• Alien Nathan Edward
    link
    fedilink
    English
    571 year ago

    once again - not a ban, a seizure. Steve Mnuchin is heading a group of government insiders who want to buy TikTok, and this bill bans it if and only if they don’t sell. The government has decided that TikTok is a dangerous propaganda and espionage network and intends to steal it and run it themselves. Even if you think that TikTok is that dangerous you have to ask yourself: why is it legal for everyone else and why does our government want so badly to do it themselves?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      First off, source? Second, the npr interview I heard mentioned specifically that China has to approve the sale because the algorithm is proprietary to a Chinese company. So anyone “buying TikTok” is buying a name and none of the actual bones of the social media platform

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Aren’t the bones the cheap part now? Think truth social for instance, why was it supposedly worth so much if anyone can spin up a Mastadon instance and make it the same restrictions over the weekend. The userbase numbers are all that mattered there I assume. Why is reddit worth more than Lemmy? Is it because the bones are expensive? Or is it that they have access to a large userbase already.

        • KillingTimeItself
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          the reason truth social was so highly valued is probably related to trumps chronic addiction to over valuing his assets by about 10-100x the original value of them.

          you would think the userbase of truth social would be big, it’s not. It’s several orders of magnitude smaller than twitter, and it’s value is theorized to be heavily independent of the actual user count, the board of truth literally said as much. I.E. basically fucking bullshit.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Not who you were replying to, and not an interview, but here’s an NPR article that explains that the content-recommendation algorithms would be difficult to sell

          Chinese officials have placed content-recommendation algorithms on what is known as an export-control list, meaning the government has additional say over how the technology is ever sold.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      Yup. And the precedent this sets is horrifying. Even monopolies get due process. Being able to declare a company as a foreign enemy and force them to leave the market or be bought out is a ridiculous measure in a supposedly free society.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      If China really is using TikTok for psyops, then they will refused to sell, flood TikTok with anti-government sentiment for its remaining days, and then direct people to just use the TikTok website hosted in China (is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).

      One silver line here is “the youths” will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One silver line here is “the youths” will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.

        this happened to be back in the 90’s & 00’s when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i’m permanently anti democrat party.

        however i don’t think think that this will have the same impact depth because being denied videos does not have the same impact on your life as your government deporting the person you built a life with because you can’t sponsor them for legal residency simply due to the fact you’re both the same sex and being driven towards taking on huge student loan debt because the military won’t let you join to obtain the college tuition part of GI bill.

        in addition: people will brand you a tankie or a “both-sides-ist” for pointing out these anti-gay & anti-youth laws online; so today’s youth will be pressured away from giving voice to it publicly.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          I can understand your frustration. I currently feel that way towards a certain political party, but I have to keep an open mind because things change.

          For example, I don’t doubt what you said Democrats was true in past decades, but today I believe the Democrats are more friendly towards LGBT rights than Republicans are. It appears things have changed on those specific issues.

          Maybe we wont agree, but let’s at lets at least find clarity: Do you believe Republicans or Democrats are currently more friendly towards LGBT people?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            like abortion, the democrats did nothing when they had the chance and; in my case and many others like me; they actively made it worse.

            it was hollywood that changed people’s minds on lgbt issues and democrats are simply the political beneficiaries.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Also, to get that clarity I was seeking. Do you:

              1. Recommend people vote for Democrats (sounds like no).
              2. Recommend people vote for Republicans.
              3. Recommend people vote for third-parties or not vote at all.

              These are the only 3 possibilities. Which are you?

              For example, if you believe that Republicans are better for LGBT issues, then I want to hear you say it: “I think Republicans are better on LGBT issues”. I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself, I really just want you to be clear about your view and then let everyone judge for themselves what they think is right.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                vote for a third party if you’re in a safely red or blue state and vote your conscience otherwise.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              61 year ago

              All fair criticisms of Democrats in my opinion.

              The only thing I have a problem with is your “never vote Democrat” rule. You do you, but I believe voting in a way that will most help LGBT people, and most help women’s reproductive rights, etc–I believe that if you want to cast votes that most support those causes, it will sometimes require voting for a Democrat.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                i’ve voted democrat before and will likely again; it’s fascinating how people interpret a message in a way that wasn’t said and that’s not meant as an indictment on you.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Earlier you said:

                  i’m permanently anti democrat party

                  and I read that as “I will never vote democrat”. I see now that’s not what you said.

                  I too would love to see us do better than the two deeply flawed parties we have now. I wish we had a better voting system that allowed better parties.

        • KillingTimeItself
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          i’m permanently anti democrat party.

          thats a person issue not a democrat issue.

          to be fair the people who bitch about “both sidesing” generally have a point, centrists fucking suck dude.

          Centrists will pull some shit like “well maybe, we shouldn’t ban gay marriage, but we should still restrict their rights, it’s only fair right?”

            • KillingTimeItself
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              istg politics fucks up everything it touches.

              We can’t have anything nice and this is why.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                unfortunately for me and many others like me, politics is life due to simply existing at the intersection of every major national political topic for the last 35 years.

                calling it “politics” divorces it from reality and frames it as purely theoretical even though it’s not true; anyone calling it that is either clueless, privileged, or dog whistling. (sometimes 2 or all 3).

                • KillingTimeItself
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  see that’s the problem though, it’s literally not life. You can go through the great depression without dying (probably)

                  Politics not existing for a little while isn’t going to kill someone.

                  90% of politics is just performative bullshit anyway.

        • Alien Nathan Edward
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          this happened to be back in the 90’s & 00’s when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i’m permanently anti the party that rolled back don’t ask don’t tell, embraced marriage and healthcare rights for queer people and have forgiven tons of student loan debt. I’m definitely not a psy-op. Pay no attention to the fact that no one calls them ‘the democrat party’ except people who have 1000+ hours viewing fox news.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            sure, now that it’s politically popular; nevermind that they did nothing to make that a reality and made it worse instead of standing up for us after promising that they would.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        You know TikTok is global right?

        But yeah Biden is just over here casually giving Trump better chances.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          If ByteDance doesn’t divest of TikTok 9 months, then it will be blocked from being distributed from App Stores. Nothing will be blocked before the election, so it’s not really something which will affect the typical voter who isn’t following the news, causing them to change their vote.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      so they can do the death penalty on a company, they have a model

      they just don’t do it to Exxon or Facebook or Monsanto or…

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    A bill that would force China-based company ByteDance to sell TikTok — or else face a US ban of the platform — is all but certain to become law after the Senate passed a foreign aid package including the measure.

    The first time, House lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor of the bill when brought as a standalone measure with a shorter divestment timeframe of six months.

    “Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel.”

    They’ve not been in the classified briefings that Congress has held, which have delved more deeply into some of the threats posed by foreign control of TikTok.”

    “But what they have seen, beyond even this bill, is Congress’ failure to enact meaningful consumer protections on big tech, and may cynically view this as a diversion, or worse, a concession to U.S. social media platforms,” Warner continued.

    “I will sign this bill into law and address the American people as soon as it reaches my desk tomorrow so we can begin sending weapons and equipment to Ukraine this week,” President Biden said in an official statement released shortly after passage in the Senate.


    The original article contains 719 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Alice
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

    Something we can all agree on at least I would think

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      The government telling us which social media platforms we’re allowed to use? No I don’t think we agree and I don’t even use TikTok.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        That’s kind of how I feel about it. Don’t use it (or any other social media actually) but if the government is unwilling to shut down hate platforms like truth social then they really shouldn’t meddle with something like tiktok that’s mostly just kids being dumb.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If I was Biden and I wanted to make sure absolutely nobody under 35 voted for me, first thing I’d do is genocide.

    If that didn’t work, then I’d restart student loans.

    If that didn’t work, I’d ban Tiktok.

    Edit: To the people downvoting me: Do you think giving Israel the bombs they use to carry out genocide, restarting student loans, and banning tiktok helps Biden’s reelection chances?

    Are you republicans who don’t want him to change course? Are you democrats perpetually stuck in 2016, blaming voters rather than asking “What policies caused us to lose? What changes do we need to make to win?”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      They are the second bit. They’ve been going hard on saying anyone who won’t vote for Biden is actually a bigot who loves Trump and wants a domestic genocide.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      noooo not the cringe app! everything but the cringe app

      yes, ban on tiktok is a net positive

          • azuth
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Were socialists a persecuted ethnic minority?

            Already they are planning to hinder open hardware (RISK-V) as it could help China and will certainly attack foss software as well.

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        It’s not even a ban, though. TikTok will just be owned by a US company instead of a Singaporean owned company. Literally nothing else will change, I hate to break it to you - cringe app will still be used by millions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        ’ll hold Biden accountable for his transgressions

        Pure comedy gold. You’re both delusional. Me too, thanks.

        Work to do away with first past the post voting in your state yall.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Pressure Biden to do the things he needs to do to get elected. Voters are gonna do what they’re gonna do. You cannot shame millions of voters into taking an unpaid day off to vote for someone who has told them through his actions that he does not and will not represent them.

        Trying to silence such analysis just helps the DNC maintain the delusion that they can win while standing up to the very voters they need instead of doing what they are telling the democrats to do.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Nobody is saying the captain needs to be replaced, we’re saying stop sailing directly towards those fucking rocks. No matter how hard we paddle, Biden cannot win the muslim votes he needs if he is facilitating genocide of muslims. He will not get the young votes he needs if he bans tiktok after restarting student loans.

            Nothing we can do can change this. Only Biden can.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                10
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What I don’t hear are realistic solutions to the problems

                Stop sending Israel the tools to carry out genocide. Problem solved. This is the only way you can make a credible argument to muslims that trump would be worse, because you are no longer facilitating a literal genocide.

                Forgive all student loans. Yes, this is realistic, the Department of Education studied the problem and said so. Problem solved. Dare republicans to undo it. This is the only way you can make a can make a credible argument to young people that you actually want this thing and if they don’t vote for you, republicans will make it worse. You can’t credibly make that argument when you’re the one who restarted loan payments and you’ve only undone a tiny portion of the harm that caused via forgiveness.

                Order military hospitals to provide abortion care and free contraceptives. You’re the commander in chief, you can do that.

                Order the military to destroy the child drowning fence along the rio. Again, commander in chief.

                You act like TikTok isn’t a mouthpiece for the CCP

                It’s not, they spent a lot of money setting up servers in the US and getting former spooks in charge of US operations in 2020.

                But that’s irrelevant, tiktok is popular. Banning a popular thing in an election year is a dogshit strategy to get reelected.

                Well, instead of saying that, maybe you should be saying, “If you think Biden is bad, wait until the great orange dictator takes office. He already has family talking about flipping Gaza real estate.”

                You have learned nothing from 2016, and are bound to repeat it.

                Actions speak infinitely louder than words, this isn’t a problem messaging can solve.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        See, that’s the kind of thing where you gotta probe; do you hate the butchers of Libya and Yugoslavia for 100:1 laws, slavery, neoliberalism, and sex crimes, or due to Hillary being a woman, emails, her awful personality and disdain for the lower classes, and whatever comparatively superficial things that get the hogs worked into a froth?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Well liberals don’t hate the Clintons, and the left hates them for passing racist laws and supporting the prison industrial complex, bombing Yugoslavia and Libya (and sharing responsibility with Obama for all the countries the US bombed during the early 2010s, and the 2009 Honduras coup), 90s sanctions on Iraq, estimated to have resulted in a million excess deaths, mostly of children, bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, there’s a lot more, I mean he was president during the 90s and she was secretary of state under Obama, there’s so much ghoulish shit they’re proud of.

  • AmbiguousProps
    link
    fedilink
    English
    204
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I posted this in the other thread, but…

    Now congress can tell any company to get fucked and sell to the highest bidder (edit: via bills crafted to target them specifically)? So much for free market republicans.

    China will just find another company to buy our data from, because as it turns out, the problem isn’t just TikTok, it’s the fact the it’s legal for companies (foreign and domestic) to sell and exchange our data in the first place. TikTok will still collect the same data, and instead of it going straight to China, it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

    And if the problem is the fact that it’s addictive, well, we have plenty of our own home grown addictions for people to sink their time into. You don’t see congress telling those companies to get sold to a new owner.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      171 year ago

      The important thing is that it lives on American servers first, where the FBI and NSA can get at it.

      If it lives on Chinese servers, the CIA have to get involved.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The chinese market has a different version of Tiktok, Douyin. Tiktok being American owned wouldn’t give Chinese data. It would give America data of all other countries though, ~85% of Tiktok’s userbase, unless ByteDance only spun off American Tiktok.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      881 year ago

      it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

      And that’s really what most politicians care about. Meta and Co. are butthurt that the new dopamine dealer on the block is cutting so ruthlessly into their numbers, especially among the younger generations. Normally, Meta et. al. would just engage in their typical antitrust behavior and buy them out, but they can’t because a) ByteDance doesn’t need them or their money and b) I’d be surprised if China let them sell such a valuable tool willingly.

      This is just protectionism under the guise of national security, plain and simple. We’ve heard, “oh but national security!!!” countless times before, and if this was truly the main concern, they’d be going after all the other blatantly egregious privacy snoopers as well.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      461 year ago

      Incorrect, the Bill is broad but it’s not any company for any reason.

      The “PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024” has this to say:

      (a) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to—
      
      (1) any foreign adversary country; or
      
      (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.
      
      (b) Enforcement By Federal Trade Commission.—
      
      (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
      
      (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—
      
      (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.
      
      (B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
      
      (3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
      

      and then like a bunch of pages of hyper-specific definitions for the above terms.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        The big point is, how does that power get used?

        There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it’s not. You’re just literally declaring it, no evidence required.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If ByteDance continues sending the outlined Data to any offshore location defined as an adversarial nation, then:

          So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).

          EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It’s not due process if you break a law and it’s not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it’s ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it’s whatever organization they don’t like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They’ve wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don’t even need to get an infiltrator into the Union’s administration.

            The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They’ve proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you’re in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t soldiers because words (police didn’t exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.

            As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not after the fact. They are due process when the government has to prove it’s case before it can take punitive action. If the government is allowed to take punitive action without going to court to prove it’s needed than there is no due process.

                Why is that so hard to understand?

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don’t directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.

          • AmbiguousProps
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific (rather confusingly, I admit, since you used it too) to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.

            to prevent anything similar from ever occurring

            What are you referring to here? What occurred? Do you mean the creation of another foreign TikTok?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            I actually don’t think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that’s unconstitutional.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not American, but that doesn’t sound right… whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?

              I can see why you shouldn’t name an actual person, though.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer’s rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I’m forced to accept the corporation’s right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          According to some of these guys Congress could order everyone with the name Steve deported and that’s okay because we voted for them.

      • Blxter
        link
        fedilink
        English
        331 year ago

        Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for “foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” And instead just in general

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          I’ve been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.

          Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But muh silly dancing app!!1one

            Hot take: people are pretending this is a gross censorship violation only because they’re addicted to the app and it might be going away, leaving them with nothing to scroll on endlessly into the day

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              No, some of them are pretending it’s gross censorship only because Amerikkka Bad and Biden Bad and CCP Good.

              My favorite was “China sowing chaos is Good, Actually”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          That’s kinda the point though. They don’t give a shit about protecting our data. They’ve willingly engaged in the data trading markets themselves. It’s greatly enhanced their power. They’ve protected the practice by simple virtue of dumping fuck tons of money into it. But as soon as other players get into the game…”quick, to the gavel-mobile!”

          This bill isn’t for us. It’s for them. I’m no fan of china—it’s an authoritarian state that forcefully exerts control over its people—but to the US, they’re just the next game in town. Because while china may be a little more overtly controlling, the US is in the same game. They just use the frontman of their independent corporations to more subtly exert influence. But when we start trying to wrest some control back? Sure, that’s when the gavels turn to batons and guns.

          So, in short, they’re not protecting us. They’re protecting themselves and their established order. Cracks are starting to show because people on the whole seem to be realizing this order doesn’t work for us, but for them. They will start to more overtly flex their power as this trend continues.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      You are missing the point. If somebody is gonna profit in any way from US citizens, the US oligarchs want their cut. If it was about controlling information, it would specifically mention about that and what is to be done about it. Making the company be US controlled increases the reach of government on it, yes, but it doesn’t gaurantee or enforce it in any way. The thing it gaurantees is where the money will end up.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      By the last few days all the trolls stopped even trying to argue this and just went to, “my congressional rep said it’s a national security issue! And that abrogates the entire Constitution!”

      As usual, when rights are being stripped it’s for the protection of the children.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      China made American companies partner and share their IP with Chinese companies to access the Chinese market when the Chinese market was opened to outsiders back in the 90s. That’s how China caught up to us in technology, they straight up stole the IP and changed terms on the American companies. I believe there is some tit for tat happening here. China has done a lot of fucked up shit and they are definitely actively hacking American infrastructure and social engineering against American interests. They are harvesting American data and tweaking the algorithm to actively undermine American interests. Whether you agree or disagree, China started this fight. China has banned most American social media already.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        A. Creating laws that let us act like an authoritarian regime is not a good thing.

        B. They didn’t need to do any of that with TikTok. Late stage capitalism is radicalizing people every day. All they need to do is get out of the way of them finding each other.

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        171 year ago

        China doesn’t need TikTok to do any of that, including the data collection. They can just get it from data brokers (either by purchasing or stealing it). Because guess what? Data collection and/or sale of said data to foreign countries wasn’t made illegal with this bill.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Reading the bill further - it does mention the banning of the sale of American’s data to foreign adversaries enforceable by the FCC. That language does sound like a ban on data brokers selling to China too. It will be difficult to enforce with shell corporations and non-adversary country’s corporations who may partner with Chinese companies, but the language seems to be there. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Foreign adversaries. What’s to stop them from selling to an ally and the ally re-selling that data?

            If they’re this concerned they need to ban data brokers in general. And enforce those bans.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            That was already a law. Facebook is being sued for it right now by the government after getting caught doing it multiple times over the last 15ish years.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree privacy bills need to be passed. 100%. One of the main reasons I am typing this here instead of Reddit. I’m just pointing out this is far from just an unprovoked action for profit. There isn’t enough talk in this debate about the host of messed up shit being done to America by China (and Russia) in the digital space. Cyber attacks are at all time high. It sucks Tik tok is getting banned, but privacy laws aren’t also being rolled out. It’s also true that China is indeed using Tiktok’s data maliciously. Both things can be true. My statement was to point out it’s not JUST a cash grab by social media companies, China is also a real threat and that shouldn’t be overlooked. I work for an ISP so I see the threat day in day out.

          • AmbiguousProps
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            It’s not really a ban though, it’s a forced sale. Cyber attacks come from more than just China, and there are more companies selling data to China than just TikTok. I also see (and protect against) cyber attacks every day at my job.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I thought the forced sale was trying to get it to be able to stay around because a ban was so unpopular while accomplishing the same goal of breaking China’s access to the algorithm and collected data. They tried the Oracle housing but Byte Dance kept giving access to engineers with ties to the CCP. Either way, I just get an overall vibe in this debate that people aren’t considering China a big threat and I think that’s a mistake. Not saying you specifically but the discourse that I have read across many posts.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Keeps? I’ve seen one documented instance and it’s literally a headcount for engagement hacking.

              • AmbiguousProps
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                I mean, you are correct that a complete ban is unpopular. But I don’t think that’s the exclusive reason the forced sale was provided as an option. TikTok (and the data on it) is super valuable. Someone will most likely buy it, and the data collection and foreign sale (or theft) will continue.

                China is a threat, and so are the data brokers. This benefits US-based data brokers, but does it really benefit the individual citizen? I personally don’t think so, at least not from a data collection and personal privacy perspective.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No doubt the sale would monetarily benefit someone and I’m sure lobbyist pushed it, but since Byte Dance didn’t comply with the original work around, I don’t see a much better solution to remove the CCP’s influence on Byte Dance and the app. It’s definitely not as black and white as much of the discourse I’ve seen. I appreciate discussing it with you and I see many of your points. Data brokers are indeed out of control. I hope the language in the bill banning data brokers from selling to foreign adversaries is somehow helpful in getting the ball rolling on deeper limits to data mining. Precedents being set to limit them could be a good first step.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      351 year ago

      The problem isn’t actually just that China takes our data, it’s that they control the algorithm on tiktok for what users see, thereby giving them the ability to manipulate the public.

      • GodlessCommie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        241 year ago

        The US is terrified of the public becoming anti capitalist and anti colonialism which is what’s happening. THEY want control of the narrative like they’ve had for decades so they can control the message.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Then they completely missed the cause and effect. China didn’t need to do anything. We’re radicalizing people every day with economic gaslighting, medical debt, school debt, housing costs, and grocery costs.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          Can’t blame them. Late stage capitalism is causing a lot of people a lot of pain while a few get super rich from it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          Would you rather a hostile foreign entity do it instead, who have vested interest in sewing destructive chaos as a goal, though? That’s the alternative.

            • Jimmybander
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              That’s just too vague to legislate. Stop talking to everyone because you’re being manipulated non-stop by everyone you know.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I agree, wish this was the actual goal but it’s going to be hard to pry those rights out of their hands.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            We don’t need a “hostile foreign entity”. Trump is doing that just fine all on his own.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Since we’re not denying that white oligarchs do it too, then giving consumers a choice as to which manipulated information they see is better than having just our goverment decide. Sowing chaos isn’t inherently bad - law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      If you have an Amazon account, China already has all your info. This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.

      I hope this is challenged in court.

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.

        it’s definitely not just this, they’re mad that one of the biggest social media companies isn’t US based, and that they don’t have full jurisdiction over them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is closer to the facts. The US government just doesn’t want any other government having our info. They called dibs.

          Another issue is the algorithm they use. China can literally control what we see.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            and the problem with the algorithm is that the US doesn’t have jurisdiction over it.

            The problem with the data is that we don’t have US jurisdiction over it (even though technically oracle hosts the US tiktok servers)

            Idk man, seems like they’re mad about not having jurisdiction over our data if you’re asking me. They’re fine having other countries data, just not other countries having our data.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    241 year ago

    All parties involved are asinine. The lawmakers, the company, both governments, the voters and the users.

  • KillingTimeItself
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 year ago

    we are now in the process of cooking my friends.

    Support your local darknet if you do not like censorship and violation of our rights

    It’s free :)

    • shastaxc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      we are now in the process of cooking my friends

      Would you like some A1 sauce with your rack of Nathan?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Oh god. Don’t tell me this is a pro-hamas post. All it is missing is idiots calling everything hasbara or some other buzz word.

    China doesn’t allow any other apps in their country so why should America allow Chinese apps? America shouldn’t keep Chinese malware out of our networks because… ya’ll are addicted to TikTok?

    This isn’t about Palestine. Not everything is hasbara and because of Israel. TikTok isn’t the voice of freedom or reason. Ya’ll just brainwashed by Chinese algorithms designed to upset the user base. The algorithm is doing what it is supposed to do: create division.

    Edit: spelling

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      I agree with you. The CCP classifies recommendation algorithms in a category similar to defense secrets. It isn’t just Tiktok that can’t be sold to non-Chinese, it is all recommendation algorithms. They know damn well what effect these algorithms have on a population.

      • Panda (he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        BREAKING: Israel dronestrikes lemmy.world servers, points to potential Hamas base inside storage drives

  • Guy Ingonito
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 year ago

    China should force apple to sell off it’s Chinese business to a Chinese company.

    • TwinTusks
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      China doesn’t need to, Apple is complying with Chinese law (remove all vpn related apps, all un-registered foreign app are removed and storing Chinese datas in Chinese servers).

      Apple is likely the most complying foreign company in China.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    401 year ago

    Whew the propaganda smokescreen almost fully fell apart with people waking up and seeing us support Genocide. Good thing we went full authoritarianism to stop it!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    441 year ago

    This isn’t good, now we’re only left with the tech giants dictating what people can see.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        251 year ago

        From what I know, certain special interests want TikTok under their control so they can censor certain topics. People keep saying this is happening because of CCP, etc. But I believe they want this platform “censored” before the elections. The other major players already play ball with censorship but TikTok caught them by surprise.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          281 year ago

          Why would it have unanimous bi-partisan support in the Senate if the bill had weight on the election results?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            To be devil’s advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin’ in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.

            That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don’t consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              51 year ago

              They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                41 year ago

                Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).

                Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Exactly. It has no bearing on the election, and Biden doesn’t have a choice. If he didn’t sign a bill with near-unanimous bipartisan support, it would immediately be called out as a personal agenda “secretly helping China” or something similar.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 year ago

              TikTok is a massively powerful tool of influence and intelligence, in the hands of an adversary that is well understood to proactively meddle with democratic elections.

              Yes, obviously the CCP will unabashedly pursue other interference vectors. That should be viewed as more reason to curtail TikTok, not less.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You’re missing the point, though. China has sizable stakes in multiple social media and streaming platforms, movie studios, and popular videogame studios (like the makers of Fortnite). But the fact those are all primarily owned by US companies makes it okay (in this context–I know China has stakes in similar businesses around the world, too).

                TikTok is a threat to Meta and Co’s dominance and American companies can’t simply buy it out to make it go away or at least make it directly benefit them. Don’t mistake me in saying it isn’t a national security threat. What I’m saying is, if TikTok is a threat, then all of these corporate platforms are a threat. The government should targeting all of them! But they’re not, and the reason seems pretty obvious to me.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  I mean do you think Fortnite has anywhere near the same level of ability to disseminate information or surveil people as TikTok does?

                  And actually it makes a material difference that ByteDance is based in Beijing, as opposed to just having Chinese investors. Those social platforms, movie studios, etc., being headquartered in the US is exactly what makes it different. Can Chinese firms apply financial pressure to compel them to act against the interests of US citizens? Yes, of course, and they do.

                  But that’s categorically different than being legally obligated to comply with the CCP, which ByteDance is.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            Not this guy again. In my opinion they tell us small truths like CCP bad, etc. Which isn’t wrong but they’re concealing the true motivation. Why ban it now? Not two years ago? It’s because TikTok needs to be under better control for the upcoming election and in the future. We already know big tech all work in concert to conceal topics for the US.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s the only big non-US owned social media. They hate that because it’s much harder to control. It’s not even about the profits to be had, tiktok gets more eyeballs and especially it gets the young people’s attention and has more public thrusts than all of the MSM combined and because Bytedance doesn’t hate their HQ in the US the US government, intelligence or special interests, can’t just call them and strong arm them into censoring whatever talking point that they don’t like currently. It’s not much more complex than that. “Chinese spying on Americans” is just projection of what all the other platforms do.

          Those who push this will not be happy no matter what Tiktok does or whatever concessions it makes. They already hold american data in American and EU data in the EU for example. Did that stop the “muh CCP influence” propaganda? Well, no… Their main goal would be to get Bytedance to sell the platform to Americans, atleast the american business. I guess they would rather let it get banned and sacrifice American or even all the western markets than to let that happen. It would be a loss to them either way.

        • sincle354
          link
          fedilink
          151 year ago

          Tone down the conspiracy theory angle. It’s lemmy, you can get more interaction by mentioning capitalism rather than censorship.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The platform is already pretty censored, mentions of Palestine get fucked by the algo, I barely even see it from people I follow if I don’t look up their past videos.

          But I could imagine that’s the impetus for congress, Trump tried the same thing after Tiktok was used to organize ~a million people RSVPing free tickets to a trump rally, resulting in him doing his shtick infront of like 100 people in a stadium. He only stopped after a major donor asked him not to, and it was very unpopular. Now dems are in Trumps position after hearing the kids are using Tiktok to organize against them, of course they’d make the same calculation and try to ban it.

  • Drado, The Hobbit
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    I wonder how strange your own public policies must be to accept a situation like this… don’t they see the impact this will have on thousands of people who literally need this platform? I don’t think so… the American big tech lobby has the loudest voice, right?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Oh no, this includes “aids” to Israel isn’t it…

    Why the hell do Israel needs more money?! They are not even close to poor…