this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
559 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

60041 readers
1711 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 176 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

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.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 80 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 40 points 8 months ago (19 children)

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.

[–] Blxter@lemmy.zip 31 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yea, it's not as bad as this thread is trying to make it out to be.

[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Hot take approved

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah! And that's only a privilege for white oligarchs! /s

[–] TangledHyphae@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I mean, there's a third alternative where manipulating us is illegal for anyone

[–] card797@champserver.net 1 points 8 months ago

That's just too vague to legislate. Stop talking to everyone because you're being manipulated non-stop by everyone you know.

[–] TangledHyphae@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I agree, wish this was the actual goal but it's going to be hard to pry those rights out of their hands.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

if they were rights everyone would have them.

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We don’t need a “hostile foreign entity”. Trump is doing that just fine all on his own.

[–] TangledHyphae@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What about Biden signing in the new spying bill recently that enhances wiretapping of US citizens?

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

I completely missed this one. Gross.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

They already moved it onto American servers, in 2022.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Buttons@programming.dev 11 points 8 months ago

TikTok's American data is already hosted on Oracle servers. Has been for awhile.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

It already does. They use Oracle for their American data.

[–] kiagam@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (2 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.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] thatirishguyyy@lemmy.today 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)