• Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    7 months ago

    Data harvesting is half of the problem. I have a feeling that congress could give two shits about the data harvesting as it’s almost literally everywhere in modern society and not in the interests of donors or the nationality security apparatus to remove.

    The other half is the platform and its potential (hypothetical and actual) for use in information operations. TikTok has direct access to something like 160 million American devices. That rivals other social media giants like Meta who have some government liaisons and relationships embedded in their security teams. ByteDance to my knowledge does not have these relationships. This problem could just as easily apply to any other foreign platform if any were large enough to pose threats of this scale.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      My guess is they’re more concerned about propaganda. They’re concerned about it being Fox News, but for the CCP.

      Starts off innocent enough, then slowly starts pushing disinformation that’s in service of a political entity.

      • filister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You mean exactly like Facebook, right, because there are a lot of parallels but I never heard American politicians want to ban Facebook.

        Let’s not fool ourselves!

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Difference being, Facebook is just greedy, and will promote toxic disinformation because it gets high engagement numbers. If factual civics videos got high engagement, Facebook would gladly promote that. They want to promote whatever is going to sell more ads.

          With the CCP, the motivation is the message, not the money. With Facebook, the motivation is the money and whatever message makes the most of it.

          • GhostTheToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Based take. Seemed we learned nothing from Trump and What-aboutism. Just because Facebook does it and doesn’t get in trouble doesn’t mean Facebook is in the right. It means you should get mad and demand change from them too.

            Also I might have missed this, but didn’t everyone get mad at tiktok last or a couple of years ago for circumventing Android and Apple app policies and collecting data they shouldn’t? I though Facebook and Twitter obeyed those policies, they just had other means to collect that data.

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

            So I suppose put it like this: what if the way for Facebook to make the most money is all their current operations + pushing the rightwing agenda? (or leftwing depending on what team you’re on).

            How is that any less meddling than tik tok? Sure Facebook is based in america, but has clearly shown it cares much more about its own interests than any country.

            It just feels like trusting a tank of gas cause you just saw someone get lit on fire by a tank of diesel

            • credit crazy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              On one hand I can see your gas tank analogy being correct but I may be saying this out of habit of how we have been disarming disinformation that originates from random sources the whole time we have had social media but disarming disinformation that is backed and distributed by a authoritarian regimes that have a military force and possibly assassins and other means to physically shut people up it’s a bit harder especially when you’re going against them on a platform that they control and own

      • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Propaganda is effective. It’s at times silly, blatant, jingoistic, and offensive, but it has historically worked to influence public opinions.

        I think you’re right, but saying the quiet part out loud. People don’t like to think they’re susceptible to scams and propaganda because they’re not that dumb or gullible. People still click on phishing emails…

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

        Sure, you gotta limit the propaganda to American companies…

        I’m no fan of TikTok and I think it’s actively harmful for a whole host of reasons, but freedom of speech is Constitutionally protected, and I can see an argument that “algorithms” should be included in that protection. That’s probably why this doesn’t target the “algorithms” TikTok uses, but instead targets the nation of origin.

        The propaganda issue is not resolved by this legislation, it merely attacks one potential source and gives the President tools to address other similar sources w/o passing new legislation. It’s probably fine (and way better than previous, related proposals), but it doesn’t do much to solve propaganda.

        I’d much rather see more focus on transparency, privacy, and consent, instead of just banning stuff because it seems dangerous.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, this is almost certainly it. They used the app to send a notification to users to contact their representatives about this bill. They are obviously willing to use it for political means, and their users are willing to listen. What else might they use that power to do?