251
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ElderberryLow@programming.dev 25 points 2 years ago

If I have it correct, the law wouldn’t immediately ban TikTok but would require it to actually be sold to a real US company within a certain amount of days otherwise it’d get banned. The CCP obviously doesn’t want that. So if this passes, TikTok isn’t removed immediately.

Probably what happens is the CCP, I mean Bytedance, sells it to a US company then puts their people there to still siphon data.

[-] vind@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago

The law is to force any company that isn't US owned that the US doesn't like to hand over ownership. Regardless of your thoughts on TikTok/ByteDance/China in general, this is not a law one should praise. It's incredibly dangerous and is one more step toward the US becoming a full-fledged fascist state.

[-] Argonne@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

What exactly is fascist about it? Being able to ban companies from hostile nations seems like a legitimate tool that frankly is concerning that we didn't have before. Russia and China are using massive propaganda farms and the US has been paying the price of that for too long. We are moving into a hostile multi-polar world and I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet isn't segregated sooner or later if hostilities start

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

I guarantee you that Facebook, Twitter and Google are selling data to China on the regular. And anyone else willing to pay up.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

That's all fine and dandy for Biden though because he gets to sort through it all first unlike with TikTok.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure Biden is not sorting through everyone's social media information. I think he's a little busy.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

You're really going to defend the extension of government surveillance because it's your favorite neoliberal championing it?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I don't remember defending anything.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

It's already run by a Singaporean group. Transferring it to the US is just a chance for our Social Media conglomerates to part it out and destroy competition.

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

The best part is they get to buy it at a discount, because they know there won't be any other options.

[-] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

60% of Bytedance is owned by institutional investors. It's a private company. The CCP doesn't own the company. 3 of the 5 board members are American. Don't spread made up bullshit. If there's any reason not to sell the company to a US company is because only 150 million Americans are tiktok users on an app with over a billion monthly active users globally. Not to mention that the US companies are gonna lowball the shit out of their offers because they think Bytedance is gonna be begging to sell. Also, there's a chance that if the US bans tiktok, then maybe they could get access to China, which tiktok is not currently available in.

[-] ElderberryLow@programming.dev -1 points 2 years ago

Any business that does business in China, especially ones based in China, are under the CCP. Doesn’t matter who the “owners” are and they can have 1000 American board members.

[-] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

China has private industry AND state owned industry. While everything is monitored by the CCP, they don't control private businesses. They do indeed have capitalism in China. The only difference is that in China, rich people get killed when they fuck people over. Even the US is an insanely corrupt surveillance state.

[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
251 points (96.0% liked)

News

36384 readers
933 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS