Arsonarcissist?
1 Like
Your last three posts in a row were not about the original topic. Neither was the last 7 in the thread you made, tencent supporter.
Failed attempt at misdirection #875, your sad Jedi mind tricks donât work here.
1 Like
Yes. Maybe not you specifically, but game players in general, accepting crap is why games go crap.
Ignored trolls starve.
Just proof of forum automation. No one at funcom, even the forum moderators, actually read the forum with out the proper prompt. That is why we have flags and a bug report template.
It still is. if you believe other wise how does that propaganda taste?
Whatâs it like to be so gullible?
Yes, 0 reason to report a thread that has went above and beyond the no politics rule in the forum ToS 
Why do you seem to think you are some how above the rules?
This is pretty common with you, maybe because your present situation has saddled you with a ton of rules you have no option to not follow. Some sort of supervised care.
Yes, and?
You know some people are not afraid of facts.
Possible outcome using TikTok as an example. Stuff owned by Tencent could be pulled from game stores (both physical and digitally), patch support could end in the US
You do know the tiktok thing isnât happening right?
They showed some one how tiktok helped them out recently in a big âwinâ so now he may over turn the ban.
Interesting how a company owned by china helped get some one elected, you know that communist nation thatâs only goal is to bring the US to our knees.
Think real hard on that.
1 Like
Well you have to consider that the President that is leaving office is the one who is attempting to pass the bill to have them banned while the President Elect who is waiting to take over has already said repeatedly that he would overturn any such ban so there is that as well. 
However, I would like to see one single social media platform that ISNâT doing what Ticktock is being accused of doing, just for âa different nationâ.
2 Likes
Watch some of the hearings from the US senate and its investigations. If you still think the way you doâŠ
Zero reason to purposely going to places solely to get offended. People can tell by the title of the topic what kind of discussions will be had. If its something you dont like, dont want to participate in, or readâŠdont click on it
Stop trying to be offended.
Where did I say that here?
âIts raining outside, and I dont want to get wetâ
âOk, dont go outsideâ
âI went outside and got wet and now Im mad. Why are you above everyone else for suggesting such a thing?â
^^ You.
Not at all. Thinking some laws or rules are rediculous, and only in place because people need a higher authority to handle the smallest of things for them, doesnt mean Im above them. Thats called an opinion, clearly one you disagree with. And thats ok. Im not going to call you a sheep or goodie two shoes whose never, ever ever once broken a single lawâŠbecause I dont care
Ha, you can only wish. I love when people purposely want restrictions put on those they disagree with. Love it.
In all fairness, doing it âfor a different nationâ is by definition a national security issue. You may not like it, but itâs true.
Doesnât change the fact that doing it to your own nation isnât exactly a good thing either, of course. It just means that it is a valid point.
3 Likes
Which makes all of those apps a nation security risk for literally every other single nation on the planet. 
2 Likes
Naturally. If anything itâs a bit surprising that more nations havenât taken that little detail into consideration.
3 Likes
Not his bill, need to see which side started that bill and pushed it through; ya the anti china side, and what the bill was all about. The thread topic.
No one is trying to be offended, this thread is simply and has been since posting, a TOS violation, period.
You imply it with consistency.
Is proof you think you are some how above the rules. You not comprehending that doesnât make it any less true.
That isnât at all what I said. Like most things you just do not get it, and donât see you donât get it. There is a level to most of the conversions on this forum you fail to understand. You think you do, but when you post you make it quite clear you donât.
This is proof enough of that. I watched enough of that dog and pony show to know it was all about politicians getting sound bites to run for campaign adds. They presented 0 evidence to prove anything and a lot of verbiage used to confuse those of a lesser understanding.
Worked didnât it? You certainly seem to think they proved something they actually didnât.
Oh, Iâm sure they have, but they donât publicize the result of that consideration.
1 Like
I never said he authored it did I? 
That would be the side that has control of both the house and the senate. SHOCKER!
However, the sitting President has the ability to veto any bill that Congress passes, and yet he is CHOOSING to sign it none the less. SoâŠ
Him signing it is more proof how old politicians are just way out of touch.
He IS the âchina badâ generation. Iâm not saying the CCP is good, but I know the people are not the government in many countries.
My issue is the ingrained inhuman, practically genocidal treatment of some peoples in their nation.
1 Like
Just further proves my point. The supreme court has been a tool of conservative party for a while now. Itâs been very partial for years.
Reams of proof they can be/have been bought.
Iâm neither, but extremes on either side would accuse me of being the other.
Moderate progressive. No political affiliation.
Itâs important to remember that it was Trumpâs idea in the first place.
It was so much his idea that during his first term he issued not just one, but two different executive orders trying to force ByteDance to sell TikTok to a U.S. company. Then there were at least two different lawsuits filed against the Trump administration plus a request for preliminary injunction. It was Biden who used his own executive order to rescind Trumpâs prior executive order.
Then, Biden in fact did not âattempt to pass a bill to have TikTok bannedâ, that never happened. What did happen was that he ordered the Secretary of Commerce to investigate the app, thatâs what he did.
Later on, he did sign a law that included the PAFACA (Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act), but that the law he signed was supposed to be an appropriations bill for foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It was Republican lawmakers that shoehorned the PAFACA into the law Biden signed, because they knew that the foreign aid in that law was so important to Biden that he would sign it even if he wasnât entirely happy with PAFACA.
To be fair, PAFACA passed the house as a bi-partisan bill, so the responsibility for PAFACA was shared by both parties, but it was the republicans who pushed it the law that Biden signed. Biden would not have signed PAFACA if it was a standalone bill, it was only because the republicans attached PAFACA as a rider to Public Law 118-50 that he signed it.
Having said this, Biden has had all of the same concerns that lots of other republicans an democrats expressed about foreign owned apps posing possible threats to national security. But none of this means that Biden âattemptedâ to pass anything to ban TikTok.
The whole idea started with Trump, it came from Trump. He signed the two executive orders trying to ban TikTok, and it was replican lawmakers that jammed PAFACA into a law that was supposed to be a foreign aid bill.
Itâs also important to notice that Trump changed his tune after meeting with Jeff Yass, a billionaire who was the biggest donor to Republicans in the 2024 election cycle and who, big surprise!, owns a significant stake in TikTok.
Obviously everyone has the right to their own opinion about whether TikTok was a threat, or is a threat, to the U.S. any way. Youâre welcome to agree or disagree with any of the accusations against TikTok.
But everyone is not entitled to their own facts. The facts are that the TikTok controversy was created by Trump, driven by Trump, pushed by Trump (and Republicans that supported him) and he only changed his mind after meeting with a billionaire Republican donor who owns a big piece of TikTok. Thatâs what actually happened.
2 Likes
You are completely going way the hell off the rails here with misunderstanding what I said so please, if you do not understand something ask for clarification or kindly stfu.
The phrase âattemptingâ was only meant in the sense that it has not YET gone into effect and that the Supreme Court is currently ruling on the issue. And as I stated before, he has the ability to veto any bill put forth onto his desk. He chose to sign it. I do not care what excuse you or anyone else wishes to make for him or anyone else, the FACT is that he did sign in.
And at this, I am done with this discussion. Have fun with it, but do not include me in it any further.
Except thatâs not really true, or a better way of saying that is itâs not equally true.
The U.S. government does not have the same power to look into the data collected and owned by U.S. corporations as the power the Chinese government has over Chinese corporations, theyâre not the same. Different countries have different laws, and their governments have different amounts of power over private corporations.
This doesnât mean that U.S. corporations are âthe good guysâ, but whatâs different is that the U.S. has a long history of companies and corporations fighting against what the government wants, and winning.
Itâs true that U.S. corporations can, and often do, cooperate with the U.S. government, in many cases giving the government access to information that could be considered a security risk by other governments. But itâs also true that there are many cases of U.S. corporations refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government even when the U.S. government claims that it needs information for âreasons of national securityâ. Thatâs not true in China, corporations simply do not have the ability to resist the Chinese goverment if the government so decrees.
So yeah, all corporations have the potential provide governments with information that could be a ârisk for literally every other single nation on the plant.â, but reality it doesnât work that way. If a Chinese company has information that poses a threat to the national security of other nations, itâs guaranteed that the Chinese government has access to that information if they want it, but thatâs not true for U.S. companies nor for the companies in many countries in which their laws place limits on their governmentâs authority.