164
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
164 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2010 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Evidence that the tiktok ban is not about privacy. It's ok when our corporations do it
They never claimed it to be about privacy from American corporations. That’s why divestment to an American ownership is an option in the bill. They don’t want tremendous amounts of American user data to be collected by a company beholden to the Chinese government.
But that's the thing. US corporations are sure as hell to continue that same data collection and sell it. China does bulk data buys from US social media companies. The ban does not in any way do anything to prevent the Chinese government from obtaining that data. It's extremely obvious cold war political nonsense.
That’s aggregated or ad-driven data. That’s very different than a psychographic profile, like what Meta or TikTok has on individuals. Meta can’t sell your psychographic profile or personal data to a foreign entity. They can sell metrics that represent your interests, or aggregated data that includes you in the sample group.
With enough aggregate data points to the intersectional interests of enough people, anyone is capable of identifying individuals. The "anonymous data" that is legal to sell is trivially de-anonymized. This has been known for nearly a decade, US privacy laws have failed to update privacy standards in light of this, and companies tend towards the optimal and cost effective solution (read: cheapest and minimum required).
That’s true, but there still a very big difference between aggregated data on ad-driven models and individualized psychographic profiles. The latter is terrifying and should not even exist. However, the US government is ok with them as long as they reside in the possession of US businesses.
For those of you unfamiliar with the insane detail of psychographic profiling, there’s a very accessible documentary on Netflix called “The Social Dilemma” that is worth the watch. For those who are unaware of how psychographic profiling can influence perceptions of the world, there’s another called “The Great Hack” about Cambridge Analytica’s influence on Brexit and the 2016 US election. Both are narrated and written by experts in their respective fields.
this is all based on the assumption that the data is safe... it is not.
Oh, it’s absolutely not. We’re in full agreement there. Congress never said it was about privacy. They said it was about keeping US citizens from the influence of hostile foreign nations.
How do you get from $200 million in fines to "it's ok"?
How much do you think they made off selling your data?
This is just the government’s cut. Cost to play,
Because tiktok has not done anything criminal and being forced to divest, while this fine is likely a fraction of the profits these companies made.