Wouldn't actual data privacy laws stop this all the same? I can't help but feel this weird song and dance avoiding the privacy argument exists so US companies don't get in the crossfire for doing the same shit with your data.
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
191 points (92.4% liked)
Technology
59217 readers
2659 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No way in hell they'd ever argue data privacy.
That's only for apple to pretend to care about while selling your data to brokers.
Sorry Apple is selling user data to data brokers now?
Yeah. They do have their own data collection practices and privacy policies. IIRC, meta was crying over Apple implementing permission data for apps since it would allow people to back off from meta but Apple would be sole winner from that move.
Yeah I was curious about Apple selling data to brokers, which I think would be new news. For Meta yeah that was the ios14 update, which really messed with their bottom line apparently lol
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, but congress just authorized a bunch of new surveillance
Affective legislation rather knee jerk reactionary politics? Not in America, buddy.
Remember the golden rule of American thought:
CHINA BAD.
load more comments
(1 replies)
No, because it's more about the curation algorithm than it is about the data or privacy.
Regulating curation is a clear violation of free speech laws for citizens, but foreign entity that controls TikTok has no such protections. Giving them this protection could be a dangerous precedent.
This is still a problem with US based platforms, though.
I would think people of the fediverse of all places would feel strongly about allowing users to control their own curation rather than allowing private companies to dictate what individual users see.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Wasn't Facebook proven to give misleading information that led old people to vote for Trump that was ultimately from Russia propaganda sources? Where's the Meta ban?
It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. In my head this argument is a little shaky, since it seems to be effectively arguing that Americans have the right to access foreign propoganda machines? There is legal precedent here, but the nature of propoganda has massively changed since the 60s.
This is going to be a very interesting court case that has broad reaching implications, but expect no Americans to give a shit because it's not going to feature a trash fire to gawk at.
Lamont v. Postmaster General(1965)
Supreme Court ruled that publishing propaganda in America is free speech. You're not allowed to interfere with an American's access to propaganda
Justice Brennan made explicit what had been implicit in the majority opinion, declaring that “the right to receive publications is . . . a fundamental right,” the protection of which is “necessary to make the express guarantees [of the First Amendment] fully meaningful.”
I'm aware of the precedent, but there's a pretty massive difference between being able to receive printed media, and being able to have continual access to post and contribute content to a foreign propoganda tool that uses an algorithm to purposefully suppress subjects the CCP disapproves of. I don't believe the precedent is going to be applicable here, but IANAL, and maybe ByteDance's lawyers think this defense will be a slam dunk.
To me it sounds the exact same. The language doesn't say "printed propaganda that doesn't have a lot of nuance" it just says publications.
Sure, but if you tried to explain TikTok to the ruling judge on the 1965 case, I think their head would explode. The ruling isn't some all powerful precedent that shuts down the ban before the suit can begin, it's old and outdated. Something like TikTok was not even getting theorized at the time, you can't seriously expect it to be treated the same way.
I don't think the source of propaganda is relevant to the distinction being made by the precedent. If TikTok can be considered propaganda, then so can Facebook or Twitter or Instagram because they all utilize algorithms subject to the control or manipulation by their owners.
In my head this argument is a little shaky, since it seems to be effectively arguing that Americans have the right to access foreign propoganda machines?
I don't see why that's shaky? There a plenty of books written by members of the CPC (Including Xi Jinping himself) on Amazon, in English, should Americans be banned from accessing that foreign propaganda?
I believe people should have the right to consume the propaganda they choose.
to not would mean someone is controlling the propaganda I.e. all information
load more comments
(4 replies)
Especially for real law, you would have to define propaganda which I don't think has really been done.
I have thought about it and I don't see why all information isn't some form of propaganda because you're either bias on purpose by trying to persuade or bias by what you're aware of and know which can't be all information with our tiny human minds.
How do you measure bias without having some objective physical level model of the truth even?
I think the argument against TikTok and other Chinese companies is probably that you wouldn't allow Facebook by Chinese Communist Party and this crosses the line into that. To be fair though, you could probably ultimately make the same argument for US companies. Why is there so much money available for ads for VPNs compared to the financials of that market? Only a few answers to that one...
Propoganda does have a legal definition though, it's not nearly as nebulous as all biased information. It does need to be purposefully distorting, either by falsifying information or by withholding relevant information. It also needs to be produced by an organized group or government, just making up nonsense about yourself doesn't count.
Yeah, that's true-- but all the laws where 'a reasonable person...' make me feel like the porn definition "I know it when I see it!"
Only Zionist propaganda is allowed in the US
https://truthout.org/articles/romney-and-blinken-admit-tiktok-ban-sought-to-censor-gaza-news/
I wouldn't trust any organization that has "truth" in its name. It's like the car salesperson who says "Trust me" way too much.
And according to Media Bias/Fact Check, they've got a clear bias and are not classified as factual reporting.
load more comments
(8 replies)
This is a really good read about how TikTok regulation fits into the historic skew of legal precedence and past regulation https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/tiktok-bill-foreign-influence/677806/
This is the best summary I could come up with:
TikTok sued Tuesday to block a US law that could force a nationwide ban of the popular app, following through on legal threats the company issued after President Joe Biden signed the legislation last month.
The court challenge sets up a historic legal battle, one that will determine whether US security concerns about TikTok’s links to China can trump the First Amendment rights of TikTok’s 170 million US users.
If it loses, TikTok could be banned from US app stores unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sells the app to a non-Chinese entity by mid-January 2025.
In its petition filed Tuesday at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, TikTok and Bytedance allege the law is unconstitutional because it stifles Americans’ speech and prevents them from accessing lawful information.
The petition claims the US government “has taken the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning” the short-form video app in an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power.
“For the first time in history,” the petition said, “Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide.”
The original article contains 223 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 9%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Ok then, let's sue for the Chinese ban of literally most of the Internet. Where can I find the court that gives a shit about countries who don't wanna participate in other countries Internet toys and what the fuck are they gonna do about it?
view more: next ›