• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The concern isn’t the input, it’s the potential output. Temu doesn’t have the potential to be used for a large micro-targeted political messaging campaign.

      This is arguably more akin to how the US handles TV and radio. There are national security restrictions on foreign ownership.

      • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The US owns and regulates the frequencies TV and radio are broadcast on. The Internet is not the same. If the threat of foreign propaganda is the purpose, why can I download the official RT (Russia Today, government run propaganda outlet) app in the Play Store? If the US is worried about a foreign government spreading propaganda, why are they targeting the popular social media app that could theoretically (but no evidence it’s been done yet) be used for propaganda, instead of the actual Russian propaganda app? Hell I can download the south china morning post right from the Play store, straight Chinese propaganda! There are also dozens of Chinese and other foreign adversary run social media platforms, and other apps that could “micro target political messaging campaigns” available. So why did the US Congress single out one single app for punishment?

        Money. The problem isn’t propaganda. The problem is money. The problem is tik Tok is or is on the course to be more popular than our American social media platforms. The problem is American firms are being outcompeted in the marketplace, and the government is stepping in to protect the American data mining market. The problem is young people are trading their data for tik toks, instead of giving that data over to be sold to us advertising networks in exchange for YouTube shorts and Instagram stories. If the problem was propaganda, the US would go after propaganda. If the problem is just a Chinese company offers a better product than US companies, then there’s no reason to draft nuanced legislation that goes after all potential foreign influence vectors, you just ban the one app that is hurting the share price of your donors.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The US owns and regulates the frequencies TV and radio are broadcast on.

          The US has also historically regulated who owns media companies.

          As for RT vs TikTok - good question. My guess is that scale and influence have a lot to do with why regulating TikTok was prioritized. Also RT has been removed from most broadcasters and App Stores in the US.

          • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            My guess is that scale and influence have a lot to do with

            To break this down a little, first of all “my guess”. You are guessing because the government which is literally enacting a speech restriction hasn’t explained its rational for banning one potential source of disinformation vs actual sources of disinformation. So you are left in the position of guessing. To put a finer point on it, you are in the position of assuming the government is acting with good intentions and doing the labor of searching for a justification that fits with that assumption. Reminds me of the Iraq war when so many conversations I had with people had their default argument be “the government wouldn’t do this if they didn’t have a good reason”. I don’t like to be cynical, and I don’t want to be a “both sides, all politicians are corrupt” kind of guy, but I think it’s pretty clear in this case there is every reason to be cynical. This was just an unfortunate confluence of anti Chinese hate and fear, anti young people hate, and big tech donations that resulted in the government banning a platform used by millions of Americans to disseminate speech. But because Dems helped do it, so many people feel the need to reflexively defend it, even forcing them to “guess” and make up rationales.

            As far as influence and reach, obviously that’s not in the bill. Influence is straight out, RT is highly influential in right wing spaces. In terms of numbers of users, that just goes to the profit potential that our good ol American firms are missing out on.

            If the US was concerned with propaganda or whatever, they could just regulate the content available on all platforms. They could require all platforms to have transparency around algorithms for recommending content. They could require oversight of how all social media companies operate, much like they do with financial firms or are trying to do with big AI platforms.

            But they didn’t. Because they are not attacking a specific problem, they are attacking a specific company.

            Also RT has been removed from most broadcasters and App Stores in the US.

            Broadcasters voluntarily dropped it after 2016, I think it’s still available on some including dish. As far as app stores, that’s just false, I just checked the Play store and it’s right there ready to download and fill my head with propaganda.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Murdoch is an American citizen.

          Murdoch became a naturalized US citizen in the 80’s so that he could comply with US laws about foreign nationals owning media entities.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh, ew.

            Thanks for the correction but also that’s… About right for America and billionaires.

            Just allowed in to fuck with people, hack phones, steal money and leave.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They care about companies they have less control over and a foreign adversary has more control over invading privacy, for reasons unrelated to seeing privacy as a good in itself.

    • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

      Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.

  • Rob200@lemmy.autism.place
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is a good point actually. That’s almost like trying to ban Naruto because it’s Japanese, but not banning Dragonball Z. We’l see where this goes. If they would enforce these law equally it wouldn’t be as much of a concern. Overall, whether they ban TikTok or not, if as a user you don’t like a said platform, just don’t use it.

    • Revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes and no. Without endorsing them, the arguments for banning Tik Tok are subtler than Chinese = security risk. The fears, however reasonable you may find them, are largely that it presents a danger of foreign information gathering of detailed behavioral/location/interest/social network information on a huge swath of the U.S. population which can be used either for intelligence purposes or targeted influence/psyops campaigns within the U.S. When you look at the history of how even relatively benign data from sources not controlled by foreign adversaries has been used for intelligence gathering, e.g. Strava runs disclosing the locations of classified military installations, these fears make a certain amount of sense.

      Temu, et al., on the other hand are shopping apps that don’t really lend themselves to influence campaigns in the same way (though, if they are sucking up data like all the other apps, I wouldn’t be surprised if folks in the U.S. security apparatus are concerned about those as well.

      Ultimately, I think the argument fails because it assumes an obligation for Congress to solve every tangentially related ill all at once where no such obligation exists.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The fears, however reasonable you may find them, are largely that it presents a danger of foreign information gathering of detailed behavioral/location/interest/social network information on a huge swath of the U.S. population which can be used either for intelligence purposes or targeted influence/psyops campaigns within the U.S.

        Tbh, I’m troubled by my own government doing that to us.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        They desperately need to do something about car software before China starts being really relevant here in EVs too.

        I absolutely support massively restricting what anyone can gather, not just China, (and the same for social media/ad networks/retailers), but it’s fundamentally not the same threat as data vacuums controlled by an enemy state.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        pretty sure china can just buy all the info they want from facebook, twitter. If I recall a bunch of US secret military sites were exposed by apple watches

        • Revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I have no doubt that China can and does buy data from data brokers. I think it’s unlikely, however that any of the major players are going to be willing to sell all their data on anyone- being able to target ads to individuals is their entire value proposition after all. On top of that, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have fallen pretty heavily out of favor with folks in their teens/early 20s (i.e. the demographic most ripe to be sources of bad OPSEC).

          But even assuming that an adversary could buy all the data they could possibly want, doing so could tip off anyone who cared to be watching about the sorts of data they’re interested in. This is generally not something you want as it can reveal your own strategic concerns/intentions.

          Having your own app that can collect whatever you want, where you can promote whatever information/view that you want is a pretty big advantage over buying data.

          If the argument is about privacy, I think banning tik tok is complete bullshit. If it’s about limiting intelligence gathering and influence campaigns, I think it makes more sense.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sure, but a lot of that can easily be done via corporate proxies as well. After all its not hard to make a corporation in the US

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              After all its not hard to make a corporation in the US

              …A US corporation is subject to US laws.

              ByteDance is subject to Chinese laws.

              If TikTok wants to do everything that it’s currently doing, but under US law and under US scrutiny, they’re more than welcome to do so. But they’re currently evading any serious scrutiny. Hence the reason to shut them down if they refuse gov’t oversight.

  • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Fisher said that Americans have a “fundamental interest” in working with the publisher or editor of their choice

    Bruh. Did you really just throw away all of your Section 230 protections?

    Game on, motherfucker.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is tiktok saying that all Chinese apps that steal our data are also stealing our data because they were designed to steal our data?!

    I am SHOCKED.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Lol, what domestic social media apps are the US government trying to ban?

        What’s that? None of them? Ah okay.

        The concern is international espionage, there are really only 2 big players in that space. One of them is the US, can you guess the other?

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You’re clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.

          This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it’s much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don’t really know what’s going on.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And all the CIA ones.

        Let’s hear some of those app names, you seem to have a few ready to fire off on a whim.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d rather they just ban spy apps in general…but that’s a “dream a little dream, it’s never gonna happen” type of thing.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    They’re gonna ban anything that reveals the genocidal reality of zionism.

    RT, AJ, TikTok, every honest/uncensorable app/news…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      RT

      Russia and Israel are deeply in bed together. RT has been as cagey about Israeli malfeasance as any NY/DC based publication.

      AJ

      Americans aren’t going to ban the Qatari Paper of Record, even if it does occasionally get one of its Palestinian journalists fed into an Israeli meat grinder. The Qataris lobby our Congress almost as hard as the Israelis do.

      TikTok

      China Bad. Ban it.

  • aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s time to start taxing the acquisition, retention, and selling/trading of personal data.

    Actually, that time was 40 years ago.

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Google and Microsoft would be scrambling to pay off every single person associated with that before it ever hit the first courtroom floor.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      ohhh data collection taxation, I like it. You would think it would be a no-brainer but look at marijuana taxation and the continued resistance to rake in all that public funding. Would make most of the controversy around AI disappear if they tax it’s collection.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      GDPR is a start, but we need to actually ban it, not just annoy people until they click Accept at the 20th popup of that tantalising offer to share your details with 1473 trusted data partners.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can just click deny instead. The law says the site must make it easy to do so.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.

          Fortunately there’s a third option which is leave the site and never come back.

          Plus most of the sites will ask you again after a period of time. Until you say yes. After that they can strangely remember your choice.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.

            The EU has ruled that this isn’t sufficient and that people shouldn’t have to pay for privacy.

            Of course, companies in the USA won’t care, except for customers in California (thanks, CCPA and CPRA).

    • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Better solution.

      Data are owned by the generator. Only they can sell it etc…

      This also solves the privacy problem of law enforcement agencies applying warrants to phone companies etc. for access to your data, which has been an end-run around 4th Amendment rights for decades.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Exactly. If a company wants to sell my data, they should have to make an explicit agreement with me to do that. If law enforcement wants data from my phone company, they should either produce a warrant or get my permission to release it. And so on.

        If a company holds my data, they should be legally accountable for safeguarding it, and liable if it gets in the hands of someone I don’t have an agreement with. Banks do that with my money, I don’t see why social media companies should have any less expectation here.

        And no, burying some form of consent in a TOS isn’t sufficient, it needs to be explicit and there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the customer understands the terms.

        • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’d say it also needs to be entirely optional and be opt-in only. Any service, program, whatever needs to work fully for anyone who doesn’t allow their data to be sold or released with extremely few exceptions.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Technically, the second partof that bill bans sending user data to China for all companies, so it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.

      I hope the Facebook multi-billion dollar fines act as precedent.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.

        Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.

        American trade with China only ever increases year-to-year, despite all the noise about a Trade War. Chinese based drop-shipping schemes only ever eat into our domestic market share, because American incomes are falling into line with the global average and that’s the kind of trade good international middle class workers can afford. And all this shit is getting blended together - Indian and Chinese businesses outsource to Indochina and Malaysia and Indonesia where labor is cheaper. Everything gets routed and flagged through Singapore anyway, so the real origin of a good is obscured by the time it lands on your doorstep. And nobody in the business of making money wants to pay a politician to do anything about this in practice.

        Nobody is getting fined, much less into-the-dirt.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.

          That is literally what Facebook was fined for, BEFORE the new laws were put in place. Cambridge Analytica did what you just described.