• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    12
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The age range skews younger, so probably not huge. It’s definitely there though - lots of “tradwife” thinly disguised fetish content. 😒

    There’s a reason Trump came out against this ban, he knows it’s going to be unpopular and he loses nothing by flip-flopping on it.

    This is just a free W for Trump and an L for Democrats with literally zero upsides. It accomplishes nothing besides pissing people off!

    • livus
      link
      fedilink
      57 months ago

      lots of “tradwife”

      Wild, I’ve never stumbled on any of that. But it has a really sensitive algorithm and I’m pretty firmly entrenched in the science-travel-pets axis.

    • Em Adespoton
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Well, unless there’s a credible national security angle that’s being kept confidential. I kind of suspect there is, since Trump tried to push through similar legislation, but worded it so badly that it never got out of debate… and the likes of Wyden voted for it even while they said it was the wrong legislation to solve the problem.

        • livus
          link
          fedilink
          27 months ago

          According to the world map in this link the countries that have banned it outright are: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Krzykstan, India, Nepal, and Somalia.

          (For anyone else like me who has trouble with unlabeled maps).

          • @takeda
            link
            17 months ago

            What about according to the text on that damn page?

            • livus
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              The text is poorly organized, the map is faster.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Please don’t tell me you actually believe them when they cry about national security. It’s almost always a lie.

        • Em Adespoton
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

          Usually it’s about economics. But in this case, it may actually be true.

          Generally, I consider real natsec issues to be things they can’t tell the public. So when I see privacy minded reps joining in with reps from both side of the aisle, I’m willing to lend a bit of credence to a security angle.

          Assuming it’s not just the US being upset that some other autocratic government is controlling the medium du jour.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            27 months ago

            … and so by whining about natsec they can get you to support anything, as long as they don’t tell you about it?

            • Em Adespoton
              link
              fedilink
              07 months ago

              No, I ignore the whining and consider it may be an issue based on actual behavior, as I originally stated.

              Hence the “in this case, they might be actually telling the truth” from the original statement.

              Just because they over-use an excuse doesn’t mean that it isn’t true on the odd occasion.

              The problem is that so much crying wolf makes it more difficult to tell when it’s real.

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                7
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                If this was an actual national security threat, why would they give them so long to sell? In fact, why even try to buy it? Why not just ban it immediately? Furthermore, why haven’t they implemented Biden’s executive order to stop China from buying data from Meta or Alphabet? And why haven’t they given us any proof of an actual national security threat?

                Their actual behavior betrays the truth, just like you said. It’s clear this is just national business interests and censorship.

                Stop believing in national security bullshit.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  27 months ago

                  “The app that has kids doing silly dances and is a festering piece of shit is a natsec issue”.

                  Those people don’t realise just how fucking daft they sound!

      • livus
        link
        fedilink
        117 months ago

        You think Chinese-owned Tiktok is inciting anti genocide protests on purpose?

        That train of thought has interesting implications. American-owned Facebook keeps being caught inciting actual genocides in other countries…

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The CPC can just buy data from a different broker. You think Alphabet or Meta are loyal to American interests?

        Also, TikTok won’t be banned for months, so it won’t change the campus protests at all. In fact it’ll probably piss the protesters off even more, it’s very obvious government censorship.

        Also also, there’s zero proof TikTok is promoting pro-Palestine/anti-Israel content. That’s just what is naturally popular, the reality is that all the other social media companies are suppressing pro-Palestine/anti-Israel content. That’s it.

        • Mossy Feathers (She/They)
          link
          fedilink
          -47 months ago

          Facebook absolutely would sell your info to foreign governments, however I’m not convinced Google would.

          I know Google harvests a shitton of data and uses it for advertising, but that’s ironically why I think they probably wouldn’t actually sell it. Because Google owns a massive advertising company, it’s in their best interests to keep the data they collect so that other companies can’t pop up and use the data themselves.

          Also, if I’m not mistaken, the bill isn’t specifically about tiktok but instead covers the sale of personal data to foreign countries in general. It’s just that it’s worded in a way that tiktok is the obvious target. As such, I’m not sure an American company could sell their customer’s info to China; at least not without laundering it through other companies first.

          However, all of that said, I’m not trying to defend the bill, tiktok, Google or Facebook. I don’t like any of those companies and while I think the concept of the bill is good, it’s very obviously focused on tiktok and, like you and others have pointed out, does nothing about the data collection that American companies do.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            37 months ago

            The law only prohibits the operations of so-called “foreign adversary controlled applications” i.e. companies with Chinese investors.

            I’m pretty sure if TikTok was controlled by American investors and sold data to China it would be fine - although there’s also an executive action that bans selling data to foreign adversaries, it also hasn’t actually been implemented by regulators and is pretty simple to work around anyway since a third-party can just buy data from American companies and then sell it to China.

            I think a bill like this that targeted all companies that collect data would be good.

            Targeting “foreign adversary controlled applications” doesn’t really help anyone.