Can the US Lawmakers do anything about the US companies harvesting my data and selling it off… please?
Yes, they can make more money from it.
Can they? Completely wrong question.
“Will they” is what you wanted to ask but the answer is still firmly no
So when do they plan to do something about those domestic businesses trying to manipulate citizens of America?
Capitalism abusing citizens? Just fine.
“Communism” abusing citizens? Avengers, assemble!
They’re prospective communists. Supposedly they’re going to get there by 2050, but they just built a new massive luxury tower for their ultra wealthy so…
It’s just like Marx said: “If you do an oppressive oligarchy for 100 years, it magically transforms into communism”
If that were true then the United States would have been communist by now
I think they’re more worried that it’s a foreign corporation going after their citizens and not a domestic corporation.
More of a capitalistic dictatorship
I mean, the domestic businesses are the ones who own Congress and are using it to get rid of a competitor.
After the thousands of years of human history I’ve read about, getting rid of competitors seems to have been the primary concern of most of the ruling classes all over the world. Way back to Ur.
Rulers don’t play fair, because power corrupts.
As soon as the foreign businesses get better at harvesting data than the domestic ones, of course.
While you’re not wrong about double standards, anything that discourages the use of vapid social media platforms is a win in my book. Use whatever backwards logic you like to make it happen so long as it’s effective.
Well this goes into the direction of social media monopoly so I’m not sure
He says, on a social media platform
Lemmy is a message board, not social media. Like fark or something awful. You have no idea who the duck i am. How is that social?
Users create and/or share content, check. Users discuss content, check.
Unless you think something is missing from that definition, Lemmy is social media. It is pseudonymous, but it is still social because of the users.
Since when did that define social media? That’s the same thing as IRC. is IRC social media?
ICQ had message boards where people would chat about the news. Was that social media?
Again, fark is a place where people share content and discuss the news. Is that social media?
Yeah, I suppose those would. I wouldn’t have thought it, but definitionally, it would be! I mean, heck, some of those are listed by Meriam-Webster! Isn’t language neat? You learn something new every day.
deleted by creator
It is social media, just because your talking anonymously doesn’t mean you aren’t interacting socially. Jesus Christ your talking to people. Right now. Your being social media’d. Stop acting like your above it.
My tiktok account is also anonymous.
Your Lemmy account can likely be used to identify you, given a big enough data set.
Undoubtedly, especially since I haven’t taken particular steps to obfuscate my identity here.
But as I said in a comment below, I’m more worried about some unhinged nutbag online randomly targeting me than being a person of interest by any nefarious groups or organizations.
No it isn’t.
When you download the app you let them have the following information/data about you:
Purchases, location, contacts, search history, identifiers (!!), diagnostics, financial info, contact info, user content, browsing history, and usage data.
Please tell us how any of that is “anonymous”.
Cool dude, you’ve identified that big corporations data farm.
Random bloke user with a vendetta still doesn’t know who I am, and that’s who I’m more worried about on the personal scale.
Cool dude. Well you said your account is anonymous, and it isn’t. Words mean things.
Whatever Tiktok is doing, the correct response is to write enforcable laws to prevent ANY company from doing what Tiktok is doing.
This is bad governance.
That’s what they did. The “correct response” is described in the article as the law 50/50 signed here.
Did you read the article? The bill bans tiktok for being foreign. There is nothing in this article that describes a bill that outlaws any practices, conventions, or actions that tiktok has done.
Being afraid of foreigners for being foreign is not effective regulation.
I’ve read this comment over 10 times now and I have no idea what the words “the law 50/50 signed here” means, so I can’t be sure I understand the argument you are trying to make. My best guess is that you are using circular logic to suggest that every democratically decided upon decision is always the right decision, which is nonsense because democracy is demonstrably fallible.
My point might be a little Covid brain fogged but I’m just pointing out that they did exactly what the guy asked for, if they bothered to click past the title which makes it sound like a targeted “ban Tiktok” law.
I am not a guy. I read the entire article before commenting. The law did not do what I asked for. You would know if you read my comment all the way through.
I think you’re making assumptions that I can read into what exactly you find wrong with Tiktok. That context is not there in the original comment.
Being chinese by definition can’t effect any company. There is enough context.
This was a committee vote. The bill now must advance to the floor, pass a vote there, then go through the same process in the Senate.
Many bills are passed out of committee but are never given an actual vote.
I wonder if this could also be applied to games owned in whole or part by Tencent…
i hope they sell conan exiles to someone else, because then the shitty monitization that is destroying the game will end.
deleted by creator
yeah
Or websites? Like Reddit? No, never mind, that’s silly talk.
Many users called lawmakers’ offices to complain, congressional staffers told Politico. “It’s so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They’re teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can’t take it away,” one House GOP staffer was quoted as saying.
and they still voted 50-0. really tells you something about how much these politicians are willing to listen to their constituents.
It also tells you something about all the supposed gridlock in Washington that can magically evaporate when there’s money and power to be gained from it.
Are they “taking it away” though? Do normal people care about who owns it? Are they just worried about an unlikely ban?
you’re taking it as a given that bytedance will sell the app if this law passes. there is a chance that they won’t want to sell and then the app will be banned. (but i think this unlikely.)
also, if i’m understanding things correctly, there’s the possibility that they do sell and the app still gets banned. the article says
An app would be allowed to stay in the US market after a divestiture if the president determines that the sale “would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.”
depending on who the next president is, there’s no guarantee that they’ll say any sale will result in the company not being controlled by a foreign adversary. (although this past is just speculation.)
anyways. this bill will certainly raise the chances that the app will be banned in the US. (and it opens the door for other apps to get banned if the US doesn’t like the country they were developed in.)
I also just noticed in the article:
TikTok urged its users to protest the bill, sending a notification that said, “Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok… Let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO.”
Also from a BBC article about the same thing:
Earlier, users of the app had received a notification urging them to act to “stop a TikTok shutdown.”
So they were literally sending out misleading notifications (because a forced sale is not a total ban), and then the users wrote to Congress based on that…
The probability that they will sell seems really high to me, as the same thing almost happened back in 2020.
They also claimed that it was only “old people and teenagers” who were calling in and objecting which wasn’t true. One rep stood up and straight up lied claiming that TikTok users were “forced” to call. How would that even work? TikTok possibly being banned isn’t a lie but all that other shit sure was. It was just a popup offering to help locate local reps to call and make their voices heard. The fact that any of you are pretending that people taking this democratic action is a bad thing is appalling and your bias is blatantly obvious. The absolute ego on all of you to act like you just know better than all of those other people because… Reasons? Ridiculous.
Do you have the full text of the notification that you could post here? Kinda hard discussing the specifics otherwise.
If it really contains the quote “Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok”, I do consider that misleading.
People here are often making a lot of noise about disinformation campaigns on sites like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube (and that’s just from user-posted content that the sites fail to moderate, not posted by the sites themselves), so I don’t see why this would get a pass.
There’s no guarantee that making the sale will prevent the ban.
Yeah but if they sell then it’s someone else stuck holding the bags so why wouldn’t they?
because its not in the corporation’s interest to incur the expense and organizational disruption if they’re still going to get banned anyway - profit is maximized by continuing with business as usual instead of spending resources attempting to reach compliance
Tik Tok pushes so much toxic content towards children and teenagers it should be shut down in my opinion.
The can very easily apply to every single social media.
Yes but unlike Facebook and other platforms, Tik Tok is aimed at and consumed by minors specifically.
Unlike? I think you mean they’re JEALOUS of TikTok’s appeal to minors…
What I mean is that Facebook for example is aimed at and consumed by older adults in the first place. Most young people in fact see it as a boomer platform.
When I was a kid and Facebook was new, I remember everyone wanting an account. The way I see it, Facebook just kept those users who wanted it when it was new. Who’s to say that the same won’t be true of TikTok later?
Who’s to say that the same won’t be true of TikTok
Who knows but we are talking about the negative effects TikTok has on society right now.
How?
By design. Especially the format (short video clips) and the optimization for being used on phones (not computers) makes it attractive for kids.
63% of Americans between the ages of 12 and 17 used TikTok on a weekly basis
Report Estimates One-Third of TikTok Users Are Children Age 14 and Under
A Third of TikTok’s U.S. Users May Be 14 or Under, Raising Safety Questions
I tried googling, can’t find anything that supports these claims
Seriously? it took me one google search to find an endless list of such articles. Also, did you not notice all the kids outside filming Tik Tok dances with their phones, it has been going on for many years now, how is it possible you did not notice it?
Kids using tiktok and tiktok specifically targeting children to use their platform are distinctly different. Just because kids use tiktok doesn’t mean it’s because they were lured there. Those metrics only identify that tiktok is popular among youth, which is not an indication of malice whatsoever.
I appreciate your opinion, but short video clips on Mobile devices are nothing inherent to children. Now if tiktok was giving you pokemon for signing up or posting of their platform, then there’d be a valid argument that they’re targeting children. (I feel like there was a pokeball collaboration with tiktok once, but I can’t find a source to support it)
Getting back to the original context - the argument that Tiktok should be shut down because “it’s short videos on mobile platforms that’s popular among teens” is lunacy. Everyone is throwing shade at me and not realizing how absurd their argument is.
I’m not acting in bad faith either. I don’t care about the fate of tiktok, but I’m seeing a trend of vilification without proper logical discourse. It’s disconcerting to say the least.
I respect your opinion and don’t think you are arguing in bad faith. However, I think you are missing the central point. Which -in my opinion- is that a social media platform that turns out to have extremely negative effects on society and especially kids, should get shut down. If it happens with intent or without is not particularly relevant as far as I see it. I apologize if my initial comments were phrased in any misleading way, I am not a native speaker so I sometimes miss the finer nuances of certain formulations.
No need to apologize, you’re the first person to actually calmly and willingly discuss the topic without completely dismissing being disagreed with.
I know you’re not the originally comment I was replying to, but you conveniently moved the goal posts. The context of the entire conversation is whether TikTok specifically should be shut down because it targets children for it’s own gain. You’re now arguing that social media in general has negative impact on society and children, which I agree with, but is completely skewing the conversation and was, in no way, the central point of the discussion.
So your opinion is that all social media platforms that deem to have negative affects on society should be shut down? Do you not see what’s wrong with that? You’re saying humans can’t decide whether or not they want to use social media. You should understand how absolutely absurd that is - that is a completely dystopian totalitarian dictatorship idea. It sounds like a chapter in 1984.
Advertising.
Source? Examples?
I tried googling, can’t find anything that supports these claims
Edit: third party advertisers abusing tiktoks advertising algorithms is not on topic to the original comment that tiktok itself specifically targets children, and tiktok has addressed these issues.
You can downvote all you want, but I’ve still not been provided any proof that tiktok specifically targets or intends their platform to be for children.
I’m not dismissing the original claim. I’m genuinely curious, but I need logical discourse, not users with mental illness going off on complete tangents.
If you have any cognitive thought or opinionated source that tiktok is a bad faith actor towards the safety or health of children, I’d love to read it. My company builds software, so knowing the failings of tiktok to protect children is in my interest.
Didn’t look very hard
Unrelated - this is just a business tiktok page
Again, this is not relevant to the original comment.
This is about how advertising was abused to target children.
It honestly sounds like you unjustifiably hate the platform and are throwing every nonsensical argument.
You’ve provided zero justification that tiktok as a company purposely targets children or designs their application specifically for children.
This is about advertising to children within the platform and how tiktok intends to protect unethical advertising to children
Should I keep finding relevant links for you or do you feel sufficiently foolish enough?
The comment was
Yes but UNLIKE Facebook and other platforms, Tik Tok is aimed at and consumed by minors specifically.
That study shows the opposite. YouTube benefited from minors over 2.5 times more than TikTok. And it shows every other platform is benefiting similar amounts. In fact, Snapchat has half the number of monthly users as tiktok but has almost identical ad revenue from minors. All the major social media platforms suck and are trying to take advantage of us, especially kids
Unrelated
Unrelated
Unrelated to original comment
Again, this supports tiktok protecting children
Unrelated, and you provided links that tiktok has worked to prevent this behavior from advertised
Unrelated
No seriously – did you even try or did you just want to bloviate online to randos for… no reason at all?
You just ignore anything you dont like. You’re not arguing in good faith.
https://gizmodo.com/tiktok-slammed-in-europe-over-hidden-advertising-to-kid-1846277642
Are you a GOP candidate? You seriously couldn’t find any of these links?? I didn’t even use Google.
Unrelated to original comment
Please find two brain cells to rub together to understand the context of the original comment. You’ve gone on a complete nonsensical tangent akin to mental illness
My prediction is coming true: https://www.reddit.com/r/dankmemes/comments/10ofony/anything_to_protect_the_youth/
Good. Fuck them and all social media controlled by any big mega corp. But fuck the CCP especially.
The fucked up thing is they don’t seem to have a problem with rich 1%ers owning and manipulating millions of people. Only when it’s the Chinese. Facebook, Twitter, instagram are just as harmful. Although the delivery method of the content isn’t exactly “tailored” on those services like TikTok. I dunno how I feel about this. I mean, I think all social media services should die out. This just seems like an uneven hand.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
This is a really great way of putting it. I’d never heard that before, but it’s a truly apt way of summarizing one of the biggest problems I have with fellow leftists. However, I think I’d argue this is a slightly different situation.
Yeah, it’s a start toward something good. But it’s still sticky in its spirit.
It’s sort of similar to the complaint against incrementalism. It’s true, incrementalism is not a healthy solution to the problems we face. But fighting against good steps forward because you’re against the concept of incrementalism is…foolish…right? Or is it? Because sinking our efforts into incrementalism takes away effort from broad advancement. And incrementalism has been our MO since forever. And it’s only brought us further down the road to ruin.
But, again, fighting good incremental changes is nonsense. I dunno, it’s a nuanced issue and I’m not even sure how I feel about it. It’s interesting. And as someone who doesn’t use the more “standard” social media and never has, I’m all for erasing social media from existence. I’ve seen what it did to everyone in my life, and I was the perfect age for every step of social media’s growth: xanga/livejournal in middle school, MySpace in middle school/early high school, and then Facebook came about in my senior year, instagram in college and while i traveled in my early 20s…but I was an anti-anything-popular emo kid and goddamn I’m glad I was. But I also saw first hand how much social media changed my interactions with everyone in my life. It wasn’t pretty. People were addicted, constantly being just floored that I wasn’t on FB, countless people threatening to make me a Facebook page? It was severely strange behavior. And now tiktok is like all of that on goddamn super steroids. But it’s less people shoving it down my throat, and more just completely sucked in by it. Which is honestly scarier.
Bytedance needs to figure out which congresspeople Meta has been bribing.
Need to donate a couple hundred mil to Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and see if he’ll give up his strategy.
Oh man, is this a game? Are we supposed to name all the reasons this is dumb? The first two are obvious.
MSFT was famous for not taking lobbying seriously until they started getting anti-trust action against them. They quickly became good at it.
So TikTok is sending out app notifications that they are at risk of being shut down and urging their users to call their representatives right now. They are not going down without a fight.
The 165 days time limit would land the deadline in August-ish, right before the most intense phase of election season in the States, and I do think TikTok would be a very influential part of the election strategy this year.
On this particular topic, I think “both sides” is true. Both sides want to proceed down this “ban websites by name” road.
Bold move. Who are they going to blame all the online privacy issues once they cant yell about the Chinese? Or are we going to start pretending everythings fine then?
Why do you think that they give a shit about online privacy? This isn’t a privacy bill, it’s a bill stopping another government from doing exactly the same shit that the US government does through domestic apps. They aren’t looking out for people, they’re afraid of the competition.
I expect the latter
deleted by creator
It can still be successful elsewhere. It’s clearly about data sharing.
I think here the point is that the US government seems to be not bothered by Meta’s data collection which by the way has already been used by Cambridge Analytica to swing elections in favour of one of the opponents and most likely used on countless more occasions but it is now super worried about Tiktok.
And what did they do against Meta? To the best of my knowledge nothing effective.
If they do this they should apply the same measures against Meta and other companies but they don’t. Which is disturbing.
Same with Gaza and Israel. Hamas kills around less than 1 K civilians (mind you a lot of the killed on that first day were military), it is utter tragedy. Israel kills 30+K people, starves the local population, destroys almost completely the infrastructure and their homes and it is business as usual. And every now and then they are scorned to please their voting base while weapon sales to Israel are continuing. Replace Israel with Russia/NK/China or any other country the US considers hostile and they will have them sanctioned to hell, but since it is Israel, nothing of this is happening.
At least have the fucking decency not to have double standards, because the rest of the world isn’t blind or stupid.
As I recall they got Zuckerberg on stand and did their best “rabble rablle rabble” at him, with a few decent questions mixed in, then nothing.
Yes, you have pointed out the subtext that was there all along and pretended like it’s some new argument.
It is about the data sharing. The US doesn’t like companies sharing data with countries that it views as its geopolitical rivals. Big surprise, am I right?
Seriously. Don’t cover your eyes and pretend you can’t see why the government treats US companies different than companies that are directly in the hands of adversaries. They might not care if Meta uses it to profit off of us, but they certainly do care if China will use it to achieve an advantage over us, militarily or otherwise.
deleted by creator
I can’t order Jimmy John’s on my work computer anymore. Why? Because tiktok is blocked on our work network. What does tiktok have to do with Jimmy John’s? Well I would have thought nothing expect it won’t let you set your delivery option unless it’s allowed to send data to analytics.tiktok.com.
Why is a God damn sandwich shop sending my location to tiktok? No idea, but it’s definitely not just the video app that’s the problem.
I dunno what hill you’re trying to die on here. A stupid dancing app that provides a data collection platform by a foreign surveillance state is a plot on the Orville. Nobody is concerned with it competing with Google, Apple orYouTube. It’s so off-base. Google sucks anyway. If people are searching on TikTok it’s because it’s giving better results for them than Google. It’s about who is collecting the data.
deleted by creator
No, I think it sets a bad precedent. I don’t think TikTok should be allowed in the US (if the US decides it doesn’t want it as they’re seeming to). Taking the property is going to cause a bunch of what you mentioned.
Well if it’s such a useful tool, it will do just fine in China, right? No biggie.
deleted by creator
Isn’t this in some way the same as how China bans a number of foreign companies from operating? I don’t think doing the exact same thing is entirely fair but when others aren’t playing by the same rules, it’s a lot less black and white.
Ah yes, the US, where no foreign company is allowed to be successful.
Such unsuccessful or banned foreign companies include Samsung, LG, Sony, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Aldi, Shell, Siemens…
I’m surprised that people are surprised that a country would favor it’s own businesses versus foreign ones.
I’m also unsure of which countries act differently from this.
I’m not surprised but I’m still outraged at the amount of hypocrisy they are pulling off out of this one.
And if foreign politics won’t take care of it call the CIA and tell it they’re hiding oil under the presidents house.
So NSA backdoors are mandatory but Chinese ones are bad.
Yes. 🤷
Nobody wants to be spied on by their perceived enemies. Also, how do you expect us to maintain an appropriate level of hypocrisy if we don’t constantly do hypocritical things?
I wish we would go after foreign investment, ownership, and political meddling as much as tiktok
You have a choice to not use tiktok, in this day and age you don’t really have a choice to not use a phone…
I would be more afraid of being spied on by the government of the country I live in than by a government from a foreign country. Who do you think is more capable of doing something to you?
being spied on by the government of the country I live in than by a government from a foreign country
Ha, that’s a decent point. I don’t really care for either. I think about these things among others:
- China has proved they are interested in conflict. They haven’t used any kinetic/traditional warfare against anyone lately, though they seriously want to with Tiwan.
- China has been using nonstop cyber related warfare to conduct espionage, steal trade secrets, position themselves for assisting kinetic warfare with cyber warfare, etc.
I am not a direct target of these, but China killing the power grid or disabling telecommunications does have the potential to have a huge impact on my life.
- The US government has used nonstop kinetic and cyber warfare over the last 20+ years.
The US playing world police doesn’t directly threaten my safety, but I definitely would be more worried about the US than China if I wasn’t a US citizen.
The US government spying on me:
- Super annoying mostly due to the principle of a lack of privacy, regardless of whether I do anything bad or not
- Becomes a serious problem if I was an active opponent of government policy and elected officials, and the government/leadership deems me a terrorist/insurrectionist/etc.
Their discretion of what’s my free speech and right to criticize the government vs leading insurrection would be more complicated if they were using the NSA to own my life and try to use any excuse to lock me up.
I guess I weigh what’s more likely to be a problem in my current/future life.
I don’t like either of these scenarios.
Yes, governmental surveillance is always bad. But let’s not pretend being surveilled by NSA is as bad as being surveilled by the authoritarian government of China.
Sure bro, it’s the CCP out to oppress Americans and arrest and assassinate reformers and journalists, because they hate our freedom!
I mean, it’s not one or the other. No interference from Congress means we get surveilled by China and the US. Congress can cut that number in half.
deleted by creator
Both are bad but fuck Xi and the CCP 🖕
Removed by mod
The former is more pressing than the latter.
Sooo… How do Republican’s square being the party of “Small Govt” and then interfering in a private business?
Is it a private business if it’s owned by the Chinese government?
It’s really not though? The Chinese government has a 1% stake in ByteDance. Meanwhile ~60% is foreign investors – believed to be mostly American.
You have a misunderstanding of how China’s government operates. It does not matter how much stake the government holds, companies just cannot say no to the government’s request. Otherwise you will be disappeared. See Alibaba for example.
Remember, China does not have a democracy.
Ooooof, somebody licking the boot of capitalism a little too hard.
Then it should be easy to buy out that 1% stake.
I’m not saying it’s a good bill, but reducing interference by foreign governments in US sold products is not against any party’s philosophies.
deleted by creator
You mean like how US ISPs wiretapped the Internet for the NSA? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
But really, how dare anyone but us do that.
deleted by creator
No. It’s a malicious foreign entity.
They don’t. It’s all bad faith to get what they want - control.
Government is bad except when it comes to brutal subjugation of out-groups I don’t like, while the in-group gets protected and treated with kid gloves by the same.
Unfortunately most of them are the dupes not the protected class they think they are - “they’re hurting the wrong people” summed it up when it was uttered…
Foreign policy
