58
submitted 2 years ago by shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

My issue is with information flowing to the Chinese government.

I understand that in the United States that information drain has been discontinued(as much as any American app discontinues information drain) but the fact that a few years ago, personal information was going straight from TikTok to the Chinese government who is actively seeking that information, and the app TikTok came from, douyin, still sends information to the Chinese government today like this is enough to give me pause.

To me, it's not the same as Facebook or Instagram or whatever getting banned because of that direct and recent connection to the Chinese government.

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago

If that were truly the issue, why not instead pass a law that prohibits transferring that kind of information to entities that could potentially share it without foreign powers?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

They mention tiktok a lot but the text of the bill reads "any foreign adversary controlled applications." So I think it is more broad.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Not really. They word it like that because laws need to look broad, but the purpose is to target TikTok.

One thing I'm absolutely worried about is the definition of "adversary" is too broad, and it could potentially be broadened to include any foreign country that doesn't do whatever the US wants.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The "purpose" is to target TikTok, sure. But that doesn't really matter as it could be used to enforce laws against any other company / country doing something similar. Laws are often used beyond the original intent.

Though if it's not written broadly enough I believe it could be ruled unconstitutional.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm not Constitutional lawyer, but that's my impression as well. I'm guessing they'll just adjust the definition of "adversary" to match their political aims though.

this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
58 points (89.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8735 readers
188 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS