Technology

[+] Devccoon@lemmy.world -22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's what they did. The "correct response" is described in the article as the law 50/50 signed here.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 65 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Did you read the article? The bill bans tiktok for being foreign. There is nothing in this article that describes a bill that outlaws any practices, conventions, or actions that tiktok has done.

Being afraid of foreigners for being foreign is not effective regulation.

parent

[–] Trantarius@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

The bill itself says, more or less, "any foreign adversary controlled app is banned. Also, TikTok is a foreign adversary controlled app". So it doesn't apply exclusively to TikTok, but it does explicitly include them.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Interesting wording there, "foreign adversary controlled", goes a long way to protect all the companies that are based in tax havens, or controlled by foreign allies, like Saudi Arabia or Israel

parent

[–] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago*

In a democracy one of the very most important choices that must be made by citizens is what other nations are considered allies or an enemies.

The funny thing is that US citizens have absolutely zero control over who the government decides is our enemy or ally. That aspect of government is entirely partitioned off as separate from the “democracy”, as if the foreign policy element of our government was itself a foreign nation we have no control over.

While we are on the topic, fuck the government of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both governments are horrendously violent.

parent

[–] Liz@midwest.social 8 points 2 years ago

I think most of us here are concerned with foreign adversary interference as much as we are concerned with corporate interference and espionage. The law seems to only address the surface level issue (ownership) and none of the actual problems (action).

parent

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The point is that companies like Google and Facebook do the same data harvesting and manipulation but aren't being held to the same standard. The law is clearly written to benefit the US government not the citizens, while the justification is stated to be 'for the benefit of the citizens.' It's like buying your wife a lawn tractor for her birthday even though you know she has no interest in using one. You're claiming it's for her but it's really for you.

parent

[–] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

The lawn tractor was for my wife’s boyfriend actually, but thanks for just assuming I was being selfish.

parent

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I've read this comment over 10 times now and I have no idea what the words "the law 50/50 signed here" means, so I can't be sure I understand the argument you are trying to make. My best guess is that you are using circular logic to suggest that every democratically decided upon decision is always the right decision, which is nonsense because democracy is demonstrably fallible.

parent

[–] Devccoon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

My point might be a little Covid brain fogged but I'm just pointing out that they did exactly what the guy asked for, if they bothered to click past the title which makes it sound like a targeted "ban Tiktok" law.

parent

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I am not a guy. I read the entire article before commenting. The law did not do what I asked for. You would know if you read my comment all the way through.

parent

[–] Devccoon@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I think you're making assumptions that I can read into what exactly you find wrong with Tiktok. That context is not there in the original comment.

parent

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Being chinese by definition can't effect any company. There is enough context.