I posted this in the other thread, but…
Now congress can tell any company to get fucked and sell to the highest bidder (edit: via bills crafted to target them specifically)? So much for free market republicans.
China will just find another company to buy our data from, because as it turns out, the problem isn’t just TikTok, it’s the fact the it’s legal for companies (foreign and domestic) to sell and exchange our data in the first place. TikTok will still collect the same data, and instead of it going straight to China, it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.
And if the problem is the fact that it’s addictive, well, we have plenty of our own home grown addictions for people to sink their time into. You don’t see congress telling those companies to get sold to a new owner.
it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.
And that’s really what most politicians care about. Meta and Co. are butthurt that the new dopamine dealer on the block is cutting so ruthlessly into their numbers, especially among the younger generations. Normally, Meta et. al. would just engage in their typical antitrust behavior and buy them out, but they can’t because a) ByteDance doesn’t need them or their money and b) I’d be surprised if China let them sell such a valuable tool willingly.
This is just protectionism under the guise of national security, plain and simple. We’ve heard, “oh but national security!!!” countless times before, and if this was truly the main concern, they’d be going after all the other blatantly egregious privacy snoopers as well.
Incorrect, the Bill is broad but it’s not any company for any reason.
The “PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024” has this to say:
(a) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to— (1) any foreign adversary country; or (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary. (b) Enforcement By Federal Trade Commission.— (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. (B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act. (3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.and then like a bunch of pages of hyper-specific definitions for the above terms.
Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for “foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” And instead just in general
Yea, it’s not as bad as this thread is trying to make it out to be.
But muh silly dancing app!!1one
Hot take: people are pretending this is a gross censorship violation only because they’re addicted to the app and it might be going away, leaving them with nothing to scroll on endlessly into the day
Hot take approved
No, some of them are pretending it’s gross censorship only because Amerikkka Bad and Biden Bad and CCP Good.
My favorite was “China sowing chaos is Good, Actually”
I’ve been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.
Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.
That’s kinda the point though. They don’t give a shit about protecting our data. They’ve willingly engaged in the data trading markets themselves. It’s greatly enhanced their power. They’ve protected the practice by simple virtue of dumping fuck tons of money into it. But as soon as other players get into the game…”quick, to the gavel-mobile!”
This bill isn’t for us. It’s for them. I’m no fan of china—it’s an authoritarian state that forcefully exerts control over its people—but to the US, they’re just the next game in town. Because while china may be a little more overtly controlling, the US is in the same game. They just use the frontman of their independent corporations to more subtly exert influence. But when we start trying to wrest some control back? Sure, that’s when the gavels turn to batons and guns.
So, in short, they’re not protecting us. They’re protecting themselves and their established order. Cracks are starting to show because people on the whole seem to be realizing this order doesn’t work for us, but for them. They will start to more overtly flex their power as this trend continues.
The big point is, how does that power get used?
There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it’s not. You’re just literally declaring it, no evidence required.
If ByteDance continues sending the outlined Data to any offshore location defined as an adversarial nation, then:
So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).
EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.
The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It’s not due process if you break a law and it’s not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it’s ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it’s whatever organization they don’t like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They’ve wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don’t even need to get an infiltrator into the Union’s administration.
The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They’ve proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you’re in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t soldiers because words (police didn’t exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.
As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
Courts of law aren’t due process? Lmfao.
Not after the fact. They are due process when the government has to prove it’s case before it can take punitive action. If the government is allowed to take punitive action without going to court to prove it’s needed than there is no due process.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I guess parking tickets aren’t due process either, then.
Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don’t directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.
I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.
I actually don’t think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that’s unconstitutional.
I cannot imagine why that would be unconstitutional, please explain it to me.
Not American, but that doesn’t sound right… whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?
I can see why you shouldn’t name an actual person, though.
Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer’s rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I’m forced to accept the corporation’s right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.
I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific (rather confusingly, I admit, since you used it too) to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.
to prevent anything similar from ever occurring
What are you referring to here? What occurred? Do you mean the creation of another foreign TikTok?
According to some of these guys Congress could order everyone with the name Steve deported and that’s okay because we voted for them.
China made American companies partner and share their IP with Chinese companies to access the Chinese market when the Chinese market was opened to outsiders back in the 90s. That’s how China caught up to us in technology, they straight up stole the IP and changed terms on the American companies. I believe there is some tit for tat happening here. China has done a lot of fucked up shit and they are definitely actively hacking American infrastructure and social engineering against American interests. They are harvesting American data and tweaking the algorithm to actively undermine American interests. Whether you agree or disagree, China started this fight. China has banned most American social media already.
China doesn’t need TikTok to do any of that, including the data collection. They can just get it from data brokers (either by purchasing or stealing it). Because guess what? Data collection and/or sale of said data to foreign countries wasn’t made illegal with this bill.
Reading the bill further - it does mention the banning of the sale of American’s data to foreign adversaries enforceable by the FCC. That language does sound like a ban on data brokers selling to China too. It will be difficult to enforce with shell corporations and non-adversary country’s corporations who may partner with Chinese companies, but the language seems to be there. Be interesting to see how this plays out.
Foreign adversaries. What’s to stop them from selling to an ally and the ally re-selling that data?
If they’re this concerned they need to ban data brokers in general. And enforce those bans.
Indeed.
That was already a law. Facebook is being sued for it right now by the government after getting caught doing it multiple times over the last 15ish years.
I agree privacy bills need to be passed. 100%. One of the main reasons I am typing this here instead of Reddit. I’m just pointing out this is far from just an unprovoked action for profit. There isn’t enough talk in this debate about the host of messed up shit being done to America by China (and Russia) in the digital space. Cyber attacks are at all time high. It sucks Tik tok is getting banned, but privacy laws aren’t also being rolled out. It’s also true that China is indeed using Tiktok’s data maliciously. Both things can be true. My statement was to point out it’s not JUST a cash grab by social media companies, China is also a real threat and that shouldn’t be overlooked. I work for an ISP so I see the threat day in day out.
It’s not really a ban though, it’s a forced sale. Cyber attacks come from more than just China, and there are more companies selling data to China than just TikTok. I also see (and protect against) cyber attacks every day at my job.
I thought the forced sale was trying to get it to be able to stay around because a ban was so unpopular while accomplishing the same goal of breaking China’s access to the algorithm and collected data. They tried the Oracle housing but Byte Dance kept giving access to engineers with ties to the CCP. Either way, I just get an overall vibe in this debate that people aren’t considering China a big threat and I think that’s a mistake. Not saying you specifically but the discourse that I have read across many posts.
I mean, you are correct that a complete ban is unpopular. But I don’t think that’s the exclusive reason the forced sale was provided as an option. TikTok (and the data on it) is super valuable. Someone will most likely buy it, and the data collection and foreign sale (or theft) will continue.
China is a threat, and so are the data brokers. This benefits US-based data brokers, but does it really benefit the individual citizen? I personally don’t think so, at least not from a data collection and personal privacy perspective.
No doubt the sale would monetarily benefit someone and I’m sure lobbyist pushed it, but since Byte Dance didn’t comply with the original work around, I don’t see a much better solution to remove the CCP’s influence on Byte Dance and the app. It’s definitely not as black and white as much of the discourse I’ve seen. I appreciate discussing it with you and I see many of your points. Data brokers are indeed out of control. I hope the language in the bill banning data brokers from selling to foreign adversaries is somehow helpful in getting the ball rolling on deeper limits to data mining. Precedents being set to limit them could be a good first step.
Keeps? I’ve seen one documented instance and it’s literally a headcount for engagement hacking.
A. Creating laws that let us act like an authoritarian regime is not a good thing.
B. They didn’t need to do any of that with TikTok. Late stage capitalism is radicalizing people every day. All they need to do is get out of the way of them finding each other.
The problem isn’t actually just that China takes our data, it’s that they control the algorithm on tiktok for what users see, thereby giving them the ability to manipulate the public.
Yeah! And that’s only a privilege for white oligarchs! /s
Would you rather a hostile foreign entity do it instead, who have vested interest in sewing destructive chaos as a goal, though? That’s the alternative.
I mean, there’s a third alternative where manipulating us is illegal for anyone
That’s just too vague to legislate. Stop talking to everyone because you’re being manipulated non-stop by everyone you know.
I agree, wish this was the actual goal but it’s going to be hard to pry those rights out of their hands.
if they were rights everyone would have them.
We don’t need a “hostile foreign entity”. Trump is doing that just fine all on his own.
What about Biden signing in the new spying bill recently that enhances wiretapping of US citizens?
Since we’re not denying that white oligarchs do it too, then giving consumers a choice as to which manipulated information they see is better than having just our goverment decide. Sowing chaos isn’t inherently bad - law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
The US is terrified of the public becoming anti capitalist and anti colonialism which is what’s happening. THEY want control of the narrative like they’ve had for decades so they can control the message.
Then they completely missed the cause and effect. China didn’t need to do anything. We’re radicalizing people every day with economic gaslighting, medical debt, school debt, housing costs, and grocery costs.
Can’t blame them. Late stage capitalism is causing a lot of people a lot of pain while a few get super rich from it.
The important thing is that it lives on American servers first, where the FBI and NSA can get at it.
If it lives on Chinese servers, the CIA have to get involved.
They already moved it onto American servers, in 2022.
they want the chinese info too you silly little american
The chinese market has a different version of Tiktok, Douyin. Tiktok being American owned wouldn’t give Chinese data. It would give America data of all other countries though, ~85% of Tiktok’s userbase, unless ByteDance only spun off American Tiktok.
you didn’t have to ruin my bad joke smh.
TikTok’s American data is already hosted on Oracle servers. Has been for awhile.
It already does. They use Oracle for their American data.
You are missing the point. If somebody is gonna profit in any way from US citizens, the US oligarchs want their cut. If it was about controlling information, it would specifically mention about that and what is to be done about it. Making the company be US controlled increases the reach of government on it, yes, but it doesn’t gaurantee or enforce it in any way. The thing it gaurantees is where the money will end up.
By the last few days all the trolls stopped even trying to argue this and just went to, “my congressional rep said it’s a national security issue! And that abrogates the entire Constitution!”
As usual, when rights are being stripped it’s for the protection of the children.
If you have an Amazon account, China already has all your info. This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.
I hope this is challenged in court.
This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.
it’s definitely not just this, they’re mad that one of the biggest social media companies isn’t US based, and that they don’t have full jurisdiction over them.
This is closer to the facts. The US government just doesn’t want any other government having our info. They called dibs.
Another issue is the algorithm they use. China can literally control what we see.
and the problem with the algorithm is that the US doesn’t have jurisdiction over it.
The problem with the data is that we don’t have US jurisdiction over it (even though technically oracle hosts the US tiktok servers)
Idk man, seems like they’re mad about not having jurisdiction over our data if you’re asking me. They’re fine having other countries data, just not other countries having our data.
Cry harder about Chineae malware?
Removed by mod
This is the wrong way to go about solving this problem IMO, but then again the problem they’re trying to solve is more about security than privacy as a right.
Watching from Europe I have no idea what the problem is. The US spies on our data, the CCP spies on our data. I can see why the US government might worry that they can’t access the data (except TikTok runs its servers on Oracle databases in the US just to satisfy them). But I don’t understand why the citizens of the US would support tightening the monopoly to just Facebook and Google.
It’s not just about data and spying, it’s also about media and influence. The argument being made that it’s not a good idea to have a “hostile” nation effectively controlling one of the major/dominant social media platforms.
There is also the trade issue of reciprocity, China bans many if not most of the western platforms, while they have free rein to operate theirs in the west.
Exactly. They really sealed the deal when they sent a push message to get people to call Congress and stop the ban. https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/7/24093308/tiktok-congress-ban-push-notification
“TikTok can be used to influence our citizens politically” * TikTok proves it true immediately on a personal level for legislators * “See!”
Couldn’t have found a better way to put gas on that fire. You’re supposed to bribe lobby when they start talking shit.
Its actually also a media problem. For example, the largest Tiktok account of a german politician belongs to Maximilian Krah, of the far right party AFD. Just yesterday it was revealed that his personal assistant is actually a Chinese spy. Krah himself voiced a lot of pro-Chinese opinions before, like being pro annexation of Taiwan and denying the genocide on the uigyurs.
This begs the question if his Tiktok popularity is based on a non-biased algorithm or if the CCP made a deal with him, boosting his Tiktok popularity in exchange for being pro-China.
Yeah well, it’s not like it’s beneath the US government to do the same thing. Remember Cambridge analytica, or the Snowden leaks? My point being, as far as I’m concerned as a citizen, banning TikTok just transfers power to a more concentrated group of actors. That makes the problem worse.
Wan’t CA a Russian op though?
That said, this new hybrid war era has nation states conduct disinformation campaigns against each other. Tiktok was a tool to conduct such a campaign, the US wants to defend itself. It’s not like China or Russia doesn’t do the same even harder to try and defend itself. It’s not a crime yet to accept Russian money as an NGO or politician in the US (as least not in itself), it is definitely a crime in Russia to do the same.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a move that will definitely consolidate control over opinions, and that’s not a good thing. It’s like a fever. We can’t have nice things because China would break them, so we need to put them away until China stops doing that.
The US would break them (and has always broken them) even if China wasn’t around.
How do you know? The US would be a different country if it wasn’t targeted by Russia during the 2016 election. Russia made Trump. Russia made Brexit. How do we know how the world would look like if that hasn’t happened?
List of government mass surveillance projects
Human rights violations by the CIA
The CLOUD Act
This started long before the 2016 election and is deeply ingrained into the way the United States government operates. I’m definitely not saying China is innocent, but a lot of the US government’s fears are rooted in projection. “We do it, so we must assume they do it too”.
The issue is that China controls the algorithm for what users see. This gives them the ability to manipulate users by showing specific content to sway their opinion on things. This is specifically about China’s ability to manipulate US citizens.
Yes but Facebook / Instagram / Twitter also do this and it has caused huge societal problems in the US, arguably much worse than TikTok.
They do, and I’d love to see these laws expanded to include a ban against all algorithm manipulation. Manipulation coming from external sources is much more dangerous, even if local source manipulation is also dangerous.
It’s weird seeing comments that outline the actual problem getting downvoted here more than the superfluous comments that do not address the real problem at all. Bizarroworld.
Agreed. People only hear/read what they want to read, and often tines its flamboyant claims that are not factual. :shrug:
As does Meta and Alphabet. Facebook famously ran a Russian information op in 2016, 2020, and looks to be starting up again this year.
The people are helpless lemming that mindlessly follow the algorithm, am I right?
Is free speech a moral principle we believe in? I know the Constitution doesn’t apply to everyone in the world, which is why I’m asking whether we believe in it morally, not legally.
This has nothing to do with free speech. And yes, 90% of the people out there, including kids, log into tiktok and get a hone page for whatever content China wants to sling, of that’s to turn group A more right and group B more left, or to push their own agendas. People just don’t look at thongs objectively and tend to follow what they see. This is a security risk for the entire country.
It’s not stifling free speech, and blocking content for the sake of blocking content that they’re talking about here. Is it moral to block influence like that? Yes.
The Constitution absolutely applies to everyone within the US borders and TikTok US division is run out of Los Angeles.
Seems like a good plan to me. Forcing the companies with the most influence on American social issues to actually be operated by Americans seems like a no-brainer.
What’s the security issue? That China has personal information about millions of Americans?
Who doesn’t have personal information about millions of Americans these days?
It isnt about past data, it’s about current data and trends. It’s also about a foreign government controlling what another government’s citizens see through an algorithm.
Haha right? Remember the Equifax breach? I think the security claim isn’t genuine in intent, but I can believe that all else being equal, privacy violation does result in risk to security.
Even more reason to solve the underlying issues and hold companies accountable for how they handle privacy and personal information. Ideally I’d like to see the hoarding of personal data be somehow demonitized.
Removed by mod
Ew. I looked through the bill, and here are some parts I have issues with:
Main text
PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON - TROLLED APPLICATIONS .—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, main- tain, or update such foreign adversary con- trolled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
So basically, the US can block any form of software (not just social media) distributed by an adversary county for pretty much reason, and it can block any company providing access to anything from an adversary.
Definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary"
(g) DEFINITIONS .—In this section:6 (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY .— The term ‘‘controlled by a foreign adversary’’ means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is–
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a for- eign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indi- rectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
© a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
The adversary countries are (defined in a separate US code):
- N. Korea
- China
- Russia
- Iran
So if you live in any of these or work for a company based in any of these, you’re subject to the law.
foreign adversary company definition
(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI - CATION .—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(A) any of—
(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
(ii) TikTok;
(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(iv) an entity owned or controlled, di- rectly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
(B) a covered company that—
(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
It specifically calls out TikTok and ByteDance, but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat.
So here are my issues:
- I, as a US citizen, can’t choose to distribute software produced by an adversary as noted officially by the US government - this is a limitation on my first amendment protections, and I think this applies to FOSS if the original author is from one of those countries
- the barrier to what counts is relatively low - just living in an adversary country or working for a company based on an adversary country seems to don’t
- barrier to a “covered company” is relatively low and probably easy to manipulate - basically needs 1M active users (not even US users), which the CIA could totally generate if needed
So I think the bill is way too broad (lots of "or"s), and I’m worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors. It’s not as bad as I feared, but I still think it’s harmful.
Anyway, thoughts?
Isn’t Nginx written by a Russian? So is it now banned in the US? What other software has been effected by this legislation?
Hah, well time to tell our CEO I’m shutting down our prod servers.
Don’t worry an American will be available to own it instead! And there won’t be any problems because we’re the best!
You missed the /s in your comment.
I shouldn’t need one for that. But in the same vein…
I don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s impossible for the world’s only bastion of freedom to do anything wrong! We should just have the president and do away with things like courts!
Woops! You forgot the /s again
Dang it. I’ll remember one of these days.
no comment needs an /s
No, but it could be. The President would need to start the process and give them 270 days to relocate to somewhere that’s not Russia or sell to a non-Russian company or whatever.
Tetris…
Thoughts? Someone turned a troll farm loose on this one. We’ve been getting ratioed for weeks saying this and now all the shills screaming that we must support the CCP and hate our own country because it’s an obvious national security measure are gone. Ones that suspiciously needed the Constitution explained to them at the most basic level.
We got played by the people that are supposed to represent us.
It’s not that bad, but I do think it’s bad, and I outlined why. But my concerns aren’t with whether TikTok is good or bad (I think it’s bad, hence why I don’t use it), I’m more concerned with granting the federal government even more power with vaguely written laws.
The CCP can burn to the ground as far as I care.
I’m not sure it would cover open source software since it seems to be more concerned with data than the actual code. If that open source software is being used by a company controlled by a foreign adversary then that would probably apply but if it’s open source software created by a foreign adversary but being used by a US company I don’t think that would.
The actual wording of the bill seems pretty vague so I could be wrong and they might be able to apply it just to software but that would kind of to against the entire option B that they’re currently giving ByteDance where they can keep Tik Tok running by selling it to an American company.
literally all you would have to do for OSS is just fork it to someone living in america, and develop it from there.
The actual wording of the bill seems pretty vague
And that’s the issue. Yeah, it probably won’t apply to FOSS today, but times change and maybe it will in 10+ years.
“Hello, we are ClickClock, a totally different (😉😉😉) social media company hoping to fill the void of that one social media company that recently went under. As a matter of fact, with their recent layoffs we were even able to hire much of their talent and stuff. But totally different!”
That’s about how trivial it would be to get around this if the legislation was too specific
Sure, and the more general it is, the more likely the government can get away with shady stuff, like the NSA did with the FISA rubber stamp courts.
This doesn’t seem nearly as bad as that, but I also don’t think the stakes are all that high if they make things too specific.
Doesn’t that mean games like Genshin Impact and Honkai by Chinese companies like HoYo will be banned then too in the states?
No, but it probably could be. I think Fortnite also qualifies.
The bill only allows the federal government to require companies to sell or be banned, it doesn’t ban anything on its own.
once again - not a ban, a seizure. Steve Mnuchin is heading a group of government insiders who want to buy TikTok, and this bill bans it if and only if they don’t sell. The government has decided that TikTok is a dangerous propaganda and espionage network and intends to steal it and run it themselves. Even if you think that TikTok is that dangerous you have to ask yourself: why is it legal for everyone else and why does our government want so badly to do it themselves?
Yup. And the precedent this sets is horrifying. Even monopolies get due process. Being able to declare a company as a foreign enemy and force them to leave the market or be bought out is a ridiculous measure in a supposedly free society.
If China really is using TikTok for psyops, then they will refused to sell, flood TikTok with anti-government sentiment for its remaining days, and then direct people to just use the TikTok website hosted in China (is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
One silver line here is “the youths” will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.
(is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t. The movie industry is already lobbying for it
deleted by creator
i’m permanently anti democrat party.
thats a person issue not a democrat issue.
to be fair the people who bitch about “both sidesing” generally have a point, centrists fucking suck dude.
Centrists will pull some shit like “well maybe, we shouldn’t ban gay marriage, but we should still restrict their rights, it’s only fair right?”
deleted by creator
istg politics fucks up everything it touches.
We can’t have anything nice and this is why.
deleted by creator
I can understand your frustration. I currently feel that way towards a certain political party, but I have to keep an open mind because things change.
For example, I don’t doubt what you said Democrats was true in past decades, but today I believe the Democrats are more friendly towards LGBT rights than Republicans are. It appears things have changed on those specific issues.
Maybe we wont agree, but let’s at lets at least find clarity: Do you believe Republicans or Democrats are currently more friendly towards LGBT people?
deleted by creator
Also, to get that clarity I was seeking. Do you:
- Recommend people vote for Democrats (sounds like no).
- Recommend people vote for Republicans.
- Recommend people vote for third-parties or not vote at all.
These are the only 3 possibilities. Which are you?
For example, if you believe that Republicans are better for LGBT issues, then I want to hear you say it: “I think Republicans are better on LGBT issues”. I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself, I really just want you to be clear about your view and then let everyone judge for themselves what they think is right.
deleted by creator
All fair criticisms of Democrats in my opinion.
The only thing I have a problem with is your “never vote Democrat” rule. You do you, but I believe voting in a way that will most help LGBT people, and most help women’s reproductive rights, etc–I believe that if you want to cast votes that most support those causes, it will sometimes require voting for a Democrat.
I will always vote Democrat.
deleted by creator
Earlier you said:
i’m permanently anti democrat party
and I read that as “I will never vote democrat”. I see now that’s not what you said.
I too would love to see us do better than the two deeply flawed parties we have now. I wish we had a better voting system that allowed better parties.
You know TikTok is global right?
But yeah Biden is just over here casually giving Trump better chances.
If ByteDance doesn’t divest of TikTok 9 months, then it will be blocked from being distributed from App Stores. Nothing will be blocked before the election, so it’s not really something which will affect the typical voter who isn’t following the news, causing them to change their vote.
It’s major news. We’re not that dumb.
Because then Facebook will pay for your reelection campaign?
so they can do the death penalty on a company, they have a model
they just don’t do it to Exxon or Facebook or Monsanto or…
First off, source? Second, the npr interview I heard mentioned specifically that China has to approve the sale because the algorithm is proprietary to a Chinese company. So anyone “buying TikTok” is buying a name and none of the actual bones of the social media platform
Not who you were replying to, and not an interview, but here’s an NPR article that explains that the content-recommendation algorithms would be difficult to sell
Chinese officials have placed content-recommendation algorithms on what is known as an export-control list, meaning the government has additional say over how the technology is ever sold.
Neat, ty!
Aren’t the bones the cheap part now? Think truth social for instance, why was it supposedly worth so much if anyone can spin up a Mastadon instance and make it the same restrictions over the weekend. The userbase numbers are all that mattered there I assume. Why is reddit worth more than Lemmy? Is it because the bones are expensive? Or is it that they have access to a large userbase already.
the reason truth social was so highly valued is probably related to trumps chronic addiction to over valuing his assets by about 10-100x the original value of them.
you would think the userbase of truth social would be big, it’s not. It’s several orders of magnitude smaller than twitter, and it’s value is theorized to be heavily independent of the actual user count, the board of truth literally said as much. I.E. basically fucking bullshit.
Oh no, this includes “aids” to Israel isn’t it…
Why the hell do Israel needs more money?! They are not even close to poor…
It’s not about that… It’s about feeding the porks of the military industrial complex
theres enough corruption to go around, dear. something can have more than one abhorrent cause.
pay for each Palestinian murdered, raped, or tortured.
Whew the propaganda smokescreen almost fully fell apart with people waking up and seeing us support Genocide. Good thing we went full authoritarianism to stop it!
Free speech was always a lie I guess
I didn’t know it was legal for a law to make it through the senate that fast
lol
nah it’s legit, just look at any of the military spending bills which rocket through at warp speed
Oh that’s why it passed so fast, it was the aid package that was bundled with it
we are now in the process of cooking my friends.
Support your local darknet if you do not like censorship and violation of our rights
It’s free :)
we are now in the process of cooking my friends
Would you like some A1 sauce with your rack of Nathan?
i would just like to experience nature in solitude my friend. That is all.
All parties involved are asinine. The lawmakers, the company, both governments, the voters and the users.
The free market for me but not for thee
US apps all banned in China.
Yeah, that’s true, but China doesn’t claim to be a beacon of capitalism
“Well he did it first” is really not how I want a government to be run tbh
And the floodgates are opened, washing us down the slippery slope of all kinds of new censorship
Biden signs bill criticized as “major expansion of warrantless surveillance”
This also happened a few days ago
China should force apple to sell off it’s Chinese business to a Chinese company.
China doesn’t need to, Apple is complying with Chinese law (remove all vpn related apps, all un-registered foreign app are removed and storing Chinese datas in Chinese servers).
Apple is likely the most complying foreign company in China.
Removed by mod
As of the Resolving Differences phase this is where we are at with the text of the bill.
BTW, not a ban. It was never a ban.
Click to Expand
DIVISION I—PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This division may be cited as the “Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024”.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE SENSITIVE DATA OF UNITED STATES INDIVIDUALS TO FOREIGN ADVERSARIES. (a) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to—
(1) any foreign adversary country; or
(2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.
(b) Enforcement By Federal Trade Commission.—
(1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.
(B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
(3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
© Definitions.—In this section:
(1) COMMISSION.—The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission.
(2) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “controlled by a foreign adversary” means, with respect to an individual or entity, that such individual or entity is—
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
© a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(3) DATA BROKER.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “data broker” means an entity that, for valuable consideration, sells, licenses, rents, trades, transfers, releases, discloses, provides access to, or otherwise makes available data of United States individuals that the entity did not collect directly from such individuals to another entity that is not acting as a service provider.
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term “data broker” does not include an entity to the extent such entity—
(i) is transmitting data of a United States individual, including communications of such an individual, at the request or direction of such individual;
(ii) is providing, maintaining, or offering a product or service with respect to which personally identifiable sensitive data, or access to such data, is not the product or service;
(iii) is reporting or publishing news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest;
(iv) is reporting, publishing, or otherwise making available news or information that is available to the general public—
(I) including information from—
(aa) a book, magazine, telephone book, or online directory;
(bb) a motion picture;
(cc) a television, internet, or radio program;
(dd) the news media; or
(ee) an internet site that is available to the general public on an unrestricted basis; and
(II) not including an obscene visual depiction (as such term is used in section 1460 of title 18, United States Code); or
(v) is acting as a service provider.
(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(5) PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE SENSITIVE DATA.—The term “personally identifiable sensitive data” means any sensitive data that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable, alone or in combination with other data, to an individual or a device that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to an individual.
(6) PRECISE GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.—The term “precise geolocation information” means information that—
(A) is derived from a device or technology of an individual; and
(B) reveals the past or present physical location of an individual or device that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to 1 or more individuals, with sufficient precision to identify street level location information of an individual or device or the location of an individual or device within a range of 1,850 feet or less.
(7) SENSITIVE DATA.—The term “sensitive data” includes the following:
(A) A government-issued identifier, such as a Social Security number, passport number, or driver’s license number.
(B) Any information that describes or reveals the past, present, or future physical health, mental health, disability, diagnosis, or healthcare condition or treatment of an individual.
© A financial account number, debit card number, credit card number, or information that describes or reveals the income level or bank account balances of an individual.
(D) Biometric information.
(E) Genetic information.
(F) Precise geolocation information.
(G) An individual’s private communications such as voicemails, emails, texts, direct messages, mail, voice communications, and video communications, or information identifying the parties to such communications or pertaining to the transmission of such communications, including telephone numbers called, telephone numbers from which calls were placed, the time calls were made, call duration, and location information of the parties to the call.
(H) Account or device log-in credentials, or security or access codes for an account or device.
(I) Information identifying the sexual behavior of an individual.
(J) Calendar information, address book information, phone or text logs, photos, audio recordings, or videos, maintained for private use by an individual, regardless of whether such information is stored on the individual’s device or is accessible from that device and is backed up in a separate location.
(K) A photograph, film, video recording, or other similar medium that shows the naked or undergarment-clad private area of an individual.
(L) Information revealing the video content requested or selected by an individual.
(M) Information about an individual under the age of 17.
(N) An individual’s race, color, ethnicity, or religion.
(O) Information identifying an individual’s online activities over time and across websites or online services.
(P) Information that reveals the status of an individual as a member of the Armed Forces.
(Q) Any other data that a data broker sells, licenses, rents, trades, transfers, releases, discloses, provides access to, or otherwise makes available to a foreign adversary country, or entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary, for the purpose of identifying the types of data listed in subparagraphs (A) through (P).
(8) SERVICE PROVIDER.—The term “service provider” means an entity that—
(A) collects, processes, or transfers data on behalf of, and at the direction of—
(i) an individual or entity that is not a foreign adversary country or controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(ii) a Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, or local government entity; and
(B) receives data from or on behalf of an individual or entity described in subparagraph (A)(i) or a Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, or local government entity.
(9) UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL.—The term “United States individual” means a natural person residing in the United States.
(d) Effective Date.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this division.
It’s always annoyed me that it’s been commonly referred to as a ban, when it’s actually a forced sale.
It will be a different product for the consumer, so it’s effectively a Tiktok ban in my eyes…
You think all my Palestinian and adjacent Tiktokers will still be in my feed once it’s sold?
Probably? There’s a decent amount of people on reddit calling for the dissolution and expulsion of Israel. US based companies rarely censor on the whims of the feds.
It’s actually not even that, at least not yet, the bill text just empowers the FTC to do FTC stuff to the company.
If they don’t sell isn’t it a ban?
They haven’t technically been forced to sell either, the bill gives the FTC the authority to act against them. They still have the opportunity to stop sending copious amounts of Data to China, and if they continue then the FTC ruling will give them an ultimatum usually in the form of massive fines. It would be a weird timeline if China just paid the bill and kept spying, lol.
This isn’t good, now we’re only left with the tech giants dictating what people can see.
How is it any different for before the law? TikTok is a tech giant.
From what I know, certain special interests want TikTok under their control so they can censor certain topics. People keep saying this is happening because of CCP, etc. But I believe they want this platform “censored” before the elections. The other major players already play ball with censorship but TikTok caught them by surprise.
Why would it have unanimous bi-partisan support in the Senate if the bill had weight on the election results?
To be devil’s advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin’ in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.
That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don’t consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.
TikTok is a massively powerful tool of influence and intelligence, in the hands of an adversary that is well understood to proactively meddle with democratic elections.
Yes, obviously the CCP will unabashedly pursue other interference vectors. That should be viewed as more reason to curtail TikTok, not less.
You’re missing the point, though. China has sizable stakes in multiple social media and streaming platforms, movie studios, and popular videogame studios (like the makers of Fortnite). But the fact those are all primarily owned by US companies makes it okay (in this context–I know China has stakes in similar businesses around the world, too).
TikTok is a threat to Meta and Co’s dominance and American companies can’t simply buy it out to make it go away or at least make it directly benefit them. Don’t mistake me in saying it isn’t a national security threat. What I’m saying is, if TikTok is a threat, then all of these corporate platforms are a threat. The government should targeting all of them! But they’re not, and the reason seems pretty obvious to me.
I mean do you think Fortnite has anywhere near the same level of ability to disseminate information or surveil people as TikTok does?
And actually it makes a material difference that ByteDance is based in Beijing, as opposed to just having Chinese investors. Those social platforms, movie studios, etc., being headquartered in the US is exactly what makes it different. Can Chinese firms apply financial pressure to compel them to act against the interests of US citizens? Yes, of course, and they do.
But that’s categorically different than being legally obligated to comply with the CCP, which ByteDance is.
They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.
Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).
Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.
Exactly. It has no bearing on the election, and Biden doesn’t have a choice. If he didn’t sign a bill with near-unanimous bipartisan support, it would immediately be called out as a personal agenda “secretly helping China” or something similar.
Tone down the conspiracy theory angle. It’s lemmy, you can get more interaction by mentioning capitalism rather than censorship.
Not sure what you know, but here’s the head of the FBIs statement about why.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Not this guy again. In my opinion they tell us small truths like CCP bad, etc. Which isn’t wrong but they’re concealing the true motivation. Why ban it now? Not two years ago? It’s because TikTok needs to be under better control for the upcoming election and in the future. We already know big tech all work in concert to conceal topics for the US.
It’s the only big non-US owned social media. They hate that because it’s much harder to control. It’s not even about the profits to be had, tiktok gets more eyeballs and especially it gets the young people’s attention and has more public thrusts than all of the MSM combined and because Bytedance doesn’t hate their HQ in the US the US government, intelligence or special interests, can’t just call them and strong arm them into censoring whatever talking point that they don’t like currently. It’s not much more complex than that. “Chinese spying on Americans” is just projection of what all the other platforms do.
Those who push this will not be happy no matter what Tiktok does or whatever concessions it makes. They already hold american data in American and EU data in the EU for example. Did that stop the “muh CCP influence” propaganda? Well, no… Their main goal would be to get Bytedance to sell the platform to Americans, atleast the american business. I guess they would rather let it get banned and sacrifice American or even all the western markets than to let that happen. It would be a loss to them either way.
😂
The platform is already pretty censored, mentions of Palestine get fucked by the algo, I barely even see it from people I follow if I don’t look up their past videos.
But I could imagine that’s the impetus for congress, Trump tried the same thing after Tiktok was used to organize ~a million people RSVPing free tickets to a trump rally, resulting in him doing his shtick infront of like 100 people in a stadium. He only stopped after a major donor asked him not to, and it was very unpopular. Now dems are in Trumps position after hearing the kids are using Tiktok to organize against them, of course they’d make the same calculation and try to ban it.
Well we already were. Now we’re just down to American tech giants.
He writes while using Lemmy to see this
TikTok has 140 million Americans on board.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A bill that would force China-based company ByteDance to sell TikTok — or else face a US ban of the platform — is all but certain to become law after the Senate passed a foreign aid package including the measure.
The first time, House lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor of the bill when brought as a standalone measure with a shorter divestment timeframe of six months.
“Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel.”
They’ve not been in the classified briefings that Congress has held, which have delved more deeply into some of the threats posed by foreign control of TikTok.”
“But what they have seen, beyond even this bill, is Congress’ failure to enact meaningful consumer protections on big tech, and may cynically view this as a diversion, or worse, a concession to U.S. social media platforms,” Warner continued.
“I will sign this bill into law and address the American people as soon as it reaches my desk tomorrow so we can begin sending weapons and equipment to Ukraine this week,” President Biden said in an official statement released shortly after passage in the Senate.
The original article contains 719 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
