• Freefall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    YOUR data doesn’t matter. Information gained from mass analysis of data that is tied to govt workers and military personnel is a security concern and it is treated as such. Nobody cares about your particular data, on either side (well, maybe ad companies, but if you are a tiktoker, you are already fully compromised there).

    On the up side for tiktok kids. The CCP will likely order trump to unblock it.

  • s_s@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    16 hours ago

    “TikTok is influencing you politically”

    So you’ll shut down Fox News, right?

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Apparently, Meta has just taken part in a huge destabilizing propaganda campaign here in Brazil. The kind that criminal law has punishment for.

      It will certainly take a while to gather all evidence and verify it, so I’m saving the popcorn for later. But I just ensured I have enough kernel for a US-sized portion…

      • vegantomato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Another one: Elon Musk is pushing the whole Grooming Gang propaganda on X to cause tensions in the UK. As if nobody cares about victims when the perpetrator happens to be brown. It’s absolute populist BS.

        He is also saying that the parliament should be dissolved, and is throwing around more outrageous accusations: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/01/04/elon-musk-pushes-for-britains-king-charles-to-dissolve-parliament-as-lawmakers-say-tesla-ceo-is-misinformed/

        We have people with obvious political agendas controlling the world’s largest social media platforms, and it’s not just the CCP.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          with obvious political agendas

          On the case of Brazil, I think it has economical reasons. Meta sells stuff that compete with the social infrastructure it was trying to destabilize.

          I would really like to see some laws against media concentration. It’s not even important who the media is. Instead, we have some laws that are the opposite of that, so if we solve the Meta problem, something else is due to break shortly after.

          But hey, it’s entertaining anyway.

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 hours ago

      They absolutely should. In fact I’d be surprised if they didn’t do something about it eventually.

  • Pulsar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    I don’t like or use TikTok, but when I see US politicians and TV “Security experts” spiting nonsense arguments to justify banning it shows to me that this is a frivolous case to benefit META and Alphabet rather than a genuine concern in data collection and privacy.

    • Burninator05@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      No one gives a shit if your data is collected. I (and presumably you) are not worthwhile targets. The issue is the Chinese government using social media apps based in China to feed anti-US/pro-Chinese propaganda. I’d bet $100 that if (mostly likely when) China invades Taiwan all Chinese owned social media outlets will instantly feature lots of anti-Taiwan content in every country that they may turn for help to try and turn the US population’s opinion more favorable to China’s side.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    They did. Divisions H and I of HR 815 of the 118th Congress make it illegal to collect, broker, lease, trade, or sell US Citizen’s personally identifying data to an adversarial nation which is defined in Article 10 as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.

    You’re complaining about the law and you literally have no idea what that law says?

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Data privacy is so much more than “selling data to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.” What a weak rebuttal.

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The problem is this doesn’t apply across the board. Why is it only illegal if they’re selling it to a foreign company? It should be illegal to sell it full stop. This just gives the US government a monopoly on the information which I’m more afraid of than a foreign country having my data since I live here and they can directly affect me.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        16 hours ago

        They made it illegal to sell it to people who explicitly want to harm the USA. Thats a good start.

        Ironically, most USA based social media platforms are already banned in China. It just makes sense, if TikTok wants to operate here they need the chinese owners to divest to below 20% or stop sending personal data overseas.

        • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Ah ok so we should start doing the things China does then? I think them banning social media platforms is also bad when the bans are just done for the sake of monopolizing social media platforms under the control of the government. Decentralized platforms like this are a nice way around that but most people aren’t gonna use them. So having platforms based in different countries to allow different perspectives on stories like with Israel/Palestine is good. Cause if we can only access American social media platforms you know they’re just gonna fully suppress coverage on issues that America and various lobbying groups don’t want to be talked about.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            By banning FaceBook, China is keeping itself safe from influence that could be used as a weapon to cause great and irreparable damages.

            Whether I want harm to come to them is besides the point that it is a rational and logical decision.

            I think the disconnect here is that you don’t think they are weapons, that you don’t think they will be used to commit harm.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      So technically you’re right, but the law they passed left a HUGE loophole. And by loophole I mean just don’t be based on those counties and you can gobble up whatever data you like.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It’s not even a “loophole” it’s literally irrelevant to what people generally think of as “data privacy.” Something like GDPR is an example of data privacy.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        You also can’t send the data there or be more than 20% owned by non-US-citizen citizens of those countries.

        TikTok owners have stated repeatedly that they will shut down this Sunday rather than sell.

        • MimicJar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Sure, but even if TikTok sold it wouldn’t solve the problem. Hell them not selling also doesn’t solve the problem.

          The problem is that data is gobbled up and sold. Data/privacy protection laws to stop that would be useful.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            I choose to believe a hostile foreign dictatorship means more harm than a hostile domestic for profit business.

            Probably because that aligns with what each of them says they want, to say nothing of their actions.

            Bht hey, if at least one of them gets banned thats a win.

    • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Cool so what does this law do for me again? I live in America i personally will never interact with those 4 countries. The wording is also dangerous calling Chinaa foreign adversary comparable with the other 3. Which is dangerous. We are in active war with 3 where as China we do massive business.

      Passed in April 2024 so useful when Facebook was a broker for Russia in 2016 DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

      Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

      (Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

      Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

      For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

      A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

      would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
      precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).
      

      The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

      Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user’s request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

      The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

      (Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

      DIVISION I–PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

      Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

      This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

      Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

      A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual’s data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

      The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        It would be easy and rational to attribute misinformation memes like this to ignorance, but to be honest I can’t help by imagine it is malice.

        • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          There’s definitely some malice in there i don’t doubt, which likely bleeds into the unwillingness to prove one’s biases wrong

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

    I’m really not able to keep up with the hive on this. One minute- they hate TikTok, A day later, they defend TikTok?

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The hive is (or at least was) a bit split. Many users seem to hate TikTok because they just dislike it for whatever reason (e.g., addictive short form videos), but others view this as a fascist move by the US or anti-China.

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      17 hours ago

      They aren’t defending TikTok so much as calling the bluff. The US govt doesn’t actually give a rats ass about privacy or data collection. Some relics in Congress were convinced its a national security threat and needs to be banned OR SOLD TO A US BASED BUYER (I’m personally thinking this is the Muskrat’s doing, but that’s all conspiracy) to preserve national security.

      A massive, comprehensive data privacy law would’ve covered the TikTok base and any software by any other threat. Home run, Grand slam, easy win and easy points.

      Of course it’s not going that way because it was never about national security.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        A massive, comprehensive data privacy law would’ve covered the TikTok base and any software by any other threat

        That’s assuming the ban is motivated by privacy reasons, but i don’t think it is. It’s far more likely that it’s because the US has no control over the platform’s algorithm, which they fear is feeding Americans media and perspectives that are antithetical to their foreign policy objectives (Blinken and Romney have both stated as much).

        A US buyer would be more friendly/responsive to US regulatory influence. That’s the only reason this isn’t a privacy bill instead of a ban or forced sale.

        • nieminen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          In other words, they (the US government) can’t influence who does or doesn’t see certain content, so they need it to sell to an “american” owner so that they can make sure they only see pro us propaganda.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        OR SOLD TO A US BASED BUYER (I’m personally thinking this is the Muskrat’s doing, but that’s all conspiracy)

        If true, Musk may have bought shares in companies that deal with data and wants to simply profit. I have had a work colleague who got rich buying stocks and is bit of a fan of Elon Musk. He admits that private data is basically the new gold but the masses is all too unaware or uncaring for it. So you might be on to something with this.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I think Trump is going to try to work out a deal where TickTok gets to stay the way it is if the company publicly blames Democrats for all the noise.

  • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Honestly at this point I rather have China steal my data vs. The US government. I’d be more likely to see a negative impact from data collection from the US government rather than China. China can’t really influence my insurance rates. The US can.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Political interference, that’s what people need to fear from the platform. I’m sure if it was Russian I wouldn’t have to say it.

    Hell, just look at the number of pro TikTok memes being shared right now, there’s something fishy happening.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      just look at the number of pro TikTok memes being shared right now, there’s something fishy happening.

      If by “fishy” you mean “the ban is going into effect so people are expressing frustration”, sure.

    • Anas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t think I see pro-TikTok memes, but rather “why stop at TikTok” memes

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        As far as I understand TikTok is used as the main example but it will apply to all similar Chinese (or just Bytedance owned?) platforms.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Young people love the platform. Was it fishy when there were Luigi memes? Regardless of how much the state is involved with the app, it’s popular.

      Oh look, I must be an agent for the CCP cause I’m suggesting there’s a legitimate reason for memes.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Trump went from wanting it banned to not wanting it banned because it was working in his favor this time, which is… Political interference!

        Crazy how hypocritical people are… X should be banned because Musk can interfere in politics with his algorithms, but TikTok doing the same thing on behalf of the Chinese government? No problem!

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Musk’s X hurting America is just America hurting itself, deservedly. TikTok hurting America is the CCP hurting America, undeservedly.

          You can see how an American Company operating rationally would want to limit negative socioeconomic outcomes, but a Chinese Dictatorship Military operation would want to maximize it?

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          His stacked ass SCOTUS all agreed on this. But let me get out my crystal ball… I predict they will change their minds too. Hmm

  • rarbg@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    US government couldn’t give two shits if TikTok steals your data. They just don’t want a foreign adversary to.

    • atro_city@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      So are Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and pretty much any big US corporation out there. But protectionism tends to ignore that. They should all (including) either be banned or hit with monumental fines.

    • Lulzagna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Source?

      There needs to be at least some evidence that the American subsidiary of tiktok broke data privacy laws

      If they did, they’d be tried under those laws, not some new legislation that allows carte blanche banning without a trial. That should tell you everything you need to know about whether there’s any proof of them breaking data privacy laws.