Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

agitatedpotato ,

Bold move. Who are they going to blame all the online privacy issues once they cant yell about the Chinese? Or are we going to start pretending everythings fine then?

Cris_Color ,
@Cris_Color@lemmy.world avatar

I expect the latter

ItsMeSpez ,

Why do you think that they give a shit about online privacy? This isn't a privacy bill, it's a bill stopping another government from doing exactly the same shit that the US government does through domestic apps. They aren't looking out for people, they're afraid of the competition.

Krauerking ,

This is exactly the take I find the most interesting.
This is what the US has been doing everywhere for a decade+ now and suddenly it's not ok? It's because the grip is loosening and the sense of control and power is absolutely slipping and while it's late to be grasping to get it back, it's not unwarranted.

I actually don't think it's a bad idea cause seriously creating an addiction that can only be served by other countries is not good for a healthy and good local populace. Is it a bit karma sure but I'd rather not live it as the same non addict if we can help it.

pjwestin ,
@pjwestin@lemmy.world avatar

...TikTok would eventually be dropped from app stores in the US if its owner doesn't sell. It also would lose access to US-based web hosting services.

Oh no. Where would children act out jokes they stole from old tweets?

smolyeet ,

So many out of touch people in every thread that mentions TikTok. The same shit we did on YouTube , FB , Twitter, vine, etc is the same concept on TikTok. Memes evolve or new ones are born, that is nothing new

Misconduct ,

It's genuinely embarassing to see people here behaving this way. And disappointing.

Misconduct ,

Oh no... Someone that was told the opinion they should have about tiktok years ago never bothered to think about it for more that five seconds before repeating it

Did it hurt? Becoming a boomer.

affiliate ,

Many users called lawmakers' offices to complain, congressional staffers told Politico. "It's so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They're teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can't take it away," one House GOP staffer was quoted as saying.

and they still voted 50-0. really tells you something about how much these politicians are willing to listen to their constituents.

FiniteBanjo , (edited )

It was a 50-0 to pass the commission and then go to the House floor for a vote and then the Senate for a vote and finally signed into law by the president unless he vetoes it, which is possible imo.

Honestly, teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves, I might just call in to my local representative to voice my support of forced sale, operating restrictions, or even outright ban.

EDIT: I sent him an email.

Clent ,

Nanny State.

FiniteBanjo ,

"Mr. Legislator I am 84 and I need my Heroin but the federal government keeps cracking down on my supplier, please stop taking away all my Heroin Mr. Legislator. Also, force my bank to let me transfer 85,000 USD to India, it's really important that I do that before the 27th."

Clent ,

Yes. This is called Nanny State.

Rather than educate the populace, take away the tools. Of course, another tool will just rise to the surface but it will make a lot of people feel really good that they did something.

I do appreciate all of the reactionary statements. I don't use TikTok but I do believe in freedom. Reducing freedoms, no matter how well intentioned does not solve societies problems.

FiniteBanjo , (edited )

You can't educate dementia away. You can educate youth away, but that takes years, which would effectively be a ban for them. TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation and by extension their associated foreign dictatorship.

Absolute freedom should not extend to harming each other.

ShepherdPie ,

TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation

That pretty much describes every corporation in existence.

FiniteBanjo ,

Some of them provide utility and some don't, which is why we don't allow children to drink, smoke, or gamble. If a company providing those goods and services targets those demographics it gets political action.

Welcome to the nuance of society and the modern world.

ShepherdPie ,

But they're not disallowing children smoking, drinking, or gambling here. It's more akin to disallowing children from drinking Smirnoff, smoking Marlboros, or playing blackjack and nothing else.

FiniteBanjo ,

Reigning any of them in is a step in the right direction.

ShepherdPie ,

If this had anything to do with children, they'd be reigning them all in at once instead of wasting time singling one of many out.

FiniteBanjo ,

Even equating the arm of a militaristic expansionist dictatorship to a tech giant is disingenuous to its core, Google collects a shit ton of data but even that pales in comparison to TikTok's absurd collection. But all of that aside, your argument is shit. Reign in every tech giant at once? Why? Why the hell is it all or none? I don't even think the US Federal Government in its current state has enough authority to try that, at this point.

That's like choosing not to take a doctor's license away unless you can take away every bad doctor's license in the USA at one time.

ShepherdPie ,

How do you suddenly go from comparing these platforms to alcohol and gambling, saying they have no actual utility, and saying 'every little bit helps' when it comes to regulation to asking why these companies actions should even be regulated and why the law should apply to them all equally, even going as far as comparing them to the role doctors play in society?

That's honestly one of the most abrupt 180-degree spins I've ever seen.

FiniteBanjo ,

Fuck equal rights of a corporation to fuck people over with an addictive product that has no utility. Thats an equal right I cannot stand behind.

ShepherdPie ,

Are you drunk or something? That's literally what you're arguing for here.

Gabu ,

No it's not, you absolute buffoon. It's a step in the direction of narrative control.

FiniteBanjo ,

If punishing corporations more and more as time goes on is part of narrative control then I want narrative control's dick deep inside of me.

Clent ,

TikTok is one of hundreds of vectors to swindle the senile and I doubt it's even in the top 10.

Grandpa needs to have someone else handling his finances. It's not the governments job and let's not pretend this bill is about keeping grandpas money safe.

affiliate ,

what are you even trying to say here? that it’s okay for politicians to ignore entire demographics? or that it’s only okay for them to ignore entire demographics if, ultimately, it’s left up to a different group of politicians to pass the law?

i don’t use tiktok or have any interest in the app itself, but it’s still very alarming to see a vote go through 50-0 despite a “nonstop” flood of calls opposing it.

FiniteBanjo ,

Ignore them? Gosh no. Protect them. Literally what I said.

affiliate ,

“protect them from themselves” is what you said. which carries the connotation that they don’t know what’s best for themselves and aren’t qualified to make judgments about those things. this is different from simply “protecting them”.

FiniteBanjo ,

Those things are exactly the same and it is indeed what I just said. Problem?

prole ,
@prole@sh.itjust.works avatar

To be fair, a big part of a functioning society is a government with proper regulations in place so that people are not expected to be experts in literally every field before making a purchase or performing some kind of action. Obviously, calling it "protect[ing] them from themselves," is dismissive and patronizing, but it's pretty much why we need government in the first place.

For example, the EPA recently issued a recall for ground cinnamon from certain specific (dollar store) brands due to unacceptably high levels of lead. Without the career scientists (and yes, bureaucrats) working for that regulatory agency, millions of people would have continued consuming the product and feeding it to their kids (low-income folks too in this case, given the brands) literally indefinitely.

Without the EPA, every person who buys cinnamon is what, expected to use mass spectrometry to determine the exact molecular make-up of every spice (or in the case of the EPA, literally any food or prescription drugs you may ever consume) before using?

If they didn't do their cinnamon research, then they deserved it, and the government should have no involvement? What happens in cases where companies hide dangerous issues in their products to avoid losing profits?

What if there's literally no way for anyone but a scientist, with extensive lab access and at least 4+ years of university to know that there is an issue with a product (or a construction site, or a drug, or water treatment, etc)? They're the only ones who should be able to properly avoid using a product that may kill them and their children? And even then, only when it's a product they're an expert in?

Not saying you're a libertarian, just like pointing out the obvious things that make it so so stupid.

affiliate ,

i agree with everything you’ve said here. and i liked the EPA example. sorry if what i said came across as libertarian, that was not my intention.

i was just trying to push back against the “young people don’t know what’s best for themselves” mentality in the other post.

although, to be clear, i think the current state of social media does have quite a few problems that need addressing, and more regulation on that would certainly be welcome.

treadful ,
@treadful@lemmy.zip avatar

Would love to see the science or other expert opinions that is being used to justify this ban then.

I haven't heard anything except politicians making vague references to spying or other things we allow from domestic services.

It's just politics.

FiniteBanjo ,

TikTok Data Harvests: Report by AU Cybersecurity Firm or if you can't be bothered to get past the paywall the news coverage of the event.

Misinformation on TikTok: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.001

Adolescents more susceptible to product placement on TikTok: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107723

Misconduct ,

Ok, sure. Show me what research you or they have done to justify "protecting them from themselves". Already they're telling lies by insinuating that only teenagers and old people are calling. And you all just believe it? Wild how biased people can be when presented with information they want to believe.

Misconduct ,

You're not doing it to protect people. It's ridiculous that you'd even pretend to be.

FiniteBanjo ,

What other reason could I possibly have? You think there is some massive anti-tiktok cabal out there trying to profit by... uh... fucking how?

Gabu ,

By banning anything except the few 'murican tech giants doing the exact same shit as TikTok. Even a blind person can see how cancerous american companies are, yet this does nothing to address that.

FiniteBanjo ,

Actually, they're not doing that at all, they're forcing a compromised unethical American to sell to a different unethical American to do exactly the same thing. At no point was a ban even discussed. So, literally everything you just said was wrong.

Gabu ,

Are you literally incapable of textual interpretation?

FiniteBanjo ,

Are you literally illiterate?

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

Now do Facebook.

FiniteBanjo ,

Love to, I think the 5 Bn USD FTC fine was a little light considering no jailtime was given. I hope their recent lawsuits lead to breaking the company up again.

Krauerking ,

Yeah honestly if a bunch of addicted teens and old people were calling me screaming that I can't take away their drug of choice when that's not even what's happening, and it's not being taken away just moved to where there can be more control on quality.... Then I would be really considering the damage this is doing to them.

I don't know if supporting the junkies being taken advantage of is the altruistic take that these "absolute freedom" supporters think it is.

Misconduct ,

The fact that you guys just ate up that rhetoric without any hesitation... Like, you just happily believe it's a bunch of "addicted old people and teenagers"? Is this reddit? Did I make a wrong turn at common sense and critical thinking?

Krauerking ,

Uh dude... I know people addicted that got the email to message their representative. They will stop talking in a conversation and pull out their phone and just scroll through a few videos.

I struggle to believe so many would be messaging just out of laziness but don't question that being the age groups that would respond most to that kind of targeted messaging into action.

Misconduct ,

Nobody got an email. You don't know shit.

I never denied they sent a notification to people in the app. It offered to help get in touch with local reps. Why would people exercising their rights to communicate with politicians bother you in any way? That's weird.

Messaging out of laziness? What does that even mean? They were calling their local reps to voice their discontent.

The people addicted comment just makes you look petty and ignorant. It might be time for you to graduate to Facebook.

Misconduct ,

It's not just teenagers and old people. That's just some bullshit rhetoric that you ate right up without question. Because of course you did. Millennials/middle age folk are abundant on TikTok as well as young adults.

The audacity of some of you to jump into action just to spite "teenagers and old people" is shameful. So easily manipulated.

FiniteBanjo ,

Right, sorry, it's fine to let teenagers and old people be harmed as long as the company can continue to profit off consenting adults as well. /sarcasm

Misconduct ,

How are they being harmed? Why was it so easy for them to make you believe this? Also, who asked you to protect anyone with your one petty little email lmao

FiniteBanjo ,

A foreign dictatorship gathering face and voice id, entiry photo library and message history, contacts, and location tracking precise enough to pinpoint nearby devices and tell which floor of a building you're on regardless of if the app is in use, to me equates to harm. If you disagree, well, I don't give a fuck what you think tbh.

BreakDecks ,

teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves

Please, big daddy government, protect me from the freedom of choice. I cannot be trusted to consume without your permission.

FiniteBanjo ,

LMAO pay attention in school, kid, you seem like the type who is going to need it.

fuckingkangaroos ,

They should really educate people about foreign threats like the CCP and Kremlin.

furikuri ,

Me when I find out that it's illegal to sell your organs for profit

realharo ,

Are they "taking it away" though? Do normal people care about who owns it? Are they just worried about an unlikely ban?

affiliate ,

you’re taking it as a given that bytedance will sell the app if this law passes. there is a chance that they won’t want to sell and then the app will be banned. (but i think this unlikely.)

also, if i’m understanding things correctly, there’s the possibility that they do sell and the app still gets banned. the article says

An app would be allowed to stay in the US market after a divestiture if the president determines that the sale "would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary."

depending on who the next president is, there’s no guarantee that they’ll say any sale will result in the company not being controlled by a foreign adversary. (although this past is just speculation.)

anyways. this bill will certainly raise the chances that the app will be banned in the US. (and it opens the door for other apps to get banned if the US doesn’t like the country they were developed in.)

realharo ,

I also just noticed in the article:

TikTok urged its users to protest the bill, sending a notification that said, "Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok... Let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO."

Also from a BBC article about the same thing:

Earlier, users of the app had received a notification urging them to act to "stop a TikTok shutdown."

So they were literally sending out misleading notifications (because a forced sale is not a total ban), and then the users wrote to Congress based on that...

The probability that they will sell seems really high to me, as the same thing almost happened back in 2020.

Delta_V ,

There's no guarantee that making the sale will prevent the ban.

shasta ,

Yeah but if they sell then it's someone else stuck holding the bags so why wouldn't they?

Delta_V ,

because its not in the corporation's interest to incur the expense and organizational disruption if they're still going to get banned anyway - profit is maximized by continuing with business as usual instead of spending resources attempting to reach compliance

Misconduct ,

They also claimed that it was only "old people and teenagers" who were calling in and objecting which wasn't true. One rep stood up and straight up lied claiming that TikTok users were "forced" to call. How would that even work? TikTok possibly being banned isn't a lie but all that other shit sure was. It was just a popup offering to help locate local reps to call and make their voices heard. The fact that any of you are pretending that people taking this democratic action is a bad thing is appalling and your bias is blatantly obvious. The absolute ego on all of you to act like you just know better than all of those other people because... Reasons? Ridiculous.

realharo ,

Do you have the full text of the notification that you could post here? Kinda hard discussing the specifics otherwise.

If it really contains the quote "Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok", I do consider that misleading.

People here are often making a lot of noise about disinformation campaigns on sites like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube (and that's just from user-posted content that the sites fail to moderate, not posted by the sites themselves), so I don't see why this would get a pass.

ShepherdPie ,

It also tells you something about all the supposed gridlock in Washington that can magically evaporate when there's money and power to be gained from it.

Atyno ,
@Atyno@dmv.social avatar

From what I read, the calls actually evaporated opposition to the bill.

Which, I'm NGL, if you're worried about an app being used by a foreign adversary to encourage anti-social behavior in your youth, a bunch of people calling in acting like drug addicts getting their drugs taken away is only going to erase doubts.

It doesn't help that they'd even be more justified when it's known that it was caused by users getting pushed notified by Tik Tok to do it.

BreakDecks ,

Encouraging people to contact their representatives and demand action? Congress clearly can't have this. How will they do their jobs if they are constantly forced to engage with their constituents?

Atyno ,
@Atyno@dmv.social avatar

In my opinion, considering Tiktok's algo they had the best circumstance to notify a mix of their users more aligned with the actual electorate. The fact they ended up with the worst representation of their user base when it came to confirming the suspicions of politicians says everything.

nialv7 ,

Call to action from, say, activist groups is very different from call to action from a billion-dollar company. This does make me really worried about how much influencer TikTok has on people ngl

BreakDecks ,

How many of us stood up for net neutrality at the behest of Reddit?

Mango ,

Can they do that with a Chinese company?

FiniteBanjo ,

Technically, they're forcing the US Based shell company, which the Chinese were using, to sell out to some other American, or maybe just shut down.

Mango ,

Seems pointless.

FiniteBanjo ,

Well in that case, no harm no foul. Let them be forced to sell.

Mango ,

Yeah I'm not bothered. I've got nothing to do with them and generally think they're detrimental as a whole.

FiniteBanjo ,

I don't see why users would even have a problem with this. Same services, more competitive market, and with less ties to an evil dictatorship should be celebrated, right?

herpaderp ,

It depends. I’ve heard second hand accounts that TikTok can push pro-Chinese propaganda, and whenever I pointed out that China isn’t some lefty paradise to some people in my life they were either shocked or fell into the “you’re falling in line with the Western Propaganda, I see 😏”

FiniteBanjo ,

I'm much less concerned with what they're giving than what they're taking with the app. It's been shown to collect message history and photo library data, that alone is a threat to us all.

herpaderp ,

I agree! Both are issues, but I was giving a different context where a TikTok user may not care about it being under the thumb of the CCP.

Misconduct ,

Why would I care? Is it somehow better for google or facebook to profit off of my data? China doesn't even solely own the app. They don't even own enough of the app to censor it and so it's banned in China lmao

irreticent ,
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

They don't even own enough of the app to censor it and so it's banned in China lmao

Why do you keep repeating that all over this post? It's not even true (unproven):

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/

Misconduct ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Appoxo ,
    @Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Doesnt tiktok have a personalized feed for China that promotes healthy habits and everywhere else it's more likely to morph into brain dead content spirale?

    Misconduct ,

    Personalized feed? What? I've never heard of anything like that

    Appoxo ,
    @Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    One of the things I read about: https://nypost.com/2023/02/25/china-is-hurting-us-kids-with-tiktok-but-protecting-its-own/

    BUT I don't know if it's actually true.

    irreticent ,
    @irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

    TikTok is banned in China

    That remains unproven:

    "TikTok has never been available in China, as the country has its own version of the app, called Douyin. Both apps are owned by the same Chinese company, ByteDance. Thus far, we've been unable to find definitive proof that TikTok is or is not officially banned in China."

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/

    Hildegarde ,

    Whatever Tiktok is doing, the correct response is to write enforcable laws to prevent ANY company from doing what Tiktok is doing.

    This is bad governance.

    Devccoon ,
    @Devccoon@lemmy.world avatar

    That's what they did. The "correct response" is described in the article as the law 50/50 signed here.

    Hildegarde ,

    Did you read the article? The bill bans tiktok for being foreign. There is nothing in this article that describes a bill that outlaws any practices, conventions, or actions that tiktok has done.

    Being afraid of foreigners for being foreign is not effective regulation.

    Trantarius ,

    The bill itself says, more or less, "any foreign adversary controlled app is banned. Also, TikTok is a foreign adversary controlled app". So it doesn't apply exclusively to TikTok, but it does explicitly include them.

    Liz ,

    I think most of us here are concerned with foreign adversary interference as much as we are concerned with corporate interference and espionage. The law seems to only address the surface level issue (ownership) and none of the actual problems (action).

    ShepherdPie ,

    The point is that companies like Google and Facebook do the same data harvesting and manipulation but aren't being held to the same standard. The law is clearly written to benefit the US government not the citizens, while the justification is stated to be 'for the benefit of the citizens.' It's like buying your wife a lawn tractor for her birthday even though you know she has no interest in using one. You're claiming it's for her but it's really for you.

    dumpsterlid ,

    The lawn tractor was for my wife’s boyfriend actually, but thanks for just assuming I was being selfish.

    ICastFist ,
    @ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

    Interesting wording there, "foreign adversary controlled", goes a long way to protect all the companies that are based in tax havens, or controlled by foreign allies, like Saudi Arabia or Israel

    dumpsterlid ,

    In a democracy one of the very most important choices that must be made by citizens is what other nations are considered allies or an enemies.

    The funny thing is that US citizens have absolutely zero control over who the government decides is our enemy or ally. That aspect of government is entirely partitioned off as separate from the “democracy”, as if the foreign policy element of our government was itself a foreign nation we have no control over.

    While we are on the topic, fuck the government of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both governments are horrendously violent.

    BreakDecks ,

    I've read this comment over 10 times now and I have no idea what the words "the law 50/50 signed here" means, so I can't be sure I understand the argument you are trying to make. My best guess is that you are using circular logic to suggest that every democratically decided upon decision is always the right decision, which is nonsense because democracy is demonstrably fallible.

    Devccoon ,
    @Devccoon@lemmy.world avatar

    My point might be a little Covid brain fogged but I'm just pointing out that they did exactly what the guy asked for, if they bothered to click past the title which makes it sound like a targeted "ban Tiktok" law.

    Hildegarde ,

    I am not a guy. I read the entire article before commenting. The law did not do what I asked for. You would know if you read my comment all the way through.

    Devccoon ,
    @Devccoon@lemmy.world avatar

    I think you're making assumptions that I can read into what exactly you find wrong with Tiktok. That context is not there in the original comment.

    Hildegarde ,

    Being chinese by definition can't effect any company. There is enough context.

    MargotRobbie ,
    @MargotRobbie@lemmy.world avatar

    So TikTok is sending out app notifications that they are at risk of being shut down and urging their users to call their representatives right now. They are not going down without a fight.

    The 165 days time limit would land the deadline in August-ish, right before the most intense phase of election season in the States, and I do think TikTok would be a very influential part of the election strategy this year.

    Buttons ,
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    On this particular topic, I think "both sides" is true. Both sides want to proceed down this "ban websites by name" road.

    yamanii ,
    @yamanii@lemmy.world avatar

    The world police is scared about the competition lmao, "only us should violate worldwide privacy!"

    Delta_V ,

    An app would be allowed to stay in the US market after a divestiture if the president determines that the sale "would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary."

    So apps can still be banned after divestiture, based on an arbitrary decision by one corrupt and potentially insane and/or senile person?

    After all the talk of a "rules based order", I'm disappointed - this isn't a rule, its a leap of faith into the arms of serial liars.

    febra ,

    The free market economy for you

    Veraxus ,

    Never has been.
    🧑‍🚀 🔫 🧑‍🚀

    Trantarius ,

    I dislike TikTok as much as the next guy, but I think there are several issues with this bill:

    • It specifically mentions TikTok and ByteDance. While none of the provisions seem to apply exclusively to them, the way they are included would give them no recourse to petition this, the way other companies would be able to (ie, other companies could argue in court that they aren't controlled by a foreign adversary, but TikTok can't. The bill literally defines "foreign adversary controlled application" as "TikTok, or ..." (g.3.A)). It also gives the appearance that this law is only supposed to apply to them, which isn't what it says but it might be treated that way anyway.

    • It leaves the determination of whether or not a company is "controlled by a foreign adversary" entirely up to the president. He has to explain himself to Congress, but doesn't need their approval. That seems ripe for exploitation. I think it should require Congress to approve, either in a addition to or instead of the president.

    • According to g.2.A.ii (in the definition of "covered company"), the law only applies to social media with more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. Not sure why that's included.

    • There is a specific exemption for any app that's for posting reviews (g.2.B). I'm guessing one such company paid a whole lot to just not have this apply to them.

    Buttons ,
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    According to g.2.A.ii (in the definition of “covered company”), the law only applies to social media with more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. Not sure why that’s included.

    I'm glad clauses like this are common. We don't want some teenager who wants to experiment with creating a "social media" website for his friends to have the full weight of the law immediately fall on their shoulders. People should be free to create website with minimal legal requirements, especially if it's a small website.

    postmateDumbass ,

    3 months later:

    Hottest trending new app: TokTic

    tiltinyall , (edited )

    Insert astounded meme when a shell partner aquires the Brand and now, (pick your)company is now a known CCP co-conspirator.

    CoopaLoopa ,

    The directed scope of the bill is going to do the same thing to TikTok that legislation did to Juul.

    If you target Juul with legal repercussions for all their flavored vapes, then only Juul stops selling flavored pods.
    Now a million other disposable vape companies fill the void with flavored vapes that are worse for the ecosystem.

    Targeting TikTok will just lead to another foreign data-harvesting social media app popping up to fill its place.

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    It's not about data harvesting, it's about targeting users with political ideas. If you watch a video for a certain amount of time then they will continue showing you those types of videos. There's tons of bad faith political targeting on TikTok just like every other platform. The issue is that it's difficult to avoid because the platform decides what you look at unlike other platforms.

    BreakDecks ,

    So we're censoring political speech?

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    Foreign adversaries don't have 1st amendment rights.

    furikuri ,

    This is why I'm having trouble understanding why people are confused about the bill's purpose, especially in the context of the last dozen years or so. Allowing a political rival to maintain control over a platform like this is granting them soft power. Even if I agree that companies like Meta should be more heavily regulated (though not in this manner), I can see why they've put a bandaid on the issue given that there's a non-zero chance that TikTok's content has been actively in the past few years

    Buttons ,
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    My prediction is coming true: https://www.reddit.com/r/dankmemes/comments/10ofony/anything_to_protect_the_youth/

    https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/e7c3d2b4-4ee2-478c-b872-eb1898a2e48d.png

    DAMunzy ,

    I watched that commercial - I guess banning TikTok is gonna work, huh?

    tiltinyall ,

    For the commercial yeah, real life is more of a no.

    jaemo ,

    What's more likely to work is something else will appear and distract the gnat-like attention span of our status-obsessed species, and we can go back to tik tok being the sound your you hear at night when you visit your boomer relatives and try to sleep in the guest bedroom.

    le_saucisson_masquay ,

    NSA can't harvest user data from tiktok because it's Chinese based, so they force them to split and sell to American subcompany that is obliged by law to give them access to their server. Everything else is political bullshit, like the Chinese gouvernement can "weaponize it's app" ?? They can't turn teenager into terrorist hating their country just like that, tiktok can only influence so much.

    fruitycoder ,

    If the Chinese government believed that why do they ban so many US apps in their country?

    le_saucisson_masquay ,

    Cmon that's not that difficult to understand: The same reason usa bans Chinese app. China, just as usa, has mass surveillance system and want to get every single data, they can't do that with apps owned by usa based companies.

    Alpha71 ,

    Sooo... How do Republican's square being the party of "Small Govt" and then interfering in a private business?

    PilferJynx ,

    They don't. It's all bad faith to get what they want - control.

    whereisk ,

    Government is bad except when it comes to brutal subjugation of out-groups I don't like, while the in-group gets protected and treated with kid gloves by the same.

    Unfortunately most of them are the dupes not the protected class they think they are - "they're hurting the wrong people" summed it up when it was uttered..

    retrieval4558 ,

    Too lazy to look up who said it, but there's a quote I like that goes something like "conservative seeks to have an in group who the law protects but does not bind, and an outgroup who the law binds but not protects"

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    Is it a private business if it's owned by the Chinese government?

    Eiim ,

    It's really not though? The Chinese government has a 1% stake in ByteDance. Meanwhile ~60% is foreign investors – believed to be mostly American.

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    Then it should be easy to buy out that 1% stake.

    I'm not saying it's a good bill, but reducing interference by foreign governments in US sold products is not against any party's philosophies.

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    Do you think that They could avoid doing something that the Chinese government tells them to do?

    BreakDecks ,

    You mean like how US ISPs wiretapped the Internet for the NSA? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

    But really, how dare anyone but us do that.

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes, why not let everyone do it if someone else is already doing it.

    nialv7 ,

    You have a misunderstanding of how China's government operates. It does not matter how much stake the government holds, companies just cannot say no to the government's request. Otherwise you will be disappeared. See Alibaba for example.

    Remember, China does not have a democracy.

    Crikeste ,

    Ooooof, somebody licking the boot of capitalism a little too hard.

    ferralcat ,

    That's literally the same thing the us government is doing here....

    fuckingkangaroos ,

    No. It's a malicious foreign entity.

    Dra ,

    Foreign policy

    bartolomeo ,
    @bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

    U.S. lawmakers can't force anything on foreign corporations.

    If the bill passes in the House and Senate and is signed into law by President Biden, TikTok would eventually be dropped from app stores in the US if its owner doesn't sell. It also would lose access to US-based web-hosting services.

    ByteDance would be banned from the U.S. market and lose it's webhosting on U.S. servers.

    Also, what's with the "foreign adversary" status of China?

    stoly ,

    Actually a court in any country can prevent a company from doing something. When you do business in a country you have to abide by their laws.

    bartolomeo ,
    @bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

    That's right, I totally came off wrong. I meant that U.S. lawmakers can't force ByteDance to sell TikTok, as the headline implies.

    stoly ,

    Though possibly US operations could be sold off, whatever that would mean.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Also, what’s with the “foreign adversary” status of China?

    China is attacking us by having a bigger economy

    bartolomeo ,
    @bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

    Lol yea. They also maintain control over their big corpos and that must be threatening to the 9 corporations in a trench coat that the U.S. calls a government. Still, the world doesn't need any more adversarial relationships, thank you very much U.S.A.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Unironically, so much of US/China hostility boils down to corporate market share

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • random
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •