• zaphod
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    See my reply to your sibling comment. This is wishful thinking. You could be right, but it’s just as likely (I’d argue more likely) you’re wrong.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Sorry if it sounded like I did not think TikTok is used for espionage. I am sure it is, just like Google, Facebook, etc. are used by the NSA (thanks Snowden for giving us proof of this). Its just funny to me that the US gov has to resort to banning it, because they spent years convincing people Tech Giants spying on them is ok. And now when they say don’t use TikTok, everyone laughs at them.

      • zaphod
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I couldn’t agree more. IMO the right solution is to regulate data collection, mandate algorithmic transparency, and require opt out for algorithmic curation.

        But the discussion isn’t about whether this is the right remedy (IMO it’s not) but about whether the remedy will be held up by the courts.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Well, I think the courts should strike it down because:

          1. It is content based speech regulation (Chinese influence on people), which deserves strictest scrutiny under the 1st amendment.
          2. It targets TikTok by name, which triggers equal protection issue. Congress is not allowed to pass a law that specifically bans Tom Holland from smoking. Laws need to be general. I don’t see why this would be an exception.