There is no evidence that it is banned. ByteDance just made the same app for the PRC market
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/
Aghast
joined 1 year ago
Well the CCP does exert considerable control over TikToks parent company ByteDance. The CCP has already utilized data from TikTok to track protestors and other "dissidents"
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-d257d98125f69ac80f983e6067a84911
No the CCP does not own Tik Tok but it might as well own it.
Unfortunately this situation is not unlike what the US government likely does. However, hopefully this precedence building policy recognizes that data privacy from 3rd party entities is needed. Will that standard be applied to US companies? Not likely any time soon but I'm optimistic.
That's odd. I'm surprised they blocked it for you. I also work for the US federal government and I haven't had any issues with using Proton at work. I wonder why the difference.
As a resident in Michigan, this is good news but definitely not something we need to focus on at this point in time.
The state government needs to focus on the basics and by that I mean clean water. Flint still has a water crisis and many cities like Brenton Harbor as well as northern Michigan towns face the same issues.
It is possible they can fix the water infrastructure and provide free community college since they do have a large budget surplus.
Third party voting being a recent addition? Have you heard of Ross Perot? Have you heard of the Whig party? Third party voting has been around for centuries. The Democrats and Republicans just want you to think it's not a thing.
The threshold for participation of a candidate unfairly keeps 3rd parties out so the Democrats and Republicans can keep power.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-the-debates-unfairly-shut-out-third-parties/
Oh that's good. I didn't see they had gotten the full approval.
I think there will need to be a point though where we determine that those who are not at risk don't need to get the vaccine and those at risk should still get it.
The pharmaceutical companies are pulling in tons of money based on the strong push that "everyone must get it". Unfortunately that money gets funneled into their lobbying power and thus continues the viscous cycle.
There is a reason the US provides approximately half the pharmaceutical sales in the world. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272181/world-pharmaceutical-sales-by-region/
For some odd reason that's not resulting in longer average lifespans. According to United Nations estimates, the US ranks 47th in life expectancy.
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
At some point we need to cut the pharmaceutical companies loose because we are not seeing our money's worth.
Well DeSantis is never going to get elected so he won't be able to implement that.
That being said, at what point do we cut funding for the vaccine? Why are we subsidizing a product that is making pharmaceutical companies tons of money? It's not like they are broke.
Additionally, when are we going to revoke the Emergency Use Authorization for these products?
I know the CCP in China is way ahead of you. They already have a social credit system. You wanted a passport? Maybe you shouldn't have spoken out against government policy.
It doesn't sound authoritarian at all /s
Why does Google have to restrict which form of advertising he needs to use?
By confining him to certain types of advertising, it makes him less appealing to advertisers.
What if these accusations end up being false? I'm not losing sleep over Russell Brand losing money but if we hold the same logic it could damage smaller entities that can't afford it.
We see this with channels like the Armchair historian. Google demonitized that channel just because they had Nazi flags in a historical context when talking about WWII.
Another case could be made for anyone who wants to defame another individual. If someone doesn't like management for a local restaurant that advertises on YouTube, someone can just say "I heard from several people you had rats in your restaurant" or "I heard you had racist employees in your restaurant". We now live in a world where just the allegation is enough to damage an entity, regardless of if it is based in fact.
But why can't those advertisers just block him as an individual?
We are now in a world where accusations now result in a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
No need for YouTube to blanketly make the decisions for all advertisers
Why does it have to be an all or nothing judgment on an individual?
Why can't we be more nuanced?
Have you actually finished any of his episodes or are you operating off of what someone else told you? I figure you aren't going to openly admit to that because it goes counter to your argument.
If you haven't already seen it I would recommend the video Johnny Harris, a YouTube journalist, gives an in depth take on Joe Rogan. He is critical of Joe Rogan on some aspects. Here is the video:
https://youtu.be/sLaXSvpfDZs?feature=shared
I don't agree that he hosts some conspiracy theorists on his shown but does that make him a bad person? No.
view more: next ›
For my Ford, the manual was very helpful. Taking a look at the fuse box diagram, I was able to remove the fuse for the modem.
Thankfully I was able to verify that the modem power was secured because when I enter the infotainment settings to view the modem serial number, I can no longer see the modem serial number. It is just blank.
This won't work for all vehicles because the modem may have the same fuse as critical equipment.