> So now it’s okay to ban platforms that cause “bad things” to go viral?

I think if platforms habitually or consistently cause 'bad things' to go viral then the ownership and management of those platforms should be examined, and if it's determined that their ownership/management may be beholden to interests contrary to the welfare of the nation then sanctions should be applied, which may or may not include a ban.

There are well understood exceptions to free speech and freedom of association that apply to the ownership and control of companies that could significantly affect the welfare of the nation. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy

Please answer the questions that were put to you:

Approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?

> I think if platforms habitually or consistently cause 'bad things' to go viral then the ownership and management of those platforms should be examined, and if it's determined that their ownership/management may be beholden to interests contrary to the welfare of the nation then sanctions should be applied, which may or may not include a ban.

Who gets to decide and are you okay with people who have opposite political beliefs than you having the power to make that decision?

> Approximately what dollar value of damage was done to schools as a result of the 'devious licks' viral videos trend from last year? And on what platform did those viral videos trend?

I don’t know. If you’re okay with holding TikTok liable are you also okay with holding conservative media liable for January 6th?

Would you have been okay with the government banning Doom because they think playing video games causes mass shootings?

Do you think we should sue the gun manufacturers for shootings?

In no other area of society do we think anyone should be blamed for criminal activities besides the criminals.

> Who gets to decide

A bipartisan committee will suffice.

> holding conservative media liable

The subject is foreign adversaries, not domestic strife. Let's not get derailed.

> the government banning Doom

The subject is foreign adversaries

> sue the gun manufacturers

The subject is foreign adversaries

> In no other area of society

Yes, we absolutely do. When companies bring out predatory sales techniques (such as lootboxes in video games) these techniques absolutely do attract oversight, sanctions and - in cases - outright bans. It's well recognised that people can be led astray and there are many legal avenues available to prevent significant impact.

> A bipartisan committee will suffice.

A bipartisan “Right Think” committee of officials get to come together and decide what media should be banned? How would that have worked out if those commie sympathizers who were trying to get the good Black folks in the south to rise up against segregation?

> The subject is foreign adversaries

So you’re okay with domestic adversaries like the ones who invaded the capital because they were riled up by domestic media?

> When companies bring out predatory sales techniques

Aren’t all addictive substances “predatory”? Do you think we should bring back Prohibition

> what media should be banned

No media is being banned. The same content creators can create their content on another platform, or even the same platform, if that platform agrees to incorporate locally so as to be meaningfully under the control of legislation.

> So you’re okay with

Derail attempt ignored

> bring back Prohibition

Derail attempt ignored

> No media is being banned. The same content creators can create their content on another platform

Do you feel the same way if the government suppressing media on Twitter? Facebook? HN?

> if that platform agrees to incorporate locally so as to be meaningfully under the control of legislation.l

So now we are back to the government controlling media. Shouldn’t we also want the government to bring EU media under their control? Maybe we wouldn’t have to deal with cookie banners…

How am I derailing anything? Are you not saying that the government should ban TikTok because it’s harmful?

I'm ending this conversation becausee: 1. you're not actually saying anything and 2. you're endlessly bringing up Jan 6 presumably because you think I'm a conservative and want to expose my double standard.

You're literally Just Asking Questions here, and I absolutely hate that term.

I’m taking your statements to the logical conclusion. It’s what happens when people don’t think through the consequences of giving the government power.

All it really takes to decide whether a government policy is a good idea or not is to think of how the political party you don’t agree with could use that power.

It never ceases to amaze me how willingly people are willing to give power to the government.

The government already has the power to regulate foreign media and broadcasters because it's well understood that their agenda may be inimical to national security.

We're just discussing how this may be applied to a 'broadcaster' such as TikTok which isn't covered by the legislation that covers legacy media.

How does the US government have power to regulate foreign media? There is no great firewall. The government doesn’t even have the power to regulate American media except when it is broadcast over the airwaves.

The only reason that government can legislate mecha over the airwaves is because public spectrum belongs to people and is licensed

> How does the US government have power to regulate foreign media?

Since 2017, U.S. legislators and the Department of Justice have required multiple foreign-funded news organizations to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA)

https://cpj.org/2019/07/several-foreign-news-outlets-require...

It requires them to “register”. It can not tell them what to publish or how to publish it.