Comment on US lawmakers vote 50-0 to force sale of TikTok despite angry calls from users
Hildegarde@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Whatever Tiktok is doing, the correct response is to write enforcable laws to prevent ANY company from doing what Tiktok is doing.
This is bad governance.
Devccoon@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That’s what they did. The “correct response” is described in the article as the law 50/50 signed here.
Hildegarde@lemmy.world 3 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.
Trantarius@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 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.
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 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.
ICastFist@programming.dev 3 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
Liz@midwest.social 3 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).
BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 3 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.
Devccoon@lemmy.world 3 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.
Hildegarde@lemmy.world 3 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.