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

    This is the wrong way to go about solving this problem IMO, but then again the problem they’re trying to solve is more about security than privacy as a right.

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

      Watching from Europe I have no idea what the problem is. The US spies on our data, the CCP spies on our data. I can see why the US government might worry that they can’t access the data (except TikTok runs its servers on Oracle databases in the US just to satisfy them). But I don’t understand why the citizens of the US would support tightening the monopoly to just Facebook and Google.

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

        The issue is that China controls the algorithm for what users see. This gives them the ability to manipulate users by showing specific content to sway their opinion on things. This is specifically about China’s ability to manipulate US citizens.

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

          It’s weird seeing comments that outline the actual problem getting downvoted here more than the superfluous comments that do not address the real problem at all. Bizarroworld.

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

            Agreed. People only hear/read what they want to read, and often tines its flamboyant claims that are not factual. :shrug:

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

          Yes but Facebook / Instagram / Twitter also do this and it has caused huge societal problems in the US, arguably much worse than TikTok.

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

            They do, and I’d love to see these laws expanded to include a ban against all algorithm manipulation. Manipulation coming from external sources is much more dangerous, even if local source manipulation is also dangerous.

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

          The people are helpless lemming that mindlessly follow the algorithm, am I right?

          Is free speech a moral principle we believe in? I know the Constitution doesn’t apply to everyone in the world, which is why I’m asking whether we believe in it morally, not legally.

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

            The Constitution absolutely applies to everyone within the US borders and TikTok US division is run out of Los Angeles.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This has nothing to do with free speech. And yes, 90% of the people out there, including kids, log into tiktok and get a hone page for whatever content China wants to sling, of that’s to turn group A more right and group B more left, or to push their own agendas. People just don’t look at thongs objectively and tend to follow what they see. This is a security risk for the entire country.

            It’s not stifling free speech, and blocking content for the sake of blocking content that they’re talking about here. Is it moral to block influence like that? Yes.

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

          As does Meta and Alphabet. Facebook famously ran a Russian information op in 2016, 2020, and looks to be starting up again this year.

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

        Its actually also a media problem. For example, the largest Tiktok account of a german politician belongs to Maximilian Krah, of the far right party AFD. Just yesterday it was revealed that his personal assistant is actually a Chinese spy. Krah himself voiced a lot of pro-Chinese opinions before, like being pro annexation of Taiwan and denying the genocide on the uigyurs.

        This begs the question if his Tiktok popularity is based on a non-biased algorithm or if the CCP made a deal with him, boosting his Tiktok popularity in exchange for being pro-China.

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

          Yeah well, it’s not like it’s beneath the US government to do the same thing. Remember Cambridge analytica, or the Snowden leaks? My point being, as far as I’m concerned as a citizen, banning TikTok just transfers power to a more concentrated group of actors. That makes the problem worse.

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

            Wan’t CA a Russian op though?

            That said, this new hybrid war era has nation states conduct disinformation campaigns against each other. Tiktok was a tool to conduct such a campaign, the US wants to defend itself. It’s not like China or Russia doesn’t do the same even harder to try and defend itself. It’s not a crime yet to accept Russian money as an NGO or politician in the US (as least not in itself), it is definitely a crime in Russia to do the same.

            Don’t get me wrong, it’s a move that will definitely consolidate control over opinions, and that’s not a good thing. It’s like a fever. We can’t have nice things because China would break them, so we need to put them away until China stops doing that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not just about data and spying, it’s also about media and influence. The argument being made that it’s not a good idea to have a “hostile” nation effectively controlling one of the major/dominant social media platforms.

        There is also the trade issue of reciprocity, China bans many if not most of the western platforms, while they have free rein to operate theirs in the west.

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

      What’s the security issue? That China has personal information about millions of Americans?

      Who doesn’t have personal information about millions of Americans these days?

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

        It isnt about past data, it’s about current data and trends. It’s also about a foreign government controlling what another government’s citizens see through an algorithm.

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

        Haha right? Remember the Equifax breach? I think the security claim isn’t genuine in intent, but I can believe that all else being equal, privacy violation does result in risk to security.

        Even more reason to solve the underlying issues and hold companies accountable for how they handle privacy and personal information. Ideally I’d like to see the hoarding of personal data be somehow demonitized.

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

      Seems like a good plan to me. Forcing the companies with the most influence on American social issues to actually be operated by Americans seems like a no-brainer.

  • @[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

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

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

    • @[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.

  • 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
      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.

      • 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

            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 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
          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
        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.

    • @[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
      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
      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
      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.

      • 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
            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

          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
          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.

      • 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
          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.

        • @[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
        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?

    • @[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
      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
      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.

        • @[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.

          • @[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.

            • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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
      91 year ago

      lol

      nah it’s legit, just look at any of the military spending bills which rocket through at warp speed

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

    And the floodgates are opened, washing us down the slippery slope of all kinds of new censorship

  • 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!

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • NoLifeGaming
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    I honestly don’t like tiktok but this is clearly done to censor the pro palestine content and for exposing the US gov along many others as hypocrites

  • @[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…

  • @[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?