this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
732 points (98.0% liked)

memes

10975 readers
2856 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] s_s@lemm.ee 2 points 22 minutes ago

"TikTok is influencing you politically"

So you'll shut down Fox News, right?

[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee 4 points 55 minutes ago

What part of "China is a geopolitical adversary so maybe it's fucking different" is so hard for paint chip eaters to understand?

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

"Hey! We can't let them steal that. I wanted to steal that!"

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I’m really not able to keep up with the hive on this. One minute- they hate TikTok, A day later, they defend TikTok?

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

They aren't defending TikTok so much as calling the bluff. The US govt doesn't actually give a rats ass about privacy or data collection. Some relics in Congress were convinced its a national security threat and needs to be banned OR SOLD TO A US BASED BUYER (I'm personally thinking this is the Muskrat's doing, but that's all conspiracy) to preserve national security.

A massive, comprehensive data privacy law would've covered the TikTok base and any software by any other threat. Home run, Grand slam, easy win and easy points.

Of course it's not going that way because it was never about national security.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (7 children)

They did. Divisions H and I of HR 815 of the 118th Congress make it illegal to collect, broker, lease, trade, or sell US Citizen's personally identifying data to an adversarial nation which is defined in Article 10 as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.

You're complaining about the law and you literally have no idea what that law says?

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Then why wasn't tik tok blocked immediately instead of being allowed to operate for years.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago) (1 children)

It shuts down this Sunday, so less than a year. To give them the opportunity to

a) Stop sending US Citizen personal data to China

AND

b) Divest Chinese Ownership to below 20%

To be clear, the USA didn't ban TikTok. TikTok owners are choosing to shut it down rather than sell.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

So technically you're right, but the law they passed left a HUGE loophole. And by loophole I mean just don't be based on those counties and you can gobble up whatever data you like.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)

You also can't send the data there or be more than 20% owned by non-US-citizen citizens of those countries.

TikTok owners have stated repeatedly that they will shut down this Sunday rather than sell.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago

Sure, but even if TikTok sold it wouldn't solve the problem. Hell them not selling also doesn't solve the problem.

The problem is that data is gobbled up and sold. Data/privacy protection laws to stop that would be useful.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is this doesn't apply across the board. Why is it only illegal if they're selling it to a foreign company? It should be illegal to sell it full stop. This just gives the US government a monopoly on the information which I'm more afraid of than a foreign country having my data since I live here and they can directly affect me.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

They made it illegal to sell it to people who explicitly want to harm the USA. Thats a good start.

Ironically, most USA based social media platforms are already banned in China. It just makes sense, if TikTok wants to operate here they need the chinese owners to divest to below 20% or stop sending personal data overseas.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 1 points 23 minutes ago

Ah ok so we should start doing the things China does then? I think them banning social media platforms is also bad when the bans are just done for the sake of monopolizing social media platforms under the control of the government. Decentralized platforms like this are a nice way around that but most people aren't gonna use them. So having platforms based in different countries to allow different perspectives on stories like with Israel/Palestine is good. Cause if we can only access American social media platforms you know they're just gonna fully suppress coverage on issues that America and various lobbying groups don't want to be talked about.

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Cool so what does this law do for me again? I live in America i personally will never interact with those 4 countries. The wording is also dangerous calling Chinaa foreign adversary comparable with the other 3. Which is dangerous. We are in active war with 3 where as China we do massive business.

Passed in April 2024 so useful when Facebook was a broker for Russia in 2016 DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).

The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user's request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

DIVISION I--PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual's data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Didn't read.

[–] bokherif@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

If only someone gave a shit about the law

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It would be easy and rational to attribute misinformation memes like this to ignorance, but to be honest I can't help by imagine it is malice.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

There's definitely some malice in there i don't doubt, which likely bleeds into the unwillingness to prove one's biases wrong

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The meme references the US violating privacy.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

And what does the meme say?

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It says the US wants to be the only one stealing your data and spying on you.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

As far as I am concerned, the number of people spying on US Citizens is being decreased.

Celebrate that.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago
[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The person you’re talking to is deliberately not going to agree with anything you’re saying, fyi.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah for sure, its why I usually stick to short replies.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago

Because anything longer than a sentence pivoting to another argument and it all falls apart.

[–] Pulsar@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't like or use TikTok, but when I see US politicians and TV "Security experts" spiting nonsense arguments to justify banning it shows to me that this is a frivolous case to benefit META and Alphabet rather than a genuine concern in data collection and privacy.

[–] Burninator05@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

No one gives a shit if your data is collected. I (and presumably you) are not worthwhile targets. The issue is the Chinese government using social media apps based in China to feed anti-US/pro-Chinese propaganda. I'd bet $100 that if (mostly likely when) China invades Taiwan all Chinese owned social media outlets will instantly feature lots of anti-Taiwan content in every country that they may turn for help to try and turn the US population's opinion more favorable to China's side.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This is the most literate take on the issue that I've seen.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Actually, they clearly haven't read anything about Divisions H and I of HR 815 or they would realize that WAS a broad privacy legislation to protect US Citizens.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago

Least glowing comment

[–] vegantomato@lemmy.world 28 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

I support blocking Facebook and X from the EU for the same reason.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

They absolutely should. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't do something about it eventually.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Apparently, Meta has just taken part in a huge destabilizing propaganda campaign here in Brazil. The kind that criminal law has punishment for.

It will certainly take a while to gather all evidence and verify it, so I'm saving the popcorn for later. But I just ensured I have enough kernel for a US-sized portion...

[–] vegantomato@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Another one: Elon Musk is pushing the whole Grooming Gang propaganda on X to cause tensions in the UK. As if nobody cares about victims when the perpetrator happens to be brown. It's absolute populist BS.

He is also saying that the parliament should be dissolved, and is throwing around more outrageous accusations: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/01/04/elon-musk-pushes-for-britains-king-charles-to-dissolve-parliament-as-lawmakers-say-tesla-ceo-is-misinformed/

We have people with obvious political agendas controlling the world's largest social media platforms, and it's not just the CCP.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

with obvious political agendas

On the case of Brazil, I think it has economical reasons. Meta sells stuff that compete with the social infrastructure it was trying to destabilize.

I would really like to see some laws against media concentration. It's not even important who the media is. Instead, we have some laws that are the opposite of that, so if we solve the Meta problem, something else is due to break shortly after.

But hey, it's entertaining anyway.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

If the catered ads weren’t so obvious that pretty much most social platforms are stealing your data, not sure what is.

Nothing is free. Especially a ‘free’ account. You are the product at that point.

load more comments
view more: next ›