• Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    I can’t believe this is the one thing this congress has actually managed to do. We just want healthcare

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Healthcare!?! Who needs healthcare when Congress is giving us our god given freedom of domestic surveillance capitalism, which is the freedomist freedom that ever freedomed, you filthy communist!

      So anyway, I started violating civil liberties… PEW PEW

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’ll take your overpriced medicine from your out of network pharmacy and you’ll like it. At the fake markup price. And good luck getting that ultrasound, they’re going to code the billing wrong so instead of it being $40 it’s $1000. That’s freedom talking.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        And good luck getting that ultrasound, they’re going to code the billing wrong so instead of it being $40 it’s $1000.

        🎶 Ain’t that America! Home of the free baby! 🎶

        Bald eagle screeches

  • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    I wonder how many of these lawmakers will be invested in the company that swoops in and saves the American public?

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If she’s investing at the same time you’re getting the information, she missed the best time to buy. She might have hedged her bets and bought early

        • Gork@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fun fact: Congresspeople can legally inside trade, but the rest of us cannot.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of bribery lobbying.

            According to the STOCK Act of 2012, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

            What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

            • DharkStare@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Just to clarify. Insider trading is illegal but it is not illegal for politicians in Congress to use the information they obtain from their jobs (such as through classified meetings) to engage in stock market trades.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                It’s not a failure of the law. It’s a failure of the SEC for not enforcing it.

                MYTH: Members of Congress are exempt from insider trading laws.

                FACT: Both a Congressional Research Service Report and House Administration Committee memo indicates that Members of Congress are subject to the same insider trading rules as the general public.

                https://perry.house.gov/how-can-scott-help/myths-about-congress.htm#:~:text=FACT%3A Both a Congressional Research

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                That’s simply not true. They have no exemption to insider trading laws. It simply comes down to trade timing.

                The way the law is written, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

                What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

          • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            Fun fact: Everyone with hundreds of millions+ in holdings either trades with insider information or pays others to do it, because our metrics and enforcement for insider trading are a gallows joke.

      • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Don’t worry everyone, it’s just pelosi’s 3rd cousin doing the investing so that makes everything totally cool and totally legal.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Pathetic watching ancient, feeble rich people about to return to the dust from whence they came still frantically positioning to boost their ego scores.

        It’s if they believe their preferred invisible sky mommy/daddy will accept a bribe of earthly currency.

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well, as it is what her husband did for a living his entire very successful life, but sure the Lady you don’t like is wrong for him doing his job well.

        • venusaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          A. Her husband is not a lawmaker. B. I’m sure her position helps C. Don’t simp for politicians. They DGAF about you.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m pretty sure I could be incredibly successful at trading stocks as well if I was married to a Senator who could give me inside information, lmao.

          • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            As she didn’t join Politics until '87, guess they invented communicating to with their past selves, lmao. If you’ve got any proof, kindly advise the FBI. Where as you’ve none, head on back to peddle that shit to fux nooz.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Christ, am I supposed to memory hole that Pelosi’s husband making a shit ton of money off stocks THREE YEARS AGO is what led to a round of antitrust bills getting introduced? Is there literally any criticism of these rich fucks you can hear without immediately shrieking about conservatives?

    • Nurgle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Mnuchin (fmr Trump Treasury Sec) is already setting up a group to try and buy it apparently.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The company behind tik tok said they will not sell they America is only 20% of their global market. They have refused to give their source code.

      So guess app just won’t work in US. Dumb ass lawmakers only people this hurt are the US citizens that are using it to make money.

      • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’d counter that basing your livelihood on an app that harvests your and your viewers data for an adversarial government known to use this kind of data in psyops isn’t a sound business idea.

        In fact, I’d say this bill actually protects American users who have been using the app.

        If TikTok can’t prove that they use our data responsibly, and refuse to do so to the point of just leaving the market, we are all better off. Another company will fill that void and content creators have endless options to move to.

        I don’t think “but people need to make money while our data is harvested and provided to a government that uses it against us” is a great argument.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s never been to protect the public. If that were the case, the law wouldn’t apply to just TikTok and foreign companies. They would’ve passed something to protect us from our own domestic data brokers too, but they didn’t.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s almost like an action can protect people and enrich elites at the same time. Explain how the American public isn’t better of keeping their personal data away from the CCP. Interested to see how you think this doesn’t protect the public at all from an adversarial foreign government.

            • 4am@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              When you could just generalize the law to include protecting us from our own oligarchs and they did not, it clearly shows who they work for.

              • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                We could also feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick etc. we could ask why any law regarding healthcare, housing, nutrition doesn’t fix the issue, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

                The FTC is putting in work this administration, and are poised to bring back Net Neutrality (obligatory Fuck Ajit Pai). This is a huge step towards protecting all Americans, so I think you’re confusing this issue (adversarial governments harvesting our data) with the larger issue of domestic policy (which will be much harder to tackle).

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Let’s open the can of worms. Right here right now.

                  If the goal of a law is to keep people safe should we pass laws that do that or pass laws that don’t? Answer the question.

                  If goal is X should we try to get X or try to get Y?

                  Really really simple and you should manage it. Come on brought-to-you-buy-Meta, simple question I am sure you can answer it.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Their personal data won’t be kept away from the CCP. People that use TikTok will use VPNs to do so if needed (TikTok also would no longer have to listen to the US government, probably intensifying the data collection), and otherwise the CCP can just purchase (or steal) the data from US data brokers, because those are still very much legal. Did we forget about Cambridge Analytica, where an adversarial foreign government used our own domestic companies against us?

              • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs. They won’t have much content, if any, from domestic creators. They’ll only be interacting with the other 2% of American users along with foriegn content.

                I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN will are China’s target demographic, and I don’t think VPN users will constitute a fraction of activity you are suggesting they will.

                I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

                Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere. Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it. Glad we have accountability this time around.

                • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs

                  TikTok users or in general? Either way, it’s higher than that, and will only increase with bills like this (and the many state-issued porn bans).

                  I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN

                  VPNs aren’t hard to use, by design. Do you really think people need in-depth tutorials on how to press a button in an app? Also, there’s already people demonstrating VPN use on TikTok, for if the ban actually happens.

                  I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

                  You have very black and white thinking. I’m bemoaning it because it doesn’t actually protect US citizens. It doesn’t stop China from harvesting our data, and it doesn’t stop domestic companies either. But good try, trying to belittle the massive data breaches that have happened without TikTok’s help.

                  Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere.

                  Once again, this isn’t the start of that. Congress is more than happy to allow domestic companies to harvest our data, because half of the time they’re getting a cut. This will not open any doors for future privacy bills. The only possibility with this is that congress crafts another targeted bill to get rid of another company for whatever reason.

                  Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it.

                  Interesting that you’d bring that up, seeing as congress just set this precedent for banning companies right before that shitstain has a real chance of getting into office. Do you really want the Trump administration to pass a bill like this for another company?

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              It’s almost like we don’t have universal healthcare. Are your BFFS in Congress going to fix that soon or are they busy banning a stupid dancing app?

              • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Lmao “BFFS.” You love making me into whatever you want to rail against.

                Congress didn’t ban an app. They requested data on where their information flows, and the “stupid dancing app” opted to leave the market instead of comply.

                You don’t even know what the fuck you’re going on about haha

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          They passed the bill because someone is getting a cut. It isn’t to protect the public. If they wanted to protect the public we would have universal healthcare and a ban on guns.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I disagree. I listened when it was presented to Congress. I read a good amount of the data justifying the required transfer. If you don’t think this bill protects the public, there really is no reasoning with you.

            Someone will get a cut specifically because TikTok chooses not to prove where their data flows. They had a choice, and chose to exit the market.

            But sure, you can frame it like we forced them to leave the market, which isn’t the case. They could have verified their data flow and remained if they were not abusing it.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s not how due process and liberal democracy works. The government has to prove you’re doing it. Setting any precedent that you have to prove you’re not doing something (an impossible task) is incredibly dangerous.

        • Halosheep@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Another company will fill that void

          Yay, more YouTube and Instagram. What we always wanted. Can’t wait to have maybe one day Meta and Alphabet will combine so we can only have one service!

        • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s cute how you think that the only government that’s using our own data against us is china. Might want to step back and look at our own government, then apply your same line of thinking to all big tech companies in existence right now.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Exactly: banning TikTok is nothing more than a good start. We need to destroy Facebook, Twitter and Reddit next.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              That will never happen, at least not in this way. Because it wasn’t anything to do with their data collection, or their company structure. Congress is happy to allow domestic data collection and want Americans addicted to American apps so that they get a cut.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You’re extremely dull if youre suggesting I don’t know data is abused left and right all over the place. But if TikTok is so bad it’s can’t even fit within our abusive system, it deserves to transfer or exit.

            You’re missing the forest for the trees.

            • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              And you aren’t even reading what I wrote. In no post did I defend tiktok… I merely stated that what it is doing is also being done by american based companies and they should be addressed as well.

              • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                No doubt, but accountability starts somewhere, so why have a problem with this? Why not celebrate and then demand equitable action domestically?

                “I’m not defending TikTok. I’m just bemoaning action being taken against them because bad things happen with other companies!” Not a great look.

                • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Where did I say I had a problem with this? So much knee jerking in here. I am stating that lawmakers should apply these same laws to our own social media. The same lawmakers who will most likely profit off this decision.

                • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Because this isn’t accountability? It won’t start any change with domestic companies, because it doesn’t apply to them. This isn’t the start of anything. If you think they’re going to use this as the starting point for actual privacy legislation, you’re very ignorant of how congress works.

                  Data collection will still happen domestically, and another Cambridge Analytica will happen, so long as domestic data brokers are legal.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  How about we start with universal healthcare and then we worry about children learning dancing, right here in River City

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s cute how you think many of us haven’t applied that big thinking to all big tech. A Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter ban absolutely should happen.

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Nobody is gonna use a VPN to get their TikTok fix. They’ll use Facebook Reels or YouTube shorts, since most content creators cross-post their stuff there anyway.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              People on TikTok are already discussing using VPNs, so it will happen if not sold.

              And either way, it’s almost like congress doesn’t care about addictive social media, seeing as it’s fine if domestic companies create addictive algorithms. They’ll even let foreign governments manipulate the populous via domestic companies, so long as they get a cut of the cash.

            • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Which is the actual intent of attacking a single point of the problem instead of the actual problem of the abuse of end users by all the corpo’s social media and other apps., free or otherwise is no longer important.

          • Hubi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            You need more than a handful of brain cells for that, so it’s not exactly the easily manipulated target audience of TikTok.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Passing a law to give the executive branch overreaching censorship authority over the internet while simultaneously campaigning that the other option in the next election wants to use the power of that office to overthrow democracy. This is the “good ending”.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s almost like TikTok was given a chance to prove our data doesn’t flow to the Chinese government, and TikTok decided to exit the market than prove where their data flows.

            But sure, let’s just pretend we randomly forced them out with an executive overreach lmao

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        All the folks quoting what a small part of their audience the US is, never mention what percentage of their gross the US is. CCP won’t pay for eyeballs in Azerbaijan.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t see how anyone is hurt by losing access to Tiktok. The only sad part about this is that all social media isn’t banned.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          You are literally posting this to social media right now. Do you think it would be cool to ban or force a sale of Lemmy to a US corp?

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Is Lemmy using a predatory algorithm designed to enrich itself at the expense of the well being of its users and utilize its platform to influence US policy against its own interests? If that answer was yes, then absolutely. With Lemmy being of service to its users without making us its cattle, I’ll advocate for it as opposed to against it.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Does congress care about data collection and predatory algorithms, though? If so, why did they just waste their time crafting a targeted bill rather than actually making those practices illegal?

              If congress suddenly decided that they didn’t like a company for whatever reason, they’ll craft another targeted bill like this one. Trump could win this year, do you really want this precedent set right before that?

              Luckily, Lemmy is much more difficult due to it’s decentralized nature. However, since congress is clearly more than willing to craft targeted bills, it’s not out of the question.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          You joke but this has a chilling effect on all sm platforms based outside of the US. They just took a massive shit on the 1st amendment.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            They just took a massive shit on the 1st amendment.

            Oh, so the 1A protects Social Media activity again? When did it change?

              • Shadywack@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Banning TikTok, a foreign controlled company, does not infringe on the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech isn’t impaired because of some dipshit social media app that actively fucks everyone except the Chinese government over.

                • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I didn’t say the bill did.

                  Either way, TikTok is not the only avenue for the Chinese government to use to fuck us. They’ll just find another way, one that isn’t so visible and easily regulated. This doesn’t really solve much; it’s just going to piss people off by taking away their choice and push breaches of personal privacy into the shadows where the US has no jurisdiction.

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I see nothing wrong with posting to social media to advocate against it, I’ll feel free to stay.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Does your posting history bear out that that’s why you’re here, though? 🤷‍♂️ I’m not asking for you to justify it to me, it’s just silly to pretend you’re not participating in something you say should be banned.

              • Shadywack@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                My posting history bears out extensive shitposting and calling things as they’re seen. I don’t take any issue with Lemmy/Fediverse due to how they’re decentralized and orchestrated. I’m against predatory algorithms and user manipulation. I believe that the Fediverse itself will be a good thing until it becomes the villain, much like how our utopian social experiments usually go.

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Healthcare? Nah, let’s fight about it for decades and never give people anything meaningful. Education? Nah, let’s make our people go neck deep into debt and still fight about it for decades. Ban TikTok? Hold my bribery, you got it. Gimme 24 hours and you got it, boss.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Just as a reminder, we have been ‘fighting for 15’ since 2012. But when it comes to leveraging foreign companies with bans to force them to sell to US oligarchs we can move at blazing speed through the least functional congrss in recent history. There are two very different Americas depending on how much money you have.

    • malloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      won’t happen

      Where do you think the FBI gets their domestic terrorist intel from 😂

    • Jako301@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is not a ban and it was never meant to be. They just force tiktok to sell the US market to a US company. Said US company will continue the platform just like it is at the moment, just with a bit more of that sweet American propaganda mixed into it. Tiktok won’t be gone, all that data will just go to the NSA instead of the CCP, that’s all they wanted.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        China says they’re not selling TikTok, which makes it a ban, which is excellent news, actually.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Even though i dont think banning tiktok is a good idea purely because of the concept, those boards are funny. “Tiktok changed my life for the better”

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’re also all printed, and with the same font. I’m assuming it’s a stock photo, but if that’s from a real protest I don’t trust those protestors.who the hell gets a protest sign printed?

    • McDropout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      A lot of people started their businesses on Tiktok. The Tiktok algorithm is actually way better than that of Instagram to reach your target niche. A lot content creators and marketing exes do realize this.

      I don’t understand the mentality of users, of course of obviously older generation here, that realize Tiktok did in fact change a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just an app for dancing.

      Let’s not forget the Tiktok Shop section.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    If social media apps exist to slurp up as much user info as possible, and they do, then it makes sense to be concerned about the government that they’re subject to.

    • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why is it okay for domestic companies to collect the same data and sell it to China, then?

      This shouldn’t just affect foreign companies if it’s about data collection. It should have been an actual privacy bill. US citizens’ privacy will be no better after this.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not ok.

        But the fact is that China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia are adversaries of the United States, and the US government is justified in its concern.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          They didn’t seem to care much when Cambridge Analytica happened, and that was a foreign adversary. So what’s different here?

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The United Kingdom is not an adversary of the United States. In fact it’s one of our closest allies. But, if anything, that suggests this law isn’t enough, not that it’s too much.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I meant that the data they collected was breached by a foreign adversary, thought that was pretty clear but guess not.

              • Melllvar@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                And the fact that a foreign adversary obtained this information was very bad, agreed? Clearly, it makes sense to take steps to keep that kind of information out of adversarial hands.

                • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yes, my point was this only affects one of them. It doesn’t fix the root of the problem, because that’s not the bill’s target.

                  In fact, if TikTok remains, and does get banned, it just makes it so they no longer have to listen to the US government for anything.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              A foreign adversary was responsible for the theft of the data that Cambridge shouldn’t have had. That was what I meant.

        • Inui [comrade/them]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          What’s China gonna do to me all the way over here? People should be worried about their own government spying on them first.

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            With the sort of detailed personal profile a social media app has on you, they could target your specific beliefs, religious convictions, sexual preferences, political affiliation, fears, interests, desires, etc. to manipulate your opinion in their interests. Doing this on a population-wide scale is what social media platforms are all about (i.e. targeted advertising). It’s wise to be concerned about an adversary having such a tool at its disposal. And this is true for all countries, not just the US.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Will there be a TikTok dance on TikTok that covers this event?

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m convinced that US lawmakers believe that the pro-gaza sentiment is coming from TikTok. The timing, the mechanism. They see themselves as no longer able to control the narrative and are blaming ‘non-US’ social media.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’d like to point out that the US has been publicly going after TikTok since the Trump Administration so I’m unconvinced that the timing lines up.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think it’s more so just about controlling narratives in general. Tiktok has a lot of real time tracking of politician corruption and trades. A lot of good useful info for political activism, etc.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          So did Twitter and even in the Pre-Elon days the Federal Government didn’t go after it like this.

      • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        And yet it finally got the momentum to succeed now, during all these Gaza protests and when the US-Israeli mainline narratives have been starting to break down for the first time.

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Here comes POS billionaire like Moron Musk to buy TikTok and turn it into Nazi propaganda machine

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nah, it’ll get sold to a company registered in the US or Europe that is funded by various shell companies and private investment groups, most of which will be owned by Chinese Billionaires.

  • whalebiologist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    It seems like a lot of people think moves like this are about actual national security like congress claims,

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean to an extent it is. America is mad China has a platform that’s popular with Americans that they can’t control. The effects of this were shown with the fact that America couldn’t control the narrative over the Israel-Palestine issue after October 7th. So to increase national security and try to gain back the control they had they’re getting rid of TikTok.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Tiktok helped my life for the better 😀… LOL. Sure but it is also a Chinese company that can do things to turn your life and the life of everyone around you into living hell if the government do wishes to.

    I think what I would want my relationship with the Chinese country to be like is just simple transactions… I give you this money and I buy that thing. Done, end of transaction. I would like that for all phone tech companies actually. None of this shit about updates because they sold me a shit phone. None of the here’s 8 features, then an update leaves you with 3 features only.

    • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Twitter/x is owned by an unhinged South African billionaire and Middle East oil Barrons. We can discuss the theoretical abuse of TikTok, but X is damaging our democracy today.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Meanwhile everyone has already forget when Cambridge Analytics used Meta and Facebook to influence voters into giving us Trump worn the hell of Russian propaganda. The hypocrisy is so blatant They just want only US oligarchs making money and they want to be able to censor things young people are seeing nowadays from around the world. Every other excuse is a screen.