippery slope we're heading towards in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously this factored in and I have no doubt part of the calculus was a show of force but you don't just put the resources in place to drop the world's first nuke in short order. In hindsight the Japanese should thank us. They undoubtedly would have suffered far worse if any of their territories fell under
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "...but you don't just put the resources in place to drop the world's first nuke in short order." - Oh, the USA has done all kinds of things that most would find highly questionable, e.g. Starting wars under false pretences (Vietnam), doing lethal medical experiments on its own citizens without their knowledge or consent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States), recruiting known war crimina
Re: (Score:1)
I am however focused on this topic. I have some skin in the game here. My grandfather was fighting in Germany when they surrendered. He was slated to be transferred to the Pacific. Very similar story for my wife's grandpa and thousands of others. Many people, maybe even yourself might not be here if we had to invade Japan.
Was the US government a bunch of choir boys here? Probably not. But in this instance I feel the outcom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Tok Tok (Score:2)
That's why I'm on Tok Tok, so I can Tok to all my friends anywhere in the world!
Re: (Score:2)
Tok all you want, but I prefer to Tik my friends. Specifically, tik them off about politics, especially when it's an election year.
Tiktik (Score:3)
I thought this was about a copycat app called Tiktik.
It's a shame that the youth get their "news" from Tiktok though, but what's the alternative? Getting "news" from any other 60-second social media echo chamber is not going to be any better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
to know wtf my kids are seeing online
These sort of sites show you different content than them. Some sort of algorithm based on what you watch/skip/upvote etc.
Re: (Score:2)
My friends mock me for consuming content via TikTok at my age
Spoiler alert: It's that "oh no no no no no" song that they're mocking you for as it plays through your phone on every other video. It's pretty much TikTok's national anthem.
Re: (Score:1)
TikTok does not contain news.
It is basically a platform for extrovert people who sent short videos about themselves. Or about other things. Partly artists to promote themselves, or simple people who show their yoga exercise, or "dance funny".
And of course lots of "gig workers" who tailored 3 items themselves and want to sell them.
Perhaps there are some self proclaimed news activists that record themselves talking about news, aka influencers or hobby journalists.
I would estimate 90% of TikTok content is Asia
Re: (Score:2)
Younger people have realized that the system doesn't bring rewards, and prefer their news commentary to reflect that.
They also don't like how mainstream media perpetuates these myths, and others. A recent example is the incredible lengths a lot of outlets went to avoid saying that Israeli forces killed anyone.
Basically it's a failure if mainstream media.
You Had One Job (Score:1)
And you fucked it up. You are so fired.
What? Was this written by AI? (Score:2)
I find myself unable to make any sense of this "article".
China is hypocritical, news at 11 (Score:2)
I've always personally found it to be a little ironic that most of the gay pride kitsch [alibaba.com] is manufactured in China, yet their country is more than a bit behind the times when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights. Most of those pride shirts that conservatives were getting all miffed about at Target, are made in China. I have one of 'em and just took a picture of the label [postimg.cc] - yep, HECHO EN CHINA.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeti products are made in China, yet MAGAs don't say a word.
China produces the special paper used in making Bibles, yet their country is more than a bit behind the times when it comes to religious rights. And yet, Christians make excuses [christianitytoday.com] for why this is okay.
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
TikTok is known as Douyin in China. It is a copy of the Douyin for the international market. The Chinese government does not care about the app; it cares about the contents and data storage. Operators can choose how to compile with the content censoring requirements, just like Toyota has to registered a subsidiary company as Toyota America in the US and obey American labor and environment laws.
If China does not allow US social networks, how can LinkedIn operate there [linkedin.com] for year? Is LinkedIn a Chinese company? If China does not allow US internet company, why did US lawmakers urge Bing [bloomberg.com] to pull out of China? Is Bing a Chinese search engine? If China bans Google, why did Google waste time and money creating Project Dragonfly [wikipedia.org]?
It is very important to understand that the same content censoring laws are applied to both Chinese firms and foreign firms, just like both GM and Toyota must obey the same labor laws regardless if Toyota likes those laws or not. If Google and Meta want (*) to operate in China, they can just agree to censor contents and keep data within China, like Microsoft and Apple do. If they don't, then they can't operate there, just like if you don't agree with American laws you can't do business here. Period.
Oh why does the Chinese government want to censor contents? It is a long story, but maybe because of the bad history of some spy agencies [reuters.com]?
(*) And in fact, both want to but they are stopped by American populism as shown in the outcome of Project Dragonfly.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh why does the Chinese government want to censor contents? It is a long story, but maybe because of the bad history of some spy agencies [reuters.com]?
Of course the CCP is going to tell the citizens that the censorship is for their own good because of foreign misinformation/propaganda. The politicians here in the USA are attempting to use the same justification for the proposed ban of TikTok. Same shit, different country. Main difference is that we ostensibly have a Constitution that is supposed to prevent such government overreach, but compliance isn't some magical thing. Our leaders have to willingly follow it and failing that, the checks and balanc
Re: (Score:2)
The similarity is that governments always claim censorship is for the good of the people. The difference with the USA is that we generally don't censor or restrict the 1A in all but the most extreme cases. As an example, in my town a few months ago there were a bunch of Neo-Nazis marching through the streets. Because they did so peacefully, the police left them alone and made it a point to mention that while they vehemently opposed what Neo-Nazis stand for, their activities are perfectly legal.
I doubt ve
Re: (Score:2)
The free exchange of ideas is crucial to maintaining a thriving democracy. Sometimes they're bad ideas which remind us of the mistakes of the past, such as Nazism. Most often though, they're ideas that were at one time considered radical to the mainstream but were essential to bring to light the need to remedy longstanding social injustices, such as the concepts that women should be granted the same rights as men, slavery is wrong, and that consenting adults should have the right to marry the person they
Re: (Score:2)
But try and show a nipple on the teevee...
Or use one of the "banned words"
The logic behind censorship of the airwaves is that they are a resource which belongs to the public and part of the licensing agreement for their utilization requires that all over-the-air licensed broadcasts comply with certain community standards. An appropriate analogy would be rules of conduct in a public park.
This isn't to say that America hasn't attempted to censor other mediums at one time or another (history is full of examples), or that the rules for what you're allowed to say or show on terrestri
Re: Not really (Score:1)
Tiktok ARE doing something different in the USA than other social media sites. They're doing a lot more do comply with the demands made of it and the concerns rooted in blatant sinophobia or Mccarthyism. They've gone over and above, but it isn't enough and wasn't ever going to be. It was always going to boil down to being Chinese, and the demand would be to not be.
The USA government has just shown how pathetic it is and how meaningless its constitution is. However, they've done that numerous times in the pa
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be OK with LinkedIn getting banned in China or the US. I really don't care about that guy I knew from three jobs ago getting an "Introduction to AWS" certification, or that his co-worker liked some TED talk from 5 years ago.
Re: Not really (Score:2)
Nb Slashdot itself is a social media platform of sorts (though I've yet to see anyone use any of those features). It discusses fervently anti-China topics such as this and many others, including the obvious ones. Slashdot isn't blocked by the GFW and anyone in mainland China can take part in the discussions.
Also, it's perfectly possible to use Google, Facebook, twitter/X or anything else from within mainland China - yes, without a vpn. This is because not all internet connections have the GFW applied to the
Re: (Score:2)
Oh why does the Chinese government want to censor contents?
I don't care why. Censorship is evil, bad, terrible, unacceptable, etc etc etc. Can censorship be useful sometimes? Most assuredly. Does having the ability to censor always devolve into the censor seeking to control? Yes, yes it does.
Censorship is completely unacceptable in any society that would deign to think itself Free. China never claimed Freedom, but the USA has and practices censorship HEAVILY.
Tik tik bim! (Score:2)
CCP propaganda (Score:2)
CCP propaganda working like a well oiled machine! :D
You guys seriously don't get what this is? (Score:3)
This is an obvious propaganda move on the verge of being forced to sell in the U.S., trying to pretend they don't like TikTok and "definitely DON'T OWN OR CONTROL IT!"
How are you people so fucking gullible?
Re: (Score:3)
I want to apologize for being a fucking idiot who can't read at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Never mind, you can still post your anti-China propaganda everywhere else, brainwashed masses will lap it up anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Tiktok isn't banned in China, they just gave a separate network because of different legal jurisdictions, and because if they were mixed it would become a proxy battleground for the US-China trade war. Users would be at each others throats all day.
Re: (Score:2)
Also you know Westerners might say things that are banned in China, like talking about Tiananmen square, the Ugyhur genocide, and even saying that Xi looks like Pooh (don't see it myself but whatever). So yeah that tiktok, the one that would have sunk without a trace with China levels of control is absolutely banned for a variety of reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what to make of this comment.
Chinese people do know about Tiananmen, because the government got to them with the propaganda first. They were told that foreigners might claim it was a massacre, to undermine China. Same with the Ugyhurs.
The Pooh thing is only in relation to Xi, they do sell the merch at Disneyland Shanghai etc. I've been there and seen it with my own eyes.
Apologies if you didn't intend it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese people do know about Tiananmen, because the government got to them with the propaganda first
That means they don't actually know about it. Because talking about the truth about what happened is banned.
The Pooh thing is only in relation to Xi,
Yes? That's what I was talking about. Compared to the other things it's pretty inconsequential, but something the dictator in charge is rather sensitive about so comparing him to the bear is forbidden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Anyway tiktok would not be su
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, what I mean is that they don't simply wonder why the term is censored, or not realize that it is, they know about it. So all the Westerners thinking that they can help liberate China from communism by spreading the truth about Tiananmen and the Uyghurs are not going to get very far.
But yes, I agree that TikTok would not succeed in the West if it was censored like it is in China, but that's the point I was making. It's not that they "banned" TikTok in China, it's that TikTok is tailored to Wester
The word "fair" has been co-opted (Score:2)
"Fair" and "Fairness" have been co-opted into meaning "You're going to get butt-effed to make someone else happy and complaining about it is not ok."
"express themselves" (Score:2)
>"Paul told reporters Thursday. TikTok's users "express themselves through dancing or whatever else they do on TikTok. You can't just tell them they can't do that.""
I really like and respect Rand Paul, and very often agree with his stances. However, not this time, this isn't the best reasoning on his part. The bill is not telling users they can't express themselves. It is saying that this one particular platform can't be owned by what is, in many respects, an enemy of the State. One that uses that pl
Re: incorrect Right to listen is part of 1st amend (Score:1)
No, if I want to listen to a particular person who is found on tiktok and not anywhere else, then this is an abuse of the 1st Amendment. Why? Because constitutional law has stated that the first amendment extends to the right to listen to a speaker. If I can't listen to what I want to hear, than that's effectively is a violation of the first amendment law if the Brandenburg standard can not be pass.
Your idea about freeway isn't a good analogy. The freeway analogy would apply if there was a "spatial" iss
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so why'd you post this reply here on Slashdot rather than over on your blog? After all, all social platforms are equal and have the same audience according to what you've implied.
China is being the ultimate hypocrite.
They certainly are, but the problem with using "turnabout is fair play" as a justification for doing exactly the same thing is that that it makes us no better than China.
Re:"express themselves" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd agree with you if this affected American citizens, or if it actually stopped TikTok from functioning. It does neither. It only requires Chinese owners (above 20%) to sell their stake in social media companies. They can still use TikTok all they want (in America).
The problem is that the CCP can (and surely would) use TikTok to push propaganda and control our society from the outside. They are already doing so, by pushing users to call their representatives and pressure them to do what the CCP wants them to do. There have been many reports of TikTok even requiring users to do so before they can continue using TikTok. They can also (and certainly already are) censor news they don't like and push CCP government propaganda directly to our citizens.
I'm not interested in importing the Great Firewall of China into our democracy, thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should install TikTok and use it once?
Buy a $20 used android phone with no contacts, get a throw gmail address.
Sorry, what you write is utter nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
I've used it. Though, not in the last week.
I'm a developer. You're clueless.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you seem clueless.
TikTok does nothing of the things you claim.
At least not mine, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you seem clueless.
TikTok does nothing of the things you claim.
How the fuck would you know that TikTok was pushing propaganda? Or that they were censoring anti-China stuff?
How the fuck would you know that that stuff other people are reporting isn't happening based on what's happening to YOUR app?
At least not mine, lol.
So what you're saying it, you're clueless.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the stuff on TikTok is published by real people.
And has nothing to do with propaganda etc.
A girl dancing in front of you is propaganda?
A girl showing shoes for sale is propaganda?
5 boys dancing to make a boy groups is Chinese propaganda?
Just lolz, idiot.
I do not even have anything from China in my TikTok feed.
Stupid idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot lacks the mental flexibility to see how the CCP could make their OWN videos, too. Or just push the ones that repeat their narratives.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, and those videos would sell shoes, or Hawaii shirts or show a couple dancing.
Sorry, if something is wrong with your Tick Tock feed: figure how to fix it.
Seems you are a self proclaimed computer expert. If you can not make Tick Tock not show you stuff you do not want to see, I suggest to reconsider your carrier.
My Tick Tock does not show me ANYTHING like you claim. And I did not even change any settings at all!!
Re: (Score:2)
The CCP pays literally tens of thousands of creators to make propaganda videos. Like straight up propaganda. Their useful idiots just repeat what they hear.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of super well known propagandists, check laowhy's YouTube channel, he and his buddy lived there for a decade, married, and were forced to flee. They have tons of awesome contacts, plenty of leakers inside China.
They watch the CCP shills for us.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the CCP can (and surely would) use TikTok to push propaganda and control our society from the outside.
You must be on a different internet than me if you believe it to be filled with easily influenced people when it comes to matters of politics. Politics in America has become like a bizarre twisted religion. China could feature videos all day long on TikTok of Trump making love to a goat and in all likelihood it would actually improve his poll numbers. It's a total crapshoot whether China could even achieve their desired result without it backfiring in some unforeseen way.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the CCP can (and surely would) use TikTok to push propaganda and control our society from the outside.
You must be on a different internet than me if you believe it to be filled with easily influenced people when it comes to matters of politics.
At first when I read this, I was expecting a hard /s. But after reading the rest, you actually believe this!!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the CCP can (and surely would) use TikTok to push propaganda and control our society from the outside.
They can use Facebook and Slashdot to push propaganda too. Those are American owned (I think?). Let's force all Internet companies to stop allowing any sort of individual interaction regardless of the location of the owners. That WILL stop propaganda... from moving via the Internet. It will not stop propaganda at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Their citizens have ZERO freedom of expression/speech.
That is nonsense.
They might have less than an american, but that is not zero.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: "express themselves" (Score:1)
> Their citizens have ZERO freedom of expression/speech
Be careful. Your ignorance is showing. You clearly know nothing about what living in China is like and the freedoms in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Be careful. Your ignorance is showing. You clearly know nothing about what living in China is like and the freedoms in the country."
I, personally, have no first-hand experience with China's great firewall, social credit score, secret police, single-party system, re-education camps, surveillance state, control over business and economy, suppression of dissent, state media, school indoctrination, etc. But I have read many articles and testimonials from those who have and escaped.
TIkTok Solution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are so concerned with what they are doing over at Tik Tok, open your own "social network". Good information can be damaged by bad information, but good information wins out if contextualizing information is available.
The implication of not starting your own is that you are not interested in assuring that good information has a place to be shared.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then (Score:1)
Roughly one-third of Americans aged 18-29 regularly get their news from TikTok,
We may as well just shut down the country and turn the lights off anyway then ...
No worse than Facebook (Score:3)
Except emulating China would be stupid (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK. Now imagine that we had this kind of media during WW2. ZOMG! All those kids killed in the firebombings of German cities. Free, Free, Deutschland! Come to our rally next Saturday. Bring flags. You know which one.
Now imagine that instead of "unconditional surrender" we had "ceasefire now".
Now imagine that the Germans actually sucked at war, so they had nothing to do but simp on TV.
There you go. That's gaza. The real authors of genocide are Hamas and friends. It's spelled out in their fucking char
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also also, that 30,000 isn't even real [tabletmag.com].
So not only are people simping for a terrorist organization that uses Gazans as human shields (an actual war crime *ssshhh*) and lies about the death numbers. They're also using highly charged language like "genocide" created to attack Israel and justify antisemitism with the lie that it's "anti-zio
Re:radicalized = show support for Gaza (Score:4, Insightful)
They're also using highly charged language like "genocide" created to attack Israel and justify antisemitism with the lie that it's "anti-zionism".
Because it is genocide [cnn.com]. Israel is deliberately [bbc.com] attacking civilians. We know this. It's been documented, even as Israel deliberately [imgur.com] kills [bbc.com] journalists [cnn.com], the deliberate attacks on civilians by Israel are being reported. And this isn't new. As an occupying force, Israel has been carrying out [imgur.com] genocidal policies [telegraph.co.uk] since day [cnn.com]one [imgur.com].
Calling out Israel's genocide is not "anti-semitism". It's calling out the truth [imgur.com].
Any time I read crap like oumuamua's lies, I know they're either a straight-up Nazi or a wannabe-Nazi or too stupid to give consideration too.
Any time I read crap like your lies [imgur.com], I know you're either a straight up Zionist or a wannabe-Zionist or too stupid to give consideration too.
Re: (Score:2)
Either your reactionary screeching will be ignored or the word "genocide" will lose all meaning.
You use singular instances from news reports hoping that people won't notice that these are singular incidents and not nessasarily verifiable (but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).
Whether you want to admit it or not, Israel is not committing the systematic elimination of a race or ethnicity... Honestly if they were it'd be done by now. Israelis really don't fuc
Re: radicalized = show support for Gaza (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling all Gazans Hamas is like calling all Israelis Zionists.
Most people want a safe place to live, and not a religious state that seeks to rule over unwilling neighbors.
If you can't see attacking all Gazans as dumb and evil as attacking all Israelis you're willfully ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people want a safe place to live, and not a religious state that seeks to rule over unwilling neighbors.
Except for the fact that Israelis keep voting in the radical, extremist, National Conservative Likud Party (an overtly genocidal party; it was even spelt out in their manifesto, though not sure if it hasn't been re-worded into less overt language in recent years) & support the further colonisation of the occupied territories between Israel & Jordan.
Then again, bear in mind that the US electorate seems to be happy with regular & frequent mass shootings of its own citizens & school children
Re: radicalized = show support for Gaza (Score:1)
There have been multiple elections, the country is currently run by both the centrist Netanyahu and the far-left Ganz in a coalition government. Nearly all of Israelâ(TM)s politics involve coalitions of left and centrist parties. The other solution is theocratic Islamists that also have parties and seats in the Knesset.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that they're bombing hospitals, refugee camps, & shooting at starving people waiting for food aid, right?
Or do you believe that you are right & the rest of the world is wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
Except they enjoy a 90% approval rate for their actions.
Everything you said is false, Hamas-based propaganda, they have been very conservative in bombing anything only using targeted strikes against confirmed Hamas leaders and installations. The people being shot at are Hamas that attack food aid trucks in order to steal food and fuel for their own fighters.
I have no doubt that Hamas is housing their military installations in those hospitals, refugee camps you mention, which is a violation of the Geneva con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's amusing how the Israeli regime can spread rumours & the EU & USA take it as fact but then when journalists & independent observers report from Gaza, they're immediately treated with suspicion & a high bar of evidence is required of them.
For example, what evidence did the Israeli regime present to support its claim that UNRWA workers were engaged in attacking Israeli soldiers or citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read, listen, & watch that propaganda too much, you'll go blind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the story I linked to should be publicly viewable. Can you confirm whether it's the same story, maybe rephrased a little, if not verbatim?
Also, don't forget that the Israeli regime has been systematically reducing the livability conditions in the Gaza strip for decades. One of the things slowing that process down is aid agencies, like UNRWA. They've been running anti-UNRWA campaigns all that time too. This is ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we have more proof that most Israelis are extremists, as we have the results of their vote. The Israeli majority don't want peace, they want Palestiniance to be crushed. On the other hand, we have no idea how many Palestinians would vote for Hamas. Plus I would say their support for Hamas is probably proportional to the Israeli attacks.
Re:radicalized = show support for Gaza (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest Nazis on the planet are Israelian Jews. Obviously not all of them.
Daily life for non Jews in Israel: oh, you own a house with 2 stories and 8 rooms in total? You live there as parents, with two adult kids and 2 grand kits and a grand pa? You have two options: either we expel you and confiscate the house, or you clear the upper level, and let this Russian jews live there. For free of course.
Purging of Palestinians out of houses they legally own, that is daily Nazi practice in Israel.
Re: (Score:1)
https://theintercept.com/2024/... [theintercept.com].
Re: (Score:1)
created to attack Israel and justify antisemitism with the lie that it's "anti-zionism". Any time I read crap like oumuamua's lies, I know they're either a straight-up Nazi or a wannabe-Nazi or too stupid to give consideration too.
Yes, good point, because if the colonial entity illegally occupying Palestinian lands were composed of Chinese, or Africans, or Irish or Italians, or ... anyone else, the native population would be perfectly fine with it. If that were the case Hamas wouldn't bother trying to fight back at all. It's just filthy anti-semitism that drives Hamas to attack their oppressors and motivates others to condemn the zionists.
See how moronic your argument makes you look ?
Re: (Score:2)
Try studying a little history, e.g. who Balfour was & what he did & the events that followed. Also, try studying up on the Geneva Conventions & why they were written. Quick clue: Some of it was inspired by a certain country laying siege to an area of a city & starving the occupants to death. Also try studying up on the Likud Party, its history, its manifesto (it may have changed in recent years, I haven't checked, but it at least us
Re: (Score:1)
The real authors of terrorists were the British and fuckheads like Balfour who took stolen land, and gave it to someone else, despite that someone else not having ruled that territory in more than 2000 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Fortunately, that's not how the bill is written. It enables the president to force only people who are citizens of a designated enemy nation (just a few nations right now) and who own >= 20% of their stake in a social media company to sell their stake to an American citizen.
That's well targeted. This is all hand wringing.
Re: (Score:1)