• Blxter@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for “foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” And instead just in general

    • PhAzE
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yea, it’s not as bad as this thread is trying to make it out to be.

      • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        But muh silly dancing app!!1one

        Hot take: people are pretending this is a gross censorship violation only because they’re addicted to the app and it might be going away, leaving them with nothing to scroll on endlessly into the day

        • PhAzE
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Hot take approved

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, some of them are pretending it’s gross censorship only because Amerikkka Bad and Biden Bad and CCP Good.

          My favorite was “China sowing chaos is Good, Actually”

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.

      Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s kinda the point though. They don’t give a shit about protecting our data. They’ve willingly engaged in the data trading markets themselves. It’s greatly enhanced their power. They’ve protected the practice by simple virtue of dumping fuck tons of money into it. But as soon as other players get into the game…”quick, to the gavel-mobile!”

      This bill isn’t for us. It’s for them. I’m no fan of china—it’s an authoritarian state that forcefully exerts control over its people—but to the US, they’re just the next game in town. Because while china may be a little more overtly controlling, the US is in the same game. They just use the frontman of their independent corporations to more subtly exert influence. But when we start trying to wrest some control back? Sure, that’s when the gavels turn to batons and guns.

      So, in short, they’re not protecting us. They’re protecting themselves and their established order. Cracks are starting to show because people on the whole seem to be realizing this order doesn’t work for us, but for them. They will start to more overtly flex their power as this trend continues.