211
The Adversary
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
211 points (83.1% liked)
Memes
45183 readers
1449 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You think the problem with tiktok was that it was simply made in China?
Not the fact that it collected vast amount of data from everyone?
And here's a friendly reminder that Lenovo has had their very fair share of problems regarding security and data collection too.
collecting vast amount of data ? facebook does that too and instagram and google and who knows what else
Yes, we should ban all those, too. Or just enforce EU style privacy laws in America.
crazy i wonder why the infinity racists amerikkkans decided to start with the platform that is mildly associated with china. surely it has nothing to do with their with the fact that they are most racists people on earth.
But not for a foreign government (from their perspective).
Yeah good old american spyware
Why not? Half of them will sell to the highest bidder
even IF it was true why would u give a shit about a foreign government having ur data, then assholes that are gonna swat u or kidnap u into an unlabeled van arent gonna be foreign they dont fucking care its gonna be ur government doing that shit.
The US government doesn't want an adversary government to have the data of its citizens (because of varios reasons, including mass manipulation for example). They would of course have no issue with having that data themselves though (also because then they would be more in control over how the data is handled).
Whats being questioned isnt why the us gov and the corpos that own it would want to ban tiktok that much is self evident, the question is why any one would give a fuck let alone bother to celebrate it.
Yes. But the US can control US based companies, and create laws regarding how that data is used. They can't control a chineese one.
Do you understand how the US government might think it's a problem that foreign countries get access to every step their citizens take?
Does that matter if they don't create said laws - since they're equally interested in their citizens data as facebook, google, etc. are?
It does matter. Because the US can do it if they decide to. They have significant power over companies based in their country.
They do not have significant power over companies NOT based in their country.
That's not what that means.
The fact that a company who wants to operate in the US has to follow US guidelines is obvious. But doesn't mean the US government has significant power over them if they're not based in the US.
us gov IS controlled by us corps they banned tiktok to get rid of competition. with the ever green excuse in amerikkkan politics of appealing to racism
Sure buddy. And 9/11 was an inside job and airplanes are spreading chem-trails to control the population and weather too.
imagine thinking the amerikkkan politicians dont serve corporations.
Serving and being controlled are two different things. Make up your mind. Which is is it?
its the same thing.
No. You can serve without being controlled. And you can be controlled without serving.
The waitress is serving me but they're not being controlled. It's something they choose to do.
And you can be controlled in what you say and so, without serving. E.g. a prisoner.
So no. They're not the same.
that is meaningless semantics. both words have multiple meanings, when i said politicians serve corporations i meant that they are ultimately subservient to them because they get paid by them and their live style is contingent on this servitude and that is a system of control in this context both words refer to the same thing.
in the example of the waitress she is being controlled when u call them or tell them to get u a certain food u are controlling their actions control doesn't have to be absolute and it doent have to be forced.
a better example would be a social worker who helps people aka serves them but does not respond to them and are not controlled by the people they serve.
in the example of a prisoner there is control but no servitude sure, but it is trivial to think of an example where there is control and servitude like a serf, u know cuz world have different meaning and all.
Yes. Well done. Words does have different meanings. Some idiot previously said "its the same thing."
Which is why I made the comment that they are not. The same thing. Glad you agree.
the only idiot here is... both of us cuz this is pointless and meaningless. but u are double the idiot, they are the same in the context i used them did u forget ur own comment that i was responding to do u not know what context is, is ur mind so small u can only keep in memory the last 3 comment in a thread and not 1 more.
either way ill move myself towards less idiocy so this is the last reply u are getting end of conversation.
The context is not that complicated. But im not the one who thinks serving and controlling are the same thing. You can be controlled and serve at the same time. But that doesn't make them the same thing. Not even in context, especially not in context.
The fact you can't even discern between the two while trying to make a point is dissapointing.