• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It was a 50-0 to pass the commission and then go to the House floor for a vote and then the Senate for a vote and finally signed into law by the president unless he vetoes it, which is possible imo.

    Honestly, teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves, I might just call in to my local representative to voice my support of forced sale, operating restrictions, or even outright ban.

    EDIT: I sent him an email.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Love to, I think the 5 Bn USD FTC fine was a little light considering no jailtime was given. I hope their recent lawsuits lead to breaking the company up again.

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      what are you even trying to say here? that it’s okay for politicians to ignore entire demographics? or that it’s only okay for them to ignore entire demographics if, ultimately, it’s left up to a different group of politicians to pass the law?

      i don’t use tiktok or have any interest in the app itself, but it’s still very alarming to see a vote go through 50-0 despite a “nonstop” flood of calls opposing it.

        • affiliate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          “protect them from themselves” is what you said. which carries the connotation that they don’t know what’s best for themselves and aren’t qualified to make judgments about those things. this is different from simply “protecting them”.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            To be fair, a big part of a functioning society is a government with proper regulations in place so that people are not expected to be experts in literally every field before making a purchase or performing some kind of action. Obviously, calling it “protect[ing] them from themselves,” is dismissive and patronizing, but it’s pretty much why we need government in the first place.

            For example, the EPA recently issued a recall for ground cinnamon from certain specific (dollar store) brands due to unacceptably high levels of lead. Without the career scientists (and yes, bureaucrats) working for that regulatory agency, millions of people would have continued consuming the product and feeding it to their kids (low-income folks too in this case, given the brands) literally indefinitely.

            Without the EPA, every person who buys cinnamon is what, expected to use mass spectrometry to determine the exact molecular make-up of every spice (or in the case of the EPA, literally any food or prescription drugs you may ever consume) before using?

            If they didn’t do their cinnamon research, then they deserved it, and the government should have no involvement? What happens in cases where companies hide dangerous issues in their products to avoid losing profits?

            What if there’s literally no way for anyone but a scientist, with extensive lab access and at least 4+ years of university to know that there is an issue with a product (or a construction site, or a drug, or water treatment, etc)? They’re the only ones who should be able to properly avoid using a product that may kill them and their children? And even then, only when it’s a product they’re an expert in?

            Not saying you’re a libertarian, just like pointing out the obvious things that make it so so stupid.

            • affiliate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              i agree with everything you’ve said here. and i liked the EPA example. sorry if what i said came across as libertarian, that was not my intention.

              i was just trying to push back against the “young people don’t know what’s best for themselves” mentality in the other post.

              although, to be clear, i think the current state of social media does have quite a few problems that need addressing, and more regulation on that would certainly be welcome.

            • Misconduct@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Ok, sure. Show me what research you or they have done to justify “protecting them from themselves”. Already they’re telling lies by insinuating that only teenagers and old people are calling. And you all just believe it? Wild how biased people can be when presented with information they want to believe.

            • treadful@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Would love to see the science or other expert opinions that is being used to justify this ban then.

              I haven’t heard anything except politicians making vague references to spying or other things we allow from domestic services.

              It’s just politics.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            What other reason could I possibly have? You think there is some massive anti-tiktok cabal out there trying to profit by… uh… fucking how?

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              By banning anything except the few 'murican tech giants doing the exact same shit as TikTok. Even a blind person can see how cancerous american companies are, yet this does nothing to address that.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Actually, they’re not doing that at all, they’re forcing a compromised unethical American to sell to a different unethical American to do exactly the same thing. At no point was a ban even discussed. So, literally everything you just said was wrong.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah honestly if a bunch of addicted teens and old people were calling me screaming that I can’t take away their drug of choice when that’s not even what’s happening, and it’s not being taken away just moved to where there can be more control on quality… Then I would be really considering the damage this is doing to them.

      I don’t know if supporting the junkies being taken advantage of is the altruistic take that these “absolute freedom” supporters think it is.

      • Misconduct@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        The fact that you guys just ate up that rhetoric without any hesitation… Like, you just happily believe it’s a bunch of “addicted old people and teenagers”? Is this reddit? Did I make a wrong turn at common sense and critical thinking?

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Uh dude… I know people addicted that got the email to message their representative. They will stop talking in a conversation and pull out their phone and just scroll through a few videos.

          I struggle to believe so many would be messaging just out of laziness but don’t question that being the age groups that would respond most to that kind of targeted messaging into action.

          • Misconduct@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Nobody got an email. You don’t know shit.

            I never denied they sent a notification to people in the app. It offered to help get in touch with local reps. Why would people exercising their rights to communicate with politicians bother you in any way? That’s weird.

            Messaging out of laziness? What does that even mean? They were calling their local reps to voice their discontent.

            The people addicted comment just makes you look petty and ignorant. It might be time for you to graduate to Facebook.

    • Misconduct@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s not just teenagers and old people. That’s just some bullshit rhetoric that you ate right up without question. Because of course you did. Millennials/middle age folk are abundant on TikTok as well as young adults.

      The audacity of some of you to jump into action just to spite “teenagers and old people” is shameful. So easily manipulated.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Right, sorry, it’s fine to let teenagers and old people be harmed as long as the company can continue to profit off consenting adults as well. /sarcasm

        • Misconduct@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          How are they being harmed? Why was it so easy for them to make you believe this? Also, who asked you to protect anyone with your one petty little email lmao

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            A foreign dictatorship gathering face and voice id, entiry photo library and message history, contacts, and location tracking precise enough to pinpoint nearby devices and tell which floor of a building you’re on regardless of if the app is in use, to me equates to harm. If you disagree, well, I don’t give a fuck what you think tbh.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves

      Please, big daddy government, protect me from the freedom of choice. I cannot be trusted to consume without your permission.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        “Mr. Legislator I am 84 and I need my Heroin but the federal government keeps cracking down on my supplier, please stop taking away all my Heroin Mr. Legislator. Also, force my bank to let me transfer 85,000 USD to India, it’s really important that I do that before the 27th.”

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes. This is called Nanny State.

          Rather than educate the populace, take away the tools. Of course, another tool will just rise to the surface but it will make a lot of people feel really good that they did something.

          I do appreciate all of the reactionary statements. I don’t use TikTok but I do believe in freedom. Reducing freedoms, no matter how well intentioned does not solve societies problems.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            You can’t educate dementia away. You can educate youth away, but that takes years, which would effectively be a ban for them. TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation and by extension their associated foreign dictatorship.

            Absolute freedom should not extend to harming each other.

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation

              That pretty much describes every corporation in existence.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                Some of them provide utility and some don’t, which is why we don’t allow children to drink, smoke, or gamble. If a company providing those goods and services targets those demographics it gets political action.

                Welcome to the nuance of society and the modern world.

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  But they’re not disallowing children smoking, drinking, or gambling here. It’s more akin to disallowing children from drinking Smirnoff, smoking Marlboros, or playing blackjack and nothing else.

            • Clent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              TikTok is one of hundreds of vectors to swindle the senile and I doubt it’s even in the top 10.

              Grandpa needs to have someone else handling his finances. It’s not the governments job and let’s not pretend this bill is about keeping grandpas money safe.