Good grief.. I clearly wasn't following it closely, but even the fact that this could have become a thing ( SCOTUS ruling using 'redacted' as evidence ) is severely disheartening.
[deleted]
Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
261–270 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#262Everybody already moved to red book and are starting to recognize that the US is just an aging colonialist with nothing to offer the future https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/s/hXe9HsWslW The GenZ folks (including my kids) that I interact with on a day-to-day basis are much happier on that application and they’re starting to realize that the US is not what it pretends to be That doesn’t mean any place is better (t…
China is an ethnostate. What does China offer the future to anyone who's not Chinese? Chinese nationals in the United States have substantially more rights than they do in China.
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#263Still have no good answer on why its bad for a company that is supposedly under Chineese influence to collect this kind of information on us, and adjust and tweak an 'algorith' for displaying content. But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? Wouldn't the right solution be to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic?
It's perfectly fine for a South African immigrant to do it, I really don't understand the problem either.
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#264[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#265Still have no good answer on why its bad for a company that is supposedly under Chineese influence to collect this kind of information on us, and adjust and tweak an 'algorith' for displaying content. But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? Wouldn't the right solution be to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic?
Two extremely obvious reasons: First, it's a national security issue for a company controlled by the CCP to have intimate data access for hundreds of millions of US citizens. Not only can they glean a great deal of sensitive information, but they have the ability to control the algorithm in ways that benefit the CCP. Second, China does not reciprocate this level of vulnerability. US companies do not have the same acc…
Back in the early stage of social media, US companies had the choice to operate in China as long as they comply with the censorship and local laws. Had they chosen not to quit China market at the point, they would have been probably huge in China holding major access over Chinese users too. (How would Chinese government react to that is something we never get to see now...)
I keep seeing argument regarding "China bans social medias from other countries". It's not an outright ban saying that "Facebook cannot operate in China", but more like "Comply with the censorship rules or you cannot operate in China". It's not targeting "ownership" or "nation states". e.g. Google chose to leave, while Microsoft continues to operate Bing in China.
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#266Supreme Court only likes when data is stolen locally by good US-based corporations
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#267Still have no good answer on why its bad for a company that is supposedly under Chineese influence to collect this kind of information on us, and adjust and tweak an 'algorith' for displaying content. But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? Wouldn't the right solution be to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic?
There is a rule of law issue here.
Say, for example, congress passes and the president signs a law that says that product sponsorships in videos need to be disclosed. If a US company (or a European, Australian, Japanese, etc) country violates that law, we're pretty sure that a judgement against them can change that behavior.
China? Not so much, given their history.
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#268The sitting president of the United States of America was banned by almost every major AMERICAN company, and even some Canadian companies (Shopify), yet we're going after Tiktok. No Chinese ever banned the sitting president of the United States.
Company banned user who fragrantly and continually violated TOS, regardless of who they were... the horror!
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#269TikTok is fun but it has degraded into a commercialized mess of copycats, IP theft and scams.
Like everything else that is commercialized on the internet. It has a lifespan of a few years before it becomes unusable to all but the meek and the ignorant.
A new service will emerge and replace it within months. The truth is their algorithm is about as complicated as a HS algebra test.
Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline
#270Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
The interesting bits from the text[1], relative to the now flagged sibling ----- (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—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…
> I believe that addresses the concern about this being a "Bill of Attainder".
The definition of "foreign adversary controlled application" in the bill is explicit in including either (a) this specific list of organizations, OR (b) other organization that might meet certain criteria later. I'm not sure how the existence of (b) addresses the concern that (a) amounts to a bill of attainder.