Since the first bit gets snipped off anyway, nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak.
In roughly chronological order comes invasion of journalists' accounts, manipulation of virality, vocab 北韩, vocab 新疆, and now this.
I have every expectation that projectors will find the threat video perfectly acceptable, but what caught my eye is the timing of the basketball player's rescinded ban, and the ban for the maker of the video in question. (Yes, it's a video, but the sentiment of 'screenshots are forever' applies here, and I like C-Span.) Which article was it about having a 豺狼政权 shaping the messaging, and do either Dorian or Exhibit B expect to have any say in how that messaging is shaped should they continue in their support of this app using what seems to be the default argument available to them?
Is that how much the default argument costs?
Reading the slippery slope argument here and disagreeing with it -
Because of other countries who've banned the app with what looks like less regard for future elections. (Parentheses contents may vary - on this, I don't.) I disagree with this senator specifically because of the virality boost info - staff has been proven to push specific videos that users upload. The users are themselves used. (I'm aware that most, if not all platforms use their users as product, and aware that I've said something along the lines of 'entirely different endgame.')
Combined with the intrusion into accounts of journalists investigating the app and the examples of specific accounts the app allows and bans, it has a motive tied more closely to the rewriting of school books. I continue to support a total ban for TikTok; not just because of what could happen, but what could happen based on what they've already done.
Ending with this to add on to what I use.