I do. It's the usual obfuscation employed when they can't make the case on the actual merits.
My own assumption is that the current push for a Tik-Tok ban is being driving by concerns over domestic pro-Palestinian organizing being done on Tik-Tok in response to the current conflict over there. The "Chinese government is using it to gather data" is just a cover story.
See Lee Fang's piece on Tik Tok adoption new policies here:
I can't help wondering if there would be any discernable difference in the truthiness of page 24, of the Justice Department's brief, between what it now says, and if you were to substitute the words "USA,", or American, for every mention of China or Chinese Communist Party.
Great find, Klip! Interesting document! And what’s most interesting is the useful idiots who filed amicus briefs. As if taking a communications China influence operation down impacts their First Amendment rights.
Any chance this legal escalation has anything to do with with the recent popularity Mr. Trump has gained on the site? I'm sure the DOJ would never ramp up the pursuit of a case for political reasons.
I think there's a pretty good explanation for this action, at this time. We heard and saw the actual quote, "We have a tik tok problem." I put in the quote with the quotation marks and it came right up.
Off Topic: Ken have you heard anything about this from your sources?
"A Mysterious Plot Prompts a Rare Call From Russia to the Pentagon
Russia’s defense minister said he needed to talk to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin about an alleged Ukrainian operation. What happened next remains murky.
Curious if you guys agree with my analysis here.
I do. It's the usual obfuscation employed when they can't make the case on the actual merits.
My own assumption is that the current push for a Tik-Tok ban is being driving by concerns over domestic pro-Palestinian organizing being done on Tik-Tok in response to the current conflict over there. The "Chinese government is using it to gather data" is just a cover story.
See Lee Fang's piece on Tik Tok adoption new policies here:
https://www.leefang.com/p/tiktok-to-ban-some-criticisms-of
I can't help wondering if there would be any discernable difference in the truthiness of page 24, of the Justice Department's brief, between what it now says, and if you were to substitute the words "USA,", or American, for every mention of China or Chinese Communist Party.
Thanks, Ken for posting this document.
Glad you find it helpful!
Great find, Klip! Interesting document! And what’s most interesting is the useful idiots who filed amicus briefs. As if taking a communications China influence operation down impacts their First Amendment rights.
Any chance this legal escalation has anything to do with with the recent popularity Mr. Trump has gained on the site? I'm sure the DOJ would never ramp up the pursuit of a case for political reasons.
I think there's a pretty good explanation for this action, at this time. We heard and saw the actual quote, "We have a tik tok problem." I put in the quote with the quotation marks and it came right up.
Off Topic: Ken have you heard anything about this from your sources?
"A Mysterious Plot Prompts a Rare Call From Russia to the Pentagon
Russia’s defense minister said he needed to talk to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin about an alleged Ukrainian operation. What happened next remains murky.
By Eric Schmitt
Reporting from Washington
July 26, 2024"
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/us/politics/austin-russia-ukraine-defense-plot.html
I'm a couple days behind on the news, but I like this quote:
"This Court should reject petitioners’ invitation to second-
guess the political branches’ informed national-security judgments."
Very much in line with a common Klipenstein talking point :)