Sybertiger
Known around here
A forum? Or a social media site such as IG, TT, X, FB? Forums have been around forever before social media was a thing.
US Elections (& Politics) :)
- Thread starter sdkid
- Start date
Oh, debit cards for the migrants...what could possibly go wrong there?
NYC continues to sink deeper into the pits ofHell Liberal Heaven.......
nypost.com
NYC continues to sink deeper into the pits of
Outrage over NYC’s migrant debit card handouts that could net NJ company $1.8M in profits: ‘Taxpayers are getting fleeced’
Under the $53 million deal signed by Mayor Eric Adams, Mobility Capital Finance, a New Jersey start-up with just a few years under its belt, will snag 3% of the first $50 million loaded onto the pr…
nypost.com
Sybertiger
Known around here
GDI!!!! Quit pissing away our treasure!
Sybertiger
Known around here
BTW, for some of you who don't know...in Floriduh for government services: Press 1 for English, Press 2 for Spanish, Press 3 for Creole (Haitian).
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
I was on forums on IRC before GUI became a thing, but what do I know, eh?
I was on IRC back in the 33.6k and 56k days... used to run botnets to takeover #channels lol, ran my BitchX irc clients on open (!) linux and unix boxes that you could install BitchX on. Ah, the wild wild west days of irc!I was on forums on IRC before GUI became a thing, but what do I know, eh?
Sybertiger
Known around here
I saw YT and instead of thinking YouTube I thought of Yesterday's Tractor forum which I used to belong to back when I had a tractor and some land. I'm very happy I no longer need to go to any tractor forums looking for repair/maintenance assistance.
Sybertiger
Known around here
Does anyone really care? I don't know if Pence is a good guy or not. All I know is he reeked of politician and to me he came across as a RINO establishment type.
Parley
Known around here
IMHO Mike Pence is DOA with me. He is nothing but a backstabbing POS.
bigredfish
Known around here
Exactly!
'Social Media" is simply a new name for an online service that allows you to post your own content. Having been in 'the business" since 1992 (yes, AOL WAS the internet then and we were just figuring out email, and "newsgroups" were our "online chat")
Its not the platform its the people. it won't stop with TiKTok I can assure you. How long do you think the liberals who invade here now and then would take to try to have IPCT shut down?
bigredfish
Known around here
TikToK TikTok, TikTok... its the new fake Russia, Russia, Russia
mbuster
Getting comfortable
Initially, when this first came up, I was all in for banning TikTok. But actually to be fair, I now think we should just steal the technology, and create an American TikTok knock off. I mean turnabout is fair play.
bigredfish
Known around here
It’s not hard. FB, TikTok (which i don’t have or use) Twitter, not difficult technology.
It’s two things: the backend cloud server capacity and the marketing $ to drive audience.
It’s two things: the backend cloud server capacity and the marketing $ to drive audience.
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
mbuster
Getting comfortable
I believe Arkansas did.
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
Russia, Russia Russia! Enemy, enemy, enemy! Right? How many of you have heard of, or seen, this? Definitely the actions of a great enemy, eh?
en.wikipedia.org
To the Struggle Against World Terrorism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
bigredfish
Known around here
Why the TikTok Ban is So Dangerous
“This is not an attempt to ban TikTok, it’s an attempt to make TikTok better,” is how Nancy Pelosi put it. Congress, the theory goes, will force TikTok to divest, some kindly Wall Street consortium will gobble it up (“It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok,” Steve Mnuchin told CNBC), and life will go on. All good, right?
Not exactly. The bill passed in the House that’s likely to win the Senate and be swiftly signed into law by the White House’s dynamic Biden hologram is at best tangentially about TikTok.
You’ll find the real issue in the fine print. There, the “technical assistance” the drafters of the bill reportedly received from the White House shines through, Look particularly at the first highlighted portion, and sections (i) and (ii) of (3)B:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
Currently, the definition of “foreign adversary” includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.
The definition of “controlled,” meanwhile, turns out to be a word salad, applying to:
As Newsweek reported, the bill was fast-tracked after a secret “intelligence community briefing” of Congress led by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The magazine noted that if everything goes as planned, the bill will give Biden the authority to shut down an app used by 150 million Americans just in time for the November elections.
Say you’re a Democrat, however, and that scenario doesn’t worry you. As America This Week co-host Walter Kirn notes, the bill would give a potential future President Donald Trump “unprecedented powers to censor and control the internet.” If that still doesn’t bother you, you’re either not worried about the election, or you’ve been overstating your fear of “dictatorial” Trump.
We have two decades of data showing how national security measures in the 9-11 era evolve. In 2004 the George W. Bush administration defined “enemy combatant” as “an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” Yet in oral arguments of Rosul et al v Bush later that year, the government conceded an enemy combatant could be a “little old lady in Switzerland” who “wrote a check” to what she thought was an orphanage.
“This is not an attempt to ban TikTok, it’s an attempt to make TikTok better,” is how Nancy Pelosi put it. Congress, the theory goes, will force TikTok to divest, some kindly Wall Street consortium will gobble it up (“It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok,” Steve Mnuchin told CNBC), and life will go on. All good, right?
Not exactly. The bill passed in the House that’s likely to win the Senate and be swiftly signed into law by the White House’s dynamic Biden hologram is at best tangentially about TikTok.
You’ll find the real issue in the fine print. There, the “technical assistance” the drafters of the bill reportedly received from the White House shines through, Look particularly at the first highlighted portion, and sections (i) and (ii) of (3)B:
As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.
Currently, the definition of “foreign adversary” includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.
The definition of “controlled,” meanwhile, turns out to be a word salad, applying to:
A “foreign adversary controlled application,” in other words, can be any company founded or run by someone living at the wrong foreign address, or containing a small minority ownership stake. Or it can be any company run by someone “subject to the direction” of either of those entities. Or, it’s anything the president says it is. Vague enough?
As Newsweek reported, the bill was fast-tracked after a secret “intelligence community briefing” of Congress led by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The magazine noted that if everything goes as planned, the bill will give Biden the authority to shut down an app used by 150 million Americans just in time for the November elections.
Say you’re a Democrat, however, and that scenario doesn’t worry you. As America This Week co-host Walter Kirn notes, the bill would give a potential future President Donald Trump “unprecedented powers to censor and control the internet.” If that still doesn’t bother you, you’re either not worried about the election, or you’ve been overstating your fear of “dictatorial” Trump.
We have two decades of data showing how national security measures in the 9-11 era evolve. In 2004 the George W. Bush administration defined “enemy combatant” as “an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” Yet in oral arguments of Rosul et al v Bush later that year, the government conceded an enemy combatant could be a “little old lady in Switzerland” who “wrote a check” to what she thought was an orphanage.
