• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 minutes ago

    The concern isn’t that these companies have microtargeting data. The concern is about what these companies could use that data for.

    An off-brand t-shirt site would be a fairly ineffective vehicle for political propaganda. Tik Tok would be great at that.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 minutes ago

      The concern isn’t the input, it’s the potential output. Temu doesn’t have the potential to be used for a large micro-targeted political messaging campaign.

      This is arguably more akin to how the US handles TV and radio. There are national security restrictions on foreign ownership.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      They care about companies they have less control over and a foreign adversary has more control over invading privacy, for reasons unrelated to seeing privacy as a good in itself.

  • aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s time to start taxing the acquisition, retention, and selling/trading of personal data.

    Actually, that time was 40 years ago.

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Google and Microsoft would be scrambling to pay off every single person associated with that before it ever hit the first courtroom floor.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 hours ago

      GDPR is a start, but we need to actually ban it, not just annoy people until they click Accept at the 20th popup of that tantalising offer to share your details with 1473 trusted data partners.

    • Cataphract
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      ohhh data collection taxation, I like it. You would think it would be a no-brainer but look at marijuana taxation and the continued resistance to rake in all that public funding. Would make most of the controversy around AI disappear if they tax it’s collection.

  • OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    This thread has made me realize that while I was watching the hearings on it purely for comedy aspect, there were actually people out there being like, “Yeah that makes sense.”

    Love it when the government takes away our stuff. Please, take away more of our stuff. Love me that security theater.

    If you don’t like the app, just don’t use it. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with data security and everything to do with other social media companies lobbying to eliminate a competitor, using anti-China sentiment and fear-mongering as a justification. It’s all about the money.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I’d rather they just ban spy apps in general…but that’s a “dream a little dream, it’s never gonna happen” type of thing.

      • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        “I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        that data goes to the US government instead of to the CCP

        Going to blow people’s minds when they find out Temu data also goes to the US government and Facebook data also goes to the CCP.

        This shit is just a commodity. It’s auctioned off at the bid rate. The NSA doesn’t just lay claim to this data, it buys it. And these Big Data companies are only handing it over because of the absurd margins NSA (and MI5 and the rest of the Five Eyes) directors are willing to pay.

        Your data isn’t any safer because the parent company is owned by a foreign plutocrat. This is a big club and you ain’t in it.

        • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Oh no, I’m not under any illusion that my data is safer with any of them lol. I’m just saying that that’s why the US doesn’t ban American social networks/companies. Because it’s all about control.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    You can’t spy on our citizens, that’s our (and our corporations’) job!

    Signed, the US Government

  • Ilandar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m surprised so many people think this is a good argument. TikTok is a social media platform. Temu is an online marketplace. The potential to cause disruption within US society is completely different.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Legally it is a very good argument. A law targeting a single company in name or effect is literally unconstitutional. It’s called a “Bill of Attainder”.

      The counter argument is indicting Facebook because they never stopped selling information directly to the CCP.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day 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
          6
          ·
          1 day 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
            6
            ·
            1 day 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
              ·
              1 day 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
                2
                ·
                30 minutes 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
                  ·
                  26 minutes 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.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone

          Uh, no. It doesn’t protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.

          …And this isn’t about which speech they’re allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov’t inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they’re no longer based in China and subject to China’s laws and interference, then there’s no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it’s collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.

          As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.