this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
842 points (97.6% liked)

memes

10975 readers
3001 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
[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 2 points 51 minutes ago

YOUR data doesn't matter. Information gained from mass analysis of data that is tied to govt workers and military personnel is a security concern and it is treated as such. Nobody cares about your particular data, on either side (well, maybe ad companies, but if you are a tiktoker, you are already fully compromised there).

On the up side for tiktok kids. The CCP will likely order trump to unblock it.

[–] s_s@lemm.ee 27 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

"TikTok is influencing you politically"

So you'll shut down Fox News, right?

[–] Shard@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

Facebook too. Don't forget Cambridge Analytica

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 8 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (3 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?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 hour ago

The hive is (or at least was) a bit split. Many users seem to hate TikTok because they just dislike it for whatever reason (e.g., addictive short form videos), but others view this as a fascist move by the US or anti-China.

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

I think Trump is going to try to work out a deal where TickTok gets to stay the way it is if the company publicly blames Democrats for all the noise.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 14 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

A massive, comprehensive data privacy law would've covered the TikTok base and any software by any other threat

That's assuming the ban is motivated by privacy reasons, but i don't think it is. It's far more likely that it's because the US has no control over the platform's algorithm, which they fear is feeding Americans media and perspectives that are antithetical to their foreign policy objectives (Blinken and Romney have both stated as much).

A US buyer would be more friendly/responsive to US regulatory influence. That's the only reason this isn't a privacy bill instead of a ban or forced sale.

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

In other words, they (the US government) can't influence who does or doesn't see certain content, so they need it to sell to an "american" owner so that they can make sure they only see pro us propaganda.

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

OR SOLD TO A US BASED BUYER (I'm personally thinking this is the Muskrat's doing, but that's all conspiracy)

If true, Musk may have bought shares in companies that deal with data and wants to simply profit. I have had a work colleague who got rich buying stocks and is bit of a fan of Elon Musk. He admits that private data is basically the new gold but the masses is all too unaware or uncaring for it. So you might be on to something with this.

[–] Pulsar@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 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 8 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.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (18 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?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Data privacy is so much more than "selling data to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea." What a weak rebuttal.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 59 minutes ago (1 children)

So nothing short of a complete ban of all social media and advertising is Data Privacy to you, then?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 43 minutes ago

Something like GDPR would be the sane, non-strawman take.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours 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.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

The ban going into effect on Sunday is not the result of Donald Trump's actions but instead the 2024 HR 815 of the 118th Congress, divisions H and I.

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] vegantomato@lemmy.world 31 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

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

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 13 points 12 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 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 10 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 11 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Honestly at this point I rather have China steal my data vs. The US government. I'd be more likely to see a negative impact from data collection from the US government rather than China. China can't really influence my insurance rates. The US can.

load more comments
view more: next ›