If whataboutism is reframing the question in a different light that includes what we were talking about and not simply deflecting with a what-about, then I guess I did a textbook whataboutism. I guess I did the classic whataboutism bit where I said tiktok wasn’t censoring, even though I swear I said they were, and instead I said what why do we give social media the power to censor shit like that I was saying tiktok wasn’t censoring and whatabout other social media. 🙄

Whataboutism is when you don’t defend your point or argue against the original point and just change topic. Ex: “Oh you are saying that tiktok is censoring anti-ccp thought? What about facebook and twitter doing shit like banning XYZ political commentators???”

What I said is a bit more complicated than that, so I’ll boil down my points into something a bit more simple manner

• Yeah, tiktok is censoring content
• I don’t like the article’s framing that places instagram as the safe, non-censoring control
• I think media is framing this in such a way that the main reason that tiktok is a problem is because it has a lot of dissent on it and it is foreign-owned, and therefore their flavor of censorship is worse
• instead of forcing tiktok to be sold to an american company, why don’t we address the root cause of the problem, which is the amount of control social media companies have.

Look man, you can’t claim someone is doing a fallacious argument tactic when they aren’t doing it. If someone argued something, fucking respond to it or don’t, it genuinely doesn’t matter. But if you are gonna just be a cunty smuglord instead, you’re a dick and I wish you the worst.

Now, i’m gonna disregard your shit-slinging and go back to taking your comments in good faith. I have a serious question for you. You seem to have a problem with my points, but what about it do you disagree with? I’m literally agreeing with you in a few places and just calling the framing flawed. If you’re gonna respond to that, don’t take me out of context.