• heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months 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.

    • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months 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.

      • thehatfox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months 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.

      • GenEcon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months 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.

        • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months 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.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months 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.

      • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months 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.

        • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

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

          • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months 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.

        • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months 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.

          • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

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

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months 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.

        • Buttons@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months 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.

          • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months 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.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

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

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months 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?

      • heavy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months 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.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Ew. I looked through the bill, and here are some parts I have issues with:

    Main text

    PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON - TROLLED APPLICATIONS .—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:

    (A) Providing services to distribute, main- tain, or update such foreign adversary con- trolled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.

    (B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.

    So basically, the US can block any form of software (not just social media) distributed by an adversary county for pretty much reason, and it can block any company providing access to anything from an adversary.

    Definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary"

    (g) DEFINITIONS .—In this section:6 (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY .— The term ‘‘controlled by a foreign adversary’’ means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is–

    (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;

    (B) an entity with respect to which a for- eign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indi- rectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or

    © a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

    The adversary countries are (defined in a separate US code):

    • N. Korea
    • China
    • Russia
    • Iran

    So if you live in any of these or work for a company based in any of these, you’re subject to the law.

    foreign adversary company definition

    (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI - CATION .—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—

    (A) any of—

    (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;

    (ii) TikTok;

    (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or

    (iv) an entity owned or controlled, di- rectly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or

    (B) a covered company that—

    (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and

    (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—

    It specifically calls out TikTok and ByteDance, but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat.

    So here are my issues:

    • I, as a US citizen, can’t choose to distribute software produced by an adversary as noted officially by the US government - this is a limitation on my first amendment protections, and I think this applies to FOSS if the original author is from one of those countries
    • the barrier to what counts is relatively low - just living in an adversary country or working for a company based on an adversary country seems to don’t
    • barrier to a “covered company” is relatively low and probably easy to manipulate - basically needs 1M active users (not even US users), which the CIA could totally generate if needed

    So I think the bill is way too broad (lots of "or"s), and I’m worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors. It’s not as bad as I feared, but I still think it’s harmful.

    Anyway, thoughts?

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Isn’t Nginx written by a Russian? So is it now banned in the US? What other software has been effected by this legislation?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Don’t worry an American will be available to own it instead! And there won’t be any problems because we’re the best!

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              I shouldn’t need one for that. But in the same vein…

              I don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s impossible for the world’s only bastion of freedom to do anything wrong! We should just have the president and do away with things like courts!

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        No, but it could be. The President would need to start the process and give them 270 days to relocate to somewhere that’s not Russia or sell to a non-Russian company or whatever.

    • Maltese_Liquor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not sure it would cover open source software since it seems to be more concerned with data than the actual code. If that open source software is being used by a company controlled by a foreign adversary then that would probably apply but if it’s open source software created by a foreign adversary but being used by a US company I don’t think that would.

      The actual wording of the bill seems pretty vague so I could be wrong and they might be able to apply it just to software but that would kind of to against the entire option B that they’re currently giving ByteDance where they can keep Tik Tok running by selling it to an American company.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The actual wording of the bill seems pretty vague

        And that’s the issue. Yeah, it probably won’t apply to FOSS today, but times change and maybe it will in 10+ years.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Thoughts? Someone turned a troll farm loose on this one. We’ve been getting ratioed for weeks saying this and now all the shills screaming that we must support the CCP and hate our own country because it’s an obvious national security measure are gone. Ones that suspiciously needed the Constitution explained to them at the most basic level.

      We got played by the people that are supposed to represent us.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        It’s not that bad, but I do think it’s bad, and I outlined why. But my concerns aren’t with whether TikTok is good or bad (I think it’s bad, hence why I don’t use it), I’m more concerned with granting the federal government even more power with vaguely written laws.

        The CCP can burn to the ground as far as I care.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Hello, we are ClickClock, a totally different (😉😉😉) social media company hoping to fill the void of that one social media company that recently went under. As a matter of fact, with their recent layoffs we were even able to hire much of their talent and stuff. But totally different!”

      That’s about how trivial it would be to get around this if the legislation was too specific

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Sure, and the more general it is, the more likely the government can get away with shady stuff, like the NSA did with the FISA rubber stamp courts.

        This doesn’t seem nearly as bad as that, but I also don’t think the stakes are all that high if they make things too specific.

    • Razzazzika@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Doesn’t that mean games like Genshin Impact and Honkai by Chinese companies like HoYo will be banned then too in the states?

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        No, but it probably could be. I think Fortnite also qualifies.

        The bill only allows the federal government to require companies to sell or be banned, it doesn’t ban anything on its own.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    7 months 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?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months 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.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months 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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        You know TikTok is global right?

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

      • eldavi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months 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.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months 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?”

              • eldavi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months 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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months 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@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months 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.

          • eldavi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months 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.

        • Buttons@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 months 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?

          • eldavi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months 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.

            • Buttons@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months 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.

              • eldavi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

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

            • Buttons@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months 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.

              • eldavi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months 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.

                • Buttons@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months 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.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months 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…

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months 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

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months 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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months 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.

  • baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months 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…

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    7 months 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!

  • recapitated@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

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

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months 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 :)

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

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

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months 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!

  • lautan@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    7 months ago

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

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      How is it any different for before the law? TikTok is a tech giant.

      • lautan@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        42
        ·
        7 months 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.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

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

          • bassomitron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            7 months 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.

            • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months 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.

              • bassomitron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months 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.

                • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months 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.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months 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.

        • sincle354@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

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

          • lautan@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months 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.

        • Korkki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months 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.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months 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.

  • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    7 months 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