• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The concern isn’t that these companies have microtargeting data. The concern is about what these companies could use that data for.

    An off-brand t-shirt site would be a fairly ineffective vehicle for political propaganda. Tik Tok would be great at that.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Isn’t the primary critique of TikTok the number of American leftists and progressives posting on it?

      Seems like the propaganda is coming from inside the house.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        That’s definitely the critique coming from America’s right.

        That said, both America’s left and right wing politicians seem to agree that it’s dangerous to have a mass media recommendation algorithm in the hands of a foreign adversary.

        If they want to promote content favorable a Chinese political objective, they can use micro targeting data do that with extreme precision - if they wanted to.

        It doesn’t matter who created the content or where it was created. What matters is the message of the content and who it’s being directed to.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That said, both America’s left and right wing politicians seem to agree that it’s dangerous to have a mass media recommendation algorithm in the hands of a foreign adversary.

          The presumption that social media is an international weapon of war does raise some disturbing questions about the right to free speech.

          It doesn’t matter who created the content or where it was created. What matters is the message of the content

          What specifically are we referring to on TikTok qualifies that can’t be found on a rival platform?

          • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Propaganda is a very well known way to enact influence on a foreign nation. It’s so well known that the US has 90 year old laws that limit foreign ownership of US media. For example, in order for Rupert Murdock to own media in the US, he had to become a US citizen and renounce his Australian citizenship in the 80s.

            The people making the content have the right freedom of speech, but the people making the editorial decisions on what is / isn’t shown do not have that same right if they are not American citizens.

            If tomorrow morning, the CCP decided to start promoting pro-CCP videos made by Americans, they could. And they could use micro targeting to connect people with pro-CCP influencers that were relatable. For example, I like nerdy shit, so I might get propaganda from a content creator that liked a lot of the same nerdy shit I liked.

            The primary concern isn’t the content, it’s who controls the editor’s desk.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 minutes ago

              Propaganda is a very well known way to enact influence on a foreign nation.

              Historically, the most effective use of propaganda is by the domestic government on its own citizenry. Closing out foreign sources of media, shutting down opposition venues for news and discussion, and criminalizing private parties that attempt to distribute outside opinion tend to facilitate the imposition of a national propaganda campaign.

              The people making the content have the right freedom of speech, but the people making the editorial decisions on what is / isn’t shown do not have that same right if they are not American citizens.

              This isn’t simply closing off access to “free speech”, it is closing off access to reporting on world events and international opinion. American citizens do not have the right to free expression of they are blinded and deafened to any kind of outside perspective.

              How, exactly, do domestic residents gain information from the outside world if the state has the right to censor anyone outside of its borders from sending news into the country?

              The primary concern isn’t the content, it’s who controls the editor’s desk.

              If the US policy towards international media is “only American citizens have the right to sit at the editor’s desk” then we’re not talking about free speech, we’re talking about political control of the press. The “American citizens” canard is simply an excuse to deny Americans access to outside media.

              It is also highly disingenuous. Nobody is proposing the US block access to the BBC or CBC on these grounds.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        That’s Hyundai/Kia’s fault though. For whatever reason, they cheaped out and didn’t include an immobilizer in 2011-2022 models (meaning the cars don’t actually verify that there’s a key in it, so you can just remove the key hole and turn the ignition with a screwdriver or USB cable or whatever to start it).

        Before TikTok, this would have just spread on different platforms…

        I’m not defending TikTok though.

    • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s like saying YouTube or Facebook I forget which one, got people to eat tide pods. Information spreads on all platforms whether good or bad.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Not really considering Youtube will nuke your fucking account if you promote criminal activity, TikTok will not. Therefore TikTok is liable.

        TikTok also lied and made it seem like it wasn’t a crime

        • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Then how did all these people eat tide pods. Once tiktok realized they were promoting check fraud they stopped it but you can’t react fast enough for some of these things

        • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          They’ve infested other places too. Fuggin the sketchier pirate movie streaming sites have movies that just have gambling site watermarks all throughout the movie. It’s crazy.

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    US tech companies too, you fucking cowards.

    Facebook paid kids to install a VPN client on their smartphones so they could intercept AND DECRYPT traffic between competing services (like Snapchat, Amazon, Youtube)

    facebook and any other company they acquire (or however they try to rebrand) are not only untrustworthy but active adversaries against common decency and basic privacy

    • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

      Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The concern isn’t the input, it’s the potential output. Temu doesn’t have the potential to be used for a large micro-targeted political messaging campaign.

      This is arguably more akin to how the US handles TV and radio. There are national security restrictions on foreign ownership.

      • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The US owns and regulates the frequencies TV and radio are broadcast on. The Internet is not the same. If the threat of foreign propaganda is the purpose, why can I download the official RT (Russia Today, government run propaganda outlet) app in the Play Store? If the US is worried about a foreign government spreading propaganda, why are they targeting the popular social media app that could theoretically (but no evidence it’s been done yet) be used for propaganda, instead of the actual Russian propaganda app? Hell I can download the south china morning post right from the Play store, straight Chinese propaganda! There are also dozens of Chinese and other foreign adversary run social media platforms, and other apps that could “micro target political messaging campaigns” available. So why did the US Congress single out one single app for punishment?

        Money. The problem isn’t propaganda. The problem is money. The problem is tik Tok is or is on the course to be more popular than our American social media platforms. The problem is American firms are being outcompeted in the marketplace, and the government is stepping in to protect the American data mining market. The problem is young people are trading their data for tik toks, instead of giving that data over to be sold to us advertising networks in exchange for YouTube shorts and Instagram stories. If the problem was propaganda, the US would go after propaganda. If the problem is just a Chinese company offers a better product than US companies, then there’s no reason to draft nuanced legislation that goes after all potential foreign influence vectors, you just ban the one app that is hurting the share price of your donors.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The US owns and regulates the frequencies TV and radio are broadcast on.

          The US has also historically regulated who owns media companies.

          As for RT vs TikTok - good question. My guess is that scale and influence have a lot to do with why regulating TikTok was prioritized. Also RT has been removed from most broadcasters and App Stores in the US.

          • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            My guess is that scale and influence have a lot to do with

            To break this down a little, first of all “my guess”. You are guessing because the government which is literally enacting a speech restriction hasn’t explained its rational for banning one potential source of disinformation vs actual sources of disinformation. So you are left in the position of guessing. To put a finer point on it, you are in the position of assuming the government is acting with good intentions and doing the labor of searching for a justification that fits with that assumption. Reminds me of the Iraq war when so many conversations I had with people had their default argument be “the government wouldn’t do this if they didn’t have a good reason”. I don’t like to be cynical, and I don’t want to be a “both sides, all politicians are corrupt” kind of guy, but I think it’s pretty clear in this case there is every reason to be cynical. This was just an unfortunate confluence of anti Chinese hate and fear, anti young people hate, and big tech donations that resulted in the government banning a platform used by millions of Americans to disseminate speech. But because Dems helped do it, so many people feel the need to reflexively defend it, even forcing them to “guess” and make up rationales.

            As far as influence and reach, obviously that’s not in the bill. Influence is straight out, RT is highly influential in right wing spaces. In terms of numbers of users, that just goes to the profit potential that our good ol American firms are missing out on.

            If the US was concerned with propaganda or whatever, they could just regulate the content available on all platforms. They could require all platforms to have transparency around algorithms for recommending content. They could require oversight of how all social media companies operate, much like they do with financial firms or are trying to do with big AI platforms.

            But they didn’t. Because they are not attacking a specific problem, they are attacking a specific company.

            Also RT has been removed from most broadcasters and App Stores in the US.

            Broadcasters voluntarily dropped it after 2016, I think it’s still available on some including dish. As far as app stores, that’s just false, I just checked the Play store and it’s right there ready to download and fill my head with propaganda.

            • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 minutes ago

              I’m mostly just guessing because I’m at work right now, and while I’m on a pee break I don’t have the time or energy to research the nuance of foreign media ownership legislation and regulation.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Murdoch is an American citizen.

          Murdoch became a naturalized US citizen in the 80’s so that he could comply with US laws about foreign nationals owning media entities.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Oh, ew.

            Thanks for the correction but also that’s… About right for America and billionaires.

            Just allowed in to fuck with people, hack phones, steal money and leave.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      They care about companies they have less control over and a foreign adversary has more control over invading privacy, for reasons unrelated to seeing privacy as a good in itself.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Is tiktok saying that all Chinese apps that steal our data are also stealing our data because they were designed to steal our data?!

    I am SHOCKED.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Lol, what domestic social media apps are the US government trying to ban?

        What’s that? None of them? Ah okay.

        The concern is international espionage, there are really only 2 big players in that space. One of them is the US, can you guess the other?

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          You’re clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.

          This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it’s much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don’t really know what’s going on.

  • aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s time to start taxing the acquisition, retention, and selling/trading of personal data.

    Actually, that time was 40 years ago.

    • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Better solution.

      Data are owned by the generator. Only they can sell it etc…

      This also solves the privacy problem of law enforcement agencies applying warrants to phone companies etc. for access to your data, which has been an end-run around 4th Amendment rights for decades.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Exactly. If a company wants to sell my data, they should have to make an explicit agreement with me to do that. If law enforcement wants data from my phone company, they should either produce a warrant or get my permission to release it. And so on.

        If a company holds my data, they should be legally accountable for safeguarding it, and liable if it gets in the hands of someone I don’t have an agreement with. Banks do that with my money, I don’t see why social media companies should have any less expectation here.

        And no, burying some form of consent in a TOS isn’t sufficient, it needs to be explicit and there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the customer understands the terms.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      GDPR is a start, but we need to actually ban it, not just annoy people until they click Accept at the 20th popup of that tantalising offer to share your details with 1473 trusted data partners.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You can just click deny instead. The law says the site must make it easy to do so.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.

          Fortunately there’s a third option which is leave the site and never come back.

          Plus most of the sites will ask you again after a period of time. Until you say yes. After that they can strangely remember your choice.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.

            The EU has ruled that this isn’t sufficient and that people shouldn’t have to pay for privacy.

            Of course, companies in the USA won’t care, except for customers in California (thanks, CCPA and CPRA).

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      Google and Microsoft would be scrambling to pay off every single person associated with that before it ever hit the first courtroom floor.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      ohhh data collection taxation, I like it. You would think it would be a no-brainer but look at marijuana taxation and the continued resistance to rake in all that public funding. Would make most of the controversy around AI disappear if they tax it’s collection.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Didi (Chinese Uber) is very popular in Australia too.

    • Jin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I think it should depend on the software and what’s being collected & shared, also where it’s hosted.

      While Lenovo has have some securities risk & concerns in the past. You can circumvented a lot by installing a fresh copy of windows or Linux. They don’t really havest data or track you like TikTok does. There is no algorithm, no influence on politics or feeding propaganda.

      I think TikTok would be okay, if Android had a better sandbox environment (like GrapheneOS), but google also wants your data…

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’d rather they just ban spy apps in general…but that’s a “dream a little dream, it’s never gonna happen” type of thing.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        And all the CIA ones.

        Let’s hear some of those app names, you seem to have a few ready to fire off on a whim.

      • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        “I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        that data goes to the US government instead of to the CCP

        Going to blow people’s minds when they find out Temu data also goes to the US government and Facebook data also goes to the CCP.

        This shit is just a commodity. It’s auctioned off at the bid rate. The NSA doesn’t just lay claim to this data, it buys it. And these Big Data companies are only handing it over because of the absurd margins NSA (and MI5 and the rest of the Five Eyes) directors are willing to pay.

        Your data isn’t any safer because the parent company is owned by a foreign plutocrat. This is a big club and you ain’t in it.

        • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Oh no, I’m not under any illusion that my data is safer with any of them lol. I’m just saying that that’s why the US doesn’t ban American social networks/companies. Because it’s all about control.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      Technically, the second partof that bill bans sending user data to China for all companies, so it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.

      I hope the Facebook multi-billion dollar fines act as precedent.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.

        Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.

        American trade with China only ever increases year-to-year, despite all the noise about a Trade War. Chinese based drop-shipping schemes only ever eat into our domestic market share, because American incomes are falling into line with the global average and that’s the kind of trade good international middle class workers can afford. And all this shit is getting blended together - Indian and Chinese businesses outsource to Indochina and Malaysia and Indonesia where labor is cheaper. Everything gets routed and flagged through Singapore anyway, so the real origin of a good is obscured by the time it lands on your doorstep. And nobody in the business of making money wants to pay a politician to do anything about this in practice.

        Nobody is getting fined, much less into-the-dirt.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.

          That is literally what Facebook was fined for, BEFORE the new laws were put in place. Cambridge Analytica did what you just described.