The swift rebuke shifts attention to the Senate, where the bill faces significant political barriers and constitutional concerns

  • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    It wasn’t even close. The bill, which would basically force the sale of TikTok, was passed 352 to 65 with 1 congressperson voting present.

    It will probably pass the Senate. Biden has indicated that he will sign it if it passes, but even if he didn’t want to the vote was so decisive that he would be hard pressed to not sign it.

    Thoughts on this? I have never used the app, but it looks like the app could be a real security problem (having an authoritarian regime with no respect for freedom of the press owning the largest social media and news distribution platform in the US is not a good idea, in my opinion.)

    But, the bill doesn’t really solve the real problem which is data protection and privacy - Facebook, Google, etc are still collecting data at an alarming rate, even if they aren’t as efficient at it as TikTok.

    • FigMcLargeHuge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      My thought, you hit the nail on the head with the last comment. Lets crack down on companies that are collecting data and how they use it. Start with full transparency to the end user. But I guess to make any of this work you need to get the public to actually give a shit. Forcing these companies to disclose what they do with our data to a bunch of people who won’t even bother to look doesn’t do much I guess. It’s crazy to me how fast these companies literally brainwashed the public into just giving up all privacy for tiny morsels of convenience.

    • theinspectorst@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I find it all quite protectionist. The privacy risk around social media is real, but I don’t see why TikTok should be singled out. And there’s a perfectly legitimate concern about the ability for hostile states to use social media to influence elections in democratic states - as Russia did in the UK and US in 2016 with Facebook and Twitter - but again, it’s not obvious why TikTok should be singled out for this. If the Chinese want to swing an election, they’re not going to do it by influencing Boomers on Facebook, not through a platform that is overwhelmingly used by the age demographic that is least likely to vote…

      • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It is absolutely protectionist.

        I am not sure if the national security claims are valid or not; I could see that going either way. Just having all that information could pose a problem, but the CCP is sophisticated enough to get that info through other means, too.

        All that being said, Facebook and Google are absolutely happy about this. They have spent billions trying to replicate TikTok’s algorithm, and are failing. They are also lobbying congress to do nothing about data protection and privacy. It’s hypocritical for the US to only target TikTok.

        But, it is also true that young people don’t vote, so TikTok is probably not the best audience for election disinformation.

    • mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is a great thing as far as I’m concerned. Even ignoring the larger issues of national security, etc., it’s been a nuisance in my life and I’ll be glad to see it go.

      • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I do think it’s connection to the CCP is the real reason it’s been targeted. Facebook & Google do the same stuff, just not as efficiently (though they’d love to).

        All that being said, anyone familiar with China’s government knows they don’t give a rats ass about human rights, let alone privacy. TikTok’s CEO says they don’t share the data with the CCP, but I can only speculate as to whether that is true.

    • Low Ad Lib@mastodo.neoliber.al
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      @CoffeeAddict I wish this was instituted as a set of regulations for social media in general. Things like personal data protections, and minor protections. Instead we got the laziest, least free market approach to it. It gives us a sense of accomplishment while still letting American social media run free and unrestrained with little accountability.

      • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        @LA9306 Completely agree with the fact that this is the least free market approach. TikTok was just an easy target, and we need much better data protection and privacy laws. We didn’t get that with this.

    • big_slap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      But, the bill doesn’t really solve the real problem which is data protection and privacy - Facebook, Google, etc are still collecting data at an alarming rate, even if they aren’t as efficient at it as TikTok.

      this is why I believe the ban is ridiculous. another country has caught up on how to mine data from users at a highly efficient rate, and now the US wants to clamp down on it in the name of “national security.” this is extremely hypocritical and should be vetoed unless the ban applies to other popular apps.

      • CoffeeAddict@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think I agree.

        TikTok is just the best at the data-mining game, and the real reason it’s being banned is it’s connection to the CCP.

        Facebook, Google, and all the rest have spent billions lobbying congress and also spent billions trying to replicate TikTok’s algorithm because they want to do the same thing… the real problem is data privacy, and that is the problem congress is not addressing.