Good. Honestly, great! The EU should do the same. Fuck the CCP and their propaganda machine that brainwashes people all over the world!
At the moment brainwashing the youths to support Gaza, but not for long…
Data harvesting is half of the problem. I have a feeling that congress could give two shits about the data harvesting as it’s almost literally everywhere in modern society and not in the interests of donors or the nationality security apparatus to remove.
The other half is the platform and its potential (hypothetical and actual) for use in information operations. TikTok has direct access to something like 160 million American devices. That rivals other social media giants like Meta who have some government liaisons and relationships embedded in their security teams. ByteDance to my knowledge does not have these relationships. This problem could just as easily apply to any other foreign platform if any were large enough to pose threats of this scale.
My guess is they’re more concerned about propaganda. They’re concerned about it being Fox News, but for the CCP.
Starts off innocent enough, then slowly starts pushing disinformation that’s in service of a political entity.
You mean exactly like Facebook, right, because there are a lot of parallels but I never heard American politicians want to ban Facebook.
Let’s not fool ourselves!
Difference being, Facebook is just greedy, and will promote toxic disinformation because it gets high engagement numbers. If factual civics videos got high engagement, Facebook would gladly promote that. They want to promote whatever is going to sell more ads.
With the CCP, the motivation is the message, not the money. With Facebook, the motivation is the money and whatever message makes the most of it.
So I suppose put it like this: what if the way for Facebook to make the most money is all their current operations + pushing the rightwing agenda? (or leftwing depending on what team you’re on).
How is that any less meddling than tik tok? Sure Facebook is based in america, but has clearly shown it cares much more about its own interests than any country.
It just feels like trusting a tank of gas cause you just saw someone get lit on fire by a tank of diesel
Based take. Seemed we learned nothing from Trump and What-aboutism. Just because Facebook does it and doesn’t get in trouble doesn’t mean Facebook is in the right. It means you should get mad and demand change from them too.
Also I might have missed this, but didn’t everyone get mad at tiktok last or a couple of years ago for circumventing Android and Apple app policies and collecting data they shouldn’t? I though Facebook and Twitter obeyed those policies, they just had other means to collect that data.
TikTok has been known to exploit 0-days to evade the Android permissions system and escape OS sandboxing, especially on rooted and/or unlocked phones. This is one of the primary reasons it was banned from government-issued devices in the USA.
Yes, this is almost certainly it. They used the app to send a notification to users to contact their representatives about this bill. They are obviously willing to use it for political means, and their users are willing to listen. What else might they use that power to do?
Propaganda is effective. It’s at times silly, blatant, jingoistic, and offensive, but it has historically worked to influence public opinions.
I think you’re right, but saying the quiet part out loud. People don’t like to think they’re susceptible to scams and propaganda because they’re not that dumb or gullible. People still click on phishing emails…
Sure, you gotta limit the propaganda to American companies…
I’m no fan of TikTok and I think it’s actively harmful for a whole host of reasons, but freedom of speech is Constitutionally protected, and I can see an argument that “algorithms” should be included in that protection. That’s probably why this doesn’t target the “algorithms” TikTok uses, but instead targets the nation of origin.
The propaganda issue is not resolved by this legislation, it merely attacks one potential source and gives the President tools to address other similar sources w/o passing new legislation. It’s probably fine (and way better than previous, related proposals), but it doesn’t do much to solve propaganda.
I’d much rather see more focus on transparency, privacy, and consent, instead of just banning stuff because it seems dangerous.
The “wrong government is stealing your data” bill.
Free markets 📉🔥
Free speech 📉🔥
Children’s attention spans 📈✈️
I don’t think that a hostile foreign nation has an inalienable right to collect the data of and interfere in the lives of American citizens, as a form of “free speech” lol
It was apparently fine for years and years though lol
You think that it being unaddressed made it “fine?” The United States had slavery for years and years before being banned and I wouldn’t call that “fine” either.
Red herring for supper?
Nope a solid example of how just because something is not illegal doesn’t mean it is fine
No it’s literally the exact same logical process you followed in your comment, just on a subject dramatically worse. Also I know what it is you’re accusing me of, but a “red herring” is not it lol.
I guess the EU should ban Meta and Xitter…
The United States is not an enemy nation to the EU. Nor does the United States own Meta or Xitter.
That being said if EU nations were worried about the NSA collecting information on their citizens and had reason to believe Meta was complicit in that, then they absolutely should ban Meta. I mean they have the GDPR don’t they.
Well yeah?
Probably, but for other reasons. Neither of those are owned by the US, are they?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban, a contentious move by U.S. lawmakers that’s expected to face legal challenges and disrupt the lives of content creators who rely on the short-form video app for income.
For years, lawmakers and administration officials have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data, or influence Americans by suppressing or promoting certain content on TikTok.
Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who voted for the legislation, said he has concerns about TikTok, but he’s also worried the bill could have negative effects on free speech, doesn’t do enough to protect consumer privacy and could potentially be abused by a future administration to violate First Amendment rights.
“At the stage that the bill is signed, we will move to the courts for a legal challenge,” Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, wrote in a memo sent to employees on Saturday and obtained by The Associated Press.
Since then, TikTok has been in negotiations about its future with the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a little-known government agency tasked with investigating corporate deals for national security concerns.
“As I started to reflect some months ago on the stresses of the last few years and the new generation of challenges that lie ahead, I decided that the time was right to pass the baton to a new leader,” Andersen wrote in an internal memo that was obtained by the AP.
The original article contains 1,165 words, the summary contains 266 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I don’t really use TikTok but I really hope this gets tossed by the courts. I don’t care if ByteDance is owned by cthulus and draculas, it’s a terrible precedent to have the government ban a media company. If we don’t like China having access to data, ban apps from collecting it in the first place. Require algorithm audits. There are so many better ways to handle this than singling out TikTok.
Don’t forget, control the sale of data too. Audits etc to make sure they comply with privacy safeguards, and so on.
This is just pandering as well as, I suspect, to give a corporate donor a profit-making business.
The kids don’t care, they will just use CoCo Fun (most are using both apps anyway).
The only difference is that with Coco Fun, its America spying on your kids.
I don’t know why people think spying is the issue. It’s the potential control. For example, when this bill was proposed, TikTok sent a notification to users to contact their representatives. That’s not horribly harmful, but it does show a willingness to weaponize their user base (and their base’s willingness to listen).
If this bill wasn’t going to pass before, it sure as well would after that happened. You have to consider what else that could potentially be used for. Could they possibly use it to influence an election if a candidate was against their interests?
I get you, but asking people to participate in democracy is not “weaponization”, and I’m 100% okay with popular figures, even from other countries, telling people how to vote, because who doesn’t tell people how to vote these days?
Using a weapon can be done for good. If they’re using it to attack something for their interest, it’s weaponization. However, they didn’t do it for “good.” They did it for self-interest. US representatives got bombarded with phone calls and messages telling them not to block a foreign company’s app after the company told them to do so. What would that look like to them? It looks like a weapon that has been turned on them.
We shouldn’t just accept foreign agents interfering with our election just because “who doesn’t these days.” That is totally the wrong response. If that’s all you see in this you need to re-evaluate your position.
If they ban one they should ban them all. Cambridge analytica used Facebook on behalf of LeaveEU and Trump.
I don’t totally disagree, but a foreign owned company playing with our politics is just a little different than a company in the US doing so. Sure, they’re all dangerous, but you don’t let foreign governments have power that can potentially control your nation. It’s why in China nearly all western services are banned. China sees the risks. Why would anyone expect a Chinese company to be ignored?
Most companies will let customers know about legislation like that. It’s hardly nefarious.
Yeah, except if a foreign owned company activates their user base to attack you, as a representative, it has to look threatening, and it should be seen as a threat. It was more than just a comment when opening the app. It was a notification pushed to the device, or that’s my impression at least.
As I said, this case isn’t that bad, but it does make the potential threat obvious. There’s a reason western apps are banned in China. Why should a Chinese company not expect action in the west?
My local dispensary had “write your congressman to support legal weed.” Is that a threat? Or is it just encouraging people who use your app to participate in politics? It’s not like they’re encouraging their users to march on Washington or commit violence. They’re just telling folks to do what every civics teacher has told them: Write your congressman about things you care about.
If Congress takes that as a threat that says a lot more about Congress than it does about Tik Tok.
There’s a reason western apps are banned in China. Why should a Chinese company not expect action in the west?
I thought that reason was because we post about events that didn’t happen and countries that don’t exist, not that it was a threat to China’s government. We didn’t ban apps here because we’re the free good guys, and their the authoritarians.
But I guess both countries are dickweeds now. So it goes…
Eh, all international (and even intranational to a large degree) politics is about power and always has been. We aren’t the “free good guys,” though China is absolutely authoritarian and controlling. Looking at it through a moral lense leads to the wrong ideas though. Morality has never come into play. If there’s a potential threat to power (even if imagined), it’ll be defended against. It doesn’t matter what country we’re referring to, nor is that unreasonable action to take.
Totally agree. Which is why I truly despise nation-states and the people who make me pretend to believe in them.
Exactly. I remember this being a thing with Net Neutrality banners everywhere, so this isn’t new.
US Congress will grant the government any power except enforcing privacy rights.
APRA is coming
Being the guy who signed the bill that threatens the existence of a platform that is super popular with young people whose vote he desperately needs during an election year. Masterful gambit, sir!
There’s a reason why the bill doesn’t go into effect until after the election.
Literally my first thought… Way to go Biden, nothing like getting hundreds of thousands of “influencers” mad at you right at an important election…
But who are we kidding, I can guarantee that maybe 5% of Congress even understood what they were doing.
It’s Thursday night here has he signed yet ?
Yup. It’s signed.
Tiktok is literally brainwashing people into supporting Palestine and brainrot liberal policies. I’m glad it’s finally being banned
Welp, there goes any chance of getting the zoomers to vote this year
Biden wants to ban Chinese ownership of TikTok, but Trump’s been banning raw dog fuck’n.
Choice isn’t even close.
Sell to who is what I’m wondering. I would be surprised if whoever wants to acquire TikTok is not lobbying hard for this.
Introducing… FaceTok
Exclusively available on Meta Quest 3
Who is gonna buy it though?
I read a while back that Bobby Kotick was trying to drum up investors for it.
Gross.
I posted this in the other thread, but I’ll repost here for discussion:
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?
I think you should check out this article in The Atlantic, it goes into the history of the US government’s previous laws to protect against foreign propaganda and manipulation of the media. What you’ll find is this is more of an update (to catch up with the internet era) than a revamp of US domestic policy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/tiktok-bill-foreign-influence/677806/
Also a key point I think you’re missing here:
but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat
The president can only do this for apps from the countries covered in the US code as Foreign Adversaries, which means the president can act quickly against threats, but this is a bad avenue for attacking competition in other friendly countries (e.g., shutting down Proton would require congress to pass a law that Switzerland is a foreign adversary – which would not be good for relations – AND a law specifically targeting Proton accompanying that or the president to then act against Proton).
All of this is still subject to judicial review as well.
What does the judicial review process look like? Because the bill only states (unless I missed it) that the President needs to give notice to Congress.
What it looks like is if China or Russia has a competitor to a US product (say, Yandex or Baidu), a US company (say, Google) could lobby the President to mark them as a threat and ban them from the US. The product doesn’t need to actually have the capacity to cause harm, it just needs to be from one of the adversary countries (currently China, Russia, N. Korea, and Iran).
It’s not as bad as it could be, but I think it misses a lot of the point here.
Just the standard “you can sue if you think this is unfair and have your day in court.”
What it looks like is if China or Russia has a competitor to a US product (say, Yandex or Baidu), a US company (say, Google) could lobby the President to mark them as a threat and ban them from the US. The product doesn’t need to actually have the capacity to cause harm, it just needs to be from one of the adversary countries (currently China, Russia, N. Korea, and Iran).
This is true, but it’s also pretty unlikely. Even TikTok is just a vine ripoff, but a vine that was successfully monetized.
There really hasn’t been much to come out of our “foreign adversaries” that I think most people would care about. If that’s the price we have to pay … I’m not the least bit worried about it really.
Furthermore, China is happy to use public money to back companies (as a sort of “state run venture capital”); that is a threat to competition in the same way venture capital is a threat to competition.
But is it worth the potential for abuse?
Google and Facebook certainly stand to benefit here since TikTok is a direct competitor. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ban TikTok (I’d like to see some evidence from the FBI though), but it means we should scrutinize the bill to see if there are undesirable parts to it.
Likewise, I think this bill could be used against companies with Chinese investment, like anything Tencent investment (e.g. Fortnite, League of Legends, etc). That’s obviously not the target, but I think it could be used to get those banned from the US.
So I’m worried about this bill. Maybe I’m misreading it (I hope so), and it doesn’t seem as bad as some people claim, but I do think it’s problematic.
Likewise, I think this bill could be used against companies with Chinese investment, like anything Tencent investment (e.g. Fortnite, League of Legends, etc).
IANAL but I believe that would not be covered under this bill. Those games are run by American companies with foreign investment.
Maybe when it gets to the point where the foreign power is the majority shareholder. However, I think in a publicly traded company they’d just be forced to divest and that would likely take a different law.
and I’m worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors.
I want to give the benefit of the doubt and say they are concerned about getting programs running all over the country that can somehow “backdoor” a major issue into our network, but I not only don’t know enough about how feasible that is, I also strongly believe it’s as you feared. It’s what we get the government to do all the time: fuck with other countries to “protect” our major corporations…
Why give them the benefit of the doubt? Look at Snowdon"s revelations, they abused FISA courts to rubber stamp spying on US citizens. Why wouldn’t they do the same for lobbyists?
I get that TikTok sucks for all manner of reasons, but expanding the power of the executive branch isn’t the way to deal with it, especially this way. This is pretty similar to the “force authorization” crap where the President can just bomb whoever the want, provided they let Congress know afterward. But now it’s in the economy instead of just military…
So no, I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt, they’ve lost my trust every other time they’ve done something like this. The bill is bad and the precedent is sets is bad.
its also them just avoiding writing a privacy bill, yet again.
Well c’mon, if they write a legit privacy bill it’s going to hurt their Stateside vectors. This way, they can tout “yay security!” whole funneling more traffic to Instabookapp where they can still access it.
