• AmbiguousProps
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    They didn’t seem to care much when Cambridge Analytica happened, and that was a foreign adversary. So what’s different here?

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The United Kingdom is not an adversary of the United States. In fact it’s one of our closest allies. But, if anything, that suggests this law isn’t enough, not that it’s too much.

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I meant that the data they collected was breached by a foreign adversary, thought that was pretty clear but guess not.

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 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
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 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@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 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
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 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@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  8 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
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 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.

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        A foreign adversary was responsible for the theft of the data that Cambridge shouldn’t have had. That was what I meant.

        • BuelldozerA
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I saw that farther down in the chain which is why I came back and deleted my comment.