• mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeah, if the government really cared, they would be pushing privacy laws instead of trying to ban a platform.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah…but it’s much easier to get elected with "ChInA bAd!”

      Then “We need a nuanced approach to privacy and social media.”

    • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      that platform is being banned because there are very limited privacy laws and the platform doesn’t even comply with those. all theyhad to do is start a US front company with a data center, host all collected user data there and deny all data center access to the foreign parent company.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            The only articles I saw were for headcount data. Literally just confirming the number of users. They embarked on an entire project for it and then the goal posts were taken off the field.

            • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              do you not have google or bing in china? just search for “tiktok ban reason” and you’ll find articles like this: https://www.nytimes.com/article/tiktok-ban.html

              Lawmakers and regulators in the West have increasingly expressed concern that TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, may put sensitive user data, like location information, into the hands of the Chinese government. They have pointed to laws that allow the Chinese government to secretly demand data from Chinese companies and citizens for intelligence-gathering operations.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Yeah and I remember when Bush expressed concern there would be mushroom cloud over New York city. Lawmakers saying vague shit isn’t evidence. Hell politicians saying specific shit isn’t evidence without the evidence. We just spent a year debunking half the shit Biden said about the Gaza war because he insisted on straight up repeating whatever lame excuse the war criminals thought up.

                • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  dood. they were only vague in their speeches, then the US congess made a very detailed, specific law mid last year. then tiktok ignored some details of it and got a chance to correct it, but didn’t.

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

                    That law forced a fire sale of TikTok by name. I wouldn’t follow it either, it’s blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution very clearly, in plain English, bans the practice of punishing specific people and organizations via legislation instead of the justice system.

                    This is also like citing the laws against Marijuana when asked for evidence the laws against Marijuana are necessary. Entirely circular. There’s still no evidence there.