this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
593 points (98.2% liked)

News

23397 readers
4056 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AmbiguousProps 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The law affects social media apps based in North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. These four countries are already restricted from participating in sensitive areas of the US economy, with forced sale being an option. The only really novel part of this law is applying such restrictions to software.

[–] AmbiguousProps 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're missing my point. The adversaries have many more avenues than just TikTok (like breaching the domestic companies that collect the data). The law is too specific and therefore does not actually protect us in any real way, at least not on a personal level.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not too specific, it's narrowly tailored. Which is one of the things it needs to be in order to survive a 1st amendment challenge.

[–] AmbiguousProps 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Does it stop my data from getting to the CCP? Nope, so I would say it's too specific. The problem is not TikTok exclusively, the problem is that the data is collected and sold in the first place. This doesn't stop that.

Also, it leaves a bad taste when you say it was crafted to narrowly skirt the 1st amendment. That's not a good thing, so I'm not sure why you're trying to imply that it is.

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It's like people legit don't want to understand your point.

It's kinda insane seeing people/the Overton window turn progressively more and more authoritarian

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago

No, but it does prohibit companies in those four sanctioned countries from operating social media apps in the US. The fact that it's not a perfect protection is no good reason not to do it. The fact that it was written with an eye towards the first amendment is not a valid criticism.