this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
1091 points (98.0% liked)

memes

11211 readers
2155 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] comador@lemmy.world 74 points 1 week ago

Government: We don't like competition.

[–] vegantomato@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

I support blocking Facebook and X from the EU for the same reason.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Apparently, Meta has just taken part in a huge destabilizing propaganda campaign here in Brazil. The kind that criminal law has punishment for.

It will certainly take a while to gather all evidence and verify it, so I'm saving the popcorn for later. But I just ensured I have enough kernel for a US-sized portion...

[–] vegantomato@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Another one: Elon Musk is pushing the whole Grooming Gang propaganda on X to cause tensions in the UK. As if nobody cares about victims when the perpetrator happens to be brown. It's absolute populist BS.

He is also saying that the parliament should be dissolved, and is throwing around more outrageous accusations: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/01/04/elon-musk-pushes-for-britains-king-charles-to-dissolve-parliament-as-lawmakers-say-tesla-ceo-is-misinformed/

We have people with obvious political agendas controlling the world's largest social media platforms, and it's not just the CCP.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

with obvious political agendas

On the case of Brazil, I think it has economical reasons. Meta sells stuff that compete with the social infrastructure it was trying to destabilize.

I would really like to see some laws against media concentration. It's not even important who the media is. Instead, we have some laws that are the opposite of that, so if we solve the Meta problem, something else is due to break shortly after.

But hey, it's entertaining anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

They absolutely should. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't do something about it eventually.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] s_s@lemm.ee 41 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"TikTok is influencing you politically"

So you'll shut down Fox News, right?

[–] Shard@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Facebook too. Don't forget Cambridge Analytica

[–] rarbg@lemmy.zip 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

US government couldn’t give two shits if TikTok steals your data. They just don’t want a foreign adversary to.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Also, they don't care about the data. They care about the influence.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 31 points 1 week ago

"Actually, I want to own it"

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Political interference, that's what people need to fear from the platform. I'm sure if it was Russian I wouldn't have to say it.

Hell, just look at the number of pro TikTok memes being shared right now, there's something fishy happening.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And their dickhead CEO is invited to the inauguration. Yeah, fishy.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Trump went from wanting it banned to not wanting it banned because it was working in his favor this time, which is... Political interference!

Crazy how hypocritical people are... X should be banned because Musk can interfere in politics with his algorithms, but TikTok doing the same thing on behalf of the Chinese government? No problem!

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

His stacked ass SCOTUS all agreed on this. But let me get out my crystal ball… I predict they will change their minds too. Hmm

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 week ago

Young people love the platform. Was it fishy when there were Luigi memes? Regardless of how much the state is involved with the app, it's popular.

Oh look, I must be an agent for the CCP cause I'm suggesting there's a legitimate reason for memes.

[–] anas@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don’t think I see pro-TikTok memes, but rather “why stop at TikTok” memes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

just look at the number of pro TikTok memes being shared right now, there's something fishy happening.

If by "fishy" you mean "the ban is going into effect so people are expressing frustration", sure.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is the most literate take on the issue that I've seen.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Actually, they clearly haven't read anything about Divisions H and I of HR 815 or they would realize that WAS a broad privacy legislation to protect US Citizens.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pulsar@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I don't like or use TikTok, but when I see US politicians and TV "Security experts" spiting nonsense arguments to justify banning it shows to me that this is a frivolous case to benefit META and Alphabet rather than a genuine concern in data collection and privacy.

[–] Burninator05@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No one gives a shit if your data is collected. I (and presumably you) are not worthwhile targets. The issue is the Chinese government using social media apps based in China to feed anti-US/pro-Chinese propaganda. I'd bet $100 that if (mostly likely when) China invades Taiwan all Chinese owned social media outlets will instantly feature lots of anti-Taiwan content in every country that they may turn for help to try and turn the US population's opinion more favorable to China's side.

[–] Power_Dive@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

This has already happened in douyin, Chinese version of tiktok.

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

"Hey! We can't let them steal that. I wanted to steal that!"

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Honestly at this point I rather have China steal my data vs. The US government. I'd be more likely to see a negative impact from data collection from the US government rather than China. China can't really influence my insurance rates. The US can.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Meanwhile there's https://loops.video/ and you should share that like I'm doing with your friends that are hooked on tiktok.

Cuz, fuck, this banning our voice thing is getting old.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Haha NO!? We're gonna ban it, and whatever platforms you move to, in a game of whackamole until you pick the "right one", like facebook!

Good luck everybodyyyyyy (starts swinging mallet) /S but also that seems to be their mindset

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (24 children)

They did. Divisions H and I of HR 815 of the 118th Congress make it illegal to collect, broker, lease, trade, or sell US Citizen's personally identifying data to an adversarial nation which is defined in Article 10 as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.

You're complaining about the law and you literally have no idea what that law says?

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The problem is this doesn't apply across the board. Why is it only illegal if they're selling it to a foreign company? It should be illegal to sell it full stop. This just gives the US government a monopoly on the information which I'm more afraid of than a foreign country having my data since I live here and they can directly affect me.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Then why wasn't tik tok blocked immediately instead of being allowed to operate for years.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (9 children)

So technically you're right, but the law they passed left a HUGE loophole. And by loophole I mean just don't be based on those counties and you can gobble up whatever data you like.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

It's not even a "loophole" it's literally irrelevant to what people generally think of as "data privacy." Something like GDPR is an example of data privacy.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Cool so what does this law do for me again? I live in America i personally will never interact with those 4 countries. The wording is also dangerous calling Chinaa foreign adversary comparable with the other 3. Which is dangerous. We are in active war with 3 where as China we do massive business.

Passed in April 2024 so useful when Facebook was a broker for Russia in 2016 DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).

The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user's request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

DIVISION I--PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual's data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] twinnie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There are laws, TikTok is almost certainly breaking them.

[–] Lulzagna@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Source?

There needs to be at least some evidence that the American subsidiary of tiktok broke data privacy laws

If they did, they'd be tried under those laws, not some new legislation that allows carte blanche banning without a trial. That should tell you everything you need to know about whether there's any proof of them breaking data privacy laws.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago

So are Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and pretty much any big US corporation out there. But protectionism tends to ignore that. They should all (including) either be banned or hit with monumental fines.

None that are comprehensive and strong like all the rest of the G7

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I’m really not able to keep up with the hive on this. One minute- they hate TikTok, A day later, they defend TikTok?

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

They aren't defending TikTok so much as calling the bluff. The US govt doesn't actually give a rats ass about privacy or data collection. Some relics in Congress were convinced its a national security threat and needs to be banned OR SOLD TO A US BASED BUYER (I'm personally thinking this is the Muskrat's doing, but that's all conspiracy) to preserve national security.

A massive, comprehensive data privacy law would've covered the TikTok base and any software by any other threat. Home run, Grand slam, easy win and easy points.

Of course it's not going that way because it was never about national security.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

The hive is (or at least was) a bit split. Many users seem to hate TikTok because they just dislike it for whatever reason (e.g., addictive short form videos), but others view this as a fascist move by the US or anti-China.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›