Since when is reading newspapers your government doesn’t agree with a right? Since when is communicating with people your government doesn’t like a right? Since when is publishing whatever you want a right? Since approximately 1776. It’s such an important right that it’s literally the first one in the constitution. Because our ability to speak freely and criticize the government is one of the rights that underpins all others. The medium shouldn’t matter, speech is speech whether it’s an app, website, chat server, newspaper, bulletin board, code, painting, drawing, whatever. If the government can just shut down any medium or venue they don’t like because “it’s propaganda”, that basically closes the door to any open criticism of the government.
We’ve tried not having those rights for the sake of convenience, expediency, or social pleasantness. Tends to not end well. Ask people in Russia or Iran how that “government gets to dictate where and how you speak” thing is going for them. Insane bootlicking going on in this thread.
I mean I’m not saying that this is being gone about the right way or for the right reasons, but when an adversarial nation-state is working to undermine US economic interests within its borders is there really anything wrong with punching back? I personally don’t think so, but I’m fully aware that I’m probably in the minority on this here.
The govt can do anything it wants to punch back so long as it’s not infringing on the rights of its citizens. Our plan to stop China from “influencing us” is to… become more like China?
If China is going prevent US companies from doing profitable business within its economic borders I don’t see why the US should allow Chinese companies to engage in profitable businesses ventures within its country.
Blocking a company from doing business in the US is not the same as the US Government infringing on citizens rights. The better way to do it imo would be to toss ByteDance on the Sanctioned Entities list and block any US financial institution from servicing their US subsidiary. ByteDance wouldn’t stay in the US market for long if they couldn’t get any ad revenue, then it’s their choice to pull out instead of the US Government kicking them out.
It’s really not an infringement of rights either way though.
If China is going prevent US companies from doing profitable business within its economic borders I don’t see why the US should allow Chinese companies to engage in profitable businesses ventures within its country.
They get to do whatever they want because they’re a dicatorship. Saying the US government should be allowed to do something “because China does it” is a real slippery slope. 2. We aren’t talking about oil extraction or car sales here, we’re talking about something which is explicitly a speech platform. They are different.
It’s not just a “company” being banned, it’s the government telling you that you can’t use that companies services for your speech. Imaging the US government banning the The Guardian because it’s not owned by US citizens. That’s the same thing as banning TikTok because it’s not owned by US Citizens. The government has no right to ban newspapers or websites which are otherwise engaging in legally-protected speech. You have a right to hear what they have to say.
They get to do whatever they want because they’re a dicatorship. Saying the US government should be allowed to do something “because China does it” is a real slippery slope.
It’s a weird blend of trade war and cyber warfare, but for all intents and purposes it’s a trade war right now. No one was complaining that the US is blocking the sale of H100s in China are they? No.
We aren’t talking about oil extraction or car sales here, we’re talking about something which is explicitly a speech platform. They are different.
Except it’s not, it’s an ad platform.
It’s not just a “company” being banned, it’s the government telling you that you can’t use that companies services for your speech.
Nope, absolutely incorrect, it is indeed just a company being banned. I don’t think you fully understand what “speech” is, or really who the Constitution applies to. You do realize that the First Amendment means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, right? You also realize that preventing a company from doing business in the US because they’re beholden to an openly antagonistic nation-state is decidedly not the same as banning a company from doing business in the US because of its speech right?
Freedom of speech and the press has literally nothing at all to do with this.
Right. So if they sell ads on it, it’s not a speech platform right? Reddit, not a speech platform? The Washington Post? The Guardian? Lemmy, when lemmy instances start running ads, Not a speech platform? Gmail? Not a speech platform?
Nope, absolutely incorrect, it is indeed just a company being banned.
It’s not. This isn’t a company that sells cars, they provide an online speech platform. It’s my ability to use the speech platform that gets banned in the process. They can ban TikTok from being able to “do business” in the US, that is different from pulling it from the app store or installing a great firewall to prevent US citizens from accessing their site. And frankly, “doing business” has been an inherent part of speech platforms for decades, selling advertising on speech platforms is how they can exist, all the way back to the days of newspapers and radio.
or installing a great firewall to prevent US citizens from accessing their site.
Literally no one is suggesting this, but keep firing yourself up I guess.
Right. So if they sell ads on it, it’s not a speech platform right? Reddit, not a speech platform? The Washington Post? The Guardian? Lemmy, when lemmy instances start running ads, Not a speech platform? Gmail? Not a speech platform?
It’s not a speech platform, at best it could be loosely defines as “press”. Even if I’m generous and concede that, pretty sure there’s Supreme Court precedent for allowing the government to block the publication and dissemination of foreign press. Also no, Gmail is not a speech platform in this context lol.
It’s my ability to use the speech platform that gets banned in the process.
You need to stop picking the things in my comment you want to argue with and ignoring the rest. The First Amendment prevents the government from criminalizing or penalizing you, an American citizen, from engaging in protected speech. It does not prevent them from forcing a foreign company to divest or cease local US operations. Doing so does not infringe on your speech. Infringing on your speech would be something like criminalizing the act of downloading a tiktok apk and using the app after ByteDance was forced to shutter US operations.
You see the difference right? You’ll still be able to use TikTok after the (probably not happening) ban without any criminal or civil liability. If ByteDance says fuck it and geoblocks the US, you still haven’t been blocked from your speech by the US government, you’ve been blocked by ByteDance, and if you felt like suing them in China you could full send it if that was for you.
They can ban TikTok from being able to “do business” in the US, that is different from pulling it from the app store
Ban TikTok from earning any revenue in the US and they will pull the app themselves. Do you think TikTok is a charity or a non-profit or something?
And frankly, “doing business” has been an inherent part of speech platforms for decades, selling advertising on speech platforms is how they can exist, all the way back to the days of newspapers and radio.
Sure, press publications sell ads, no one said otherwise, not really sure what purpose stating the obvious serves. Ultimately, the US government is under no obligation to allow a foreign company to offer goods or services within its borders, regardless of whether it’s a “press” good or service.
To recap:
Banning tiktok does not ban your speech specifically.
As no entity protected by the Constitution is being censored, the government isn’t violating the Constitution.
There is no 3, that’s it. Congress is free to swing the ban hammer.
Unless you think that the Constitution applies to everyone in the entire world, in which case I guess I’ll need to buy some stock in Northrop and Lockheed.
i ironically think than i can better handle stress than my other friends because of grub breaking my sister’s laptop(dual boot) at the worses moments possible, i learned to force me to stay calm to search and read correctly how fix grub before she realized
I feel like you’re intentionally using a definition of left wing that is essentially “Every thing I like is Left, everything bad is right”. Most people think of absolute free speech as a right wing position, mostly because theyve listened to people who identify as left talk about free speech curtailment to suit them for a long time
Most people think of absolute free speech as a right wing position
it used to be the right wingers that wanted to censor everything back in the 1990’s, now it’s the democrats that want to censor everyone for equally stupid, but different reasons.
All censorship is bad. whether it’s a private corporation with a monopoly or a government doing it doesn’t matter, all censorship is bad.
Also if republicans are more likely to allow people to say what they want, why should I vote for democrats? Free speech and freedom from religion was the very first law to ever be written in the US.
Things change. Maybe painting libertarians, randian libertarians, conservatives, republicans and the Unabomber as all the same wing muddies the waters.
All censorship is bad. whether it’s a private corporation with a monopoly or a government doing it doesn’t matter, all censorship is bad.
I totally agree with you that the government should never be involved in censoring anything, but differ on private corporations, especially as far as the internet is concerned.
The internet as a whole should never be censored. People should always be able to make their own website with whatever they want on there, even if it will get them arrested. The owners of a website should always have control over the content that they allow, though.
If the owners of a company don’t want to see hate speech or extreme content on their own product than it should always be their right to remove it. If the majority of the public doesn’t want to see Nazi shit on a social media site then it will always be in that corporations best interest to remove it, or people will stop using it.
All censorship is bad, but some of it is a necessary evil to keep the internet from being flooded with hate speech, gore, and CSAM. I will say that some companies take it way too far with the things that they censor, and it sucks, but it is within their right.
Great! Although I think that security actually goes down that way. Something something about statistics. A crypto expert could probably explain that properly and we could pretend to understand it.
And it turns out to be an ac motor in the compressor causing the fridge and the battery to short out If it stalls on a coil. The ac motor burns up with the battery. The electronic, water dispenser, and the ice maker would probably be happy assuming it’s a full bridge rectifier otherwise polarity would matter but most likely wouldn’t break it.
To answer the original question, a fridge requires quite a lot of power to operate. Could be 500W. There’s also power loss from the voltage conversion, so you need a battery and an inverter that are able to provide more than that - let’s say 600W. Car batteries are typically 12V lead-acid batteries. 600W means 50 amps from the battery. That’s a huge current. Lead-acid batteries can handle high currents for a short period of time, but high currents have a negative effect on the battery capacity. So my guess is that the fridge could work for a very short period of time.
Plus to add that modern kitchen stuff like that will throw on the compressor to cool the unit down with up to a surge of 1200w. Usually for 2-3 minutes as it engages the cooling pumps and moves the refrigerant.
I’ve run fridge freezer units off battery a few times (deep cycle lead acid, lithium/LFP)
lemmy.ml
Active