this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
593 points (98.2% liked)

News

23301 readers
4081 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's never been to protect the public. If that were the case, the law wouldn't apply to just TikTok and foreign companies. They would've passed something to protect us from our own domestic data brokers too, but they didn't.

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It’s almost like an action can protect people and enrich elites at the same time. Explain how the American public isn’t better of keeping their personal data away from the CCP. Interested to see how you think this doesn’t protect the public at all from an adversarial foreign government.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

When you could just generalize the law to include protecting us from our own oligarchs and they did not, it clearly shows who they work for.

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We could also feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick etc. we could ask why any law regarding healthcare, housing, nutrition doesn’t fix the issue, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

The FTC is putting in work this administration, and are poised to bring back Net Neutrality (obligatory Fuck Ajit Pai). This is a huge step towards protecting all Americans, so I think you’re confusing this issue (adversarial governments harvesting our data) with the larger issue of domestic policy (which will be much harder to tackle).

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Let's open the can of worms. Right here right now.

If the goal of a law is to keep people safe should we pass laws that do that or pass laws that don't? Answer the question.

If goal is X should we try to get X or try to get Y?

Really really simple and you should manage it. Come on brought-to-you-buy-Meta, simple question I am sure you can answer it.

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah, a red herring.

According to you, there should be only one law that protects people and protects them fully. If the law is specific to a sector, it’s bad because saving people’s data doesn’t give them healthcare. And if it doesn’t protect people in other sectors (foreign vs domestic) then it can’t possibly be a good move.

It’s an all-or-nothing mentality that is extremely idealistic to the point of ignoring incremental progress, and will make it so that no law is ever good or enough.

Stopping the bleeding of data harvesting to China is good. If you want other change alongside it, hold your elected officials to it.

There’s really no point in continuing a discussion with such an idealistic purist, as no law can be good enough.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

Can't answer the question can you Meta-boy.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Their personal data won't be kept away from the CCP. People that use TikTok will use VPNs to do so if needed (TikTok also would no longer have to listen to the US government, probably intensifying the data collection), and otherwise the CCP can just purchase (or steal) the data from US data brokers, because those are still very much legal. Did we forget about Cambridge Analytica, where an adversarial foreign government used our own domestic companies against us?

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs. They won’t have much content, if any, from domestic creators. They’ll only be interacting with the other 2% of American users along with foriegn content.

I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN will are China’s target demographic, and I don’t think VPN users will constitute a fraction of activity you are suggesting they will.

I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere. Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it. Glad we have accountability this time around.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs

TikTok users or in general? Either way, it's higher than that, and will only increase with bills like this (and the many state-issued porn bans).

I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN

VPNs aren't hard to use, by design. Do you really think people need in-depth tutorials on how to press a button in an app? Also, there's already people demonstrating VPN use on TikTok, for if the ban actually happens.

I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

You have very black and white thinking. I'm bemoaning it because it doesn't actually protect US citizens. It doesn't stop China from harvesting our data, and it doesn't stop domestic companies either. But good try, trying to belittle the massive data breaches that have happened without TikTok's help.

Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere.

Once again, this isn't the start of that. Congress is more than happy to allow domestic companies to harvest our data, because half of the time they're getting a cut. This will not open any doors for future privacy bills. The only possibility with this is that congress crafts another targeted bill to get rid of another company for whatever reason.

Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it.

Interesting that you'd bring that up, seeing as congress just set this precedent for banning companies right before that shitstain has a real chance of getting into office. Do you really want the Trump administration to pass a bill like this for another company?

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I’m stating than less than 2% of American TikTok users will use VPN to bypass TikTok leaving the market.

You’re crazy if you think VPN usage is high among the general public on a regular basis. And that number’s intersection with using a VPN to specifically work around this will be extremely low.

I absolutely stand by holding TikTok responsible, and any other company responsible. This, coupled with the FTC poised to bring back Net Nuetrality, is a great step in the right direction. I look forward to this energy setting up more data protection, foreign and domestic.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How is universal healthcare coming?

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I’m stating than less than 2% of American TikTok users will use VPN to bypass TikTok leaving the market.

Now you can predict the future with such certain statistics? First of all, more TikTok users than that already use VPNs. So you're already incorrect.

You’re crazy if you think VPN usage is high among the general public on a regular basis. And that number’s intersection with using a VPN to specifically work around this will be extremely low.

VPN usage wasn't all that high, before porn bans happened. Once those started, US searches for VPNs drastically spiked. Once again, it will happen with TikTok. They're literally already discussing this on the platform, I'm not sure how else to tell you this.

and any other company responsible.

You sure don't seem like it. It seems like you've got your blinders on to exactly who those other companies are. This bill will not lead to positive domestic privacy changes, because it is focused on "foreign adversaries". It won't open the door, because the whole reason this was able to pass in the first place is because the republicans have a huge hate boner for TikTok exclusively. Kind of like yourself.

This, coupled with the FTC poised to bring back Net Nuetrality, is a great step in the right direction.

While I was happy to hear about that earlier, this doesn't really apply to this conversation.

I look forward to this energy setting up more data protection, foreign and domestic.

Congress doesn't care about protecting our data domestically. You'll turn to dust by the time they actually give a shit about that.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like we don't have universal healthcare. Are your BFFS in Congress going to fix that soon or are they busy banning a stupid dancing app?

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lmao “BFFS.” You love making me into whatever you want to rail against.

Congress didn’t ban an app. They requested data on where their information flows, and the “stupid dancing app” opted to leave the market instead of comply.

You don’t even know what the fuck you’re going on about haha

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

Haha did your besties pass universal healthcare?