Biden Signs TikTok 'Divest or Ban' Bill Into Law (theverge.com) 122
President Joe Biden signed a foreign aid package that includes a bill that would ban TikTok if China-based parent company ByteDance fails to divest the app within a year. The Verge: The divest-or-ban bill is now law, starting the clock for ByteDance to make its move. The company has an initial nine months to sort out a deal, though the president could extend that another three months if he sees progress. While just recently the legislation seemed like it would stall out in the Senate after being passed as a standalone bill in the House, political maneuvering helped usher it through to Biden's desk. The House packaged the TikTok bill -- which upped the timeline for divestment from the six months allowed in the earlier version -- with foreign aid to US allies, which effectively forced the Senate to consider the measures together. The longer divestment period also seemed to get some lawmakers who were on the fence on board.
Still has to pass court (Score:3, Insightful)
Courts may rule evidence is needed before "punishing" Tik Tok, otherwise could be considered unequal treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
"Correct, Meta per se isn't the problem, it's that the China doesn't control it for its own propaganda/surveillance purposes."
Re: (Score:2)
Not cute, not clever. China blocks facebook and they don't apologize for it.
People need to be aware of this, normally I would be against banning ticktock, but since China blocks many US Sites, I am all for it.
Re:Honestly, Tiktok isn't the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
People need to be aware of this, normally I would be against banning ticktock, but since China blocks many US Sites, I am all for it.
Okay, so now America has a "great firewall", just like China. Who gets to decide what goes on the blocklist? The party currently in power. Sooner or later, that'll be the team you're not rooting for and they might want to ban something you actually like.
Therein lies the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets to decide what goes on the blocklist? The party currently in power.
Both Rs and Ds voted for this. There is only 1 party, and it supports the military industrial complex [twitter.com].
Re: (Score:2)
As I posted in another forum this morning:
The issue is that it's a propaganda conduit that they don't control. Google, Farcebook, Bing, etc. are infested with "former" intel agents of the US, Britain and Israel, everything that they present you is algorithmically calculated to support the Official Elite Narrative.
Tik Tok on the other hand is far more like the Internet in its original configuration, a free wheeling mess where users can run into pretty much any random thing. Our elites are disturbed that peop
Re: (Score:2)
No, the issue is that it's a propaganda and intelligence harvesting tool for the Chinese, who don't happen to be our friends.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the issue is that it's a propaganda and intelligence harvesting tool for the Chinese, who don't happen to be our friends.
Last I checked, there's still "Made in China" ibuprofen at Walmart. So, we're trusting them to manufacture our drugs but can't trust them with a short form video smartphone app? I think we've got our priorities backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are a problem, as is Google. Unfortunately they are in bed with the blob, so nothing will happen.
Re:Still has to pass court (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the "National Security" ban hammer still holds a lot of sway in instances like this.
TT is held closely by an enemy/antagonistic foreign country...giving them the ability to sway discourse and public sentiment via their algorithms.
This is a bit of new ground granted....
But, the US constitution protects the US and it's people, not hostile foreign countries.....right?
Re: Still has to pass court (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Still has to pass court (Score:5, Informative)
That's simply not true. It's full of language like "no person shall be..." and "the government shall not...". No mention of citizens. When the constitution is talking about citizens only it very specifically calls it out.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe courts have interpreted it to mean people on US territories or citizens (even when abroad). Conservative courts have also assigned corporations and organizations many person-like legal qualities, which liberals often balk at because it gives them a potentially overly large voice on political issues traditionally considered only to be rights for individuals.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously not. The Constitution applies to the government of the United States. It applies to the U.S. GOVERNMENT everywhere in the world. If a U.S. LEO meets an American in Mexico, the Constitution still applies. If a U.S. LEO meets a foreigner in Arizona (or mexico for that matter), the Constitution applies.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the only mention in the Constitution of "citizens" is in reference to the qualifications to hold certain offices. It applies to everyone here, citizen or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the thing. I clearly refers to its validity within the United States, it was never meant to be applied to extra-territorial domains. It was intended to apply to non-citizens though, since at the time new immigrants made up a large portion of the population. I really can't conceive of any reason why you wouldn't want the Constitution to apply to non-citizens within the US, unless you think that abusing people without your luck to be born in the right place is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution of the United States doesn't apply in Russia. Not sure where you got that idea.
Re: Still has to pass court (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Boogeymen drive votes. (Boogypeople?)
Re: (Score:2)
The risk is that if the US behaves that way, it gives other countries licence to do so as well. iPhone sales are down 19% in China, and the government hasn't even banned Apple for consumers, just government use.
It will be interpreted as naked protectionism and responded to in kind.
Re: (Score:2)
But, the US constitution protects the US and it's people, not hostile foreign countries.....right?
That is a dangerously myopic view.
The US Constitution espouses certain principles and it also places obligations on whatever government is in charge of the USA on its behavior. This does indeed protect citizens, but that is not its sole purpose. It is largely a document that spends most of its time enumerating the various restrictions that government must operate under.
When those restrictions are violated, we are all in danger, both citizens and non-citizens. I suspect this law would not pass Constitutional
Re: (Score:2)
Injunction in 3... 2...
Nation of Origin: Carolina (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nation of Origin: Carolina (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nation of Origin: Carolina (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct, tiktok per se isn't the problem, it's that the USA doesn't control it for its own propaganda/surveillance purposes.
I agree with this but we have to remember this definition is a philosophical one, not a legal one as it exists in the US legal framework. US Constitutional free speech merely limits what the government can do to restrict speech which is very well defined over centuries of case law (and by world standards the US still has very liberal free speech).
In this case of social media the debate is around the fact that while you have the ability to speak freely the medium you put that speech onto can restrict it, that is their freedom of speech to control their content.
Re:Nation of Origin: Carolina (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case of social media the debate is around the fact that while you have the ability to speak freely the medium you put that speech onto can restrict it, that is their freedom of speech to control their content.
Yes, the social media companies can curtail things... the problem with this is that they want to censor things AND claim the protections of being a "platform" instead of a "publisher." Once you start removing legitimate arguments of a position in order to suppress real concerns or even just personal opinions, you are now acting as a "publisher." As long as any discussions remain civil, you should be able to continue it, regardless of position espoused. Censor the use of certain words... sure. Outside of any kind of academic discussion on the origin and use of certain words or the presence of them in some well known literary works, there is no reason to be using those epithets. I once received a FB warning because I used the old military joke reply with a friend regarding the disclosure of classified information... the one that starts with, "If I told you, I'd have to...." I even :)-enabled it for the humor impaired. They said it was promoting violence, yet to me all it did was expose how any kind of automated detection system does not know how to recognize a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Now write a law than discriminates between "legitimate arguments of a position in order to suppress real concerns" and those that do not without any false positives.
Write a law that defines what being "civil" is without false positives or negatives or making it completely subjective.
there is no reason to be using those epithets
Sure, but which ones? Old ones from the 16th century? New ones the kids just came up with? What If I am using in a historical analysis prerspective?
You see how this is tricky?
I think once you have the government defining
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the social media companies can curtail things... the problem with this is that they want to censor things AND claim the protections of being a "platform" instead of a "publisher.
Umm... why? Toxic users make advertisers leave. You're really going to dictate that social media sites MUST host people who incite violence because they're suddenly not allowed to have a bouncer at the door? Would you propose the gov't reimburse the lost revenue?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter! [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this but we have to remember this definition is a philosophical one, not a legal one as it exists in the US legal framework. US Constitutional free speech merely limits what the government can do to restrict speech which is very well defined over centuries of case law (and by world standards the US still has very liberal free speech).
The government has a role not only in refraining from infringing free speech rights but in protecting the free speech interests of its citizens. See for example Marsh v. AL.
Re: (Score:2)
Marsh is sorta specific though as it is in the context of a "company town"
Pretty sure outside that that if Marsh was placing religious texts inside say, a private store, the store owner is well within rights to remove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Marsh is sorta specific though as it is in the context of a "company town"
I don't see the relevant distinction between a virtual town created by a corporation and a company town.
Pretty sure outside that that if Marsh was placing religious texts inside say, a private store, the store owner is well within rights to remove it.
The crazy thing is if you go to for example YouTube's website.
"Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world." sounds like a town to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The Marsh case if I understand it correctly did in fact make that distinction, since in this case the "public streets" were "owned" by the company is where the case hinged on. The court decided since in this case the streets were considered public spaced even if a company in fact had private control over them. It was a unique distinction in the particulars.
I believe the judges in the ruling in fact made that distinction, so I can't go into my local pet store and place pamphlets for my religion on the sto
Re: (Score:2)
The Marsh case if I understand it correctly did in fact make that distinction
What relevant characteristics of a "virtual town" do you believe make it different from a "company town"? In both cases these spaces are held open to the public. In the case of the virtual town public discourse is its express purpose.
, since in this case the "public streets" were "owned" by the company is where the case hinged on. The court decided since in this case the streets were considered public spaced even if a company in fact had private control over them. It was a unique distinction in the particulars.
I believe the judges in the ruling in fact made that distinction, so I can't go into my local pet store and place pamphlets for my religion on the store shelves and then claim freedom of speech when the store owner takes them down and asks me to leave. If you can show me precedent on that from another case, be happy to look it over.
The "platforms" clearly act as town squares.
That why we don't base Con Law on corporate slogans. YouTube has a TOS, me posting video there means I am the behest of those terms.
The real world fact of the town square open to the public impacts balancing of competing interests. One can't simply declare their little public virtual town square is in fact something else when it isn't and therefore assert no c
Re: (Score:1)
That's a distraction from the real issue here, which is that both political parties in the US don't like the kinds of things that are being said on TikTok, and really hate that the TikTok algorithm is promoting those videos.
There is a lot of stuff about Palestine, and about unions and worker's rights, and about the rental market. A lot of it skews socialist, fairly common European stuff but terrifying to American politicians.
They want an American company to buy TikTok and change it to promote conservative v
Re: (Score:2)
In general, I'm skeptical of legislative statutes that name individuals or companies. Even the fig leaf of generalizing it to "social media companies with foreign ownership grossing over umpteen jillion dollars per year" provides some value, in my view.
I agree, if anything they should have merely provided the authority and worked it like OFAC. I wouldn't even care if they called it the TikTok act so long as they didn't single out a single company in the text of the bill that subjected it to unique criteria different from what any other company that could possibly be subject to the same legislation would be judged by.
This to me clearly isn't equal protection and while people can argue it's a foreign company it has local infrastructure, offices in numerous
Re:Nation of Origin: Carolina (Score:4, Interesting)
In general, I'm skeptical of legislative statutes that name individuals or companies. Even the fig leaf of generalizing it to "social media companies with foreign ownership grossing over umpteen jillion dollars per year" provides some value, in my view.
They have to phrase it that way. By naming an individual or company, it becomes a bill of attainder, at which point it becomes unconstitutional on its face (see Article I, Section 9). Of course, Congress, the Presidency (both parties), and SCOTUS seem to think that the Constitution is a piece of toilet paper these days...
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this. I had the phrase in my brain-attic, but until now I didn't know what a bill of attainder actually was. I also didn't know that this sort of thing was exPLICITly forbidden by the Constitution. I had an inkling that it was frowned upon, but I figured that not being singled out by a law was more of an implied right cobbled together from six or seven other phrases in several other amendments.
Wow, my opinion of Congress is somehow even lower. An impressive feat.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, credit due... (Score:1)
We actually got both houses to pass this attempt and Biden actually signed it.
It is at least a start.
The problem is....this gives WAY too much time....TT will still be fully able to affect and sway this years election.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, what an odd coincidence, with a completely unexpected side effect.
Re: (Score:3)
TT will still be fully able to affect and sway this years election.
Don't worry, I'm sure the affect will be cancelled out by Russia's meddling on our domestic social media networks. Besides, what's China gonna do anyway, convince people to vote for the anti-China candidate or the anti-China candidate? Yeah, I do realize Trump now claims to have had a change of heart about TikTok, but I think that's mostly just because he hates the idea of Biden getting credit for something he tried to do first.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, what's China gonna do anyway, convince people to vote for the anti-China candidate or the anti-China candidate?
China along with Russia will want Trump only because he will pretty much end NATO allow allow Russia to take over Ukraine. That alone will be enough to hurt the US a lot. Then the next step for China would be Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
China along with Russia will want Trump only because he will pretty much end NATO allow allow Russia to take over Ukraine. That alone will be enough to hurt the US a lot. Then the next step for China would be Taiwan.
You could just as easily make the argument that OPEC has the ability to manipulate our elections in such a manner, too. Biden is really concerned that high gas prices might hurt his reelection chances, even to the point that he's considering tapping the strategic petroleum reserve again. Funny how nobody ever wants to suggest banning foreign oil, though...
Rebecca Watson on YouTube made a good point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rebecca Watson on YouTube made a good point (Score:5, Interesting)
The precedent is already there. The legislation is just behind the times. There were laws relating to foreign ownership of radio stations, then tv stations, and now it's social media. I'm surprised it took this long to happen given that the precedent is so clear.
While I find the security argument sufficient to justify a divestiture, the fair trade argument is even more compelling. The security argument is about what might happen, whereas the fair trade argument is based around already established fact. Communist China blocks access of American social media companies, even if they'll localize data/servers. Why should the United States not do the same to social media companies from Communist China?
Re: (Score:2)
Were these not justified under the premise that these used the limited spectrum available and doled out by the federal government? I.e., if all the TV stations were owned by foreign entities, the public would have had no access through that (then) important medium to access any content not curated by a foreign government.
TT is quite different. It uses bandwidth that is, effectively, unlimited and that is not allocated by the government and there are many alternative platforms
Re: (Score:2)
Why should US residents be denied access to foreign speech when they could not be denied access (due to the First Amendment) to that same speech if it were domestically generated?
Except that TikTok isn't even analogous to a foreign broadcaster broadcasting foreign speech. TikTok's US content largely consists of videos produced by American creators. The potential ban would deplatform an entire social media network of American users. How the free speech implications of such an action managed to slip past the minds of so many elected representatives, is a truly disturbing revelation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if most TT content consists of content created by Americans or if the content consumed by Americans just happens to be that produced by Americans while much of the content available is from foreign producers but is ignored by most American consumers (due language and cultural barriers).
But I think your point is valid regardless - as long as one American is denied the platform, the argument stands to some extent.
Perhaps I'm missing something (I hope I am - but fear that I'm not) and this isn't p
Re: (Score:3)
Why should the United States not do the same to social media companies from Communist China?
Tit for tat behavior will ensure that equilibrium is never reached. Go away with such primitive ideas.
That being said, Tik Tok is indeed a threat to the social order of the USA... but, so is Facebook and Reddit and and and. No other company that is a threat is being dismantled; therefore, this legislation is bad and must be rescinded. Any law that is made regarding this must apply equally to ALL actors, both foreign and domestic.
Fairness Doctrine 1949-1987 (Score:2)
Wanna see some corporate chaos, the FCC can re-enact it with a vote I think. Anyway, weren't the 50's super great when we were free of all that government regulations?
Re:Rebecca Watson on YouTube made a good point (Score:5, Insightful)
TikTok itself is banned inside China. Many western social media and news organizations are also banned there. The precedence is already there.
The difference between trolls and bot farms and manipulation directly from the social media platform is gas lighting is significantly easier. The platform has all of a user's graph data and can directly measure engagement with manipulative content. If they detect any engagement they can push less subtle manipulative content and accelerate as they measure increased engagement.
Trolls and bot farms don't have the same level of feedback. They're certainly not ineffective but their targeting is not nearly as precise. TikTok in particular is problematic in that Chinese intelligence services have direct access to and influence on the platform.
This is concerning not just with telemetry and graph data but also influence campaigns. Because the weighs in "the algorithm" of any social media feed are completely opaque to the end user there's no way to know the difference between organic content, stuff the user engaged with knowingly, and content inserted to wag the dog. This is used by platforms for advertising but works the exact same way for manipulating for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok itself is banned inside China. Many western social media and news organizations are also banned there. The precedence is already there.
That's not really the flex you imagine it to be. China bans western social media apps because they believe it is a corrupting influence on their populace. Or, in other words, their government sees the citizens in much the same way as a parent sees their immature children.
Re: (Score:2)
which is that this doesn't solve anything. If China wants to manipulate us they can do it like Russia does with troll & bot farms.
The above is like arguing why plug one hole below the water line when the ship is also taking on water from other holes.
I hope we can all appreciate the slight difference between foreign state actors being a neo or agent smith and just another unprivileged luser bound by the constraints of the "platform".
Re: (Score:2)
which is that this doesn't solve anything. If China wants to manipulate us they can do it like Russia does with troll & bot farms.
That's because it's not really about foreign manipulation. It's that Meta and YouTube's short format offerings aren't as popular with the young kids, and they see a potential future where something like WeChat comes along and dethrones them in other aspects of the social media sphere as well.
Nobody wants to be the next "MySpace", and these days the established social media players spend enough lobbying money to make sure that never happens, so they can keep legally buying up domestic competitors, and getti
Re: (Score:2)
Rebecca Watson on YouTube made a good point which is that this doesn't solve anything. If China wants to manipulate us they can do it like Russia does with troll and bot farms.
That's a bad point because there are game-changing differences in what you can do with troll+bot farms vs owning the platform.
1. With troll+bot farms you get analytics based on how users interact with your ads+comments. But if you own the platform then you get maybe a thousand times as many datapoints per user -- these allow for vastly better AI training, say, and better leverage.
2. With troll+bot farms, every post/ad is a concrete thing that everyone can see and trace back to source. But if you own the pla
Stupid way to run a country (Score:5, Insightful)
which effectively forced the Senate to consider the measures together
What a stupid way to legislate. Every bill ought to gave a single, specified purpose.
Re: Stupid way to run a country (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and on top of that, allow them to *not* integrate into our culture, you end up with this.
Mr. Anonymous Coward, America is nothing but immigrants. The natives were all but eradicated. But you keep repeating what your puppet masters are telling you. Good Dog.
you voted for this. You explicitly asked for this. Fucking pathetic.
Ah the lie of the two party system. That we as voters have to agree and align with every issue of the party we vote for. You can see this as each new issue comes along, one party takes a stance, and the other party immediately takes the exact opposite stance. Manufactured outrage is the currency behind which votes are bought and sold.
I gu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stupid way to run a country (Score:1)
Elections are nearly always decided on a less than 10% spread- and the migrants are being intentionally transported to many locations throughout the country, not just the border.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG! And the Democrats are letting all of them vote! Plus they are paying them pennies per hour to stuff mail in voting ballots! There will be over 1 billion Democrat votes registered in every state come Election Day, you just wait!
Do you know that it is the R's who are doing the intentional transport? Like DeSantis and the governor of Texas?
Re: Stupid way to run a country (Score:1)
The democrats are letting them vote, when voting should be a right for citizens. Itâ(TM)s⦠one of the rights you become a citizen to get; itâ(TM)s one of the rights you lose if you are a convicted felon.
DeSantis and Abbot are doing transports, but not on a massive scale. Those transports are just for show. The administration is doing large scale transporting. Do a search.
Re: (Score:2)
I did the search for you.
The states with the largest increases in migrant population over the past years are North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida. All of these states have a larger increase in migrant population than California, Texas, and Arizona.
Do you think Florida and Texas are flying their migrants to other red states? No, they famously send them to New York and DC, because it's a show. The administration is transporting migrants to red s
Re: (Score:2)
>And then, yes, democrats are letting them vote.
Lol. Right. That deserves some backup, don't you think? I did the search for you. Turns out you are, well, full of shit on this one.
Re: Stupid way to run a country (Score:2)
I would love to see whatever you found showing that democrat politicians are supporting voter id and voter citizenship requirements.
Re: (Score:3)
If you keep allowing "not the best" people to just stream, unchecked, into your country -- and on top of that, allow them to *not* integrate into our culture, you end up with this.
It's hard to argue with this. Uncontrolled lawless immigration is a disaster on multiple fronts.
It further destabilizes origin countries whose societies invested in the education and upbringing of people who will not see that investment paid forward.
Lack of managed integration increases the chances of ghettoization and follow on societal problems.
It contributes to criminal enterprise and exploitation both in terms of smuggling and exploitive labor once in country.
Flows place strains on government and housi
Re: (Score:2)
which effectively forced the Senate to consider the measures together
What a stupid way to legislate. Every bill ought to gave a single, specified purpose.
True, but right now those “stupid” people in charge of making “stupid” legislative decisions, are laughing all the way to the bank. ALL of them. On both “sides” pitted against each other. For profit.
And then we have the people voting to sustain that, re-electing over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid way to legislate. Every bill ought to gave a single, specified purpose.
Eh? Why would we want to make corruption more difficult? This is the only way to pass bad law with any sort of regularity. Why would you want to stop that? Are you not one of the beneficiaries of such policies? Stop whining about your bad luck if you are not.
Israel (Score:2)
https://www.voanews.com/a/effo... [voanews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Funny that to you, "Israel" and "Jews" are synonymous. As if all Jewish people unconditionally support all actions of the state of Israel, even those which are highly controversial within Israel itself.
This false synonymy creates an extremely harmful backlash. Stop doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't hate Jews, I just disagree with the Israeli government, and its supporters' insistent claim that they are the voice of all Judaism.
FTFY. Nice strawman though.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure you're responding to the right person?
This is just routine protectionism, IMO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08... [cnn.com]
https://www.wsj.com/tech/tikto... [wsj.com]
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-tapes-us-user-data-china-bytedance-access
I wonder ... (Score:1)
Would TikTok's company shut down the social network, or wait for a court decision on the law's constitutionality before doing so?
It would certainly not divest. Partly, the government of the company's homeland will not allow it. Partly, why should that company bother to sell, when closure is the easy way out?
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably just spin TikTok off to some US owned holding company that ByteDance continues to own a large chunk of.
That gives the politicians their perceived win against China without really changing much of anything.
GOP Donor Jeff Yass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I eventually unblocked TikTok from my home router once I was certain my teen wasn't drowning in the super toxic crap there but if TikTok went away she's not in a position to punish any elected official for it and I'm certainly not doing it for her by proxy with my vote.
(emphasis mine)
You're not doing it by proxy with your vote even if you wanted to, because both candidates are firmly on the "China = bad" bandwagon.
founder is a capitalist from Singapore (Score:1)
...not even China. Despite TikTok turning over "content moderation" (i.e. censorship) to the Feds in the US it's still not good enough for them. Either because they haven't completely merged with the deep state the way Google and Facebook have, because too many videos of Israeli atrocities are posted too quickly to nerf with the algorithmic hammer, or both.
This is a joke of a farce.
Turnabout fair play? (Score:2)
The following countries allow American-owned social media platforms. They could use the same (financial/security) arguments, right?
Canada
United Kingdom
Australia
Germany
France
Japan
South Korea
Brazil
Mexico
Netherlands
Re: (Score:2)
Reciprocal precedent ... (Score:2)
The following countries allow American-owned social media platforms. They could use the same (financial/security) arguments, right?
Canada
United Kingdom
Australia
Germany
France
Japan
South Korea
Brazil
Mexico
Netherlands
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the dupe. /. was frozen.
Let the feast begin! (Score:2)
I sense a disturbance in the lawfirm market. How long will this take to get to the Supreme Court? Years?
It will pay for some vacations, though.
Frustrating social media - always good (Score:1)
It's a public convenience. Only use it if you have to, live there if you like the smell of piss and shit.
Apply a Derivative of Prince's Strategy (Score:2)
so Trump get his successfull media company (Score:2)
Nazis jammed the BBC, Soviets jammed RFE, so... (Score:1)
It's a funny thing... (Score:1)