Comment on US lawmakers vote 50-0 to force sale of TikTok despite angry calls from users

Hildegarde@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Devccoon@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Trantarius@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ICastFist@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Liz@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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).

        source
  • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Devccoon@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • Hildegarde@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments