this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
1002 points (95.7% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
558 readers
1862 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, The government isn't protecting our data anyways so it really doesn't matter. Amazon has had yet another massive breach but no worries the government is sitting idly by. Not a single action will be taken even though this happens all the time. No penalty means no reason to change.
Yeah, if the government really cared, they would be pushing privacy laws instead of trying to ban a platform.
Yeah...but it's much easier to get elected with "ChInA bAd!”
Then "We need a nuanced approach to privacy and social media."
that platform is being banned because there are very limited privacy laws and the platform doesn't even comply with those. all theyhad to do is start a US front company with a data center, host all collected user data there and deny all data center access to the foreign parent company.
But... They did do that.
no, they allowed the chinese part of the company full access to all US data and they were found out
The only articles I saw were for headcount data. Literally just confirming the number of users. They embarked on an entire project for it and then the goal posts were taken off the field.
do you not have google or bing in china? just search for "tiktok ban reason" and you'll find articles like this: https://www.nytimes.com/article/tiktok-ban.html
Yeah and I remember when Bush expressed concern there would be mushroom cloud over New York city. Lawmakers saying vague shit isn't evidence. Hell politicians saying specific shit isn't evidence without the evidence. We just spent a year debunking half the shit Biden said about the Gaza war because he insisted on straight up repeating whatever lame excuse the war criminals thought up.
dood. they were only vague in their speeches, then the US congess made a very detailed, specific law mid last year. then tiktok ignored some details of it and got a chance to correct it, but didn't.
That law forced a fire sale of TikTok by name. I wouldn't follow it either, it's blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution very clearly, in plain English, bans the practice of punishing specific people and organizations via legislation instead of the justice system.
This is also like citing the laws against Marijuana when asked for evidence the laws against Marijuana are necessary. Entirely circular. There's still no evidence there.
tiktok could have just started a US based company and sell US operations to them for $1. and of course they knew that.
That is not true. That would still be either a subsidiary or a sell off. In the first case it doesn't satisfy the law. In the second case it's a very extreme fire sale, more extreme than was actually expected.
Is this the Amazon breach you're talking about?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/11/11/amazon-confirms-data-breach-exposed-2800000-lines-of-employee-data/
I hadn't heard of it, and I usually follow this stuff pretty closely. FWIW, in this case, it appears that the data was employee data from a third party vendor's systems:
People misconfigure AWS resources all the time, so it is definitely true that data stored by Amazon leaks out from time to time, although they don't have much culpability in these cases.
The language in the law has nothing to do with data. It's about foreign nations controlling media narratives.