• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t know why people think spying is the issue. It’s the potential control. For example, when this bill was proposed, TikTok sent a notification to users to contact their representatives. That’s not horribly harmful, but it does show a willingness to weaponize their user base (and their base’s willingness to listen).

    If this bill wasn’t going to pass before, it sure as well would after that happened. You have to consider what else that could potentially be used for. Could they possibly use it to influence an election if a candidate was against their interests?

    • normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      There is a whole class of “influencers” that get paid to shill for everything from liquor to policy on every platform. Tiktok, a foreign company, owns the algorithm, so they can promote whatever they want.

      This all seems sketchy, but then I recall citizens united and the fact that billions are spent directly purchasing influence in the actual government. They just don’t like some other entity putting their finger on the scale.

      I’d much prefer systematic reform where money can’t buy influence and companies (US or otherwise) can’t spy on their users, yet that will never be on the table because of the money and power Facebook and others have.

    • JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If they ban one they should ban them all. Cambridge analytica used Facebook on behalf of LeaveEU and Trump.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t totally disagree, but a foreign owned company playing with our politics is just a little different than a company in the US doing so. Sure, they’re all dangerous, but you don’t let foreign governments have power that can potentially control your nation. It’s why in China nearly all western services are banned. China sees the risks. Why would anyone expect a Chinese company to be ignored?

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, except if a foreign owned company activates their user base to attack you, as a representative, it has to look threatening, and it should be seen as a threat. It was more than just a comment when opening the app. It was a notification pushed to the device, or that’s my impression at least.

        As I said, this case isn’t that bad, but it does make the potential threat obvious. There’s a reason western apps are banned in China. Why should a Chinese company not expect action in the west?

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          My local dispensary had “write your congressman to support legal weed.” Is that a threat? Or is it just encouraging people who use your app to participate in politics? It’s not like they’re encouraging their users to march on Washington or commit violence. They’re just telling folks to do what every civics teacher has told them: Write your congressman about things you care about.

          If Congress takes that as a threat that says a lot more about Congress than it does about Tik Tok.

          There’s a reason western apps are banned in China. Why should a Chinese company not expect action in the west?

          I thought that reason was because we post about events that didn’t happen and countries that don’t exist, not that it was a threat to China’s government. We didn’t ban apps here because we’re the free good guys, and they’re the authoritarians.

          But I guess both countries are dickweeds now. So it goes…

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Eh, all international (and even intranational to a large degree) politics is about power and always has been. We aren’t the “free good guys,” though China is absolutely authoritarian and controlling. Looking at it through a moral lense leads to the wrong ideas though. Morality has never come into play. If there’s a potential threat to power (even if imagined), it’ll be defended against. It doesn’t matter what country we’re referring to, nor is that unreasonable action to take.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      I get you, but asking people to participate in democracy is not “weaponization”, and I’m 100% okay with popular figures, even from other countries, telling people how to vote, because who doesn’t tell people how to vote these days?

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Using a weapon can be done for good. If they’re using it to attack something for their interest, it’s weaponization. However, they didn’t do it for “good.” They did it for self-interest. US representatives got bombarded with phone calls and messages telling them not to block a foreign company’s app after the company told them to do so. What would that look like to them? It looks like a weapon that has been turned on them.

        We shouldn’t just accept foreign agents interfering with our election just because “who doesn’t these days.” That is totally the wrong response. If that’s all you see in this you need to re-evaluate your position.

      • Lobreeze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        You’re OK with paid actors interfering in your elections?

        Jesus fucking christ.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          That’s pretty much par for the course. We saw the same thing with big tech companies around Net Neutrality, this is largely the same thing, no?