There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

FigMcLargeHuge ,

I wonder how many of these lawmakers will be invested in the company that swoops in and saves the American public?

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

For real. You know Pelosi is already investing.

hddsx ,

If she’s investing at the same time you’re getting the information, she missed the best time to buy. She might have hedged her bets and bought early

Gork ,

Fun fact: Congresspeople can legally inside trade, but the rest of us cannot.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of bribery lobbying.

According to the STOCK Act of 2012, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

ajoebyanyothername ,

If everyone doing it gets away with it, then is it actually illegal?

disguy_ovahea ,

Yes. It is. They just need to be arrested and prosecuted. I agree that it should be taken more seriously, considering that it’s against the law.

themeatbridge ,

No one has ever been prosecuted in the decade and change that it has been illegal, despite frequent violations.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

That doesn’t change the law. It’s simply evidence that Congress lives above it. Seven Democrat Senators cosponsored a bill in September to ban the practice entirely. It died at introduction.

congress.gov/…/all-actions-without-amendments

TropicalDingdong ,

That doesn’t change the law.

Oh you sweet summer child.

disguy_ovahea ,

Now you’re wrong, and condescending. Lol

TropicalDingdong ,

You have a philosophy around what laws are and what they mean that is incongruent with reality.

What is the word we use when people have believes that don’t match up with the previous or future state of things?

Laws on paper are only one aspect of what a law is. How those laws are interpreted and how they are enforced matter far, far more. Law is what is applied and enforced. If something is a ‘law’ but is not enforced, then its not really law.

And its fine that you have a different philosophy around what the law means. I just don’t find it particularly useful because it doesn’t predict the past, present, or future states of the world.

In other words:

spoilerhttps://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/cecf186e-da31-4c2c-94c3-06e394e6090b.gif

disguy_ovahea ,

People who don’t understand the problem typically have little success in fixing it. You should consider reading more.

TropicalDingdong , (edited )

@disguy_ovahea

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ce2de1f8-a6f1-423b-b573-4e3cbc665a40.png

disguy_ovahea ,

While I’m flattered that you’d take the time to make a meme for me, it probably would’ve taken you far less time to research insider trading law as it applies to members of Congress.

I’ll give you a little head start.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

forbes.com/…/how-senators-may-have-avoided-inside…

TropicalDingdong ,

You make it easy considering you are making my points for me. If you are trying to make a point about hubris by just being more arrogant, what exactly is the argument you are making?

And on that, you haven’t outlined anything that’s worth even discussing. I made the argument that laws are only as meaningful as they’ve are applied. Its likely you don’t even recognize the assumptions of your argument being an extension of legal positivism, theoretically described by legal philosophers like Austin and Hart. But the problem with Austin and Hart? Their philosophy (legal positivism) doesn’t predict the past, the future, or even the present. Legal positivism isn’t how the world works. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

This is called legal realism for those in the cheap seats, and its an effort to understand the law as its applied: which is to say, to understand the law as it actually works.

Whats on the books is irrelevant. What matters is what happens. It doesn’t matter if there is a law preventing anything if it doesn’t get applied.

Edit response to your edit response: Please, keep showing me that you don’t understand what you are talking while you make my points for me.

RainfallSonata ,

Martha. Stewart.

DharkStare ,

Just to clarify. Insider trading is illegal but it is not illegal for politicians in Congress to use the information they obtain from their jobs (such as through classified meetings) to engage in stock market trades.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

It’s not a failure of the law. It’s a failure of the SEC for not enforcing it.

MYTH: Members of Congress are exempt from insider trading laws.

FACT: Both a Congressional Research Service Report and House Administration Committee memo indicates that Members of Congress are subject to the same insider trading rules as the general public.

perry.house.gov/…/myths-about-congress.htm#:~:tex…

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

Politicians should be banned from stock market. Total conflict of interest.

disguy_ovahea ,

Eight Democrat Senators agree with you, and cosponsored a bill in September that died at introduction.

congress.gov/…/all-actions-without-amendments

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

if we keep electing people trying to maintain the status quo, then it’ll never happen

disguy_ovahea ,

It’s a catch-22. To get elected, you need to learn to manipulate within the system. Once elected, you know how to leverage the system, so why would you change it?

The best chance we’ll have for systemic change will come when boomers die off. That shouldn’t discourage efforts today, but impart some hope for the future.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

I want to believe that the most change will happens when boomers are gone, but I don’t trust that the new era of politicians won’t get caught up in the game.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

What does that mean?

disguy_ovahea ,

It wasn’t put to a vote after being read aloud on two separate introductions. It was then forwarded to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where it went to die.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

They don’t review it and then hand it back to congress?

disguy_ovahea ,

If they see value in the bill they can mandate a vote. That was over six months ago, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

they’re probably all sucking the teat one way or another, even at the lowest levels.

localme ,

Good Work just recently put out a video on this very topic. Informative and hilarious as usual!

youtu.be/vT-u-SPj4_c

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks! I never heard of this show.

AFKBRBChocolate ,

I’d be fine if they were allowed to invest in things like mutual funds so that they could take advantage of the market without being able to do insider trading of a specific stock.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

that would be better, but they could still invest in specific sectors or industries.

AFKBRBChocolate , (edited )

Yep, and maybe that’s somewhat acceptable, but we could also confine it to diversified mutual funds meeting specific criteria.

Edit: confine, not congratulations

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

Congratulations!

But yeah you gotta limit it

AllonzeeLV ,

Fun fact: Everyone with hundreds of millions+ in holdings either trades with insider information or pays others to do it, because our metrics and enforcement for insider trading are a gallows joke.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

For sure they’re already in way before general public

TigrisMorte ,

Well, as it is what her husband did for a living his entire very successful life, but sure the Lady you don't like is wrong for him doing his job well.

Catoblepas ,

I’m pretty sure I could be incredibly successful at trading stocks as well if I was married to a Senator who could give me inside information, lmao.

TigrisMorte ,

As she didn't join Politics until '87, guess they invented communicating to with their past selves, lmao. If you've got any proof, kindly advise the FBI. Where as you've none, head on back to peddle that shit to fux nooz.

Catoblepas ,

Christ, am I supposed to memory hole that Pelosi’s husband making a shit ton of money off stocks THREE YEARS AGO is what led to a round of antitrust bills getting introduced? Is there literally any criticism of these rich fucks you can hear without immediately shrieking about conservatives?

TigrisMorte ,

Well, you are shit holing that he made a shit ton of money before her first Campaign. So perhaps instead of doubling down upon your unsubstantiated right wing bull shit propaganda, actually check what happened. But you won't Instead you'll go on pretending you didn't know that folks with a shit ton of money go on to make more shit tons of money so you can maintain your delusional belief in fux newbs' distraction.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

A. Her husband is not a lawmaker. B. I’m sure her position helps C. Don’t simp for politicians. They DGAF about you.

TigrisMorte ,

A: which is why him having a ton of money he made more with isn't a relevant condemnation of the woman.
B: his having a shit ton of money already helps a hell of a lot more so fuck off with your unsubstantiated claim.
C: at no point did I remotely suggest she did so fuck off with your attempt to imagine things to argue about since you've not a leg to stand upon.

AllonzeeLV , (edited )

Pathetic watching ancient, feeble rich people about to return to the dust from whence they came still frantically positioning to boost their ego scores.

It’s as if they believe their preferred invisible sky mommy/daddy will accept a bribe of earthly currency.

Ultragigagigantic ,
@Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world avatar

I would rather chill in my basement.

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

it’s an addiction

Ultragigagigantic ,
@Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world avatar

Don’t worry everyone, it’s just pelosi’s 3rd cousin doing the investing so that makes everything totally cool and totally legal.

Maggoty ,

Congressional Representatives and Senators are shielded from most insider trading laws. She could literately buy in, flip the SEC the bird, and go on her merry way.

Fredselfish ,
@Fredselfish@lemmy.world avatar

The company behind tik tok said they will not sell they America is only 20% of their global market. They have refused to give their source code.

So guess app just won’t work in US. Dumb ass lawmakers only people this hurt are the US citizens that are using it to make money.

stonerboner ,

I’d counter that basing your livelihood on an app that harvests your and your viewers data for an adversarial government known to use this kind of data in psyops isn’t a sound business idea.

In fact, I’d say this bill actually protects American users who have been using the app.

If TikTok can’t prove that they use our data responsibly, and refuse to do so to the point of just leaving the market, we are all better off. Another company will fill that void and content creators have endless options to move to.

I don’t think “but people need to make money while our data is harvested and provided to a government that uses it against us” is a great argument.

FigMcLargeHuge ,

It’s cute how you think that the only government that’s using our own data against us is china. Might want to step back and look at our own government, then apply your same line of thinking to all big tech companies in existence right now.

grue ,

Exactly: banning TikTok is nothing more than a good start. We need to destroy Facebook, Twitter and Reddit next.

AmbiguousProps ,

That will never happen, at least not in this way. Because it wasn’t anything to do with their data collection, or their company structure. Congress is happy to allow domestic data collection and want Americans addicted to American apps so that they get a cut.

stonerboner ,

You’re extremely dull if youre suggesting I don’t know data is abused left and right all over the place. But if TikTok is so bad it’s can’t even fit within our abusive system, it deserves to transfer or exit.

You’re missing the forest for the trees.

FigMcLargeHuge ,

And you aren’t even reading what I wrote. In no post did I defend tiktok… I merely stated that what it is doing is also being done by american based companies and they should be addressed as well.

stonerboner ,

No doubt, but accountability starts somewhere, so why have a problem with this? Why not celebrate and then demand equitable action domestically?

“I’m not defending TikTok. I’m just bemoaning action being taken against them because bad things happen with other companies!” Not a great look.

AmbiguousProps ,

Because this isn’t accountability? It won’t start any change with domestic companies, because it doesn’t apply to them. This isn’t the start of anything. If you think they’re going to use this as the starting point for actual privacy legislation, you’re very ignorant of how congress works.

Data collection will still happen domestically, and another Cambridge Analytica will happen, so long as domestic data brokers are legal.

FigMcLargeHuge ,

Where did I say I had a problem with this? So much knee jerking in here. I am stating that lawmakers should apply these same laws to our own social media. The same lawmakers who will most likely profit off this decision.

stonerboner ,

Then you should write and call those lawmakers. You are a part of the body that elects them. Or run for office and fight the good fight yourself.

I do hope we do get some domestic reform, but I’m able to separate this small foreign policy win from the huge need for comprehensive domestic policy.

afraid_of_zombies ,

How about we start with universal healthcare and then we worry about children learning dancing, right here in River City

afraid_of_zombies ,

Maybe they are dull from being sick due to the lack of universal healthcare

irreticent ,
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

I’m starting to get sick of your constant whataboutism.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Nice alt-account

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

It’s cute how you think many of us haven’t applied that big thinking to all big tech. A Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter ban absolutely should happen.

FigMcLargeHuge ,

So you know exactly what I think about everyone else based on a single post to one person. Fucking Kreskin over here.

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

Kreskin

Damn that’s a really old ass reference, ok boomer.

FigMcLargeHuge ,

You don’t have to be old to know history and pop culture references.

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

Yep, bust out the Tangee references next, and say “I’m not old, I swear!”

afraid_of_zombies ,

They passed the bill because someone is getting a cut. It isn’t to protect the public. If they wanted to protect the public we would have universal healthcare and a ban on guns.

stonerboner ,

I disagree. I listened when it was presented to Congress. I read a good amount of the data justifying the required transfer. If you don’t think this bill protects the public, there really is no reasoning with you.

Someone will get a cut specifically because TikTok chooses not to prove where their data flows. They had a choice, and chose to exit the market.

But sure, you can frame it like we forced them to leave the market, which isn’t the case. They could have verified their data flow and remained if they were not abusing it.

afraid_of_zombies ,

How is universal healthcare coming?

stonerboner ,

Taking longer than it should.

Any other completely unrelated questions you’d like to ask?

afraid_of_zombies ,

Unrelated? We were talking about protecting the public and you are talking about a stupid fucking app where people learn dance moves from.

Who are you brought to you by? Meta or Alphabet or Reddit or X?

stonerboner ,

What does the issue we are talking about (TikTok’s data harvesting) have to do with healthcare? Unless that’s where you get your magic crystal healing tips lmao

afraid_of_zombies ,

You said it was to protect the public. This is involved in protecting the public. You claim Congress did this to protect the public so I am asking you when your friends are going to really protect the public.

You can just admit that some Congress people got a cut to do this and it has nothing to do with protecting us against the big bad Asians. While we are on the topic I think it’s fucked up that the government, and it’s internet lackeys, want me to hate the Chinese.

stonerboner ,

The pedantry emanating from you is palpable.

You can just admit that protecting the public comes in many forms and one law won’t fix unrelated areas.

But you won’t, because you have a hate boner for our shitty oligarchy. You can also pretend like TikTok didn’t have a chance to prove they don’t misuse our data, but chose to exit the market rather than reveal where our data goes. The “cut” you bemoan, if it’s even true, would only occur due to TikTok’s choice.

But sure, they only passed a law after giving the company a chance to comply so they could get a pay cut. Genius.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Wonder how many people rationed their insulin in the time it took you to ask Meta what to respond.

Maggoty ,

Unless it’s classified link it.

stonerboner ,

You can literally watch the congressional hearings yourself.

Here’s one video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhKX8zF2FQw

I watched it live, so I don’t know how complete or edited this recording of the hearing is. Talk to you in 5.5 hours after you watch the thing you requested.

afraid_of_zombies ,

What part do they talk about universal healthcare?

stonerboner ,

Lmao I must have struck a nerve to get 7 replies from you.

You keep returning to your red herring because you don’t actually have a decent argument.

I bet you’re really mad at some internet stranger, maybe you should take a break

afraid_of_zombies ,

Universal healthcare?

stonerboner ,

Keep it up. Work is slow and watching you flounder is helping

Psychodelic ,

Can you at least try and clarify what in the hearings convinced you so much? I’ve seen some of these hearings. Some of them are complete BS political threater.

I mean, what would you have liked to see that would’ve proved the data is treated exactly the same as every other American company that harvests our data?

AmbiguousProps ,

It’s never been to protect the public. If that were the case, the law wouldn’t apply to just TikTok and foreign companies. They would’ve passed something to protect us from our own domestic data brokers too, but they didn’t.

stonerboner ,

It’s almost like an action can protect people and enrich elites at the same time. Explain how the American public isn’t better of keeping their personal data away from the CCP. Interested to see how you think this doesn’t protect the public at all from an adversarial foreign government.

AmbiguousProps ,

Their personal data won’t be kept away from the CCP. People that use TikTok will use VPNs to do so if needed (TikTok also would no longer have to listen to the US government, probably intensifying the data collection), and otherwise the CCP can just purchase (or steal) the data from US data brokers, because those are still very much legal. Did we forget about Cambridge Analytica, where an adversarial foreign government used our own domestic companies against us?

stonerboner ,

I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs. They won’t have much content, if any, from domestic creators. They’ll only be interacting with the other 2% of American users along with foriegn content.

I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN will are China’s target demographic, and I don’t think VPN users will constitute a fraction of activity you are suggesting they will.

I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere. Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it. Glad we have accountability this time around.

AmbiguousProps ,

I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs

TikTok users or in general? Either way, it’s higher than that, and will only increase with bills like this (and the many state-issued porn bans).

I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN

VPNs aren’t hard to use, by design. Do you really think people need in-depth tutorials on how to press a button in an app? Also, there’s already people demonstrating VPN use on TikTok, for if the ban actually happens.

I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

You have very black and white thinking. I’m bemoaning it because it doesn’t actually protect US citizens. It doesn’t stop China from harvesting our data, and it doesn’t stop domestic companies either. But good try, trying to belittle the massive data breaches that have happened without TikTok’s help.

Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere.

Once again, this isn’t the start of that. Congress is more than happy to allow domestic companies to harvest our data, because half of the time they’re getting a cut. This will not open any doors for future privacy bills. The only possibility with this is that congress crafts another targeted bill to get rid of another company for whatever reason.

Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it.

Interesting that you’d bring that up, seeing as congress just set this precedent for banning companies right before that shitstain has a real chance of getting into office. Do you really want the Trump administration to pass a bill like this for another company?

stonerboner ,

I’m stating than less than 2% of American TikTok users will use VPN to bypass TikTok leaving the market.

You’re crazy if you think VPN usage is high among the general public on a regular basis. And that number’s intersection with using a VPN to specifically work around this will be extremely low.

I absolutely stand by holding TikTok responsible, and any other company responsible. This, coupled with the FTC poised to bring back Net Nuetrality, is a great step in the right direction. I look forward to this energy setting up more data protection, foreign and domestic.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Who is universal healthcare coming?

AmbiguousProps ,

I’m stating than less than 2% of American TikTok users will use VPN to bypass TikTok leaving the market.

Now you can predict the future with such certain statistics? First of all, more TikTok users than that already use VPNs. So you’re already incorrect.

You’re crazy if you think VPN usage is high among the general public on a regular basis. And that number’s intersection with using a VPN to specifically work around this will be extremely low.

VPN usage wasn’t all that high, before porn bans happened. Once those started, US searches for VPNs drastically spiked. Once again, it will happen with TikTok. They’re literally already discussing this on the platform, I’m not sure how else to tell you this.

and any other company responsible.

You sure don’t seem like it. It seems like you’ve got your blinders on to exactly who those other companies are. This bill will not lead to positive domestic privacy changes, because it is focused on “foreign adversaries”. It won’t open the door, because the whole reason this was able to pass in the first place is because the republicans have a huge hate boner for TikTok exclusively. Kind of like yourself.

This, coupled with the FTC poised to bring back Net Nuetrality, is a great step in the right direction.

While I was happy to hear about that earlier, this doesn’t really apply to this conversation.

I look forward to this energy setting up more data protection, foreign and domestic.

Congress doesn’t care about protecting our data domestically. You’ll turn to dust by the time they actually give a shit about that.

4am ,

When you could just generalize the law to include protecting us from our own oligarchs and they did not, it clearly shows who they work for.

stonerboner ,

We could also feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick etc. we could ask why any law regarding healthcare, housing, nutrition doesn’t fix the issue, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

The FTC is putting in work this administration, and are poised to bring back Net Neutrality (obligatory Fuck Ajit Pai). This is a huge step towards protecting all Americans, so I think you’re confusing this issue (adversarial governments harvesting our data) with the larger issue of domestic policy (which will be much harder to tackle).

afraid_of_zombies ,

Let’s open the can of worms. Right here right now.

If the goal of a law is to keep people safe should we pass laws that do that or pass laws that don’t? Answer the question.

If goal is X should we try to get X or try to get Y?

Really really simple and you should manage it. Come on brought-to-you-buy-Meta, simple question I am sure you can answer it.

stonerboner ,

Ah, a red herring.

According to you, there should be only one law that protects people and protects them fully. If the law is specific to a sector, it’s bad because saving people’s data doesn’t give them healthcare. And if it doesn’t protect people in other sectors (foreign vs domestic) then it can’t possibly be a good move.

It’s an all-or-nothing mentality that is extremely idealistic to the point of ignoring incremental progress, and will make it so that no law is ever good or enough.

Stopping the bleeding of data harvesting to China is good. If you want other change alongside it, hold your elected officials to it.

There’s really no point in continuing a discussion with such an idealistic purist, as no law can be good enough.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Can’t answer the question can you Meta-boy.

afraid_of_zombies ,

It’s almost like we don’t have universal healthcare. Are your BFFS in Congress going to fix that soon or are they busy banning a stupid dancing app?

stonerboner ,

Lmao “BFFS.” You love making me into whatever you want to rail against.

Congress didn’t ban an app. They requested data on where their information flows, and the “stupid dancing app” opted to leave the market instead of comply.

You don’t even know what the fuck you’re going on about haha

afraid_of_zombies ,

Haha did your besties pass universal healthcare?

Maggoty ,

That’s not how due process and liberal democracy works. The government has to prove you’re doing it. Setting any precedent that you have to prove you’re not doing something (an impossible task) is incredibly dangerous.

Halosheep ,

Another company will fill that void

Yay, more YouTube and Instagram. What we always wanted. Can’t wait to have maybe one day Meta and Alphabet will combine so we can only have one service!

Hubi ,
@Hubi@lemmy.world avatar

So guess app just won’t work in US

The good ending

NegativeLookBehind ,
@NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world avatar

Except you can just…VPN to almost any country on the planet

billiam0202 ,

Nobody is gonna use a VPN to get their TikTok fix. They’ll use Facebook Reels or YouTube shorts, since most content creators cross-post their stuff there anyway.

TigrisMorte ,

Which is the actual intent of attacking a single point of the problem instead of the actual problem of the abuse of end users by all the corpo's social media and other apps., free or otherwise is no longer important.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I will probably do it. Out of spite. Might even show my Congressional rep at the next town hall meeting.

AmbiguousProps ,

People on TikTok are already discussing using VPNs, so it will happen if not sold.

And either way, it’s almost like congress doesn’t care about addictive social media, seeing as it’s fine if domestic companies create addictive algorithms. They’ll even let foreign governments manipulate the populous via domestic companies, so long as they get a cut of the cash.

Hubi ,
@Hubi@lemmy.world avatar

You need more than a handful of brain cells for that, so it’s not exactly the easily manipulated target audience of TikTok.

underisk ,
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

Passing a law to give the executive branch overreaching censorship authority over the internet while simultaneously campaigning that the other option in the next election wants to use the power of that office to overthrow democracy. This is the “good ending”.

stonerboner ,

It’s almost like TikTok was given a chance to prove our data doesn’t flow to the Chinese government, and TikTok decided to exit the market than prove where their data flows.

But sure, let’s just pretend we randomly forced them out with an executive overreach lmao

afraid_of_zombies ,

Almost as if X altered an election and nothing happened. Must be the skin color of the owners.

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t see how anyone is hurt by losing access to Tiktok. The only sad part about this is that all social media isn’t banned.

520 ,

You joke but this has a chilling effect on all sm platforms based outside of the US. They just took a massive shit on the 1st amendment.

stanleytweedle ,

They just took a massive shit on the 1st amendment.

lol

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

1st amendment protects citizens, not foreigners.

AmbiguousProps ,

So everyone on TikTok is a foreigner now?

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

Banning TikTok, a foreign controlled company, does not infringe on the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech isn’t impaired because of some dipshit social media app that actively fucks everyone except the Chinese government over.

AmbiguousProps ,

I didn’t say the bill did.

Either way, TikTok is not the only avenue for the Chinese government to use to fuck us. They’ll just find another way, one that isn’t so visible and easily regulated. This doesn’t really solve much; it’s just going to piss people off by taking away their choice and push breaches of personal privacy into the shadows where the US has no jurisdiction.

520 ,

Except this ban is doing the exact opposite. It's only affecting US citizens. Foreigners are not affected

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

They just took a massive shit on the 1st amendment.

Oh, so the 1A protects Social Media activity again? When did it change?

520 ,

It always has, at least from US government. Have you not read the constitution?

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

It always has, at least from US government. Have you not read the constitution?

Oh, so we can agree that the US Government “asking” Twitter and other media outlets to interfere with the coverage of certain stories is also a 1A violation? Excellent!

I do need to ask your opinion on this Supreme Court case though…

520 ,

Yes, I would argue it was. Not quite as brazenly but yes.

Catoblepas ,

You are on social media. You can leave any time, that was always allowed.

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

I see nothing wrong with posting to social media to advocate against it, I’ll feel free to stay.

Catoblepas ,

Does your posting history bear out that that’s why you’re here, though? 🤷‍♂️ I’m not asking for you to justify it to me, it’s just silly to pretend you’re not participating in something you say should be banned.

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

My posting history bears out extensive shitposting and calling things as they’re seen. I don’t take any issue with Lemmy/Fediverse due to how they’re decentralized and orchestrated. I’m against predatory algorithms and user manipulation. I believe that the Fediverse itself will be a good thing until it becomes the villain, much like how our utopian social experiments usually go.

AmbiguousProps ,

You are literally posting this to social media right now. Do you think it would be cool to ban or force a sale of Lemmy to a US corp?

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

Is Lemmy using a predatory algorithm designed to enrich itself at the expense of the well being of its users and utilize its platform to influence US policy against its own interests? If that answer was yes, then absolutely. With Lemmy being of service to its users without making us its cattle, I’ll advocate for it as opposed to against it.

AmbiguousProps ,

Does congress care about data collection and predatory algorithms, though? If so, why did they just waste their time crafting a targeted bill rather than actually making those practices illegal?

If congress suddenly decided that they didn’t like a company for whatever reason, they’ll craft another targeted bill like this one. Trump could win this year, do you really want this precedent set right before that?

Luckily, Lemmy is much more difficult due to it’s decentralized nature. However, since congress is clearly more than willing to craft targeted bills, it’s not out of the question.

Psychodelic ,

Dude, the bill has nothing to do with anything you said. You’re criticizing capitalism and the lack of regulations on social media corporations.

My understanding is this bill is about forcing the sale of a company owned by a “foreign adversary” which is vague as shit just like the patriot act, which took (some of) the public 20+ years to realize was probably not a good idea.

520 ,

Is Lemmy using a predatory algorithm designed to enrich itself at the expense of the well being of its users and utilize its platform to influence US policy against its own interests?

You mean like Facebook? Which isn't being banned?

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

I love posting how we should ban Facebook, I even post on Facebook about banning Facebook…from the website of course.

daltotron ,

Is Lemmy using a predatory algorithm designed to enrich itself at the expense of the well being of its users and utilize its platform to influence US policy against its own interests?

Straight up yes, I’m gonna explain this hot take right now so buckle up.

Lemmy operates on the same basic set of principles that Reddit does. Upvotes send a post up, downvotes send a post down, moderation abilities and succession is controlled by the select few who create a popular channel, and also administrators. Pretty easy, pretty simple so far.

Algorithms don’t refer only to implicit incentive structures, but explicit ones, as well. How many posts have you seen on lemmy that are just really stupid propaganda memes? That’s what the platform explicitly incentivizes with it’s system of upvotes and downvotes. Low rent, low effort posts that vibe with a large majority of the audience are what’s going to get more attention and more engagement, and that’s going to push a post up, in a kind of feedback loop that hopefully tries to separate the wheat from the chaff. Really, all it does is separate the low rent dopamine content from everything else. I would say the incentivization of low rent behavior by these explicit mechanisms is somewhat predatory, yes.

As to how lemmy is enriched by this process, lemmy gets more attention. so lemmy gets more power inside of the sphere of internet attention, culture, and propaganda. Lemmy as a whole, obviously, which probably ends up meaning the developers. The whole thing being more open source and federated obviously puts this much more into contention than Reddit, sure, but that doesn’t really eliminate the basic problems that come about at the very conception of this platform, these problems of echo chambers. You can even see that forming now in a bunch of different instances. You can see that bias in hexbear, ml, world being plagued by a bunch of brainlet neolibs. It’s pretty obvious that the system confines everyone to their bubbles.

This is all to basically equivocate any interaction having been had online as being predatory in some way, and as enriching some party. Any mechanism which you use to organize the slew of information coming at you is going to have an inherent set of biases, pros and cons, and is inherently going to prey on some of those biases compared to others. So if we’ve equivocated all social media with basically all form of social interaction online, then the internet itself was probably a mistake.

Tl;dr IRC is a form of social media. Real life is a form of social media.

TigrisMorte ,

All the folks quoting what a small part of their audience the US is, never mention what percentage of their gross the US is. CCP won't pay for eyeballs in Azerbaijan.

RainfallSonata ,

In the U.S., we have given our third-party Trusted Technology Provider access to the code that drives the content you see - the For You feed - and we are on a path to allowing an unprecedented amount of third-party access to verify our source code and systems, something no other peer company has done.

…tiktok.com/…/ensuring-a-safe-authentic-space-dur…

CeeBee ,

The company behind tik tok said

China. It’s China that “said”.

Nurgle ,

Mnuchin (fmr Trump Treasury Sec) is already setting up a group to try and buy it apparently.

Gork ,

Will there be a TikTok dance on TikTok that covers this event?

Viking_Hippie ,

The Tiktok dance to end all Tiktok dances. Literally.

ceenote ,

Not sure if the reason Biden can barely walk is because he’s 1000 or because of all those holes in his foot.

ChicoSuave ,

Not sure if the reason you can’t leave a coherent comment is because you’re a bot or just as stupid as one.

ceenote , (edited )

Didn’t realize it was so tough to infer that banning tiktok might upset big parts of Biden’s base, who are already alienated by the Gaza situation, and that I was likening it to shooting oneself in the foot. Sorry.

Valmond ,

wHaT aBoUt biDeN?!! gEnOCidE !!1!

“I’m a russian bot BTW Contakt [email protected] if I makfunktion”

TropicalDingdong ,

I’m convinced that US lawmakers believe that the pro-gaza sentiment is coming from TikTok. The timing, the mechanism. They see themselves as no longer able to control the narrative and are blaming ‘non-US’ social media.

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

I’d like to point out that the US has been publicly going after TikTok since the Trump Administration so I’m unconvinced that the timing lines up.

Corkyskog ,

I think it’s more so just about controlling narratives in general. Tiktok has a lot of real time tracking of politician corruption and trades. A lot of good useful info for political activism, etc.

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

So did Twitter and even in the Pre-Elon days the Federal Government didn’t go after it like this.

baseless_discourse , (edited )

Now they can move to better platforms like mastodon, lemmy, peertube, pixelfed, which unlike tiktok, can be hosted outside the U.S. and don’t seek to suck every bit of data out of every user.

Arguably better platforms to organize activism, especially in conjunction with secure messaging apps that are out of the U.S. control.

WanderingVentra ,

And yet it finally got the momentum to succeed now, during all these Gaza protests and when the US-Israeli mainline narratives have been starting to break down for the first time.

Infynis ,
@Infynis@midwest.social avatar

I can’t believe this is the one thing this congress has actually managed to do. We just want healthcare

Omegamanthethird ,
@Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world avatar

I want both.

WhatAmLemmy ,

Healthcare!?! Who needs healthcare when Congress is giving us our god given freedom of domestic surveillance capitalism, which is the freedomist freedom that ever freedomed, you filthy communist!

So anyway, I started violating civil liberties… PEW PEW

skuzz ,

You’ll take your overpriced medicine from your out of network pharmacy and you’ll like it. At the fake markup price. And good luck getting that ultrasound, they’re going to code the billing wrong so instead of it being $40 it’s $1000. That’s freedom talking.

aesthelete ,

And good luck getting that ultrasound, they’re going to code the billing wrong so instead of it being $40 it’s $1000.

🎶 Ain’t that America! Home of the free baby! 🎶

Bald eagle screeches

skuzz ,

You pick up what Uncle Sam is throwing down!

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

If social media apps exist to slurp up as much user info as possible, and they do, then it makes sense to be concerned about the government that they’re subject to.

AmbiguousProps ,

Why is it okay for domestic companies to collect the same data and sell it to China, then?

This shouldn’t just affect foreign companies if it’s about data collection. It should have been an actual privacy bill. US citizens’ privacy will be no better after this.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

It’s not ok.

But the fact is that China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia are adversaries of the United States, and the US government is justified in its concern.

AmbiguousProps ,

They didn’t seem to care much when Cambridge Analytica happened, and that was a foreign adversary. So what’s different here?

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

The United Kingdom is not an adversary of the United States. In fact it’s one of our closest allies. But, if anything, that suggests this law isn’t enough, not that it’s too much.

AmbiguousProps ,

I meant that the data they collected was breached by a foreign adversary, thought that was pretty clear but guess not.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

And the fact that a foreign adversary obtained this information was very bad, agreed? Clearly, it makes sense to take steps to keep that kind of information out of adversarial hands.

AmbiguousProps ,

Yes, my point was this only affects one of them. It doesn’t fix the root of the problem, because that’s not the bill’s target.

In fact, if TikTok remains, and does get banned, it just makes it so they no longer have to listen to the US government for anything.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

The law affects social media apps based in North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. These four countries are already restricted from participating in sensitive areas of the US economy, with forced sale being an option. The only really novel part of this law is applying such restrictions to software.

AmbiguousProps ,

You’re missing my point. The adversaries have many more avenues than just TikTok (like breaching the domestic companies that collect the data). The law is too specific and therefore does not actually protect us in any real way, at least not on a personal level.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

It’s not too specific, it’s narrowly tailored. Which is one of the things it needs to be in order to survive a 1st amendment challenge.

AmbiguousProps , (edited )

Does it stop my data from getting to the CCP? Nope, so I would say it’s too specific. The problem is not TikTok exclusively, the problem is that the data is collected and sold in the first place. This doesn’t stop that.

Also, it leaves a bad taste when you say it was crafted to narrowly skirt the 1st amendment. That’s not a good thing, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to imply that it is.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

No, but it does prohibit companies in those four sanctioned countries from operating social media apps in the US. The fact that it’s not a perfect protection is no good reason not to do it. The fact that it was written with an eye towards the first amendment is not a valid criticism.

Psychodelic ,

It’s like people legit don’t want to understand your point.

It’s kinda insane seeing people/the Overton window turn progressively more and more authoritarian

Inui ,

What’s China gonna do to me all the way over here? People should be worried about their own government spying on them first.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

With the sort of detailed personal profile a social media app has on you, they could target your specific beliefs, religious convictions, sexual preferences, political affiliation, fears, interests, desires, etc. to manipulate your opinion in their interests. Doing this on a population-wide scale is what social media platforms are all about (i.e. targeted advertising). It’s wise to be concerned about an adversary having such a tool at its disposal. And this is true for all countries, not just the US.

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

Too bad we can’t ban Meta, Twitter, and Snapchat while we’re at it.

malloc ,

won’t happen

Where do you think the FBI gets their domestic terrorist intel from 😂

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

Fuck IKR, call the cops because someone side swiped your car and you’ll get no response. Get on FB or Twitter and talk about how you’re planning a bombing and federal agents will show up at your house.

TropicalDingdong ,

TikTok will cut a deal to send your dick picks to Greenbelt.

cybersandwich ,

Truth social

Jako301 ,

This is not a ban and it was never meant to be. They just force tiktok to sell the US market to a US company. Said US company will continue the platform just like it is at the moment, just with a bit more of that sweet American propaganda mixed into it. Tiktok won’t be gone, all that data will just go to the NSA instead of the CCP, that’s all they wanted.

Shadywack ,
@Shadywack@lemmy.world avatar

China says they’re not selling TikTok, which makes it a ban, which is excellent news, actually.

Psychodelic ,

Seriously! Ban everything that is bad for people! That has never backfired ever

I mean, remember when we banned all those really bad and dangerous horror comics and nearly collapsed a whole industry of artists, publishers, and distributors for an entire generation so we could feel morally superior about our own hypercritical actions and interests?

We’re really making things great again now!

^^/s

LEDZeppelin ,

Here comes POS billionaire like Moron Musk to buy TikTok and turn it into Nazi propaganda machine

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

Nah, it’ll get sold to a company registered in the US or Europe that is funded by various shell companies and private investment groups, most of which will be owned by Chinese Billionaires.

penquin ,

Healthcare? Nah, let’s fight about it for decades and never give people anything meaningful. Education? Nah, let’s make our people go neck deep into debt and still fight about it for decades. Ban TikTok? Hold my bribery, you got it. Gimme 24 hours and you got it, boss.

some_guy ,

You don’t want healthcare. Because we said so.

skuzz ,

We can’t solve real issues because then we couldn’t keep the American populace overworked, sick, and unable to fight back.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah thatll go over well with younger more democrat voters

malloc ,

TikTok will just be owned by a different company. It will still exist.

Cheems ,
@Cheems@lemmy.world avatar

GOOD! An 🦅American🦅 company wouldn’t use people’s data for nefarious purposes or sell it to the highest bidder. No sir, not a red blooded American company.

Psychodelic ,

Leave it to Democrats to do the stupidest thing possible

We literally never might win like a generation of voters back. Trump had already come out against the bill. Young “rebels” are absolutely going to flock to him thinking Biden is going absolutely nuts with power - since that’s already what they’ve been hearing

Etterra , (edited )

Bye vertical videos you won’t be missed by anybody with a brain in their head.

If only. Vertical videos suck and short form sucks harder.

RaoulDook ,

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Flush that garbage away forever, I say. It’s garbage and turds.

Tiktok style video selfie mode talking about random bullshit is the worst kind of social media invented yet. Nobody should care what your random face looks like watching some other bullshit on social media. There’s no need for that level of narcissism in society, we have more than enough everywhere else.

nondescripthandle ,

Just as a reminder, we have been ‘fighting for 15’ since 2012. But when it comes to leveraging foreign companies with bans to force them to sell to US oligarchs we can move at blazing speed through the least functional congrss in recent history. There are two very different Americas depending on how much money you have.

Jimmyeatsausage ,

Least functional Congress in recent history

some_guy ,

The kids were using the platform to talk about how the boomers got everything wrong, especially Israel, and it threatened their view of themselves.

werefreeatlast ,

Tiktok helped my life for the better 😀… LOL. Sure but it is also a Chinese company that can do things to turn your life and the life of everyone around you into living hell if the government do wishes to.

I think what I would want my relationship with the Chinese country to be like is just simple transactions… I give you this money and I buy that thing. Done, end of transaction. I would like that for all phone tech companies actually. None of this shit about updates because they sold me a shit phone. None of the here’s 8 features, then an update leaves you with 3 features only.

TenderfootGungi ,

Twitter/x is owned by an unhinged South African billionaire and Middle East oil Barrons. We can discuss the theoretical abuse of TikTok, but X is damaging our democracy today.

RaoulDook ,

Fuck them both!

Straight into the garbage.

WanderingVentra , (edited )

Meanwhile everyone has already forget when Cambridge Analytics used Meta and Facebook to influence voters into giving us Trump with the help of Russian propaganda. The hypocrisy is so blatant They just want only US oligarchs making money and they want to be able to censor things young people are seeing nowadays from around the world. Every other excuse is a screen.

werefreeatlast ,

This is possible. But at home we don’t watch TV and I just blocked YouTube altogether from my kids. That website is rancid. I wouldn’t let my kids on TikTok either if I was me. And I am me.

However you are absolutely right. How else will you move people who don’t know any better to actually vote for you? And what sector of the population doesn’t know all the shit you have done in the past 30 years than people who haven’t lived 30 years and haven’t paid attention in history class, not care much about it? Teenagers! That population lives on TikTok. So you are absolutely right. Because if TikTok was a porn site nobody would give a fuck except Texas.

WanderingVentra ,

That’s the thing. I definitely think short form content, and spawning even before that, the news bite culture, has been bad for attention spans, and I wouldn’t mind some sort of regulation on that with respect to kids probably. If I ever get a kid, they’ll be mad at me for being one of the last of their friends to get a smart phone lol.

But the fact that it’s only Tik Tok and not the just as algorithm-laden YouTube shorts, Instagram reels, and Snapchat stories kind of proves it’s not for the good reasons people keep bringing up, of mental health or privacy. So they have to concoct the red scare, “China can manipulate our youth” angle. Even though we already had foreign companies and states influencing Americans, especially our older people, on other good, homegrown social media companies, like Meta and Twitter. So it won’t make a difference on that front, so it’s for less good reasons, like protecting American social media monopolies and censorship of news, the exact stuff we criticize China for. Then they’re going to pat themselves on the back about solving the problem. That’s the part that bothers me, i suppose. The lies and hypocrisy.

AI_toothbrush ,

Even though i dont think banning tiktok is a good idea purely because of the concept, those boards are funny. “Tiktok changed my life for the better”

McDropout ,
@McDropout@lemmy.world avatar

A lot of people started their businesses on Tiktok. The Tiktok algorithm is actually way better than that of Instagram to reach your target niche. A lot content creators and marketing exes do realize this.

I don’t understand the mentality of users, of course of obviously older generation here, that realize Tiktok did in fact change a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just an app for dancing.

Let’s not forget the Tiktok Shop section.

Cethin ,

They’re also all printed, and with the same font. I’m assuming it’s a stock photo, but if that’s from a real protest I don’t trust those protestors.who the hell gets a protest sign printed?

mctoasterson ,

Its because the company literally paid shills to stump for them in person, call Congress, etc.

Maggoty ,

They paid for lobbyists!?! Holy shit hold the presses!

SphereofWreckening , (edited )

literally paid shills

No *one outside of some influencers were paid lmao. People contacted Congress but they weren’t paid, and a quick Google search brought up zero result of people being paid *outside of the influencers. So I’d love to see where you’re sourcing this from.

Edit: Correction - about 30 influencers were paid to visit events for Tik Tok. I’ll rescind saying that literally no one was paid: that’s point is wrong. My main point was that average users weren’t paid to call into Congress. And the vast majority that called in or have talked out against the ban did so of their own volition rather than being paid as implied by OP’s comment

baseless_discourse ,

let me duckduckgo that for you

Literally the first result on ddg: wired.com/…/tiktok-rally-washington-chew-testimon…

Other reports from different sources:

SphereofWreckening , (edited )

Its because the company literally paid shills to stump for them in person, call Congress, etc.

The way it was presented was that they paid average users to call Congress which is disingenuous. I’ll admit I was wrong when I came to the influencers being paid for in person events, but that’s only a smaller group of people and events. The vast majority were not paid and did so of their own volition.

Edit: Didn’t realize OP and the replier were different people. That’s also on me.

baseless_discourse , (edited )

What are you downvoting me for? I didn’t write that post lol…

BTW, you might want to update your correction: According to wired.com/…/tiktok-rally-washington-chew-testimon…

While some influencers report paying their own airfare to Washington, everyone we talked to took the free hotel. It’s unclear precisely what folks were offered as part of the trip to Washington, but seemingly everyone got one perk or another. Beyond the more than 30 influencers in attendance, along with their travel buddies, WIRED counted 10 other people who were, in one way or another, at the Capitol on behalf of TikTok.

30 influencers and their plus ones and 10 other people are paid. These are only people that wired has talked to, so there might be more people being paid one way or another.

And “everyone we talked to took the free hotel”: everyone wired has talked to has received some benefit from tiktok.

I don’t really know the scale of the rally, but seeing the rally photo from different sources: duckduckgo.com/?q=dc+tiktok+protest&iax=images&ia… , it seem like most cameras are pointing towards the same 15 people, all with signs distributed by tiktok.

I don’t think I will be as confident as you about the size of the protest. Even if there were 100 people there, that still means over 50% of the protesters received direct compensation from TikTok specifically for this protest.

Maggoty ,

Lots of protests actually. It’s not hard.

baseless_discourse ,

Imagine licking the boots of any corporate like this LOL.

Katrisia , (edited )

I believe they are talking about a specific community that has formed over TikTok, a very anticapitalist and cosmopolitan one, and not about the platform itself.

If your algorithm is favoring that content, your short videos will be full of people talking about all things wrong in our global state of affairs; alternatives and temporal solutions (that happen to harm corporations, ironically because the information is becoming popular thanks to one, so I guess it’s the ladder to get to the rooftop); global situations that are not talked or barely talked on regular news (like Congo, Palestine, etc.); the truth behind Western propaganda and lies, especially the ones against populations and ideologies (e.g., “this country doesn’t prosper because they’re [whatever]” vs “we exploited and condemn this country to scarcity for decades and lied about it”); etcetera. In my time there, I’ve learnt a couple things.

I know that these content creators will find another platform if TikTok goes down. Lemmy has shown me that social media can be free of corporations, but that’s something many people are not aware of yet, especially since the techy people that could explain it on TikTok are not there.

So… yeah, TikTok has some interesting sides content-wise. There’s even the rumor that this is one of the reasons they want it banned in the U.S.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •