this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
252 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19398 readers
3123 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump called TikTok "worthless" and suggested he might not intervene to lift its nationwide ban, which took effect on January 19 over national security concerns about its Chinese ownership.

Previously, Trump had pledged to save TikTok, citing its role in his campaign's social media success, but his latest remarks hinted at demands for U.S. ownership of the platform.

House Speaker Mike Johnson supported the ban, citing fears of Chinese influence on TikTok's algorithms.

(page 2) 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago

Man right back to the flip flopping like a hot dog on a 7 eleven grill.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 hours ago

I think it's a threat to ensure that TikTok does what he says. Lots of reports (that I as an Australian can't verify before it works for me) of searches for Trump incriminating videos are returning no results since it came back. It feels like there were conditions on not banning TikTok.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

What pisses me off the most is that he blatantly places no consideration about the security implications of this decision. It is just about making a deal for his tech bros.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 hours ago

He meant that TikTok's gratuities are worth less than Zuckerberg and Musk's.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago

Old man yells at rock. Old man becomes friend with rock. Old man yells at rock.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 hours ago

He says it like it is

Wasn't that how like half of maga justified voting for him? I see how that one's going

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I wonder how much of this is him realizing that there's nothing he can do to save TikTok...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Lmao is Trump negging them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

Glad someone else sees this for what it is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

After it filled up with pro-trump propaganda and started blocking hashtags based on who Trump hates, I went back to Rednote for now until our "free" nation bans that to maintain the capitalist oligarch narrative on major social media. We can talk about Luigi there.

I'd rather be propagandized by them than Zuck and Elon and Bezos and Donnie. Their people actually seem to believe they owe one another basic decency and courtesy. It's refreshing.

"Herp derp genocide!"

When there's a non distributed, aka popular and populated, social network that isn't the product and propaganda tool of a genocidal nation, I'll defect to that, but I haven't heard anything about a civilized, admirable nation like Norway launching a competitor.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›