There’s an old saying Pennsylvania, I know it’s in Delaware, probably in Pennsylvania that says – rules for me, no trees have rules wait wait no rules for…rules…uh, you follow the rules and I don’t is the point.
-- Dark Brandon in response as to why other government employees can’t use TikTok for work but he can for his campaign, circa 1774 just before the Civil War kicked off
While you’re here downvoting this (you should, it isn’t very funny), it is OK to criticize government officials, even if you support them.
Consider that President Biden created the “Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries” Executive Order (EO 14034), President Biden’s administration also threatened TikTok with a “ban” if ByteDance (TikTok’s owners) via CFIUS mentioned in the article and elsewhere if they didn’t sell to someone not affiliate with the CCP, the FBI and DOJ have at least investigated, if not still investigating TikTok for spying on American Journalists and that he also signed the “No TikTok on government Devices Act” seems to be a hypocritical decision regardless if an actual government device is being used to manage the account or not, doesn’t it? At the very least, it sends a mixed message on to whether TikTok in its current state should be considered such a big deal in light of the bipartisan flogging that is currently being given to them.
Perhaps they deserve it but I think we also deserve an official explanation that isn’t a hand wave as to why this is a reasonable decision in light of the supported political actions and allegations from the same administration that is deciding to use it anyway.
I agree that this sends some mixed messages. I understand that executive branch employees (for example, people who work in national parks) cannot use tiktok in an official capacity, so this is an interesting decision for sure. An explanation of how this is different would make sense. I’m sure parks would like to meet younger folks “where they are” as well.
There’s an old saying Pennsylvania, I know it’s in Delaware, probably in Pennsylvania that says – rules for me, no trees have rules wait wait no rules for…rules…uh, you follow the rules and I don’t is the point.
-- Dark Brandon in response as to why other government employees can’t use TikTok for work but he can for his campaign, circa 1774 just before the Civil War kicked off
While you’re here downvoting this (you should, it isn’t very funny), it is OK to criticize government officials, even if you support them.
Consider that President Biden created the “Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries” Executive Order (EO 14034), President Biden’s administration also threatened TikTok with a “ban” if ByteDance (TikTok’s owners) via CFIUS mentioned in the article and elsewhere if they didn’t sell to someone not affiliate with the CCP, the FBI and DOJ have at least investigated, if not still investigating TikTok for spying on American Journalists and that he also signed the “No TikTok on government Devices Act” seems to be a hypocritical decision regardless if an actual government device is being used to manage the account or not, doesn’t it? At the very least, it sends a mixed message on to whether TikTok in its current state should be considered such a big deal in light of the bipartisan flogging that is currently being given to them.
Perhaps they deserve it but I think we also deserve an official explanation that isn’t a hand wave as to why this is a reasonable decision in light of the supported political actions and allegations from the same administration that is deciding to use it anyway.
I agree that this sends some mixed messages. I understand that executive branch employees (for example, people who work in national parks) cannot use tiktok in an official capacity, so this is an interesting decision for sure. An explanation of how this is different would make sense. I’m sure parks would like to meet younger folks “where they are” as well.