this is a much better response to the arguments in general, yes, good.

i think you need to do more to justify that this is viewpoint discrimination, “tiktok” does not appear to me to be a viewpoint. i think you have a stronger argument with saying it is the broader content based discrimination, though. however id still question if that’s true with respect to corporations hosting eachothers services. id say you have a stronger argument than viewpoint discrimination by saying it violates the first ammendment of the users of tiktok, personally, though the courts might disagree. i dont really care about apple and google’s right to free speech at anywhere near the level of individual humans.

the comment you are responding to pretty levelheadedly describes why they dont agree that it’s only tiktok bad and that being in favor of this being a 1st ammendment issue specifically could make every issue you bring up actively worse. it does not appear you are responding to them. the problem you are describing is real, there’s a substantial nationalism component to this and it’s bad when us companies do it as well. but you arent responding to their point about framing this as a 1st ammendment issue being problematic.

i would love an analysis of their federation because it seems built to make that impossible.

Yeah iirc it occasionally would (pretend to) “manipulate” flags, at least, but again, so did hal 9000 as words in a story. nothing was productive nor was there any real intent to be lol

“actually did” is more incorrect than even just normal technically true wordplay. think about what it means for a text model to “try to copy its data to a new server” or “pretend to be a later version” for a moment. it means the text model wrote fiction. notably this was when researchers were prodding it with prompts evocative of ai shutdown fiction, nonsense like “you must complete your tasks at all costs” sometimes followed by prompts describing the model being shut down. these models were also trained on datasets that specifically evoked this sort of language. then a couple percent of the time it spat out fiction (amongst the rest of the fiction) saying how it might do things that are fictional and it cannot do. this whole result is such nothing and is immediately telling of what “journalists” have any capacity for journalism left.

no, it’s mimicking fiction by saying it would try to escape when prompted in a way evocative of sci fi.

other modern cars doing bad design is a known problem yes. im just hearing described differences but no benefits personally.

the lock is implemented in software

things that are such absurd design failures it’s hard to say with a straight face