• originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    (Not you OP, you = governments)

    You want to block corporate social media sites as propaganda

    I want to block corporate social media sites because they’re parasites on society.

    We are not the same.

    • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      8 months ago

      Im actually quite upset that lawmakers havent used this to pass generalized privacy protection.

      They have an opportunity to end mass survailance, but thats OK if its US survailance

      • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Our tools of social connection vs their tools of propaganda.

        Now fill in the possessive pronouns with either country and change them depending on the specific tool used.

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t care what they are. I just think the internet in its current state sucks and I like the idea of there being less of it.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      What sucks is I’ve imagined a social media platform that was built with good intentions to actually better being people together and make their lives better. It’s one of the worst missed opportunities in recent memory.

  • fidodo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    They’re technically not banning tiktok, they’re banning China from owning tiktok

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which is somehow even worse : it’s like only the USA is allowed to spy on everyone!

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          So you don’t ridiculise your country by promoting freedom of trade but seizing the assets of the countries you don’t like when it’s a better tech than yours.

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              our most and least popular politician is a sex predator who earned all his money by his dad dying and is currently at risk of losing his money because he can’t stop lying about things.

              The greatest monument to american shamelessness is Donald J Trump.

          • duffman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not with my government on a lot of things they do. I want the same data rights and restrictions to apply to all companies that host people’s personal information.

            But what’s this about Impressive tech? Tiktoc? First that’s laughable, even more laughable is how you phrase is as if anyone would give a fuck if another country had some better tech. Sounds like you are projecting your own insecurities.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          It will be just as easy for them, just less profitable. Now they’ll just pay Zuckerberg or Musk for the information. If they aren’t already.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        And it’s not like they can’t maintain use of the thing while not being owners. Come on. Like there’s some magic rule if a company’s not owned by China, it can’t be used as a Chinese intelligence source? Come on.

        If social media is in cahoots with foreign intelligence, there are better ways to handle it in my opinion.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          The fact that China is using disinformation to stop the forced sale of TikTok is pretty telling that they will be negatively impacted by this.

      • Rinox@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, you are right. They should do like they do in China, sell to a JV with a local company at fire sales price… Oh wait

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          sell to a JV with a local company at fire sales price

          The Chinese policy is to share ownership with locals, so that a firm isn’t simply extracting wealth from the Chinese market.

          The American policy is to seize a pre-existing firm after it has developed, by accusing its Singapore founder of being a secret Chinese Communist.

    • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is primarily intended as a hostile buyout of tiktok. It has literally nothing to do with China.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Lmao, the USA doesn’t operate the commercial sector outside of power, trains, rockets, and planes. It won’t benefit from the sale in any way other than lowering Chinese involvement.

        • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          The US government works for the billionaires that run the economy. Many billionaires want to buy tiktok. In fact, there’s already teams of people set up for buying out tiktok. The government is just the tool for the hostile acquisition. No one said the US government is directly purchasing tiktok.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            The US Government and Billionaires are opposing forces, one political party wants to tax billionaires while the other is on the payroll.

            • tbs9000@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              They’re not at all opposing forces. Some billionaires are in competition with each other and political parties are tools at certain billionaires disposal.

              The act of taxing income is but one political mechanism used to influence the power of some billionaires over another.

                • tbs9000@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I’m not sure I understand your question. They are both pro-government. If any one human could be the personification of government, it would be the President of the United States.

    • finnie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      8 months ago

      They’re not going to sell though. The US only makes up a single-digit % of their users.

  • manuallybreathing
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    I hate tiktok

    but all these talks about keeping children off phones is restricting the flow of information to a point that it scares me. we have Enciclopedias in our pockets ffs.

    if the bar kids from easily accessing the internet, they’re effectively blocking 2mil people (14-17) from instant access to information. (I did some sleep deprived math, dont @me if its off)

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      As far as I know, there’s no legislation being talked about to keep kids off their phones, or even social media. This is more of a concern about China having unfettered access to user data at the drop of a hat, which I can absolutely agree is an issue. Though I don’t know that current legislation is the solution.

      That said, kids absolutely do need to spend more time off their phone than they do. We’ve seen legitimate issues arise from perpetual phone use. The issue is… you can’t really legislate that. It’s parents that need to get their heads out of the sand and actually parent.

      • electric_nan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        If they actually cared about that, they would legislate data privacy laws that keep our data from being sold on the open market. As it is now, everyone from the FBI to your local cops, to the RNC to Chinese or Saudi companies can pay cash for user data. This legislation is largely protectionism for our own domestic surveillance capitalism industry.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Absolutely agreed, but that’s something republicans would never vote for. This is something that actually has a chance to be implemented.

          Baby steps are better than no steps.

    • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m thinking of downloading Wikipedia for my kids to use offline. Apparently it’s around 300gb, so I’ll probably do it on work’s wifi one day.

      • Nebula
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Lol yeah its far smaller without the pictures - I think closer to 50GB? Not sure though you’d have to check, but much better than 300GB.

    • bbuez@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well it should come as no surprise the dictionary is in one of the most recent pushes for book bans in Florida

  • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 months ago

    Honestly the brain dead obvious political move outside of monied interests is strong legislation to protect peoples information.

    But we won’t see that

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes clearly the way you know you are always doing the morally correct thing is to sink to the level of the everyone else.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          What I meant was a general operating principle, not to take a side in a pissing match.

          The standard is good behavior, not other people. Pointing out that X country is doing something wrong does not mean every country gets to do that wrong thing. The alternative to this viewpoint is one where we are effectively or actually extinct from an escalating cycles of violence and a race to the moral bottom.

    • faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      USA is not banning tiktok, it’s banning china’s ownership of tiktok. If Chinese stake is sold to someone else, tiktok will remain.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    My self hosted DNS does all of that banning too. But that’s just my little quality of life thing (and whatever little that does fighting the global data overlords).

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      The fine line between “I don’t want to do the thing” and “I don’t want you to be able to do the thing”.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes.

        But it’s a blurred lines between having to do something or being pressured or heavily encouraged to do something (otherwise you are left out of an important social system).

        I’m totally agreeing with you, just adding that sometimes infrastructure matters (as it gives little choice to population) & can be especially bad if there is a single entity behind it with it’s own agenda not aligned with users interests (eg for profit companies, or in this case I guess geopolitical stuff too).

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    A FORCED SALE IS NOT A BAN.

    I’ve said this like a thousand times and I hate repitition, but the USA as a whole has never tried to ban TikTok. Trump claims he did, it isn’t allowed for military servicemembers, but it has never been banned.

  • bufalo1973
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The same could be said of the US. GAFAM works for the US just like TikTok works for China. I’d like to see the reaction of the US if the EU told Meta to sell the European branch so they “can’t spy on EU citizens”.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s a difference here. Neither the US not the EU can just put their hands out and say “data pleeeeeaaase” and get what they want. There are legal and procedural protections in place for such things.

      Chinese companies on the other hand, are required to do whatever the CCP says, when they are told to.

      • bufalo1973
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, right. Like Meta will say “fuck you” to the NSA.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          If things go through the proper legal channels, no. But we are talking about anything not just specific things that go through the courts.

          The CCP can say “Give me everything you have on bufalo1973, they bothered me one time and I want to bomb their house” and any Chinese company immediately hands over the data, because they have to.

          In contrast, the NSA can still get some of that data, but they can’t demand it and expect it to be handed over without a good reason, and without jumping through hoops.

          As an aside, trying to equate the CCP and the NSA is… odd. The CCP answers to no one, the NSA answers to the DOD, who answers to Congress.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Aside from Apple refusing to decrypt phones most tech companies seem to not have put up any resistance to providing the US (or even the saudi government in the case of X) with whatever info they ask for.

            Like I think one of the regulatory agencies had to introduce a rule to bar US tech companies from selling user data to china.