Chew responded to the latest moves in a video posted by the official TikTok account. “Make no mistake, this is a ban,” Chew said in the video. “A ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.”
Lemmy users are just going to believe whatever they want to believe, instead of actually checking the facts.
It’s 100% about privacy. Data collection, and algorithm manipulation to sway what users see in the interest of the Chinese government. If users think Russian interference is a problem, we’ll this amounts to the same thing.
So it’s about foreign policy and not privacy. Or does the law somehow affect Facebook products too which are the same crap from an individual privacy perspective?
If it was actually about privacy then the US would be introducing data transparency and control laws (which only kicks in here if TikTok doesn’t sell to a US company). Whether it’s the US wanting to stream their own bullshit to kids or just that sweet sweet ad revenue, this is in no way about privacy or “protecting the children”.
How so? If you’re concerned about propaganda, require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired. Show users to the technical extent possible what data has connected them to suggested videos or ads. Put the power of users’ hands to understand and control how they are targeted.
Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.
The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.
Narrator: it wasn’t.
Removed by mod
I’ve actually read the law, so no one has to tell me that it really, actually is about privacy. I know that it is.
Lemmy users are just going to believe whatever they want to believe, instead of actually checking the facts.
It’s 100% about privacy. Data collection, and algorithm manipulation to sway what users see in the interest of the Chinese government. If users think Russian interference is a problem, we’ll this amounts to the same thing.
So it’s about foreign policy and not privacy. Or does the law somehow affect Facebook products too which are the same crap from an individual privacy perspective?
What about, say, giving users control or at least insight into what data is collected?
Again, it’s not about data being collected. It is about the algorithm that let’s them control what users see in their feeds.
And again, there are ways to at least attempt to address that other than just passing the ability to control the algorithm to another opaque company.
It’s about privacy in the same way “protect the children” bills are about protecting the children.
Narrator: it’s not.
Removed by mod
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/10/20/tiktok-bytedance-surveillance-american-user-data/
If you just read the wiki article you linked as well, there is circumstantial evidence you’re just ignoring.
Can you explain why you feel that would even be necessary?
If it was actually about privacy then the US would be introducing data transparency and control laws (which only kicks in here if TikTok doesn’t sell to a US company). Whether it’s the US wanting to stream their own bullshit to kids or just that sweet sweet ad revenue, this is in no way about privacy or “protecting the children”.
That’s a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.
How so? If you’re concerned about propaganda, require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired. Show users to the technical extent possible what data has connected them to suggested videos or ads. Put the power of users’ hands to understand and control how they are targeted.
That would be a very different kind of law from the one we’re talking about.
My point is, why isn’t that the law were making? Does it not address the same problem?
Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.
The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.
user was banned for ‘ban evasion’ to let know if someone searches for it like me. though I don’t think the actual content was preserved or was it?