Ah, thanks for explaining your point of view!
I see the gov’t and domestic companies being a way bigger threat than foriegn gov’ts and companies.
Our gov’t has way more control on our media and what we see and hear.
Propaganda from your own gov’t is a much bigger deal. Once you start criticizing and questioning why the status quo has not changed over the last many decades/half century.
This being: more endless wars, more bailouts required for banks, more policing, and more medical debt, more mental health problems, more student debt, and it continues…
All while people are not experiencing an improvement in their day to day lives, it seems.
All in all, I may be in the minority, when it comes to this topic; when talking about the issues that are caused by all of these systematic problems we will continue to face in the future.
Stay hopeful and keep learning!
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 months ago
For example, tons of people have been misled to think this bill is a TikTok ban.
Hildegarde@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The bill literally mentioned tiktok and bytedance on the first page when first introduced. They wrote the bill to ban tiktok.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 months ago
Update, you were right, Division H “PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT” does in fact mention them by name. The text above was only Division I “PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024”. I’ve updated the post to include both acts, now.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 months ago
It’s literally not in the entire text of the Bill hovering directly above this thread. You’re literally wrong.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
The version of the bill I saw just earlier today (linked from a CNN article a few days ago) mentioned TikTok and ByteDance by name:
Relevant section
> (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI -8 CATION .—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— > > (A) any of— > > (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; > > (ii) TikTok; > > (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or > > (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii);
This was under the definition of “adversary company.” So it was there at one point.
But that’s a big change, so I’m going to reread the bill to see if I need to revise my opinion on it. But the bill I read linked from CNN earlier today was bad in several ways.
Hildegarde@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If the bill identified tiktok and byte dance by name they would just rename the app and company to avoid the regulation.
The fact that this law identifies byte dance in the overly verbose and broad language typical of how laws are written does not change the intent.
It sounds like this is your first time reading the full text of a bill, and you are drawing uninformed conclusions.