this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

58009 readers
3079 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lautan@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This isn't good, now we're only left with the tech giants dictating what people can see.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How is it any different for before the law? TikTok is a tech giant.

[–] lautan@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From what I know, certain special interests want TikTok under their control so they can censor certain topics. People keep saying this is happening because of CCP, etc. But I believe they want this platform "censored" before the elections. The other major players already play ball with censorship but TikTok caught them by surprise.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why would it have unanimous bi-partisan support in the Senate if the bill had weight on the election results?

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

To be devil's advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin' in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.

That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don't consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Seriously, going through these comments, it's clear most people didn't read the article or didn't learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).

Based on the timeline, it's clear the intention wasn't to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Whew the propaganda smokescreen almost fully fell apart with people waking up and seeing us support Genocide. Good thing we went full authoritarianism to stop it!

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If I was Biden and I wanted to make sure absolutely nobody under 35 voted for me, first thing I'd do is genocide.

If that didn't work, then I'd restart student loans.

If that didn't work, I'd ban Tiktok.

Edit: To the people downvoting me: Do you think giving Israel the bombs they use to carry out genocide, restarting student loans, and banning tiktok helps Biden's reelection chances?

Are you republicans who don't want him to change course? Are you democrats perpetually stuck in 2016, blaming voters rather than asking "What policies caused us to lose? What changes do we need to make to win?"

[–] linkshandig@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

It really doesn’t seem like they want to win

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Seriously doubt it will kill it

[–] guywithoutaname@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It won't, but it will be sold, and the moderation and censorship practices will change.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Steve Mnuchin.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

once again - not a ban, a seizure. Steve Mnuchin is heading a group of government insiders who want to buy TikTok, and this bill bans it if and only if they don't sell. The government has decided that TikTok is a dangerous propaganda and espionage network and intends to steal it and run it themselves. Even if you think that TikTok is that dangerous you have to ask yourself: why is it legal for everyone else and why does our government want so badly to do it themselves?

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If China really is using TikTok for psyops, then they will refused to sell, flood TikTok with anti-government sentiment for its remaining days, and then direct people to just use the TikTok website hosted in China (is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).

One silver line here is "the youths" will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

(is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).

I can't imagine why they wouldn't. The movie industry is already lobbying for it

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I posted this in the other thread, but..

Now congress can tell any company to get fucked and sell to the highest bidder (edit: via bills crafted to target them specifically)? So much for free market republicans.

China will just find another company to buy our data from, because as it turns out, the problem isn't just TikTok, it's the fact the it's legal for companies (foreign and domestic) to sell and exchange our data in the first place. TikTok will still collect the same data, and instead of it going straight to China, it'll go to a rich white fuck first and they'll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

And if the problem is the fact that it's addictive, well, we have plenty of our own home grown addictions for people to sink their time into. You don't see congress telling those companies to get sold to a new owner.