It's almost like one is something they agree on and the other isn't!
30You see how that's a problem that the government cant agree on making things better for people but can agree on ban something millions enjoy so their donors can have more control over the data of that thing right?
Its not exactly a great example of democracy when we can't raise wages when the price of groceries is rapidly increasing but we can ban apps where kids make 15 second clips of them dancing.
32They don’t care about kids dancing, they care that the platform allows people to be critical of the government and the right-wing rhetoric that is so pervasive in the American platforms doesn’t really exist on TikTok. You could call that due to Chinese influence or due to the community rejecting it but either way, the American government has been moving right for decades and does t like getting called out on it.
On the other hand I get the governments concern that a foreign adversary has access to so much data on American citizens and could have undue influence on American culture by adjusting the algorithms and making their own targeted content that looks benign and natural
1
No, they're both things they agree on; banning competition of and decreasing labor costs for their campaign donors.
14
bUwT tHaWt WoUwD cAwSe InFwAtIoN
16mark zuckerberg influenced congress to make a move on tiktok, because it's fast growing competition that cannot currently be invested in (no hedge).
2I learned Something interesting recently that might have to do with minimum wage increases. Companies that are American companies but hire outside of the US still have to pay US minimum wage as a minimum (or something to that affect). So if you have A ton of people working in the phillipenes for instance, you can't go lower than $7.25 if you increase minimum wage you increase it for all those outsourcing company's employees making product way way more expensive and throwing off the local economy with much more money influx.
Am I saying increasing the minimum wage is wrong? No, I wholly support it. But that might be a reason as to why.
-19That's bs, my salary was way below US minimum when I worked in Mexico for three different US companies
20Like I said "or something to that affect". I only know this because I was talking with someone who was in the Philippines who told me they made US minimum because of aforementioned law. I personally never dug into it but something to that affect exists (assuming the person wasn't lying, which they had no reason to)
I would also present the possibility that companies, parent companies and sub companies don't all work as US companies even if they are present majoritively for sale purposes in the US. As well as a parent, sub, or affiliated companies can all be based outof different places even if the others are not.
Apple is a great example where they have all their patents and ownerships based out of a company in a small country around south america (I forget the actual name) and Apple the parent company actually "purchases" licenses to their own products for tax reasons. Even though they are all under the same umbrella more or less
-6
If that was actually a thing, then the lawmakers would also have the power to change it.
8They would, but they won't. Because that would hurt their pockets. Same reason they won't change a lot of stuff the people want/need
-1
