finitebanjo

joined 2 weeks ago
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Momentum + Gyroscopic effect

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

The single group of American Citizens are facing no repercussions from the US Government. They're being thrown under the bus by the Chinese.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

ByteDance employees chose to work for a Chinese PsyOp parent company who refuses to sell ByteDance. If anything, those employees are suffering because the CCP were given too many rights and protections for owning a business in the USA.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo's friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose's friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.

The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.

That is literally what Facebook was fined for, BEFORE the new laws were put in place. Cambridge Analytica did what you just described.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Well, actually:

When Online Content Disappears

"38% of webpages that existed in 2013 are no longer accessible a decade later"

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (6 children)

#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.

The parent company don't have judicial protections. They're based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn't being punished, they're explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

The /s is mandatory tho

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I hate Reagan with all my heart, but in his defence there is little to no evidence Reagan knew what his subordinates were doing with Iran Contra. Those subordinates did face judgement and were not pardoned until late 2007.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (11 children)

A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:

  1. The law inflicts punishment.
  2. The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
  3. Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.

And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.

Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Technically, the second partof that bill bans sending user data to China for all companies, so it's foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.

I hope the Facebook multi-billion dollar fines act as precedent.

 
view more: next ›