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

Technology

59402 readers
3602 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 176 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (12 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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 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 6 months ago (9 children)

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 15 points 6 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 6 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 6 months ago (3 children)

They already moved it onto American servers, in 2022.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Buttons@programming.dev 11 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] heavy@sh.itjust.works 64 points 6 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] designatedhacker@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago

Exactly. They really sealed the deal when they sent a push message to get people to call Congress and stop the ban. https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/7/24093308/tiktok-congress-ban-push-notification

"TikTok can be used to influence our citizens politically" * TikTok proves it true immediately on a personal level for legislators * "See!"

Couldn't have found a better way to put gas on that fire. You're supposed to ~bribe~ lobby when they start talking shit.

[–] GenEcon@lemm.ee 13 points 6 months ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 months ago (8 children)

The issue is that China controls the algorithm for what users see. This gives them the ability to manipulate users by showing specific content to sway their opinion on things. This is specifically about China's ability to manipulate US citizens.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 60 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

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

(C) 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?

[–] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 30 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Isn't Nginx written by a Russian? So is it now banned in the US? What other software has been effected by this legislation?

[–] porksoda@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Hah, well time to tell our CEO I'm shutting down our prod servers.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Thoughts? Someone turned a troll farm loose on this one. We've been getting ratioed for weeks saying this and now all the shills screaming that we must support the CCP and hate our own country because it's an obvious national security measure are gone. Ones that suspiciously needed the Constitution explained to them at the most basic level.

We got played by the people that are supposed to represent us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maltese_Liquor@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure it would cover open source software since it seems to be more concerned with data than the actual code. If that open source software is being used by a company controlled by a foreign adversary then that would probably apply but if it's open source software created by a foreign adversary but being used by a US company I don't think that would.

The actual wording of the bill seems pretty vague so I could be wrong and they might be able to apply it just to software but that would kind of to against the entire option B that they're currently giving ByteDance where they can keep Tik Tok running by selling it to an American company.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 44 points 6 months ago (10 children)

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?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Yup. And the precedent this sets is horrifying. Even monopolies get due process. Being able to declare a company as a foreign enemy and force them to leave the market or be bought out is a ridiculous measure in a supposedly free society.

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 12 points 6 months ago (21 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

(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

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

Because then Facebook will pay for your reelection campaign?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Oh no, this includes "aids" to Israel isn't it...

Why the hell do Israel needs more money?! They are not even close to poor...

[–] exanime@lemmy.today 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not about that.... It's about feeding the porks of the military industrial complex

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

we are now in the process of cooking my friends.

Support your local darknet if you do not like censorship and violation of our rights

It's free :)

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

we are now in the process of cooking my friends

Would you like some A1 sauce with your rack of Nathan?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] femboy_bird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I didn't know it was legal for a law to make it through the senate that fast

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

lol

nah it’s legit, just look at any of the military spending bills which rocket through at warp speed

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] recapitated@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

All parties involved are asinine. The lawmakers, the company, both governments, the voters and the users.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And the floodgates are opened, washing us down the slippery slope of all kinds of new censorship

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›