• Melllvar
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      57 months ago

      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.

      • Melllvar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        07 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          47 months ago

          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.

          • Melllvar
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -17 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

              • @Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                27 months ago

                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

              • Melllvar
                link
                fedilink
                English
                17 months ago

                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.