568
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 71 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Ew. I looked through the bill, and here are some parts I have issues with:

Main text

PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON - TROLLED APPLICATIONS .—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:

(A) Providing services to distribute, main- tain, or update such foreign adversary con- trolled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.

(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.

So basically, the US can block any form of software (not just social media) distributed by an adversary county for pretty much reason, and it can block any company providing access to anything from an adversary.

Definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary"

(g) DEFINITIONS .—In this section:6 (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY .— The term ‘‘controlled by a foreign adversary’’ means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is--

(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;

(B) an entity with respect to which a for- eign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indi- rectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or

(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

The adversary countries are (defined in a separate US code):

  • N. Korea
  • China
  • Russia
  • Iran

So if you live in any of these or work for a company based in any of these, you're subject to the law.

foreign adversary company definition

(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI - CATION .—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—

(A) any of—

(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;

(ii) TikTok;

(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or

(iv) an entity owned or controlled, di- rectly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or

(B) a covered company that—

(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and

(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—

It specifically calls out TikTok and ByteDance, but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat.

So here are my issues:

  • I, as a US citizen, can't choose to distribute software produced by an adversary as noted officially by the US government - this is a limitation on my first amendment protections, and I think this applies to FOSS if the original author is from one of those countries
  • the barrier to what counts is relatively low - just living in an adversary country or working for a company based on an adversary country seems to don't
  • barrier to a "covered company" is relatively low and probably easy to manipulate - basically needs 1M active users (not even US users), which the CIA could totally generate if needed

So I think the bill is way too broad (lots of "or"s), and I'm worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors. It's not as bad as I feared, but I still think it's harmful.

Anyway, thoughts?

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 31 points 5 months ago

Isn't Nginx written by a Russian? So is it now banned in the US? What other software has been effected by this legislation?

[-] porksoda@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago

Hah, well time to tell our CEO I'm shutting down our prod servers.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Don't worry an American will be available to own it instead! And there won't be any problems because we're the best!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago

No, but it could be. The President would need to start the process and give them 270 days to relocate to somewhere that's not Russia or sell to a non-Russian company or whatever.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

Thoughts? Someone turned a troll farm loose on this one. We've been getting ratioed for weeks saying this and now all the shills screaming that we must support the CCP and hate our own country because it's an obvious national security measure are gone. Ones that suspiciously needed the Constitution explained to them at the most basic level.

We got played by the people that are supposed to represent us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maltese_Liquor@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

I'm not sure it would cover open source software since it seems to be more concerned with data than the actual code. If that open source software is being used by a company controlled by a foreign adversary then that would probably apply but if it's open source software created by a foreign adversary but being used by a US company I don't think that would.

The actual wording of the bill seems pretty vague so I could be wrong and they might be able to apply it just to software but that would kind of to against the entire option B that they're currently giving ByteDance where they can keep Tik Tok running by selling it to an American company.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] heavy@sh.itjust.works 69 points 5 months ago

This is the wrong way to go about solving this problem IMO, but then again the problem they're trying to solve is more about security than privacy as a right.

[-] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 5 months ago

Watching from Europe I have no idea what the problem is. The US spies on our data, the CCP spies on our data. I can see why the US government might worry that they can't access the data (except TikTok runs its servers on Oracle databases in the US just to satisfy them). But I don't understand why the citizens of the US would support tightening the monopoly to just Facebook and Google.

[-] thehatfox@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It’s not just about data and spying, it’s also about media and influence. The argument being made that it’s not a good idea to have a “hostile” nation effectively controlling one of the major/dominant social media platforms.

There is also the trade issue of reciprocity, China bans many if not most of the western platforms, while they have free rein to operate theirs in the west.

[-] designatedhacker@lemm.ee 21 points 5 months ago

Exactly. They really sealed the deal when they sent a push message to get people to call Congress and stop the ban. https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/7/24093308/tiktok-congress-ban-push-notification

"TikTok can be used to influence our citizens politically" * TikTok proves it true immediately on a personal level for legislators * "See!"

Couldn't have found a better way to put gas on that fire. You're supposed to ~bribe~ lobby when they start talking shit.

[-] GenEcon@lemm.ee 17 points 5 months ago

Its actually also a media problem. For example, the largest Tiktok account of a german politician belongs to Maximilian Krah, of the far right party AFD. Just yesterday it was revealed that his personal assistant is actually a Chinese spy. Krah himself voiced a lot of pro-Chinese opinions before, like being pro annexation of Taiwan and denying the genocide on the uigyurs.

This begs the question if his Tiktok popularity is based on a non-biased algorithm or if the CCP made a deal with him, boosting his Tiktok popularity in exchange for being pro-China.

[-] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 5 months ago

Yeah well, it's not like it's beneath the US government to do the same thing. Remember Cambridge analytica, or the Snowden leaks? My point being, as far as I'm concerned as a citizen, banning TikTok just transfers power to a more concentrated group of actors. That makes the problem worse.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 13 points 5 months ago

Wan't CA a Russian op though?

That said, this new hybrid war era has nation states conduct disinformation campaigns against each other. Tiktok was a tool to conduct such a campaign, the US wants to defend itself. It's not like China or Russia doesn't do the same even harder to try and defend itself. It's not a crime yet to accept Russian money as an NGO or politician in the US (as least not in itself), it is definitely a crime in Russia to do the same.

Don't get me wrong, it's a move that will definitely consolidate control over opinions, and that's not a good thing. It's like a fever. We can't have nice things because China would break them, so we need to put them away until China stops doing that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 14 points 5 months ago

The issue is that China controls the algorithm for what users see. This gives them the ability to manipulate users by showing specific content to sway their opinion on things. This is specifically about China's ability to manipulate US citizens.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 57 points 5 months ago

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?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

Yup. And the precedent this sets is horrifying. Even monopolies get due process. Being able to declare a company as a foreign enemy and force them to leave the market or be bought out is a ridiculous measure in a supposedly free society.

[-] Buttons@programming.dev 19 points 5 months ago

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 10 points 5 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

[-] eldavi@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

this happened to be back in the 90's & 00's when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i'm permanently anti democrat party.

however i don't think think that this will have the same impact depth because being denied videos does not have the same impact on your life as your government deporting the person you built a life with because you can't sponsor them for legal residency simply due to the fact you're both the same sex and being driven towards taking on huge student loan debt because the military won't let you join to obtain the college tuition part of GI bill.

in addition: people will brand you a tankie or a "both-sides-ist" for pointing out these anti-gay & anti-youth laws online; so today's youth will be pressured away from giving voice to it publicly.

[-] Buttons@programming.dev 10 points 5 months ago

I can understand your frustration. I currently feel that way towards a certain political party, but I have to keep an open mind because things change.

For example, I don't doubt what you said Democrats was true in past decades, but today I believe the Democrats are more friendly towards LGBT rights than Republicans are. It appears things have changed on those specific issues.

Maybe we wont agree, but let's at lets at least find clarity: Do you believe Republicans or Democrats are currently more friendly towards LGBT people?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 9 points 5 months ago

Because then Facebook will pay for your reelection campaign?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 49 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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 17 points 5 months ago

It really doesn’t seem like they want to win

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] lautan@lemmy.ca 42 points 5 months ago

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

[-] lud@lemm.ee 54 points 5 months ago

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

[-] lautan@lemmy.ca 23 points 5 months ago

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 25 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] sincle354@kbin.social 14 points 5 months ago

Tone down the conspiracy theory angle. It's lemmy, you can get more interaction by mentioning capitalism rather than censorship.

[-] Korkki@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's the only big non-US owned social media. They hate that because it's much harder to control. It's not even about the profits to be had, tiktok gets more eyeballs and especially it gets the young people's attention and has more public thrusts than all of the MSM combined and because Bytedance doesn't hate their HQ in the US the US government, intelligence or special interests, can't just call them and strong arm them into censoring whatever talking point that they don't like currently. It's not much more complex than that. "Chinese spying on Americans" is just projection of what all the other platforms do.

Those who push this will not be happy no matter what Tiktok does or whatever concessions it makes. They already hold american data in American and EU data in the EU for example. Did that stop the "muh CCP influence" propaganda? Well, no... Their main goal would be to get Bytedance to sell the platform to Americans, atleast the american business. I guess they would rather let it get banned and sacrifice American or even all the western markets than to let that happen. It would be a loss to them either way.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

Well we already were. Now we’re just down to American tech giants.

[-] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Oh no, this includes "aids" to Israel isn't it...

Why the hell do Israel needs more money?! They are not even close to poor...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

I honestly don't like tiktok but this is clearly done to censor the pro palestine content and for exposing the US gov along many others as hypocrites

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

This has been discussed way longer than 10/7/2023.

[-] bamboo 11 points 5 months ago
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 5 months ago

we are now in the process of cooking my friends.

Support your local darknet if you do not like censorship and violation of our rights

It's free :)

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

we are now in the process of cooking my friends

Would you like some A1 sauce with your rack of Nathan?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] recapitated@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago

All parties involved are asinine. The lawmakers, the company, both governments, the voters and the users.

[-] femboy_bird 22 points 5 months ago

I didn't know it was legal for a law to make it through the senate that fast

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago

lol

nah it’s legit, just look at any of the military spending bills which rocket through at warp speed

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 20 points 5 months ago

China should force apple to sell off it's Chinese business to a Chinese company.

[-] TwinTusks@bitforged.space 19 points 5 months ago

China doesn't need to, Apple is complying with Chinese law (remove all vpn related apps, all un-registered foreign app are removed and storing Chinese datas in Chinese servers).

Apple is likely the most complying foreign company in China.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] febra@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The free market for me but not for thee

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
568 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58177 readers
2769 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