• Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ve actually read the law, so no one has to tell me that it really, actually is about privacy. I know that it is.

      • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Lemmy users are just going to believe whatever they want to believe, instead of actually checking the facts.

        It’s 100% about privacy. Data collection, and algorithm manipulation to sway what users see in the interest of the Chinese government. If users think Russian interference is a problem, we’ll this amounts to the same thing.

        • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          the Cinese government

          So it’s about foreign policy and not privacy. Or does the law somehow affect Facebook products too which are the same crap from an individual privacy perspective?

          • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Again, it’s not about data being collected. It is about the algorithm that let’s them control what users see in their feeds.

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

              And again, there are ways to at least attempt to address that other than just passing the ability to control the algorithm to another opaque company.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s about privacy in the same way “protect the children” bills are about protecting the children.

        Narrator: it’s not.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If it was actually about privacy then the US would be introducing data transparency and control laws (which only kicks in here if TikTok doesn’t sell to a US company). Whether it’s the US wanting to stream their own bullshit to kids or just that sweet sweet ad revenue, this is in no way about privacy or “protecting the children”.

          • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            How so? If you’re concerned about propaganda, require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired. Show users to the technical extent possible what data has connected them to suggested videos or ads. Put the power of users’ hands to understand and control how they are targeted.

            • Melllvar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired

              That would be a very different kind of law from the one we’re talking about.

                • Melllvar@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.

                  The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.

    • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      user was banned for ‘ban evasion’ to let know if someone searches for it like me. though I don’t think the actual content was preserved or was it?