this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
435 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59422 readers
2852 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 66 points 6 months ago (14 children)

Are there whataboutism arguments? Yes, many.

Has Chinese intelligence lost access to a treasure trove of US data? Yes.

Are US kids’ already dwindling attention spans going to be saved from exposure to the TikTok algorithm? Yes.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 47 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Actually, you're right.

If we consider this normal, it would totally be acceptable for Europe to demand a ban or sale of American ~~spying and propaganda tools~~ social media and streaming platforms. Either way, it would reduce the harm they could do - and in the case of a sale, they'd actually have to adhere to consumer friendly laws.

[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 43 points 6 months ago

They probably should. FB and all those other apps suck just as much.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I wish we would, but on the other hand, not being a totalitarian regime is kind of the reason why it's better here. Damned if you you, damned if you don't.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Are US kids’ already dwindling attention spans going to be saved from exposure to the TikTok algorithm? Yes.

You're pinning the blame on tiktok when this also applies to YouTube (shorts and not), Instagram (Reels), Twitter. If we wanted an actual solution here we would implement actual children screen time laws, ironically similar to the under 18 gaming laws that have been implemented in China.

Tiktok is the only platform I've seen legitimate progressive movement on various issues and discussions centering on what that means and takes, in a way that actually fosters a great democratic progressive movement in the US.

From all I've read on this issue, not a single person has provided me with any insight into what or who this benefits that does not also apply to every other social media other than an entirely fabricated myth that they're controlling the algorithms to spread anti US sentiment. Anti-US sentiment definitely exists, but it exists as a discussion around what the US is currently doing. I.e. funding Israel, and as a counterargument to that I am also fed state department interviews on my FYP.

[–] Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago (5 children)

80% of contant on tik tok is pro Palestine compared to 20% pro Isreal. They cannot have the young generation be made aware of the world's injustices. Thats why it was the fastest bill to pass.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

This is my point when people say "it's just getting sold, don't worry". Yeah I am sure after Google, FB or Steven Mnuchin's investor group buys it I will still see all the pro Palestine stuff in my feed...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

saved from exposure to the TikTok algorithm?

I don't understand. It will just be bought. It won't go anywhere.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

I agree with the chinese intelligence part but other than that, this is basically the government telling you how to live your life rather than letting you choose yourself. In my opinion we should be allowed to make bad choices. What's next? Ban on sugar and mandatory excercise for everyone? Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but this is a step in exactly that direction.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

I don’t really use TikTok but I really hope this gets tossed by the courts. I don’t care if ByteDance is owned by cthulus and draculas, it’s a terrible precedent to have the government ban a media company. If we don’t like China having access to data, ban apps from collecting it in the first place. Require algorithm audits. There are so many better ways to handle this than singling out TikTok.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Everybody talks about Facebook like they’re owned by the American government. They’re not. I’m sure the US government gets massive amounts of data from them, but they can’t control Facebook in the way China can control Tik Tok. And much of their surveillance is public with warrants whereas China does not need to follow any of that.

[–] isles@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago (16 children)

I know that I heard (on the 538 podcast) that before voting on this, congress was given a security briefing about it, and after that there was wide bipartisan support for the ban (and we all know how rare bipartisan support is these days). It sounds like the security briefing was pretty compelling. If it's not just theoretical that Chinese gocernment could leverage tiktok to spy on Americans and influence them, and there's evidence that they are already doing it, I think it makes the case for the ban much stronger. But the information has not been made public.

I'll also note that they set the ban to not go into effect until after the election.

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 10 points 6 months ago (10 children)

This seems to be the case, but congress is doing an awful job of communicating the danger to the public. There will likely be a lot of people angry at Biden when he signs this if there is no effort to justify the targeted action.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Dark_Arc@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

See https://lemmy.world/post/14643617

I'm sure it's just even more detail about the scope of that influence campaign (and possibly an extrapolation of effectiveness on public opinion).

The major thing is manipulation of the public's information pipeline by a hostile foreign power. There are already existing laws about foreign owned media (as cited by the New York Times this morning https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/tiktok-bill-foreign-influence/677806/).

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Data harvesting is half of the problem. I have a feeling that congress could give two shits about the data harvesting as it’s almost literally everywhere in modern society and not in the interests of donors or the nationality security apparatus to remove.

The other half is the platform and its potential (hypothetical and actual) for use in information operations. TikTok has direct access to something like 160 million American devices. That rivals other social media giants like Meta who have some government liaisons and relationships embedded in their security teams. ByteDance to my knowledge does not have these relationships. This problem could just as easily apply to any other foreign platform if any were large enough to pose threats of this scale.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (4 children)

My guess is they’re more concerned about propaganda. They’re concerned about it being Fox News, but for the CCP.

Starts off innocent enough, then slowly starts pushing disinformation that’s in service of a political entity.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You mean exactly like Facebook, right, because there are a lot of parallels but I never heard American politicians want to ban Facebook.

Let's not fool ourselves!

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Difference being, Facebook is just greedy, and will promote toxic disinformation because it gets high engagement numbers. If factual civics videos got high engagement, Facebook would gladly promote that. They want to promote whatever is going to sell more ads.

With the CCP, the motivation is the message, not the money. With Facebook, the motivation is the money and whatever message makes the most of it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Propaganda is effective. It’s at times silly, blatant, jingoistic, and offensive, but it has historically worked to influence public opinions.

I think you’re right, but saying the quiet part out loud. People don’t like to think they’re susceptible to scams and propaganda because they’re not that dumb or gullible. People still click on phishing emails…

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hark@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Being the guy who signed the bill that threatens the existence of a platform that is super popular with young people whose vote he desperately needs during an election year. Masterful gambit, sir!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 20 points 6 months ago (8 children)

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll repost here for discussion:

Ew. I looked through the bill, and here are some parts I have issues with:

Main text

PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON - TROLLED APPLICATIONS .—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:

(A) Providing services to distribute, main- tain, or update such foreign adversary con- trolled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.

(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.

So basically, the US can block any form of software (not just social media) distributed by an adversary county for pretty much reason, and it can block any company providing access to anything from an adversary.

Definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary"

(g) DEFINITIONS .—In this section:6 (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY .— The term ‘‘controlled by a foreign adversary’’ means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is--

(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;

(B) an entity with respect to which a for- eign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indi- rectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or

(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

The adversary countries are (defined in a separate US code):

  • N. Korea
  • China
  • Russia
  • Iran

So if you live in any of these or work for a company based in any of these, you're subject to the law.

foreign adversary company definition

(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI - 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, di- rectly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or

(B) a covered company that—

(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and

(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—

It specifically calls out TikTok and ByteDance, but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat.

So here are my issues:

  • I, as a US citizen, can't choose to distribute software produced by an adversary as noted officially by the US government - this is a limitation on my first amendment protections, and I think this applies to FOSS if the original author is from one of those countries
  • the barrier to what counts is relatively low - just living in an adversary country or working for a company based on an adversary country seems to don't
  • barrier to a "covered company" is relatively low and probably easy to manipulate - basically needs 1M active users (not even US users), which the CIA could totally generate if needed

So I think the bill is way too broad (lots of "or"s), and I'm worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors. It's not as bad as I feared, but I still think it's harmful.

Anyway, thoughts?

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

its also them just avoiding writing a privacy bill, yet again.

[–] Dlayknee@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Well c'mon, if they write a legit privacy bill it's going to hurt their Stateside vectors. This way, they can tout "yay security!" while funneling more traffic to Instabookapp where they can still access it.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

and I’m worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors.

I want to give the benefit of the doubt and say they are concerned about getting programs running all over the country that can somehow "backdoor" a major issue into our network, but I not only don't know enough about how feasible that is, I also strongly believe it's as you feared. It's what we get the government to do all the time: fuck with other countries to "protect" our major corporations...

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

Why give them the benefit of the doubt? Look at Snowdon"s revelations, they abused FISA courts to rubber stamp spying on US citizens. Why wouldn't they do the same for lobbyists?

I get that TikTok sucks for all manner of reasons, but expanding the power of the executive branch isn't the way to deal with it, especially this way. This is pretty similar to the "force authorization" crap where the President can just bomb whoever the want, provided they let Congress know afterward. But now it's in the economy instead of just military...

So no, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt, they've lost my trust every other time they've done something like this. The bill is bad and the precedent is sets is bad.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Good. Honestly, great! The EU should do the same. Fuck the CCP and their propaganda machine that brainwashes people all over the world!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] malloc@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My $1 bid is ready to submit to ByteDance once grandpa signs that bill.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Get in line buddy, I'm entering this race with $1.01!!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BrownianMotion@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The kids don't care, they will just use CoCo Fun (most are using both apps anyway).

The only difference is that with Coco Fun, its America spying on your kids.

https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.uukasoft_llc.516d97c17bf7215c8d343ca77efa305c.html

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 months ago (13 children)

I don't know why people think spying is the issue. It's the potential control. For example, when this bill was proposed, TikTok sent a notification to users to contact their representatives. That's not horribly harmful, but it does show a willingness to weaponize their user base (and their base's willingness to listen).

If this bill wasn't going to pass before, it sure as well would after that happened. You have to consider what else that could potentially be used for. Could they possibly use it to influence an election if a candidate was against their interests?

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

There is a whole class of "influencers" that get paid to shill for everything from liquor to policy on every platform. Tiktok, a foreign company, owns the algorithm, so they can promote whatever they want.

This all seems sketchy, but then I recall citizens united and the fact that billions are spent directly purchasing influence in the actual government. They just don't like some other entity putting their finger on the scale.

I'd much prefer systematic reform where money can't buy influence and companies (US or otherwise) can't spy on their users, yet that will never be on the table because of the money and power Facebook and others have.

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If they ban one they should ban them all. Cambridge analytica used Facebook on behalf of LeaveEU and Trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›