It isn't wrong. The headline is intentionally misleading and the article is just woke nonsense. Read it for yourself.

What the article is really saying that the alpha in a zoo wolfpack is different than an alpha in a wild wolfpack because a zoo wolfpack is between non-related wolves whilest in the wild, wolfpacks are composed of family members ( alpha father/alpha mother and children ).

There are alpha in wolf packs ( zoos and wild ). Just like in a human family the father/mother are alphas while in a gang, the alpha is usually a non-related individual.

The "myth" isn't that the alpha doesn't exist. The "myth" is about the relation of the alpha to the rest of the pack.

You forget to mention that canada initially refused to renegotiate NAFTA as Trump demanded. But Canada ultimately did renegotiate NAFTA...

Also, canada is a tiny economy relative to the US. A genuine tariff war between the US and Canada wouldn't end so well for canada.

My guess is the price won't budge on Monday.

That's interesting. Does that mean someone could go to an NFL game and broadcast the play by play of the game? Stating facts like: "It's 4th and goal, mahomes drops back and passed to kelce for a touchdown". You could legally broadcast that?

No. It had everything to do with it. How can you say that when tiktok is getting banned? Even after bytedance bent over backwards to appease the US?

> the Chinese version is heavily filtered and tilted towards CPP prefered activities and worldview, such a platform would never work on the international market and they know it.

Sure. But nothing prevents tiktok from catering their app to other nations differently. You do realize that most nations get different versions of tiktok, facebook, youtube, etc right?

> And it obviously is not a split if they are seperate apps from the beginning.

But they weren't separate apps from the beginning. Your fellow bot/propagandists wrote: "ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016. ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017."

If someone is born in 2016 and another person is born in 2017 are born in the same year? Are they the same person?

> Why do you lie so much btw?

Everyone can read this thread and see that you are lying. Not me.

Not just a solution to racism, but also a defense against genocide. Forced interracial "marriages", rape, etc were used as a genocidal tool against the natives along with murder. Natives who refused to mix with whites were derogatorily called racists by the white settlers.

Miscegenation was actually supported by natives, blacks, asians, etc in order preserve their cultures/races in a white dominated nation. Racism ( by all sides ) actually preserved diversity in the US for centuries. Otherwise, everyone would be white due to demographic realities of the nation.

There was no split? You wrote: "ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016. ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017."

You say there was no split while explicitly proving that there was split? You're not that stupid are you?

Why do you think "tiktok" was created in 2017 when bytedance already had douyin( aka tiktok ) in 2016?

Why is there a "tiktok" for china and a "tiktok" for everyone else? Because the "tiktok in china ( duoyin ) was influenced by the chinese government and to appease the US, bytedance branched off tiktok from "douyin".

What? It's more likely to get you banned. Not only that, it gets minority and female college presidents fired. Something unthinkable prior to this "conflict".

All one can do is push back against the propaganda and censorship.

What nonsense.

> The algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China for being too addictive.

"Apparently"? Tiktok was forced to separate itself into a chinese version and the non-chinese version by the US because we didn't want "da ccp" controlling tiktok.

> There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China, then Britain introduced stronger, more disruptive versions, forcing a stronger social reaction.

There is no historic symmetry. Unless china invades the US and forces americans to use tiktok. Like britain invaded china ( opium wars ) and forced opium on china's population.

What's with all the same propaganda in every tiktok/china related thread? The same talking points on every single thread for the past few years.

Must be those pesky chinese or russian bots. Or could it be something else entirely? A chosen group of bots perhaps?

> that aren’t dead in a thread before.

Give it some time. They start with the downvotes and when things quiet down some, then come the mass flagging of comments.

What a dope. Imagine being dumb enough to believe google pulled out to protect chinese people's privacy.

Google pulled out because the chinese government wanted to monitor it to make sure google wasn't acting as a state actor pushing propaganda to destabilize nations. Turns out the chinese were right and google was indeed a state actor. Their dirty little fingers were all over the color revolutions.

> One country (China) was trying to force foreign companies to spy / psyop.

But that's google's business model. Do you have two brain cells to rub together? Why would the chinese force google to do what it already was doing in china and everywhere in the world? And still does today?

> One country (US) is making sure a foreign adversary doesn't use it to spy / psyop.

That's what china was doing. Dummy. Literally, china created laws to stop google/facebook/etc from running psyops in china and that's why they chose to leave china.

You must be one of the morons that actually swallowed google's motto "Don't be evil" hook line and sinker.

How stupid do you have to be to think google left china because the chinese government forced them to spy on the chinese. When spying is google's bread and butter.

What business would choose to keep operating if it can't gain new customers? Think about it. The law makes it impossible for tiktok to grow or be profitable. What advertiser would be interested in a platform that will lose users every day and won't gain more in the future?

The law was sneakily and intentially written to outright ban tiktok. It would be like congress creating a law saying you specifically cannot buy more gas. You can keep using the gas in the car, but you can't fill up your tank anymore. Would you spend thousands to fix your car? Change the oil or the tire? No. You'd either sell the damn thing or just throw it away.

The early seventies seems to have been a major inflection point in history. 50 years later, maybe it's time for another?

Edit: I wonder which part of my comment is responsible for the downvotes?

China does allow competition. It's just that google, facebook, etc chose not to follow chinese laws.

> they have so much to lose by growing anti-sino sentiments abroad all because they didn’t want US tech monopolies to compete in their home turf

Funny how microsoft, apple, tesla, etc are competing in china?

You are just parroting stale propaganda.

It was the golden age because from the 1990 to 2010, the internet was majority american. For the entire 90s, the internet population was something ridiculous like 95% american. Fun times.

> in the sense that even though the Internet was a child of the US military-industrial-research complex, political powers didn't yet perceive it as a potential threat vector or even comprehend it at all ("the internet is a series of tunes").

Comprehend it at all? Are you joking. Maybe the dumb politicians didn't know it but certainly the real people in charge certainly knew it's potential.

> Social media and "Web 2.0" were probably the death knell for this era

The death nell of the era was the smartphone which allowed millions of computer illiterate peoples around the world to join the internet. The demographics of the internet was definitely changing in the 2000s, but the arrival of the smartphone toward the end of the decade accelerated the demographic shift. Now americans make up a small portion of the internet population.

You could imagine someone from the biggest city in washington moving to the biggest city in alaska? Amazing.

> I can't imagine a New York guy moving to Greenland.

Sure. But someone from new york would fit in better in anchorage since it actually snows and gets cold in new york during the winter. Unlike seattle.

Also, we need annex all the territory south of the st lawrence river and divide it amongst new york, vermont, new hampshire and maine. It wouldn't require too much work. Just extend the borders of these states vertically north to the st lawrence river.

Edit: Honestly what was flag worthy about my comment? It's insane what triggers people.