• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Cool, let’s ban Temu then. Nothing of value will be lost.

    In all honesty though, I disagree with banning software, and that includes TikTok. I think it’s a terrible platform and I refuse to use it, but I think we need to solve the underlying problem another way, otherwise we’re just picking and choosing what speech is allowed in this country. The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone.

    That said, if we’re going to ban one, let’s ban them all. These apps haven’t provided any tangible value IMO and they’ve arguably caused a fair amount of harm, so I’m not going to die on a hill defending them.

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

      I said Facebook because we know they’re doing it and you’d still have to actually prove that case.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sure, and we should absolutely indict Facebook. And ideally our government wouldn’t be so corrupt that it could indict our own government agencies from buying information from them in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments (and probably the 14th).

        • Maeve@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          How about making data collection other than necessary to operate a website illegal, then making the sale of that data illegal, and absolutely require a warrant to collect it, including from FISA court?

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

            I disagree, especially because “other than necessary” is a pretty squishy concept (i.e. selling tailored ads could be considered “necessary to operate a website”). Instead of that, I think selling or providing any form of data collected without the customer’s explicit consent (and to consent, the customer must know what data is being s hared) or without a warrant (and only the data in the warrant) should be illegal.

            That should be sufficient and actually enforceable, since it has very clear boundaries on what’s included.

            • Maeve@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I think we’re in agreement. I could have said “technologically necessary” to have been more clear, but I don’t agree sale or sharing should be by consent. I think it should be illegal, full stop.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                I think it should be illegal, full stop.

                Then we’re certainly not in agreement. And that’s fine.

                I think sale of data should be 100% allowed, provided the customer consents (and gets fair compensation). The customer, however, needs to be aware of what data is being sold, to whom, and what they’re getting in return. Burying that 20 pages deep in a TOS doesn’t count, it needs to be in a format that an average person could reasonably be expected to fully understand. The service provider and the company receiving the data should have strict legal requirements to keep that data safe, so if there’s a breach of any variety, the consequences would be a lot steeper than a few dollars per person affected.

                So essentially what I’m after here is transparency to the customer, and actual consequences for companies that fail to protect customer data.

                • Maeve@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The reason I didn’t agree with that is because desperate people do desperate things, despite how clear and concise information available is. With every person had guaranteed, decent housing, food, comprehensive medical, decent clothing and other needs met, I may reconsider.