Facebook sold personal data to a foreign organization called Cambridge Analytica who used it to influence our elections. If their motivations are to protect us via protecting themselves, why is Facebook not banned, and not even in the discussion of being banned?
Did occurring in 2015 happen to make it less bad somehow? We sure as hell weren’t passing laws to ban facebook back then either, so I’m not sure what point you think you’ve made.
We didn’t have the same stance on data privacy back then as we do today. GDPR wouldn’t be a thing for another year, not implemented for two more after that (2018). Legislators largely didn’t understand the risks associated with unrestricted exchanges of seemingly benign user data at the time. Yay for hindsight being 20/20.
And we should ban them too. I love this argument. We need better user data privacy laws, and this whataboutism does not change the fact that China is a hostile foreign nation.
I can appreciate that people view Google and Meta and so on as very similar in their transgressions. But as was pointed out in the original comment, this is a cost to benefit ratio type of analysis for the federal government and they gain more by keeping Meta and Google going and can enact other measures to prevent that from hurting them (usually reactionary), so to them this is fine. It is and always has been about what the US government can to do protect itself and enrich itself. Enrichment doesn’t always come in the form of monetary value.
If you’re upset at your own government (or government adjacent tech entities) gathering this type of data from users, you should be for banning them too, not keeping tik tok.
Facebook sold personal data to a foreign organization called Cambridge Analytica who used it to influence our elections. If their motivations are to protect us via protecting themselves, why is Facebook not banned, and not even in the discussion of being banned?
For one thing, today isn’t 2015
Did occurring in 2015 happen to make it less bad somehow? We sure as hell weren’t passing laws to ban facebook back then either, so I’m not sure what point you think you’ve made.
Hindsight and foresight are identical I always say
We didn’t have the same stance on data privacy back then as we do today. GDPR wouldn’t be a thing for another year, not implemented for two more after that (2018). Legislators largely didn’t understand the risks associated with unrestricted exchanges of seemingly benign user data at the time. Yay for hindsight being 20/20.
And we should ban them too. I love this argument. We need better user data privacy laws, and this whataboutism does not change the fact that China is a hostile foreign nation.
I can appreciate that people view Google and Meta and so on as very similar in their transgressions. But as was pointed out in the original comment, this is a cost to benefit ratio type of analysis for the federal government and they gain more by keeping Meta and Google going and can enact other measures to prevent that from hurting them (usually reactionary), so to them this is fine. It is and always has been about what the US government can to do protect itself and enrich itself. Enrichment doesn’t always come in the form of monetary value.
If you’re upset at your own government (or government adjacent tech entities) gathering this type of data from users, you should be for banning them too, not keeping tik tok.
Wrong. They let Cambridge collect it on their platform. Huge difference.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
Their justification for banning Tiktok is that it allows the Chinese government to collect on their platform. It’s the same fucking thing.