Comment

Comment on Senate passes TikTok ban bill, sending it to Biden, who has already committed to signing it

AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

I posted this in the other thread, but…

So congress can tell any company to get fucked and sell to the highest bidder? So much for free market republicans.

China will just find another company to buy our data from, because as it turns out, the problem isn’t just TikTok, it’s the fact the it’s legal for companies (foreign and domestic) to sell and exchange our data in the first place. TikTok will still collect the same data, and instead of it going straight to China, it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

And if the problem is the fact that it’s addictive, well, we have plenty of our own home grown addictions for people to sink their time into. You don’t see congress telling those companies to get sold to a new owner.

source

Sort:hotnew top

bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

And that’s really what most politicians care about. Meta and Co. are butthurt that the new dopamine dealer on the block is cutting so ruthlessly into their numbers, especially among the younger generations. Normally, Meta et. al. would just engage in their typical antitrust behavior and buy them out, but they can’t because a) ByteDance doesn’t need them or their money and b) I’d be surprised if China let them sell such a valuable tool willingly.

This is just protectionism under the guise of national security, plain and simple. We’ve heard, “oh but national security!!!” countless times before, and if this was truly the main concern, they’d be going after all the other blatantly egregious privacy snoopers as well.

source
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Incorrect, the Bill is broad but it’s not any company for any reason.

The “PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024” has this to say:

(a) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to— (1) any foreign adversary country; or (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary. (b) Enforcement By Federal Trade Commission.— (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. (B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act. (3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.

and then like a bunch of pages of hyper-specific definitions for the above terms.
source
- Blxter@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for “foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” And instead just in general
  
  source
  - PhAzE@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yea, it’s not as bad as this thread is trying to make it out to be.
    
    source
    p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    But muh silly dancing app!!1one
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I’ve been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.
    
    Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.
    
    source
- AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don’t directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.
  
  source
  - FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future.
    
    source
    AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyperspecific to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.
    
    to prevent anything similar from ever occurring
    
    What are you referring to here? What occurred?
    
    source
    Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I actually don’t think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that’s unconstitutional.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    According to some of these guys Congress could order everyone with the name Steve deported and that’s okay because we voted for them.
    
    source
- Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  The big point is, how does that power get used?
  
  There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it’s not. You’re just literally declaring it, no evidence required.
  
  source
  - FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).
    
    EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.
    
    source
    Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It’s not due process if you break a law and it’s not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it’s ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it’s whatever organization they don’t like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They’ve wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don’t even need to get an infiltrator into the Union’s administration.
    
    The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They’ve proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you’re in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t soldiers because words (police didn’t exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.
    
    As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
PhAzE@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The problem isn’t actually just that China takes our data, it’s that they control the algorithm on tiktok for what users see, thereby giving them the ability to manipulate the public.

source
- chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah! And that’s only a privilege for white oligarchs! /s
  
  source
  - TangledHyphae@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Would you rather a hostile foreign entity do it instead, who have vested interest in sewing destructive chaos as a goal, though? That’s the alternative.
    
    source
    reverendsteveii@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I mean, there’s a third alternative where manipulating us is illegal for anyone
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    Kalysta@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    We don’t need a “hostile foreign entity”. Trump is doing that just fine all on his own.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Since we’re not denying that white oligarchs do it too, then giving consumers a choice as to which manipulated information they see is better than having just our goverment decide. Sowing chaos isn’t inherently bad - law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
    
    source
- K1nsey6@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  The US is terrified of the public becoming anti capitalist and anti colonialism which is what’s happening. THEY want control of the narrative like they’ve had for decades so they can control the message.
  
  source
  - PhAzE@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Can’t blame them. Late stage capitalism is causing a lot of people a lot of pain while a few get super rich from it.
    
    source
  - Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Then they completely missed the cause and effect. China didn’t need to do anything. We’re radicalizing people every day with economic gaslighting, medical debt, school debt, housing costs, and grocery costs.
    
    source
WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
China made American companies partner and share their IP with Chinese companies when the Chinese market was opened back in the 90s. That’s how China caught up to us in technology, they straight up stole the IP and changed terms on the American companies. I believe there is some tit for tat happening here. China has done a lot of fucked up shit and they are definitely actively hacking American infrastructure and social engineering against American interests. They are harvesting American data and tweaking the algorithm to actively undermine American interests. Whether you agree or disagree, China started this fight. China has banned most American social media already.

source
- AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  China doesn’t need TikTok to do any of that, including the data collection. They can just get it from data brokers (either by purchasing or stealing it). Because guess what? Data collection and/or sale of said data to foreign countries wasn’t made illegal with this bill.
  
  source
  - WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Reading the bill further - it does mention the banning of the sale of America data to foreign adversaries enforceable by the FCC. That language does sound like a ban on data brokers selling to China too. It will be difficult to enforce with shell corporations and non-adversary countries who may partner with Chinese companies, but the language seems to be there. Be interesting to see how this plays out.
    
    source
    AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Indeed.
    
    source
    Kalysta@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Foreign adversaries. What’s to stop them from selling to an ally and the ally re-selling that data?
    
    If they’re this concerned they need to ban data brokers in general. And enforce those bans.
    
    source
    Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That was already a law. Facebook is being sued for it right now by the government after getting caught doing it multiple times over the last 15ish years.
    
    source
  - WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I agree privacy bills need to be passed. 100%. One of the main reasons I am typing this here instead of Reddit. I’m just pointing out this is far from just an unprovoked action. There isn’t enough talk in this debate about the host of messed up shit being done to America by China (and Russia)in the digital space. Cyber attacks are at all time high. It sucks Tik tok is getting banned, but privacy laws aren’t also being rolled out. It’s also true that China is indeed using Tiktok’s data maliciously. Both things can be true. My statement was to point out it’s not JUST a cash grab by social media companies, China is also a real threat and that shouldn’t be overlooked.
    
    source
    AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It’s not really a ban though, it’s a forced sale. Cyber attacks come from more than just China, and there are more companies selling data to China than just TikTok. I also see (and protect against) cyber attacks every day at my job.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  A. Creating laws that let us act like an authoritarian regime is not a good thing.
  
  B. They didn’t need to do any of that with TikTok. Late stage capitalism is radicalizing people every day. All they need to do is get out of the way of them finding each other.
  
  source
Blackmist@feddit.uk ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The important thing is that it lives on American servers first, where the FBI and NSA can get at it.

If it lives on Chinese servers, the CIA have to get involved.

source
- alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  They already moved it onto American servers, in 2022.
  
  source
  - KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    they want the chinese info too you silly little american
    
    source
    alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The chinese market has a different version of Tiktok, Douyin. Tiktok being American owned wouldn’t give Chinese data. It would give America data of all other countries though, unless ByteDance only spun off American Tiktok.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Buttons@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  TikTok’s American data is already hosted on Oracle servers. Has been for awhile.
  
  source
- Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It already does. They use Oracle for their American data.
  
  source
Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
By the last few days all the trolls stopped even trying to argue this and just went to, “my congressional rep said it’s a national security issue! And that abrogates the entire Constitution!”

As usual, when rights are being stripped it’s for the protection of the children.

source
kiagam@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You are missing the point. If somebody is gonna profit in any way from US citizens, the US oligarchs want their cut. If it was about controlling information, it would specifically mention about that and what is to be done about it. Making the company be US controlled increases the reach of government on it, yes, but it doesn’t gaurantee or enforce it in any way. The thing it gaurantees is where the money will end up.

source
Kalysta@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
If you have an Amazon account, China already has all your info. This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.

I hope this is challenged in court.

source
- KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.
  
  it’s definitely not just this, they’re mad that one of the biggest social media companies isn’t US based, and that they don’t have full jurisdiction over them.
  
  source
  - thatirishguyyy@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    This is closer to the facts. The US government just doesn’t want any other government having our info.
    
    They called dibs.
    
    source
    KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    and the problem with the algorithm is that the US doesn’t have jurisdiction over it.
    
    The problem with the data is that we don’t have US jurisdiction over it (even though technically oracle hosts the US tiktok servers)
    
    Idk man, seems like they’re mad about not having jurisdiction over our data if you’re asking me. They’re fine having other countries data, just not other countries having our data.
    
    source
- thatirishguyyy@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Cry harder
  
  source
redlue@startrek.website ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Yeah, we can thank all the useful idiots on the internet.

A lie told often enough becomes true.

source