The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
04-03-2023, 01:20 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
Meanwhile, remember how the US Gov't wants to ban TikTok?
Well, c'mon, when was the last time Congress passed a bill just to do one specific thing, without also seizing huge amounts of power and massively abridging the rights of the people?
Yeah, turns out that the RESTRICT Act covers a hell of a lot of territory. It more or less gives the Department of Commerce power to "deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate" any use of any information and communications technology "in which any foreign adversary (such as China) has any interest."
Is there any piece of information and communications technology in which China does not have an interest?
This is obviously an alarmist (at this stage) interpretation, but then such interpretations have been coming true a lot lately.
Using a VPN to obscure your identity or location for any reason? Better hope your home router (or phone, or cable modem, or whatever) wasn't made in China. That's a $1 million fine and 20 years in prison.
The bill also has a long list of communications technologies it intends to scrutinize. These include, specifically and not exhaustively; web hosting, cloud services, content delivery services, drones, payment applications, gaming applications, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce.
House of Representatives speaker Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) said that the House would be moving forward with the bill.
Those opposing the bill say it will give the state the power to police the entire internet and any platforms on it. Furthermore, some referred to it as the “Chinafication of America.”
The legislation is frighteningly similar to that in China, which has some of the world’s harshest internet censorship.
Well, c'mon, when was the last time Congress passed a bill just to do one specific thing, without also seizing huge amounts of power and massively abridging the rights of the people?
Yeah, turns out that the RESTRICT Act covers a hell of a lot of territory. It more or less gives the Department of Commerce power to "deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate" any use of any information and communications technology "in which any foreign adversary (such as China) has any interest."
Is there any piece of information and communications technology in which China does not have an interest?
This is obviously an alarmist (at this stage) interpretation, but then such interpretations have been coming true a lot lately.
Using a VPN to obscure your identity or location for any reason? Better hope your home router (or phone, or cable modem, or whatever) wasn't made in China. That's a $1 million fine and 20 years in prison.
The bill also has a long list of communications technologies it intends to scrutinize. These include, specifically and not exhaustively; web hosting, cloud services, content delivery services, drones, payment applications, gaming applications, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce.
House of Representatives speaker Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) said that the House would be moving forward with the bill.
Those opposing the bill say it will give the state the power to police the entire internet and any platforms on it. Furthermore, some referred to it as the “Chinafication of America.”
The legislation is frighteningly similar to that in China, which has some of the world’s harshest internet censorship.
Reply
1
1
04-03-2023, 06:30 PM
Retired Mech Design Engr
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 5,009
Total Cats: 857
Hmmm. As of today, congress.gov shows it has not yet passed the Senate.
DNM
Reply
0
0
04-03-2023, 11:13 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
[leftie]
They don't. Recognizing that you are a woman makes you a woman.
Everyone is free to wear makeup, dress however they wish, and carry whatever accessories they desire. Your gender is not determined by your physical appearance, nor is your physical appearance determined by your gender.
[/leftie]
The above is neither parody nor satire. It is how a certain segment of the population would actually reply to this question.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2023, 03:36 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
Yeah, I was watching the house, and then BAM, the senate passes this garbage. Hadn't heard that the house plans to go with it. Not good news at all. Do you know the House #? Or does it retain the S. 686 number?
Hmmm. As of today, congress.gov shows it has not yet passed the Senate.
Hmmm. As of today, congress.gov shows it has not yet passed the Senate.
Both branches of Congress, however, appear to express broad support for the bill, as does the White House.
I mean, why would the Federal government not want to grant itself even more power to perform surveillance and regulate speech?
Sponsors of the bill such as Senator Mark Warner (D, VA) are of course responding by saying that it is not intended to be used to prosecute individuals, that it's "focused on countering surveillance by foreign governments."
Only, there's nothing at all in the bill which limits its power in this regard.
So tell me, Sen. Warner, when was the last time that the DOJ or any other Federal office considered the intent of a law before using it as a tool against the people?
Take your time, I'll wait.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 04-04-2023 at 04:26 PM.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2023, 11:05 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
Definitely not pleased.
It's kind of bizarre, really. The most recent attack-ad against Vallas which I saw was full of things like "He balanced the city's budget, but took money from a pension plan to fund public schools in order to do it!" and various things of that nature.
And I'm like "In what way is this supposed to make me NOT want to vote for Vallas?"
Johnson, meanwhile, has done little with his life other than organize strikes and vote to eliminate fares on the CTA, which is already under-funded and under-maintained.
Ditto my local (30th ward) Alderman. The winner wasn't the one who has consistently voted against property tax hikes, but the one who supports taking funding away from the Police.
It's kind of bizarre, really. The most recent attack-ad against Vallas which I saw was full of things like "He balanced the city's budget, but took money from a pension plan to fund public schools in order to do it!" and various things of that nature.
And I'm like "In what way is this supposed to make me NOT want to vote for Vallas?"
Johnson, meanwhile, has done little with his life other than organize strikes and vote to eliminate fares on the CTA, which is already under-funded and under-maintained.
Ditto my local (30th ward) Alderman. The winner wasn't the one who has consistently voted against property tax hikes, but the one who supports taking funding away from the Police.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2023, 11:26 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,045
Total Cats: 6,607
True, but it was the only one in which
A: I could easily crop out Mrs. Braineack without making the framing look awkward, and
B: also makes you look like someone who is definitely guilty of investor fraud.
Basically, the turtleneck immediately sent my imagination to Elizabeth Holmes, and I believe that the rest of the thought process from there onwards requires no explanation.
Why did the Feds charge Al Capone with tax evasion, instead of, you know... literally everything else?
A: It was easy to prove.
What I still don't quite understand is... do the people pushing this whole process forward mot realize that they are making Trump into a martyr?
If they do somehow succeed at putting him into prison ahead of the 2024 general election, then he's going to win that vote by a wider margin than the supreme leader of North Korea.
A: I could easily crop out Mrs. Braineack without making the framing look awkward, and
B: also makes you look like someone who is definitely guilty of investor fraud.
Basically, the turtleneck immediately sent my imagination to Elizabeth Holmes, and I believe that the rest of the thought process from there onwards requires no explanation.
A: It was easy to prove.
What I still don't quite understand is... do the people pushing this whole process forward mot realize that they are making Trump into a martyr?
If they do somehow succeed at putting him into prison ahead of the 2024 general election, then he's going to win that vote by a wider margin than the supreme leader of North Korea.
Reply
0
0
