And what is the evidence for it being a Chinese spying platform? Is it owned by a Chinese company? Is there any hard evidence? Why is it so controversial?

  • WatDabney
    link
    fedilink
    2916 hours ago

    A motivation that hasn’t been mentioned yet:

    Every successful attempt so far by the US government to control what Americans may and may not access on the internet has been rooted in pre-existing legal restrictions on the content, or on access to it. It’s just been things like piracy, CSAM, drug trafficking and the like - things that are illegal in and of themselves, so banning sites that are involved with them has just been a response to thecrxisting illegality.

    This is the first time that the US government has succeeded in banning a site without pointing to violations of any existing laws, but simply because they’ve decided to do so.

    That’s a significant precedent, and to would-be tyrants, an extremely useful one.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1215 hours ago

      This happens all the time. Almost every country has laws about foreign ownership of media and telecom. Here in Canada, Americans cannot come in and just buy up all the media companies. The consortium that bought my cell provider included a wealthy Egyptian national who was forced to divest before the sale could be finalized.

      China was forced to divest from Grindr in the US like five years ago for the exact same reasons.

      The only thing that’s really weird here is that China is refusing to do so and would rather burn it to the ground than sell it. That’s at least in part because having all that information - including granular tracking data - on 50% of the US population is an insanely powerful intelligence tool.

    • TedescheOP
      link
      English
      616 hours ago

      That’s not a motivation, but rather an (admittedly astute) comment on the legal context. Appreciated nonetheless.

      • WatDabney
        link
        fedilink
        516 hours ago

        Establishing that precedent just in and of itself would most certainly be more than enough motivation for anyone with a desire to manipulate or limit public discourse and access to the authority by which future bans can and will be implemented.