51–60 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has there been any precedence of US banning an app/website without some clear violation of law?
This is a national security issue.
This interference with the free market is about politics, not security.
It is absolutely foolish for any country other than China to allow TikTok within their borders. You might fairly ask whether or not it is equally foolish for non-US countries to use US services. I think that is also a reasonable question, and deserves reflection.
It's a fair sentiment (and held by others as well on this thread), but IMHO there's no equivalence. In democracies, violence against their own people (or others) will invite opposition from their citizens - while in China people won't even know what's going on.
The consequences are stark - just last week 7 million people lost the liberties they enjoyed. What's a comparable loss due to US snooping?
Welcome to dictatorship. Government will now start to ban all kinds of apps they don't want.
If some apps coming from other countries are riddled with spyware, is that dictatorship or common sense?
So this is how it's going to happen - with every country banning each other's social media apps, we will enter into a future of digital borders, limited speech, and broken international relations. All in the name of making sure people don't dare think some wrongthink.
I think the issue has nothing to do with it being Chinese, but with the extent at which it swallows up data on Americans. Why even bother sending spies to another country and making plans for infiltration when you can get them to download a full spying suite under the guise of social media? The problem is this opens a whole new can of worms regarding Facebook and other American social media. Other countries are equal…
Even Facebook itself isn't safe.
How would this be implemented? Delisting from AppStore? Or ask ISP to ban tiktok domains? Or both?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the app stores agree to do that? Apple in particular is pretty well-known for refusing invasive government requests.
Because it would be the law
What remains to be seen is if said law would be "legal" (as in: not in direct conflict with the constitution).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Says the USA... "You can trust us, we don't listen on your foreign leaders". Come on, that ship has sailed years ago.
It was US government agencies, not private companies who were spying. So, to clarify, other countries can use US private company services, but should not blindly trust their secret data to the US government.
Major difference between USA, UK, France, Spain, Sweden etc. Vs Russia, Iran, China, Turkey, North Korea is that you end up in a cell, never to be seen again, tortured for your opinions.
I do believe that there are some scountries like India, Pakistan a a couple of others that play in both courts. Semi democratic and semi dictatorial, at the same time..
It is absolutely foolish for any country other than China to allow TikTok within their borders. You might fairly ask whether or not it is equally foolish for non-US countries to use US services. I think that is also a reasonable question, and deserves reflection.
My phone number and email address spread to many more American marketing lists than European ones, even though I rarely visit. Many of my Facebook ads result from my yearly visit to American cities. I just can't trust American businesses to use my data for the intended purpose only.
It is absolutely foolish for any country other than China to allow TikTok within their borders. You might fairly ask whether or not it is equally foolish for non-US countries to use US services. I think that is also a reasonable question, and deserves reflection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is kind of dictatorship. US could achieve the same effect without banning, eg by forcing stores to display warnings to users about where their data and what data is being send. That would be a reasonable compromise between freedom and safety.
It's like saying we should allow unregulated fentanyl sales on the streets as long as drug dealers provide a disclaimer to the addicted.
Personally I have no problem with people killing themselves with fentanyl, meth or whatever. Knock yourself out. State resources are better spent doing other things. US drug war caused more misery then drugs and most of the police issues are directly related to laws on drugs they are told to enforce.