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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The big point is, how does that power get used?
There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it’s not. You’re just literally declaring it, no evidence required.
If ByteDance continues sending the outlined Data to any offshore location defined as an adversarial nation, then:
So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).
EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.
The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It’s not due process if you break a law and it’s not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it’s ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it’s whatever organization they don’t like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They’ve wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don’t even need to get an infiltrator into the Union’s administration.
The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They’ve proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you’re in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t soldiers because words (police didn’t exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.
As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
Courts of law aren’t due process? Lmfao.
Not after the fact. They are due process when the government has to prove it’s case before it can take punitive action. If the government is allowed to take punitive action without going to court to prove it’s needed than there is no due process.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I guess parking tickets aren’t due process either, then.
Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don’t directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.
I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.
I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific (rather confusingly, I admit, since you used it too) to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.
to prevent anything similar from ever occurring
What are you referring to here? What occurred? Do you mean the creation of another foreign TikTok?
This is the wrong way to go about solving this problem IMO, but then again the problem they’re trying to solve is more about security than privacy as a right.
Watching from Europe I have no idea what the problem is. The US spies on our data, the CCP spies on our data. I can see why the US government might worry that they can’t access the data (except TikTok runs its servers on Oracle databases in the US just to satisfy them). But I don’t understand why the citizens of the US would support tightening the monopoly to just Facebook and Google.
It’s not just about data and spying, it’s also about media and influence. The argument being made that it’s not a good idea to have a “hostile” nation effectively controlling one of the major/dominant social media platforms.
There is also the trade issue of reciprocity, China bans many if not most of the western platforms, while they have free rein to operate theirs in the west.
Its actually also a media problem. For example, the largest Tiktok account of a german politician belongs to Maximilian Krah, of the far right party AFD. Just yesterday it was revealed that his personal assistant is actually a Chinese spy. Krah himself voiced a lot of pro-Chinese opinions before, like being pro annexation of Taiwan and denying the genocide on the uigyurs.
This begs the question if his Tiktok popularity is based on a non-biased algorithm or if the CCP made a deal with him, boosting his Tiktok popularity in exchange for being pro-China.
Yeah well, it’s not like it’s beneath the US government to do the same thing. Remember Cambridge analytica, or the Snowden leaks? My point being, as far as I’m concerned as a citizen, banning TikTok just transfers power to a more concentrated group of actors. That makes the problem worse.
Seems like a good plan to me. Forcing the companies with the most influence on American social issues to actually be operated by Americans seems like a no-brainer.
This isn’t good, now we’re only left with the tech giants dictating what people can see.
How is it any different for before the law? TikTok is a tech giant.
From what I know, certain special interests want TikTok under their control so they can censor certain topics. People keep saying this is happening because of CCP, etc. But I believe they want this platform “censored” before the elections. The other major players already play ball with censorship but TikTok caught them by surprise.
Why would it have unanimous bi-partisan support in the Senate if the bill had weight on the election results?
To be devil’s advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin’ in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.
That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don’t consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.
TikTok is a massively powerful tool of influence and intelligence, in the hands of an adversary that is well understood to proactively meddle with democratic elections.
Yes, obviously the CCP will unabashedly pursue other interference vectors. That should be viewed as more reason to curtail TikTok, not less.
They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.
Seriously, going through these comments, it’s clear most people didn’t read the article or didn’t learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).
Based on the timeline, it’s clear the intention wasn’t to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.
Tone down the conspiracy theory angle. It’s lemmy, you can get more interaction by mentioning capitalism rather than censorship.
It’s the only big non-US owned social media. They hate that because it’s much harder to control. It’s not even about the profits to be had, tiktok gets more eyeballs and especially it gets the young people’s attention and has more public thrusts than all of the MSM combined and because Bytedance doesn’t hate their HQ in the US the US government, intelligence or special interests, can’t just call them and strong arm them into censoring whatever talking point that they don’t like currently. It’s not much more complex than that. “Chinese spying on Americans” is just projection of what all the other platforms do.
Those who push this will not be happy no matter what Tiktok does or whatever concessions it makes. They already hold american data in American and EU data in the EU for example. Did that stop the “muh CCP influence” propaganda? Well, no… Their main goal would be to get Bytedance to sell the platform to Americans, atleast the american business. I guess they would rather let it get banned and sacrifice American or even all the western markets than to let that happen. It would be a loss to them either way.
😂
The platform is already pretty censored, mentions of Palestine get fucked by the algo, I barely even see it from people I follow if I don’t look up their past videos.
But I could imagine that’s the impetus for congress, Trump tried the same thing after Tiktok was used to organize ~a million people RSVPing free tickets to a trump rally, resulting in him doing his shtick infront of like 100 people in a stadium. He only stopped after a major donor asked him not to, and it was very unpopular. Now dems are in Trumps position after hearing the kids are using Tiktok to organize against them, of course they’d make the same calculation and try to ban it.
Well we already were. Now we’re just down to American tech giants.
He writes while using Lemmy to see this
As of the Resolving Differences phase this is where we are at with the text of the bill.
BTW, not a ban. It was never a ban.
Click to Expand
DIVISION I—PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This division may be cited as the “Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024”.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE SENSITIVE DATA OF UNITED STATES INDIVIDUALS TO FOREIGN ADVERSARIES. (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.
© Definitions.—In this section:
(1) COMMISSION.—The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission.
(2) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “controlled by a foreign adversary” means, with respect to an individual or entity, that such individual or 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 foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly 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).
(3) DATA BROKER.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “data broker” means an entity that, for valuable consideration, sells, licenses, rents, trades, transfers, releases, discloses, provides access to, or otherwise makes available data of United States individuals that the entity did not collect directly from such individuals to another entity that is not acting as a service provider.
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term “data broker” does not include an entity to the extent such entity—
(i) is transmitting data of a United States individual, including communications of such an individual, at the request or direction of such individual;
(ii) is providing, maintaining, or offering a product or service with respect to which personally identifiable sensitive data, or access to such data, is not the product or service;
(iii) is reporting or publishing news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest;
(iv) is reporting, publishing, or otherwise making available news or information that is available to the general public—
(I) including information from—
(aa) a book, magazine, telephone book, or online directory;
(bb) a motion picture;
(cc) a television, internet, or radio program;
(dd) the news media; or
(ee) an internet site that is available to the general public on an unrestricted basis; and
(II) not including an obscene visual depiction (as such term is used in section 1460 of title 18, United States Code); or
(v) is acting as a service provider.
(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(5) PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE SENSITIVE DATA.—The term “personally identifiable sensitive data” means any sensitive data that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable, alone or in combination with other data, to an individual or a device that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to an individual.
(6) PRECISE GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.—The term “precise geolocation information” means information that—
(A) is derived from a device or technology of an individual; and
(B) reveals the past or present physical location of an individual or device that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to 1 or more individuals, with sufficient precision to identify street level location information of an individual or device or the location of an individual or device within a range of 1,850 feet or less.
(7) SENSITIVE DATA.—The term “sensitive data” includes the following:
(A) A government-issued identifier, such as a Social Security number, passport number, or driver’s license number.
(B) Any information that describes or reveals the past, present, or future physical health, mental health, disability, diagnosis, or healthcare condition or treatment of an individual.
© A financial account number, debit card number, credit card number, or information that describes or reveals the income level or bank account balances of an individual.
(D) Biometric information.
(E) Genetic information.
(F) Precise geolocation information.
(G) An individual’s private communications such as voicemails, emails, texts, direct messages, mail, voice communications, and video communications, or information identifying the parties to such communications or pertaining to the transmission of such communications, including telephone numbers called, telephone numbers from which calls were placed, the time calls were made, call duration, and location information of the parties to the call.
(H) Account or device log-in credentials, or security or access codes for an account or device.
(I) Information identifying the sexual behavior of an individual.
(J) Calendar information, address book information, phone or text logs, photos, audio recordings, or videos, maintained for private use by an individual, regardless of whether such information is stored on the individual’s device or is accessible from that device and is backed up in a separate location.
(K) A photograph, film, video recording, or other similar medium that shows the naked or undergarment-clad private area of an individual.
(L) Information revealing the video content requested or selected by an individual.
(M) Information about an individual under the age of 17.
(N) An individual’s race, color, ethnicity, or religion.
(O) Information identifying an individual’s online activities over time and across websites or online services.
(P) Information that reveals the status of an individual as a member of the Armed Forces.
(Q) Any other data that a data broker sells, licenses, rents, trades, transfers, releases, discloses, provides access to, or otherwise makes available to a foreign adversary country, or entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary, for the purpose of identifying the types of data listed in subparagraphs (A) through (P).
(8) SERVICE PROVIDER.—The term “service provider” means an entity that—
(A) collects, processes, or transfers data on behalf of, and at the direction of—
(i) an individual or entity that is not a foreign adversary country or controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(ii) a Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, or local government entity; and
(B) receives data from or on behalf of an individual or entity described in subparagraph (A)(i) or a Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, or local government entity.
(9) UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL.—The term “United States individual” means a natural person residing in the United States.
(d) Effective Date.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this division.
It’s always annoyed me that it’s been commonly referred to as a ban, when it’s actually a forced sale.
I didn’t know it was legal for a law to make it through the senate that fast
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A bill that would force China-based company ByteDance to sell TikTok — or else face a US ban of the platform — is all but certain to become law after the Senate passed a foreign aid package including the measure.
The first time, House lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor of the bill when brought as a standalone measure with a shorter divestment timeframe of six months.
“Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel.”
They’ve not been in the classified briefings that Congress has held, which have delved more deeply into some of the threats posed by foreign control of TikTok.”
“But what they have seen, beyond even this bill, is Congress’ failure to enact meaningful consumer protections on big tech, and may cynically view this as a diversion, or worse, a concession to U.S. social media platforms,” Warner continued.
“I will sign this bill into law and address the American people as soon as it reaches my desk tomorrow so we can begin sending weapons and equipment to Ukraine this week,” President Biden said in an official statement released shortly after passage in the Senate.
The original article contains 719 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I wonder how strange your own public policies must be to accept a situation like this… don’t they see the impact this will have on thousands of people who literally need this platform? I don’t think so… the American big tech lobby has the loudest voice, right?
Seriously doubt it will kill it
It won’t, but it will be sold, and the moderation and censorship practices will change.
once again - not a ban, a seizure. Steve Mnuchin is heading a group of government insiders who want to buy TikTok, and this bill bans it if and only if they don’t sell. The government has decided that TikTok is a dangerous propaganda and espionage network and intends to steal it and run it themselves. Even if you think that TikTok is that dangerous you have to ask yourself: why is it legal for everyone else and why does our government want so badly to do it themselves?
If China really is using TikTok for psyops, then they will refused to sell, flood TikTok with anti-government sentiment for its remaining days, and then direct people to just use the TikTok website hosted in China (is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
One silver line here is “the youths” will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.
One silver line here is “the youths” will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.
this happened to be back in the 90’s & 00’s when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i’m permanently anti democrat party.
however i don’t think think that this will have the same impact depth because being denied videos does not have the same impact on your life as your government deporting the person you built a life with because you can’t sponsor them for legal residency simply due to the fact you’re both the same sex and being driven towards taking on huge student loan debt because the military won’t let you join to obtain the college tuition part of GI bill.
in addition: people will brand you a tankie or a “both-sides-ist” for pointing out these anti-gay & anti-youth laws online; so today’s youth will be pressured away from giving voice to it publicly.
I can understand your frustration. I currently feel that way towards a certain political party, but I have to keep an open mind because things change.
For example, I don’t doubt what you said Democrats was true in past decades, but today I believe the Democrats are more friendly towards LGBT rights than Republicans are. It appears things have changed on those specific issues.
Maybe we wont agree, but let’s at lets at least find clarity: Do you believe Republicans or Democrats are currently more friendly towards LGBT people?
like abortion, the democrats did nothing when they had the chance and; in my case and many others like me; they actively made it worse.
it was hollywood that changed people’s minds on lgbt issues and democrats are simply the political beneficiaries.
All fair criticisms of Democrats in my opinion.
The only thing I have a problem with is your “never vote Democrat” rule. You do you, but I believe voting in a way that will most help LGBT people, and most help women’s reproductive rights, etc–I believe that if you want to cast votes that most support those causes, it will sometimes require voting for a Democrat.
Also, to get that clarity I was seeking. Do you:
- Recommend people vote for Democrats (sounds like no).
- Recommend people vote for Republicans.
- Recommend people vote for third-parties or not vote at all.
These are the only 3 possibilities. Which are you?
For example, if you believe that Republicans are better for LGBT issues, then I want to hear you say it: “I think Republicans are better on LGBT issues”. I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself, I really just want you to be clear about your view and then let everyone judge for themselves what they think is right.
this happened to be back in the 90’s & 00’s when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i’m permanently anti the party that rolled back don’t ask don’t tell, embraced marriage and healthcare rights for queer people and have forgiven tons of student loan debt. I’m definitely not a psy-op. Pay no attention to the fact that no one calls them ‘the democrat party’ except people who have 1000+ hours viewing fox news.
sure, now that it’s politically popular; nevermind that they did nothing to make that a reality and made it worse instead of standing up for us after promising that they would.
(is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t. The movie industry is already lobbying for it
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?
Isn’t Nginx written by a Russian? So is it now banned in the US? What other software has been effected by this legislation?
Hah, well time to tell our CEO I’m shutting down our prod servers.
Don’t worry an American will be available to own it instead! And there won’t be any problems because we’re the best!
You missed the /s in your comment.
I shouldn’t need one for that. But in the same vein…
I don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s impossible for the world’s only bastion of freedom to do anything wrong! We should just have the president and do away with things like courts!
Woops! You forgot the /s again
Dang it. I’ll remember one of these days.
Whew the propaganda smokescreen almost fully fell apart with people waking up and seeing us support Genocide. Good thing we went full authoritarianism to stop it!
Free speech was always a lie I guess
If I was Biden and I wanted to make sure absolutely nobody under 35 voted for me, first thing I’d do is genocide.
If that didn’t work, then I’d restart student loans.
If that didn’t work, I’d ban Tiktok.
Edit: To the people downvoting me: Do you think giving Israel the bombs they use to carry out genocide, restarting student loans, and banning tiktok helps Biden’s reelection chances?
Are you republicans who don’t want him to change course? Are you democrats perpetually stuck in 2016, blaming voters rather than asking “What policies caused us to lose? What changes do we need to make to win?”
deleted by creator
Pressure Biden to do the things he needs to do to get elected. Voters are gonna do what they’re gonna do. You cannot shame millions of voters into taking an unpaid day off to vote for someone who has told them through his actions that he does not and will not represent them.
Trying to silence such analysis just helps the DNC maintain the delusion that they can win while standing up to the very voters they need instead of doing what they are telling the democrats to do.
deleted by creator
Nobody is saying the captain needs to be replaced, we’re saying stop sailing directly towards those fucking rocks. No matter how hard we paddle, Biden cannot win the muslim votes he needs if he is facilitating genocide of muslims. He will not get the young votes he needs if he bans tiktok after restarting student loans.
Nothing we can do can change this. Only Biden can.
deleted by creator
What I don’t hear are realistic solutions to the problems
Stop sending Israel the tools to carry out genocide. Problem solved. This is the only way you can make a credible argument to muslims that trump would be worse, because you are no longer facilitating a literal genocide.
Forgive all student loans. Yes, this is realistic, the Department of Education studied the problem and said so. Problem solved. Dare republicans to undo it. This is the only way you can make a can make a credible argument to young people that you actually want this thing and if they don’t vote for you, republicans will make it worse. You can’t credibly make that argument when you’re the one who restarted loan payments and you’ve only undone a tiny portion of the harm that caused via forgiveness.
Order military hospitals to provide abortion care and free contraceptives. You’re the commander in chief, you can do that.
Order the military to destroy the child drowning fence along the rio. Again, commander in chief.
You act like TikTok isn’t a mouthpiece for the CCP
But that’s irrelevant, tiktok is popular. Banning a popular thing in an election year is a dogshit strategy to get reelected.
Well, instead of saying that, maybe you should be saying, “If you think Biden is bad, wait until the great orange dictator takes office. He already has family talking about flipping Gaza real estate.”
You have learned nothing from 2016, and are bound to repeat it.
Actions speak infinitely louder than words, this isn’t a problem messaging can solve.
’ll hold Biden accountable for his transgressions
Pure comedy gold. You’re both delusional. Me too, thanks.
Work to do away with first past the post voting in your state yall.
It really doesn’t seem like they want to win
noooo not the cringe app! everything but the cringe app
yes, ban on tiktok is a net positive
It’s not even a ban, though. TikTok will just be owned by a US company instead of a Singaporean owned company. Literally nothing else will change, I hate to break it to you - cringe app will still be used by millions.
ByteDance has said they won’t sell, and the US audience is <15% of their monthly userbase.
We’ll see, I suppose. I’m highly doubtful at the moment.
Do you think banning tiktok increases or decreases Biden’s popularity?
i will support whoever nukes bytedance datacentres
First they came for TikTok…
tiktokers aren’t a persecuted ethnic minority
this is so funny out of context
Were socialists a persecuted ethnic minority?
Already they are planning to hinder open hardware (RISK-V) as it could help China and will certainly attack foss software as well.
I’m sure you understood my point.
Something we can all agree on at least I would think
The government telling us which social media platforms we’re allowed to use? No I don’t think we agree and I don’t even use TikTok.
