TikTok is taking the US government to court.

  • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Every negative thing about Tiktok is also true about Instagram and Twitter.

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 months ago

      TikTok is solely responsible for that AI voice. Instagram and Twitter have never done anything that compares to the pain and suffering that has caused to humanity.

    • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Except the part about the authoritarian regime, the US has many problems but it’s still a democracy.

      Edit: I’m glad you downvote me because you never had to learn what living in a dictatorship is like, I didn’t, but my parents generation still did and I can tell you it looks nothing like the US of today. Women were only allowed to be housewives, groups of more than 2 people couldn’t talk openly in the street because that can lead to dangerous ideas spreading out, you would have to be careful what you said even at home because your neighbour could be listening to sell you out, all pieces of art and media would go through an government office to get censored, and so on, so yes, I stand with what I said, the US is a free democratic country even if you have been spoiled enough to think it is not.

      • demonsword@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        6 months ago

        the US has many problems but it’s still a democracy

        Given the choice between hot shit and cold shit still ends with you being covered in shit. Heads or tails between two very similar parties hardly counts as a true democracy.

        • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is incredibly disingenuous. The US might not be a true democracy, but it’s not an authoritarian regime. Xi and putin disappear people who have an opinion on whether they should be forever-rulers.

          The fact that independent parties exist and hold seats at all three levels of government mean you are fundamentally wrong in saying there are only two choices.

          The US is a flawed democracy. That’s still better than an authoritarian regime.

          • banana_lama@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            6 months ago

            Power in the US is held within an oligarchy and when they are threatened people get disappeared. There’s examples of that but one that’s being made an example of in broad daylight is Julian Assange

        • jaschen@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          While the US might be hot shit, it’s still our OWN shit. Keep your cold shit on your side of the pond.

            • jaschen@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              TikTok is a psyops software disguised as a social media application. Facebook is bad for other reasons. But psysops are not one of them.

              • irreticent@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Facebook is bad for other reasons. But psysops are not one of them.

                You’ve obviously never heard of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. That meddled in our presidential election on behalf of a hostile foreign nation.

                There are also plenty of other examples of Facebook running psyop campaigns themselves on their own users. Your claim is demonstrably false.

              • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Just wondering why would you want to ban anything? Does banning something solve any problem that a normal person has? I mean if the ban wave is on it would be fair to ban anything that’s not open source but I do think censorship is cancer.

                • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I am not very comfortable with “banning” websites - let’s say outright dissolving some companies is probably the better approach, but also a double-edged sword. However, there is sometimes a need to legally shut down some entities.

                  I believe that by now it should no longer be a subject of debate that social media has a very unhealthy influence on the public opinion, and that most humans do not have the intellectual capacity to critically reflect on the media they consume. That’s already a problem with some TV programs, and it has gotten worse with social media monetizing anger. As a result we get people who vote for politicians who promise them nothing short of a dictatorship. That’s incredibly dangerous, and therefore I would like to see all social media federated - centralized services give way too much power to individuals with shady motives.

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

        Not everything that’s not a dictatorship is a democracy. You’re using a strawman to argue your point.

        A democracy stops when there is a severe imbalance in influence on legislation between voters and lobbyists / corporations / or voters depending on income / colour of skin.

        There’s also a quasi oligarchy with freedom of speech, that’s about where western Europe is at. In the US, by now, a large part of the population has been deprived of basic human rights, as shown in unpunished police brutality and murders, and vigilante killings of people for their beliefs, opinions or identity.

        Neither still qualifies for democracy. We would have to unite about two thirds of the voters behind a new party to even hope to change anything that matters (hello climate change), and that’s assuming that a hypothetical party that would actually act in the interest of restoring democratic mechanisms would be persecuted or otherwise hindered by authorities.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        And What does that have to do with anything? We aren’t dealing with China, we’re dealing with a corporation.

      • kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        Hey I was born in a country with a military dictatorship and my parents grew up under it.

        That’s exactly why I believe in freedom and liberty. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association. We need to uphold these principles so that the US doesn’t slowly slip into authoritarianism like most democracies tend to do over the long term.

        That’s exactly why I oppose this TikTok ban with every fiber of my being. If a citizen wants to communicate on a Chinese platform, he has every right to do so under our laws. He can make the executive decision for himself about the potential risks or benefits.

        That’s what it means to live in a free society. You are advocating for authoritarianism while you rail against authoritarianism. Reminds me of 1984. War is peace, right?

        • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          He can make the executive decision for himself about the potential risks or benefits

          But should he? Is any one by themselves really capable? Note that I don’t really know what to think myself, purely asking.

      • 31337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Doesn’t really matter unless you live under it. Instagram and Twitter or more dangerous to U.S. citizens.

      • Armok: God of Blood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        To be fair, so is League of Legends and every product made by Tencent and their subsidiaries. If they’re going to go ahead with a ban, they should at least keep it consistent.

        • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          The real question you are asking is whether inaction is worse than inconsistency. Should we not put out a fire unless we can put out all fires? What you are suggesting is to let something burn for the sake of consistency.

    • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m basically indifferent to Instagram (IDK what it’s about) and I’ve hated Twitter since I first learned about its high concept. Twitter makes people stupid.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              6 months ago

              If this were true, it wouldn’t matter that the US set up the social security number system, because Experian leaked millions of Americans’ SSNs.

              It obviously matters who owns a service that millions of citizens use from a country that is a political rival. You’re just hoping to shut down any conversation against TikTok with a whataboutism

              • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                6 months ago

                We’re talking about individuals’ personal data stored by social media companies being accessible to others (governments, in this case). This has nothing to do with social security.

                The problem is that the data is accessable, but that’s not being addressed. This is an improper fix to an actual problem, just facts.

                • tborders@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  When signing up for a tik-tok account, I put in a birth date, a username, an email address for verifcation and that was it. I didn’t need to provide a drivers license, verify that the name I put in was my actual name, that the birth date was my actual birth date. Location isn’t allowed nor was it requested and neither was Nearby devices. It’s actually been a much better behaved application than any American social media app.

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            6 months ago

            It doesn’t matter who owns it. It’s the data that the US government is accessing.

            I couldn’t give a shit about TikTok, I’ve never used it in my life. I just think the US should be open and say we are banning this as we don’t have control over it. Sure China is only doing what we are doing but fuck em. I’d respect that.

            Also, it’s got to be about silencing pro-Palestinian rhetoric too.

            If they ban TikTok they should ban FaceBook and Instagram too.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Also, it’s got to be about silencing pro-Palestinian rhetoric too.

              Yeah trump was talking about banning it in 2020 because he used his time machine to find out what it would be used for in the future. After his harrowing story from the future, I agreed with the effort to ban it because I lOvE gEnOcIdE

              …of fucking course it matters who owns it

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You’re actually just mad you don’t have an actual response to the fact that you making the about Israel/Palestine makes zero sense

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              “if one authoritarian government does surveillance even across borders, why can’t all? Anything less than ‘i agree’ here is hypocrisy!”

              • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                6 months ago

                Noone is saying that. The argument is pretty much that people want more scrutiny applied to other companies beyond tiktok, and ideally not be under constant surveillance by any of them, not that people want to be monitored by all police states equally.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It’s a whataboutist cop out. People who like tiktok just wanna point out how supposedly since tiktok was targeted, then it’s all in bad faith and therefore there could never possibly be a legit concern with tiktok in particular. Any argument to be addressed with “ChInA bAd”

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          I have a question for you. What is the difference between Google being banned in China and Tik Tok being banned in the US?

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        6 months ago

        Can I ban NSA from spying on me? I’m not even on fReEeDoOoOoM land, I should be entitled to some amount of privacy

          • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            6 months ago

            This is not whataboutism - it’s looking at the bigger picture. The point is that you should want to prevent all mass surveillance by social media companies. Not force them to sell so that the government can get its greedy paws on the data.

            • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              The government can already access the data with a warrant. The ownership of TikTok has literally 0 effect on the government’s ability to access user data. Not being owned by the Chinese government has a huge impact on China’s ability to access that data.

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

          Yes I need my government to tell me obvious facts like foreign surveillance is bad. I’m just that stupid /s

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        And if someone chooses to watch that, that’s their business. Not nanny government’s. Not saying I do. But none of us have any business telling someone else what they can and cannot watch. That’s part of living in a supposedly “free” country. We aren’t China. You want a “great firewall”, then move there.

        In our zeal to shun everything China-related, we must not become them.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Which is any different than YouTube, Lemmy or anything else?

        I think people should have a right to shoot themselves in the foot if they choose.

        • ben@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          6 months ago

          The difference from the perspective of the US is that it’s spyware from a potentially malicious foreign state. China bans US tech companies as well, TikTok took advantage of the US having a much more open market and the state decided that they were acting in bad faith.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I no longer opt into conversations with people who believe “China bad” is an argument winner

  • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    What would give them standing? They’d have to be an entity protected by the constitution to claim that protection was harmed. Is it this (Wikipedia)?

    TikTok Ltd was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and is based in both Singapore and Los Angeles. source

    I guess I’ve never thought about what makes an entity have rights here. Buckingham Palace couldn’t just open shop here and start suing our government, right?

    • Simon Müller@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      6 months ago

      The case is essentially “hey you kinda passed a bill that’s against your own constitution? You’re kinda supposed to follow that…”

    • riplin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 months ago

      The constitution applies to the government, not the American (or other) people. “Government shall pass no law…”

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      We decided a while ago that the Constitution protects everyone and every thing in the US because the loophole of declaring people and companies to not be protected was too dystopian even for conservatives at the time.

  • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    At this point, I’d like to ask: If a foreign company threatens democracy in a country, is it legal for the executive to ban business with that company?

    No? Then that doesn’t make sense. It’s a FOREIGN company, the government should have the right to do whatever it needs to protect its citizens in that regard.

    • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is the real question. Is there a loophole that allows foreign governments to freely exercise mass surveillance and psyops if they allow US citizens to post on a blackboard outside their offices?

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      If tiktok were a serious threat, the executive branch would have already banned it by now via an executive order.

      That’s not what happend, instead a whole bill went through congress and got passed with the explanation being “foreign influence” as if American social media platforms don’t already do the same thing

      This is more about removing foreign competition and not about saving democracy or ensuring security.

      DoD already banned it 4 years ago for military because of the actual security threat of data collection.

      • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        TikTok pushed a notifications to all US users with the phone numbers of their local congressmen to oppose the bill. So many calls came in that the phone lines were jammed.

        Let me distill that for you: China attempted to directly influence legislation with a mass propaganda campaign targeted at its US user base.

        Please explain to me why that isn’t a threat and why the US should allow hostile foreign powers to directly influence internal politics?

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          We’ve already established that Tiktok Tok is not the CCP. That’s what the whole first “gonna ban TikTok” fiasco was over. It’s why they don’t store US data in China but continue to do business in the US.

          That would be a business using the 1st amendment right (which everyone gets, not just citizens) to free speech to use it’s platform to ask it’s users to do something directly beneficial to them. Nothing illegal about it unless you want to reevaluate that “TikTok is the CCP” claim again.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      The government certainly does have the right to protect citizens and make whatever laws are necessary. In this case, the government can do so by amending the constitution. Until then, the 1st Amendment applies to all citizens, non-citizens, and business entities operating in the United States.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        This is just blatantly false, if an organization is committing crimes or doing something the government dislikes then the government will sanction it, like it has done with almost every Russian Oligarch’s business, or front businesses for terrorist groups.

        I’m pretty sure the whole point of banning TikTok is that the government is alleging that TikTok has engaged/can be forced to engage in abusive or illegal practices.

        • Dadd Volante@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Mitt Romney actually said the main reason everyone was on board for the ban was due to the sheer amount of Palestinian support on the app

          • irreticent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            While that is true, it is also a whataboutism. What does your comment have to do with the conversation? What did it contribute to the conversation?

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    as expected, they literally said they would pusue legal options before pulling out of the us.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Why can’t a country choose which services it wants to prohibit? Seems strange, it isn’t an American company.

      I don’t really care, just wondering.

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        In the U.S., laws that disadvantage specific entities are generally considered to not be following the “equal protection” part of the (amended) constitution.

        Countries without (their own) laws prohibiting it can (and do) prohibit specific services.

        Member states of the WTO (like the U.S.) have agreed to allow themselves to be sued for lost profits based on any (new) laws they pass.

        But, I’m no expert – this is just the view from my (potentially misinformed) corner of the world.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        i don’t want foreign companies meddling with my country either, but here we are

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    When does a company care about the constitution? When it’s profits are threatened and the constitution suits their argument.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oh shut the fuck up. Can we please not devolve every online argument into circular “well you cared enough to post this” bullshit? It’s exhausting.

  • p3n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    The ironic thing is that if the US government wanted people to stop using it because of the PRC, they should have just leaked some fake Snowden style documents saying that the NSA was using it. Everyone would drop it like a hot potato then.