• tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    9 months ago

    All profit social media should be held accountable for the content, and the accuracy of it. That’s what the money is for—moderation of disinformation and illegal content.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    9 months ago

    Everybody talking about nonexistent bans, playing into TikTok’s hands of shifting the narrative away from them being forced to sell.

      • Prior_Industry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The end user won’t be aware anything happened. If a ban kicks in then they will start to notice issues when the app updates don’t occur.

        • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          We are talking about management going from a Chinese company to a US company. They’re will be no guarantees we will end up with the same service.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Forcing them to sell means TikTok will continue to operate under new ownership, owners who are not an arm of the Chinese Military.

        Banning them would mean TikTok will no longer operate.

        The legislature in the works is a forced sale.

        • KredeSeraf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          A forced sale on a timescale that these kind of sales have never and will never work on. It’s framed like a sale for those reasons but in practice it’s an impossible task designed to force failure and thus removal.

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

            We’ll see, I suppose. Some business sell in a couple months, some businesses take years to sell. I haven’t read the legislature so idk if there is a time limitation set on the forced sale, please enlighten us.

            • KredeSeraf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              A decent article on the time frame of similar sales

              The bill itself

              “web hosting services in the U.S. would be barred from hosting any “foreign adversary controlled application,” specifically calling out ByteDance’s TikTok, per the text of the bill (H.R. 7521). The ban would go into effect unless such a “foreign adversary” (i.e. ByteDance) divests its ownership in the app (i.e. TikTok) within 165 days of becoming law.”

              The paraphrased relevant section.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                165 days seems to not match the bill you linked to, it appears they get fined after 180 days from when the law is enacted. That means it’s entirely possible the CCP never sell TikTok at all and just pay the fees.

                (2) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply—

                (A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection

                (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

                and then there is this bit about the consequences for taking too long:

                (1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—

                (A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation.

                (B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation. (2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General— (A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and

                I thank you for providing this information for us, though, you’ve gone above and beyond and I thank you for that.

  • antihumanitarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    9 months ago

    The idea that “it’s ok cause we’d do the same” is ridiculous. There is no comparison: China is an authoritarian government and the parent company is practically an arm of the state. There are legitimate criticisms of American tech companies obviously, but they’re ultimately subject to the market and democratic governments. We shouldn’t be doing any business with authoritarians in the first place, much less inviting them to control a significant social media app in the guise of a legitimate business.

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean acting like American tech companies aren’t basically an arm of the American intelligence services is a bit ridiculous too. Just cause they also make money and have to compete in the “fair market” doesn’t change that. If anything it makes it worse cause they’ll sell their data to anyone, whether that be America or China. I’m not saying what TikTok does is good, I’m saying all these companies are bad and focusing on one like this because it’s foreign is dumb.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree. We do the same and it’s not okay when we do it either. But you can recognise that the world (and the US at large,) needs better privacy laws and regulations regarding user data while also feeling that tik tok is invasive and so closely tied to the CCP that it is actually a dangerous attack vector that has its hooks in the American people. I honestly think the bill is BS. Sure, the CCP is a threat to US national security. And yes, they absolutely are using tik tok to that effect. I fully believe that. But I want user privacy laws. I want protections. I don’t want this kind of invasive app (tik tok, meta, Amazon, google et al) tracking me. And I want the government to do something to allow me to take back control of my data.

      • retrieval4558@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m listening to a 4 part Behind the Bastards on Steve Jobs right now, and Woz is presented like a pretty good dude, all things considered

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I still think it’s a bit funny that someone on Apple’s payroll is being critical of another company’s shady business practices when they are essentially doing just as much shady shit with user data.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I didn’t say you had to find it funny. Humour is subjective. But go off.

            I’ll explain since people insist. You’d think Apple’s lawyers would have advised against this since really the company also makes money from gathering and monetizing user data. But apparently not.