The thing I find interesting about this image is that it oversimplifies the argument (like all internet politics), but contains the definition of the root of the problem from the side opposite that which the author is on.
See we live in a world where our livelihoods are based on us having things to do for income. Maybe someday a fantasy utopia will get built where everybody lives a life of leisure and can spend all their time focusing on what they wish to, but right now that doesn't exist. So when everything is Made in China that means nothing is made anywhere else which means opportunities for work are reduced everywhere else. This is especially painful for people whose parents were well off because of the industry in the town they lived, only to lose those opportunities because the work went to China.
Now add to that the differences in approach between geopolitical Western and Eastern governments and you have the current argument.
Tik-tok is in the crosshairs because it's convenient. Western Governments, most particularly the US, like to talk up the Free Market. Woo, Free Market, no government interference yeah! So just reaching out and legislating trade or manufacturing flies in the face of their ideology (not to mention that their campaign contributions might dry up if they piss off the oligarchs who are making big bank by manufacturing in foreign lands). Tik-Tok however, is perfectly situated. It's run by foreigners who don't fund political campaigns, and it has a practice that is politically palatable to oppose: Collecting data about Americans and storing that data within the reach of an ideologically different government.
tiktok is not just a simple service or product like the other things pictured. Social medie shapes and influences society. We are on Lemmy for gods sake I thought everybody here knows that corporate social media is dangerous?
even IF it was true why would u give a shit about a foreign government having ur data, then assholes that are gonna swat u or kidnap u into an unlabeled van arent gonna be foreign they dont fucking care its gonna be ur government doing that shit.
The US government doesn't want an adversary government to have the data of its citizens (because of varios reasons, including mass manipulation for example). They would of course have no issue with having that data themselves though (also because then they would be more in control over how the data is handled).
Whats being questioned isnt why the us gov and the corpos that own it would want to ban tiktok that much is self evident, the question is why any one would give a fuck let alone bother to celebrate it.
crazy i wonder why the infinity racists amerikkkans decided to start with the platform that is mildly associated with china. surely it has nothing to do with their with the fact that they are most racists people on earth.
The fact that a company who wants to operate in the US has to follow US guidelines is obvious. But doesn't mean the US government has significant power over them if they're not based in the US.
us gov IS controlled by us corps they banned tiktok to get rid of competition. with the ever green excuse in amerikkkan politics of appealing to racism
that is meaningless semantics. both words have multiple meanings, when i said politicians serve corporations i meant that they are ultimately subservient to them because they get paid by them and their live style is contingent on this servitude and that is a system of control in this context both words refer to the same thing.
in the example of the waitress she is being controlled when u call them or tell them to get u a certain food u are controlling their actions control doesn't have to be absolute and it doent have to be forced.
a better example would be a social worker who helps people aka serves them but does not respond to them and are not controlled by the people they serve.
in the example of a prisoner there is control but no servitude sure, but it is trivial to think of an example where there is control and servitude like a serf, u know cuz world have different meaning and all.
the only idiot here is... both of us cuz this is pointless and meaningless. but u are double the idiot, they are the same in the context i used them did u forget ur own comment that i was responding to do u not know what context is, is ur mind so small u can only keep in memory the last 3 comment in a thread and not 1 more.
either way ill move myself towards less idiocy so this is the last reply u are getting end of conversation.
The context is not that complicated. But im not the one who thinks serving and controlling are the same thing. You can be controlled and serve at the same time. But that doesn't make them the same thing. Not even in context, especially not in context.
The fact you can't even discern between the two while trying to make a point is dissapointing.
But the data is sent to China for them to analyze and create models of citizen movement, influencing forgein citizens by deciding what content they see.
Yes. A government is ok with tracking their own citizens. But don't want other governments to track their citizens.
don't get me wrong, I don't mean to minimize that side, I just think there's a fair argument to be made that direct control of peoples eyeballs are potentially, comparatively, much more powerful.
