It's wild to me how many people with seemingly liberal values are cheering on the US government telling them what apps they can and can't use to get and share information. Banning it on government devices is fine, banning it outright seems like a huge 1st amendment violation and assault on democratic values. The government has no business telling you what you can listen to or say, many people have died for us to have that right and we shouldn't give it away just because we're scared of election interference or spying or whatever it is.
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
105 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
34977 readers
234 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That would be true if they were banning it because they didn't like it. But I believe the growing concern is that it is a national security concern. Like the Chinese government is spying through the app.
Someone correct me if I am wrong. I haven't looked into this at all, just repeating what I have heard.
We're getting spied on via all our apps. If the concern was really privacy, congress should enact some GDPR-like privacy legislation that applied equally to all companies and levies fines against them for non-compliance. But they aren't doing that. This is just a bunch of hot air that is used to reduce our liberties. Same as when they say laws are "for the children" but all they really do is restrict online speech, take away your right to privacy, etc.
But they don't care about spying unless it's the Chinese government, because that's what makes it a national security issue.
So ban it on government devices. China spying on me personally has no national security implications. That goes the same for pretty much every other American citizen. Add to that, most other apps are spying in the same way and then re-selling that data globally to the highest bidder. It's not about national security. Pushes to infringe on our rights never have been, that's just the excuse they use.
Didn't US use to condemn countries when they get authoritarian and ban Facebook, whatsapp or Twitter during political unrest citing freedom of speech, communication is human rights or some bs. Now that Tiktok reigns, yanks can't wait to ban it citing ~~political unrest~~ cough cough national security concerns.
oh, how the table… hypocrites.
Also CCP bans any international apps from running in their country so fuck em too.
It will be fun to watch these lying propagandist assholes fight each other.
I'm trying to think of another example where a US government entity prevented a private US company (Apple or Google) from distributing software within the US.
Bytedance is not a US company.
Yes but the owners of the OS and app stores are, which is I believe the original commenter’s point. And the text of the bill is not “TikTok you shall pull your app”, it’s “Apple you shall disable the App Store listing”.
Oh, I see. But not just downloads, it also prohibits operation. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0419.pdf
But not only do they have an argument on first amendment grounds, given that the company and product are specifically named and targeted, I think this would be considered a bill of a attainder, and explicitly unconstitutional.
It seems more like “These substances are now illegal to sell, possess, or use.” Right or wrong, they made it stick for a very long time.
Data gets a lot closer to "speech" than a substance does. This will be interesting to watch, for sure.
That it will.
The closest I can think of is Napster and LimeWire, but I'm not sure if those died because of government action, or just civil lawsuits.
Then again, as pointed out, TikTok is not from an American company, so that's irrelevant.
But I'm talking about Apple being banned from distributing or, and Apple is a US company.
If you're concerned about stores, we have plenty of regulations around certain types of content. For example, if something infringes copyright, it must be pulled. I think there's something in the law about porn as well. Some states disallow gambling apps.
All of those hit Apple and Google Play, as well as other app stores.
I hear you, but those are classes of apps, not specific apps. And none of those laws would appear to apply to TikTok.
Surely "sends data to a foreign adversarial government" is on the books somewhere.
Perhaps, but Chrome does the same every time you hit a Russian website.
That's an entirely different thing though, and it's like saying the government should block the Play Store because you can use it to download TikTok. The Russian website example is more like the government requiring ISPs to block certain domains, or requiring DNS services to change their nameservers, and we already do that with DMCA takedowns.
Apple hasn't been banned from anything and they have nothing to do with this. What's your point?
So they won't be banned from distributing TikTok in the app store?
PGP back in the day.
It was okay to distribute in the US, wasn't it?
I couldn't find the full list of state attorney generals who did this, but here's a partial one. Write your reps if you think the government has no business telling you how and with what apps you are free to speak. Georgia, Alaska, Utah, Indiana, Nebraska, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky and South Dakota
write your reps
Not useful. And I doubt they are ignorant of our existence.
They do actually care about getting re-elected. The more they hear from constituents about issue A, the more likely they are to vote some way on issue A. Do they ignore many of their constituents concerns? Of course. But if we never make them heard, they will certainly be ignored. It's an imperfect system but apathy is an even worse one.
They're more likely to get re-elected by pleasing the ruling class than your average Joe. It's what got them there in the first place.
If you want to make real change, threaten the ruling class directly. Cut out the middleman.
The ruling class can ask for whatever they want. Votes, and the money to buy enough advertising to get them votes, are what actually get them into office. Those are levers of power everyday people can control if they don't let apathy or defeatism win.
You live in the country with the most resilient system serving ruling class interests. There's so many levels to keep you occupied trying to penetrate, but you will never win this game if you play it like that.
It is quite rare for an election as major as a senator's not be won by someone backed by money interests. Even their opponents are usually backed by interests. The mere prospect of running requires funds that most people don't qualify for. Just check the wealth of the poorest senator.
But even if you manage to penetrate this, you've only won one seat. Is that enough to make meaningful change? I'm yet to see that in action.
But even if your party of choice wins the Senate. If you're anything older than a teen, you'll remember the "ahh, darn! We only have the house but not the Senate!". But when you win both, "ahh, we have Congress but not the president! This maniac just throws executive orders left and right! We're so powerless". But then you win the presidency and suddenly we all forgot about executive orders. Oh wait, you forgot about the supreme court! Guys we just have to wait until they die. Don't worry, it'll happen any minute now. Oh no don't die during trump! Should've died during Obama. Oh wait one of them did. Wait what?
Yeah if you want meaningful change, this ain't it.
If only the Dems had a Super Majority in both houses, plus the President, Plus the Parlimentarian, then they would certainly stop being Capitalist and supporting their class-allies.
Idk if it's just my algorithm but I get fed a lot of videos about small time corruption. And even some interesting theories about congress critters trades, that end up being accurate weeks before they are disclosed. I can see why they want this shut down. I can also see why China is laughing. "Oh you wanted free press, and the first amendment... well look how easy we can make it for your citizens to call you out in real time"
In March, republican lawmakers accused TikTok of serving harmful content and inflicting "~~emotional distress~~ liberalness" on young users.
Fixed
I could see why they want to ban it. There are a bunch of tiktokers who are somehow guessing their trades days after they make them. Like weeks before they are publicly disclosed within the arbitrary 30 day period. Kind of crazy.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sept 18 (Reuters) - A group of 18 state attorneys general said on Monday they backed Montana's effort to ban Chinese-owned short video app TikTok, urging a U.S. judge to reject legal challenges ahead of the Jan. 1 effective date.
TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday, and filed a suit in May seeking to block the first-of-its-kind U.S. state ban on several grounds, arguing it violates the First Amendment free speech rights of the company and users.
The states say TikTok, which is used by more than 150 million Americans, has faced growing calls from U.S. lawmakers for a nationwide ban over concerns about possible Chinese government influence.
Last month, Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, said the state legislature and governor "did the right thing in prohibiting TikTok from operating in Montana as long as it is under the control of a foreign adversary."
In March, lawmakers accused TikTok of serving harmful content and inflicting "emotional distress" on young users.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020 sought to bar new downloads of TikTok but a series of court decisions blocked the ban from taking effect.
The original article contains 369 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 46%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!