It's not even about propaganda it's not having it until their thumb, they can't push a button and ensure the top video under trans on every search is Matt Walsh, and yeah on all other major platforms if you search trans people critical of trans people pop up. The reasoning isn't popularity or engagement, the US government has ordered them to do it through backroom tax deals and Slapp orders. Next stop for the US gov is gonna be the fediverse and AT proto, they are gonna argue that not just anyone should be trusted and that running a social media server is a big task. security blah blah children, protecting your data. Than lass a bill require you to obtain an FCC license to host your own social media site. It only gets worse from here folks
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
377 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
69421 readers
2885 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Crazy that the proposed solution to propaganda is banning media instead of investing in education that promotes critical thinking. Or maybe the idea here is "no propaganda except mine".
If people can pick apart China's propaganda it means they can pick apart US propaganda, too.
Can't have that.
Investing in education is counter to the clear goals of the USA. Smart people would revolt, protest,and you know, hold companies and billionaires accountable. Uneducated people are often poor, can’t afford to fight back and are scared they will lose what little they have.
At some point we need all to fight back, but it might be too late. And worse, too few will join in out of fear of death.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Looking at things pragmatically widespread education of the population takes time and simply won't take for some people. There are folks today complaining that "they don't teach taxes in school". These people have a problem filling out a 1040EZ. Not exactly encouraging.
At the same time Tic Tok represents a single vector for current or potential foreign propaganda and intelligence gathering targeting the American public. Opportunities to nip a single bud (so to speak) are few and far between and probably won't be possible in the near future.
TL;DR - The "sell or ban" is a short term measure that won't take a lot of time, education is a long term measure that takes years.
load more comments
(5 replies)
What do you think billionaires are bribing congress for? Regulatory capture keeps all the competitors out. Whereas actually fixing the problem of social media brainwashing would cost them money.
load more comments
(18 replies)
grabs popcorn
mimes eating popcorn, while pointing to overlayed captions, with a Taylor Swift song playing in the background
Well the Senate killed the earlier bill. There's a decent chance they pass the Ukraine/Israel aid bill without this amendment. It would then be stricken in reconciliation. Unfortunately there's also a decent chance the Senate passes it because this version probably fixes things the Senators had problems with.
If it does get passed there's a very good chance there's a court order to prevent anything until the courts rule on the constitutionality of the law. If Bytedance loses that there's zero chance they sell though. The US market is not big enough for them to jettison an international company.
Not big enough. I imagine it’s their biggest market.
It's the biggest single country but in a world of 7.9 Billion people, 148 million is a fraction.
But it's also not available in China correct? They have a separate version with a different name from what I understand. They could do the same for the other regions they serve and sell the US user base to a new company.
The Chinese app is a completely different app and company than TikTok. ByteDance owns two apps. While we might end up with an American version ByteDance is not going to sell TikTok. And at the closest, that version would be an American corporation running a licensed version of TikTok with TikTok's American server and software infrastructure. But that's not very likely, even with a year's lead time. That's the kind of deal you get when a company exits a market voluntarily. When you have a fire sale you far more often see a company's assets sold as parts. The problem is it's not an equal playing ground anymore and free market principles no longer apply.
So in this case TikTok would still want the most money possible for their buildings, servers, office equipment, etc. That means that all Meta and friends need to do in order to prevent a whole sale is give TikTok a good deal on one aspect. If Meta takes the servers, and Reddit takes the work computers, and Alphabet takes the source code, and Apple takes the buildings, there's not very much left over for a new competitor to grab and turn into a running concern that could compete.
So in this case TikTok itself comes away fine. But the American social media market becomes less competitive and consumers have to deal with shittier apps as there's less competition.
There are two very concerning points to this law in the future though. This is a law allowing the executive branch to make a declaration about a company and force a fire sale. If this was done to a domestic company with foreign backing then it would simply be the end of that company. Second, this does not in any way actually keep the CCP from getting our data or influencing us through social media. In 2016 Russia famously ran an information op through Facebook. There have been no reforms to keep that from happening again and in fact we saw that same campaign in 2020, it just wasn't enough the second time. And American Data Vendors willingly sell our data to the highest bidder, including the CCP. They have been caught doing so multiple times, have received nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and there's no evidence they've stopped.
So this law puts a dangerous precedent into place without solving any of the things it says it's going to solve. The short story here is that unless we're talking about school lunches you need to run away the second a politician says it's for the children.
Oh and it's an open question as to if it's even Constitutional since it's basically a standing authority to ban companies by name. Which is literally called out in the Constitution and why you've never seen a law to punish someone by name in the US. There's supposed to be a court procedure and a law they've violated. If they wanted to make a law saying a company could be banned for giving data to declared enemies and enforce it in civil court that would be proper. But it would immediately fail because all of our Billionaires are ass deep in the data markets. So we have this smoke cloud instead.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why are you cheerleading for TikTok to remain in the hands of a US adversary, during the same week when said adversary forced a US company to abjectly ban US-based messaging apps?
Retaliation. Tit for tit.
If the government can just point at a company and force a fire sale then there is no market, there is no order, there is no financial industry. This is an incredibly dangerous law.
The alternative is to outright ban it. Tik Tok is a cancer directly controlled by a hostile nation state. The government absolutely has the right to block foreign interference like this.
Pray tell how is this any worse than Facebook? Is the CCP in the Los Angeles TikTok office moderating content?
Or is this just more bullshit invented on the spot to justify an unconstitutional power grab?
Facebook isn't under an obligation to provide America's data directly to the government of a hostile foreign power. Tiktok is
An obligation? Is there proof of that? That's a pretty incendiary accusation.
load more comments
(29 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The government absolutely has unconditional and unlimited authority to restrict enemy states from ownership of anything in the US they want to.
There is absolutely no possibility of any Constitutional issue. The government has explicit authority to handle anything they want about international commerce in the Constitution.
That's why they're having to pass this law I guess then? Because they already have the authority to do the thing they're trying to make the law to get the authority to do?
And TikTok isn't owned by China. It's owned by ByteDance, a MultiNational Corp with Chinese ties. It's not operated out of China, Tiktok is operated out of Singapore and Los Angeles.
And what exactly is the security concern of people making funny cat videos? Nobody is saying the government has to put Tiktok on government computers. So what exactly is the exposure here that trumps the first amendment and prohibition on bills of attainder in the US?
Passing laws is how they regulate international commerce. Or one way. Treaties are another. Executive orders are another. Actions of regulatory bodies within frameworks established by prior legislation is another.
Congress passing legislation to stop hostile foreign ownership of a US business that's doing harm is well within their authority.
A. Doing what harm? People just throw this around and there's been no evidence except, "lol it's a social media company".
B. It's not within their authority unless there's a specific national security problem. So what about TikTok is going to breach national security? Are they stealing military secrets? (They were already banned from government devices along with other social media apps so the answer is no. They're not.)
The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government just pointing at us and declaring us criminals. Today it's TikTok tomorrow it's you.
load more comments
(6 replies)
You're thinking of laws in terms of obedience. Law is about agreed-upon structure (sometimes functional, often dysfunctional).
Enforcement is about obedience, and comes up when people don't go along with the agreed-upon structure. When the structure is made poorly, enforcement has harmful consequences.
Examples:
- food stamps (law)
- no stealing (law)
- preventing theft or multiple-subscription to food stamps (enforcement)
- the wilderness act (law)
- suing the government for not following the wilderness act (enforcement)
Law and enforcement are closely linked, but definitely distinct.
They have the authority to create structure (pass laws) regarding foreign powers operating within the States. So they pass laws (create structure) that state the agreed-upon structure, and enable that structure to be enforced.
Except we don't have that power. Not unless there's a national security threat. And they might make our children more woke isn't a national security threat.
American individuals and this company have a first amendment right. Furthermore this isn't a ban on all foreign owned companies. This is a ban on companies with ownership that have nebulous ties to certain countries. A list we can add to at any time. That is capricious and open to being abused. It's also unconstitutional under the no Bills of Attainder rule.
load more comments
(2 replies)
To your first point, yes, exactly. Congress mostly has to pass bills to exercise their power. For example: they have the authority to decide finances. They pass bills to (barely) get that done.
You're not wrong but even if this was a standing authority being used in the same way as passing the budget, it would be illegal because it targets a single entity by design. The Constitution prohibits that which is why laws are written as behavior rules you have to violate and then the government proves you violated them in court. Just declaring a company or person persona non grata is something our founders specifically prohibited.
Eye for an eye?
The first amendment doesn't have an exception for retaliation.
Tik for Tok
It was right there!
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It would mark the first time ever the U.S. government has passed a law that could shut down an entire social media platform, setting the stage for what is expected to be a protracted legal battle.
"It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans," said TikTok spokesman Alex Haurek.
National security officials in Washington have feared that the Chinese government could use TikTok to promote propaganda aimed at interfering in U.S. elections, or surveil some of the 170 million Americans who use the app every month.
While there has been no evidence made public that Chinese government officials have accessed Americans' information through TikTok, the idea that China has the theoretical ability to weaponize an app used by half of America has been enough to set off an all-out crackdown.
And during the Trump administration's campaign against TikTok, China added content-recommendation algorithms to its export-control list, meaning selling the technology would require the blessing of the Chinese government.
"The Chinese said very firmly this month at senior levels that they won't let the algorithm be sold and without it, it's an empty deal," Lewis told NPR.
The original article contains 701 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!