You gotta use an escape character, specifically a backslash ( \ ), when dealing with *s on lemmy.

Otherwise you end up with “stufflike this!”

When it could have been “stuff*like this*!”

ETA: Damn, you’re good. Fixed it before I even finished this post!

I’m not sure whether or not that will matter. Again, not a lawyer or lawmaker, myself, but this bit makes me wonder:

(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok).

And further down…

An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation.

It sounds as though your ISP would technically be “distributing” the info to you from the foreign server, and thus subject to these fines? Not sure how that all fits in with the rest of it, or with the erosion of net neutrality.

Not quite. As far as I can tell the US can now play whack-a-mole with any app owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary”, thanks to this precedent. The decision as to which nations are considered a “Foreign Adversary” is made by the U.S. Secretary Of Commerce.

I am not a lawyer or lawmaker, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s the full text of the legislation (emphases mine):

DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

• would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
• precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).

The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user’s request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

DIVISION I–PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual’s data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

Woah. A gif from “The Great Outdoors”. Now there’s something you don’t see everyday!

Agreed. The humor of the comic is in the hyperbole.

Definitely. Innocent until proven guilty. But then, the conversation does still have to happen, sometimes. That’s how people (on both sides of the debate) learn the difference in the first place.

I’m unfamiliar with the show, but thank you so much for engaging with the nuance of the situation, here. I agree with what you have to say regarding context surrounding “Moliendo Café”. Context matters. OP’s comic is a bit too “strawman” for my tastes.

There’s discussion to be had, for sure, but this comic squeezes all the nuance out of a complex topic just to score an easy gotcha.

We will always love to see others enjoy a part of our culture (as long as it is not in an exploitative and fetishistic way).

I think this is a big part of the reason why some people get all white-knight about cultural appropriation. It can be quite difficult to know, as a cultural outsider, and from a glance, when something is being done in an exploitative and/or fetishistic way.

Absolutely this but instead of “Self Esteem” it’s “Nitro (Youth Energy)” (from the same album).

They must not be too big to dissuade people from investing in real estate even as prices reach record levels.

"To understand revolutionary suicide it is first necessary to have an idea of reactionary suicide, for the two are very different. Reactionary suicide: the reaction of a man who takes his own life in response to social conditions that overwhelm him and condemn him to helplessness.”

“I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions.”

“But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.”

– Dr. Huey P. Newton

What do you want, a cookie? What are you getting out of this? Just bored?

I’m not sure “favorite” is something I can quantify for you with such ease, as I’m not ranking my favorite movies/spectacles, here. We’re discussing engaging with things that don’t just pet and soothe your inbuilt biases. It’d be like asking my favorite college coursework textbook.

I most recently digested George Soros’ “Alchemy Of Finance” via audiobook, (though I’m not sure he really qualifies as a hedge fund manager, exactly). I’m no fan of his hyper-neo-liberal leanings, but why should I be scared to read what he has to say about finance? I have time. His musings on reflexivity were compelling enough, I guess.

I’ve also recently plowed through Anne Case and Angus Deaton’s “Deaths Of Despair”. I’ve historically chafed against Deaton’s particular brand of neo-lib economics. It seems he’s had something of a mea culpa moment in the past few years, since his Nobel prize in Econ, because he’s been running around pissing off a bunch of economists with articles like these.

If you have any recommendations I’m open to them!

Yes, in fact, I do. I specifically seek out and read literature from people with whom I have knee-jerk disagreements.

How else will I be sure I’m not trapped in a thought bubble? It’s important to read critically from a variety of sources, while reserving judgement. That’s literally how you learn. It’s too easy to fall for propaganda, otherwise.

Scared it might not confirm your biases?

Most people hate being wrong, or corrected. They seem to see it as an affront to their very existence, and will often fight back tooth and nail when confronted with any evidence that the things they believe about the world might not be 100% correct.

Source: Any substantial comment thread on any social media platform, ever.

Yeah, the citations of factual events are in the links below the quote. Check out Willam Blum’s “Killing Hope” (pdf link) for more citations than you can shake a stick at.

“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

Additionally, check out Willam Blum’s “Killing Hope” (pdf link), and/or “America’s Deadliest Export”, by same (pdf link).