• Encrypt-Keeper
      link
      English
      275 months ago

      I don’t think that a hostile foreign nation has an inalienable right to collect the data of and interfere in the lives of American citizens, as a form of “free speech” lol

        • @caffinatedone
          link
          English
          75 months ago

          Probably, but for other reasons. Neither of those are owned by the US, are they?

        • Encrypt-Keeper
          link
          English
          6
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The United States is not an enemy nation to the EU. Nor does the United States own Meta or Xitter.

          That being said if EU nations were worried about the NSA collecting information on their citizens and had reason to believe Meta was complicit in that, then they absolutely should ban Meta. I mean they have the GDPR don’t they.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            115 months ago

            They basically do, as revealed by Snowden documents when the US forced American companies like AT&T, Microsoft, or Google to let them spy on their users. I don’t even think Tik Tok stores their user data in China servers, it’s in Texas or Virginia or Singapore.

            • @WhatsThePoint
              link
              English
              15 months ago

              This was the original compromise, but Byte Dance repeatedly gave access to said servers to engineers with ties to the CCP against the agreement’s stipulations. Byte Dance broke the compromise.

            • Encrypt-Keeper
              link
              English
              05 months ago

              Well then yeah maybe the EU should ban them. Thats up to them, but I would totally understand it if they did.

              As for TikTok’s user data, it doesn’t matter where it’s geographically stored. ByteDance has unfettered access to the data regardless, which means the CCP has unfettered access to it.

        • @Rakonat
          link
          English
          05 months ago

          Yes but not for the reasons stated in the post you replied to.

        • Encrypt-Keeper
          link
          English
          125 months ago

          You think that it being unaddressed made it “fine?” The United States had slavery for years and years before being banned and I wouldn’t call that “fine” either.

            • Encrypt-Keeper
              link
              English
              3
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              No it’s literally the exact same logical process you followed in your comment, just on a subject dramatically worse. Also I know what it is you’re accusing me of, but a “red herring” is not it lol.

            • NoIWontPickAName
              link
              fedilink
              35 months ago

              Nope a solid example of how just because something is not illegal doesn’t mean it is fine

    • @Rakonat
      link
      English
      95 months ago

      You’re arguing this is bad for free speech defending an app run by a country that doesn’t have free speech.

        • m-p{3}
          link
          fedilink
          English
          35 months ago

          More like evening the playing field. If China doesn’t want to let social media businesses operate freely in China, why would the US be required to do the same?

    • @Cheems
      link
      English
      05 months ago

      You’re exceptionally dumb if you think they won’t just go to another app that does the exact same thing.