Essentially yea, the laws enforcement mechanism as-is is just having the app delisted from app stores
Everything else is of TikToks own doing
Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
on 15 Jan 20:49
collapse
And that’s all it should be. Currently, the US government does not have the facilities to block traffic to specific websites or IP addresses on a country-wide basis. We don’t have a “great firewall” the way China does, and we should keep it that way.
I think if people in the US had the capacity for introspection and empathy we would have had a collective
are we the baddies
moment every year for the past 250y…
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
on 15 Jan 21:26
nextcollapse
I completely misunderstood the ban then. If you go back and read my previous thoughts on the matter, I debated IF this was good or bad.
And my debate was, do you allow actual spy services to keep spying in your country? Or do you ban the services, and introduce a precident which could easily be used towards a government lockdown of services?
And ultimately I landed of the belief that we shouldn’t ban tiktok. But that was under the assumption that it was a nationwide services ban. Not just a delisting from the app store.
Tiktok can still host the apk on their own website. Any other installations already installed on apple devices would still work. This isn’t a ban. It’s an app store delisting. And that’s fine. That initself doesn’t fly against the concepts of net neutrality. It becomes a matter of availability at that point.
And if tiktok is doing this of their own choice, then that doesn’t go against net neutrality either. That’s YOUR choice (if you are tiktok).
So, yeah. This small clarification really made this “debate” not much of a debate to me anymore. Ignore all previous positions I held. This issue just became simple. Fuck tiktok. Thats on them. The government didn’t ban them. They delisted an app.
Childporn is illegal on any network. As well it should be. Tiktok is not illegal as a result of this “ban”. That’s what I thought was happening. It’s not (assuming you are correct, which I have no reason to doubt).
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 15 Jan 23:41
nextcollapse
(Edit 2: read the bill, it also bans American companies from offering hosting services to a company that is banned through the law www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/…/text)
Arguably, if the app isn’t easy to obtain then the cost of all the US-based servers would become an enormous expense. All US customer data is on its own US-based infra hosted by Oracle. Migrating all the US data elsewhere would also be an enormous expense. Server infa for 170 million Americans on an App is not gonna be cheap to keep running, esp since even if tiktok tried, the best they could do is get apk’s to android users. iOS users are SOL.
Given how iOS dominates the US still and only a small portion of android users are comfortable manually installing apps from non-store locations, why would they go through the effort to stay around for a fraction of the previous user base.
Its a perfectly uneerstsndable business decision, and its one they may be making on the hopes thay the ban will get reversed shortly after its put in place. Its also perfectly understandable to not want to sell the US-based component of the App when they still operate in plenty of other countries, including China, and the sale would devalue what they retained.
(Edit: and while their web offering has improved over the years, they probably are assuming a similar drop of userbase since only so many would be willing to move their usage to a web app that is not super easy to use for capturing video or handling notifications)
Why not read it? It is a ban and no it’s not a delisting
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
on 15 Jan 22:31
nextcollapse
Yes it does? All it would take is a single piece of legislation and a couple of hours for all ISPs to block all traffic to certain IP ranges.
Sure, it doesn’t prevent VPNs but it would block 95% of access. The remaining 5% can be blocked through banning VPNs and deep packet inspection, the latter of which doesn’t require that much new infrastructure.
Except banning vpns would kill the economy immediately. Pretty much every big corporation is utilizing vpns to facilitate their work from home infrastructure. Hell, often even internally. Not to mention state and federal governments also use them. Suggesting they could do that is a joke.
They’ll just make legal carveouts for government and commercial use, and go after consumer-facing VPN providers that refuse to comply. For VPN providers based outside the US, they could delist their websites from DNS or block their IPs. They can’t stop someone who’s determined from finding a way, of course, but just a few simple barriers prevents most people from putting in the effort.
No, I’m trying to predict when their corporate overloads would tell them to sit the fuck down.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Jan 07:12
nextcollapse
I wasn’t talking about the technology behind VPNs. Every single country that “bans VPNs” still uses them commercially to some extent.
What I consider a ban on VPNs is a ban on commercial B2C VPN providers that do not comply with US legislation - meaning they’d allow customers to access banned sites.
Add the fact that pretty much all major payment providers happen to be US companies and I’d wager 99% of “normal” access could be blocked.
From what I understand, in my country OpenVPN and Wireguard work fine within the borders, but the protocols are blocked to foreign servers.
Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Jan 22:00
collapse
I said “currently”. Sure, the US could pass legislation that would require ISPs to implement that ability. I said they do not currently have that ability, and you seem to be disagreeing because it is hypothetically possible for the US to build its own great firewall. I do not want to assume your intentions but it appears you may have misinterpreted my message.
What I said is still correct. The point of my comment was that the US should not pass legislation to build a great firewall.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Jan 23:31
collapse
Oh, I thought you meant physically unable (for some time) - meaning they’d have to upgrade their router hardware or something which would take a couple of weeks/months.
But yes, right now the US is unable to implement a firewall. Though with the current Supreme Court it might as well decide tomorrow that free speech doesn’t extend to communication via electrons or something.
False, feds have taken down whole domains for violations
Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Jan 22:16
collapse
They cannot take down a domain registered with a registry and registrar outside their jurisdiction. They could try and compel domestic DNS providers to block queries for that domain, but there are numerous providers who are unlikely to comply with that request on grounds of the 1st amendment.
Given that the OP is about TikTok (a foreign website) being blocked in the United States, your point has limited relevance here. Further, if the website was hosted stateside they could just physically seize the servers themselves.
They have servers here otherwise it would be a laggy mess to use tiktok
Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works
on 17 Jan 00:12
collapse
Correct, but that doesn’t mean TikTok would be inaccessible if they didn’t have servers in the US. My point is that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to completely limit access to a foreign website. It would be very slow and they’d lose users, sure, but they could keep running as usual from outside the US and still remain accessible to people inside the US.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Jan 00:31
nextcollapse
Um, well, they are first of all complying with the decision, in spirit. When someone has indicated to you, even in very diplomatic terms, that you may be unwelcome, it’s a reasonable response to stand right up and walk the fuck out.
Secondly I think they are doing it swiftly and abruptly to take advantage of this moment of public awareness. They want to create as abrupt a break as possible no doubt to maximize the outrage of their many millions of users and advertisers while everyone has the news fresh in their mind. They probably hope that this will create enough pain and disruption to stir opposition to the ban or at least political fallout for those who caused it.
Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
on 15 Jan 20:42
nextcollapse
Yes TikTok, that’s what a ban is.
Landless2029@lemmy.world
on 15 Jan 20:48
nextcollapse
Yeah this just sounds like compliance with the media making it seem like a protest for clicks…
SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
on 15 Jan 22:03
nextcollapse
Just fucking do it alreadyyyyyy
sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
on 15 Jan 22:29
nextcollapse
Hoping they shut down and open source their algorithm. They already released part of it on github, apparently, but I haven’t had a chance to look at it. Would like it if I could somehow use it for a personal Loops server in the future.
You got some suggestions on where to look? We’re speedrunning the fall of rome over here, it’s pretty much to the point that even hope is an unreasonable thing to hope for…
I meant the claim that this was somehow a good thing, and not a performative “anti-china” bill that was really about cutting out the young people’s current venue for organizing against the wealthy’s interests, like their criticisms of the genocide in Gaza. China will still get all that info by buying it off the hundred other apps that collect it. If they cared about the data collection, they’d have addressed all data collection.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Jan 17:09
collapse
I’m surprised they’re taking that approach rather than pushing the web version.
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 15 Jan 23:53
nextcollapse
Wild to me how much people here are celebrating the App ban.
I get that this is the fediverse and the goal is decentralized social media, but this ban also means thousands of small businesses will lose a primary or secondary source of income that they can’t just replacewuickly, tons of people will lose access to methods of communication that would otherwise be censored on US platforms, and it eliminates a platform that has excelled at breaking down governments placed barriers of communication between different groups (which is something the fediverse does well, too)
Celebrating this is rather selfish and anti-free speech.
Its a platform that was secretly suppressing people for being disabled, black, queer or ugly. Cheering it’s death is reasonable, defending it on the grounds that people will have to advertise somewhere else really isn’t.
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 16 Jan 03:39
nextcollapse
Disabled, black, queer, ugly (which is subjective but whatever) seemed quite unsuppressed on tiktok to my perception and the perceptions of many in those spaces… I’m sure there are exceptions due to the large sample size.
I fit several of those categories and have been immersed in those spaces on tiktok for a long time and the opinion has always trended to it being far superior for discussing and being in those groups than Instagram or YouTube. Especially for disabled and queer groups, tiktok was always the bigger audience.
defending it on the grounds that people will have to advertise somewhere else really isn’t.
Shop is a lot more than advertising. Much closer to pre-enshittified etsy, and there’s a reason a lot of small businesses formed around it instead of instagram. Tiktok would actually allow those products to be shown to people rather than supressed in favor of corporations.
It’s pretty well documented that they did/do this. I’m sorry, you’ve fully bought into the PR TikTok spin. They present themselves as somehow an egalitarian organization. They aren’t.
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 16 Jan 16:50
collapse
This was absolutely happening in 2020. That was a long time ago and the App is practically unrecognizable from its 2020 state.
Sorry I insulted your app waifu with my… substantiated claims about it’s conduct? How disingenuous of me. I should be ashamed, presenting its previous actions as things that it has done in the past.
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 16 Jan 20:26
collapse
You’re the one who seems pretty upset about things but sure. Feel free to stoop to name calling and bad faith accusations if you’d like.
Time is, in fact, a thing that exists. Pointing out the age of an article is not shifting the goal post. Bad actions can be learned from and it is possible for things to become less shitty. You are welcome to couch your opinions in out of date information.
Tiktok is absolutely not perfect. It absolutely has issues of over-censorship at times. It absolutely should be critiqued. Even so, it provides a valuable place for people who are disenfranchised on other social media, even if it’s simply that they are disenfranchised less on Tiktok.
Anyways, my criticism was not time delineated, you asked for evidence, and now are claiming the evidence I provided to support my initial claim isn’t good enough because of a new condition you’ve brought out. That’s… I don’t have another colloquial term to describe it besides “shifting the goalpost”. You’re changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid. There’s a term for that (a point I think I’ve amply belaboured by now).
And sure, poor behavior can absolutely be learned from. Thats a core tenet of society. But, just for fun, could you please give me an example of a massive multinational corporation, or a social media platform, voluntarily becoming less evil? There’s been absolutely no indication that TikTok has ever stopped these practices, too. So why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they ever done anything to justify such high regard?
Look I’m sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist? Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You’d think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human. So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 16 Jan 22:49
collapse
So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?
It shouldn’t be banned for the reasons the law is stating. I’m all for people moving to better places. Centralized moderation will always be influenced by the ownership and succiptible to problematic choices (intentional or unintentional) that will effect people. some content will be less moderated on different platforms and that will change over time, which is just the reality of the current social media landscape.
Look I’m sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist?
I’d be happy to see a better option that works for people currently using Tiktok that doesnt have the baggage of the corporation. Maybe Loops can be that one day. Maybe something else will show up. But I’m not wishing an entire platform to just evaporate even if I have major issues with it, and pointing out things that it is good for compared to alternatives is not the same as being an apologist. Pointing out that a ton of people incomes (in a country in a time where small businesses and self employed income is at every increasing risk) is not defending EVERYTHING tiktok has done, currently does, or will do. Nor is any of that claiming it’s an egalitarian wonder app.
Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You’d think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human.
I’m all for people abandoning Facebook. While I’d be less caring if it got banned in a similar way, i would not celebrate it. There are still tons of normal people using it for normal reasons and they shouldnt be suddenly cut off like this. They should absolutely move away from it or their own voilition, not due to authoritarian intervention.
Facebook has actively promoted a genocide entirely of its own creation, which is quite a different issue from content suppression. You are mischaracterizing my arguments by making it out to be equivilant to a completely different situation.
You’re changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid.
I never said your evidence was invalid, I just said it needed context.
I offered my opinion (which is absolutely personal experience bias!). I suggested you consider that the article in question it may not be universally applicable to the current state of the App due to its age. I did not say you had an invalid opinion or reason to dislike it. I did not say that there was not a problem. I did not say that there still aren’t problems.
Being in a minority on social media sometimes means choosing the places that are the least awful. Tiktok can be both good and bad for groups. That doesn’t mean it deserves to be banned.
Look, I’m just advocating for people who are being harmed by the actions of an authoritarian government against an app and suggesting that celebrating the actions of said authoritarian government is problematic, even if there are other reasons to dislike the app.
I really dislike point by point breakdowns, it’s too easy to take individual statements out of context and the lack of a clear thesis makes it incredibly difficult to respond without resorting to comments of even greater length.
In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it’s okay to still use it because it’s extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? “The good outweighs the ill” as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.
(That’s not me being bitchy, I just genuinely do not have the time to respond to every single thing you’ve said there. Explaining the literary difference between explicit and implicit dismissal of evidence would alone take us beyond the character limit, as my self indulgent explanation spiraled further and further into the jargony depths of academic tedium…)
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 17 Jan 00:41
collapse
Not the biggest fan either but sometimes it’s the only way to organize a response in text with multiple layers of context. Far to easy in async discussion to branch off and it can be difficult to circle back or ask for clarification while addressing other items and it provides a way to organize.
I’m not here to have an in depth academic, cited, philosophical discussion. Not right now. I understand that you are pushing more in that direction and there’s nothing wrong with it. As such, I’m not formulating arguments or discussing with that in mind. We don’t need to have a discussion of dismissal of evidence because I’m sure we’re on the same page. But I don’t owe you a perfectly crafted argument in a Lemmy thread. This is informal, and as such there are times where one has to leave space for less rigid constructs for presenting evidence.
I’ve found this frustrating. But I don’t think you are outright trying to troll which is why I’ve engaged. I hope you understand that I’m not going to engage at the level you might wish I would. (Its exhausting to do so in a context like this even though I’m an academic and philosophical discussion-minded person at heart)
I’m more concerned about the methodology of the ban and its downstream effects of it than whether (in your case, extremely valid criticism) amounts to it deserving a ban. I’m not going to find some articles for you or counter that because it’s not something I want to spend my time doing since the reality is extremely nuanced and we could present evidence from both perspectives for days.
In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it’s okay to still use it because it’s extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? “The good outweighs the ill” as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.
More or less. I think there are plenty of things to criticize the platform for and/or strive to adopt a less-bad platform for. Users of the platform should be allowed to stay or not stay, and not be abruptly cut off for a political stunt by an authoritarian act of government, and as such, my position is that celebrating this particular ban is antithetical to the overall goals that one would expect from people using the fediverse.
I think most people on here would agree that TikTok is a shitty app, but you can’t deny that just deciding to ban something in the manner they’re doing with this bill is shady. The bill is very obviously targeted towards TikTok but is worded in a way that it can be used on any software owned by a “Foreign Adversary” as defined by the government.
It’s proposed in the frame of national security with concerns of data collection being sent to China, but if that’s the case there are far worse offenders of that violation of privacy than TikTok! Most large tech companies collect data from their users and sell it overseas. They may not sell directly to China but the amount of data collected is insane and once it is out of the hands of Meta or Google or whoever, it becomes hard to know for certain where it ends up.
The point I’m trying to make is that if the real concern is national security, their focus should be on regulating data collection instead of banning a singular app which collects the same data every other app in the world does. I don’t defend TikTok, I couldn’t care less if it was gone, but the grounds on which it is being banned are concerning and somewhat contradictory.
If I have been misinformed of any of this please let me know, this is just what I’ve gathered from reading sections of the bill myself and from the court hearings.
I confess I phrased my intial comment a tad too harshly. There are many, many good reasons to criticize this; the loss of an advertising platform is not one of them.
Oh they also put TikTok’s name directly in the legislation. Which is unconstitutional. Not even by interpretation. The Constitution directly, and in plain English, bans the practice.
This entire thing is a giant cesspool of constitutional fuckery.
That is interesting, I didn’t realize that was how it was being argued.
In response to the other constitutional argument TikTok is making, DOJ said the law is not a bill of attainder because addressing national security concerns is not a form of punishment and bills of attainder apply to people, not corporations. (via Merriam Webster)
It does sound like there’s some contention about that, and although the national security bit is as cringingly craven as usual, the applicability of the restriction to corporate entities is going to be an interesting decision to see ruled on.
Did you know they defined this to cover any organization running a website that allows you to create an account, has a million users, at least 1 person can share content, and at least 1 person can view that shared content?
With the exception of product, business, and travel reviews.
Does that sound an awful lot like a news organization to anyone else?
Furthermore we already decided that companies have first amendment rights when we let Hobby Lobby have a religion.
If they decide this is good enough then we open the path to any organization in that incredibly broad description being banned. Daily Kos certainly falls under it too. People think Meta dropping fact checkers and going anti immigration just in the US is because Zuckerberg went MAGA? No, he sees the writing on the wall.
This kind of law is how Authoritarian states lock down media in their country.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Jan 17:11
nextcollapse
I’m pretty sure every imperial app is also censoring anti-genocide perspectives, etc. That’s literally the whole point of this ban.
It’s exhaustively well documented that they did this, I’ve linked to one reputable source a couple comments up.
(FWIW putting users in those categories into a walled garden where their content is only shown some similarly-minded users is a popular form of suppression and you, one of the users in question, would still see that content on your feed. This is what TikTok was caught doing. Anecdotal evidence and all that.)
rob200@endlesstalk.org
on 16 Jan 02:40
nextcollapse
“They” say they are banning it over national security concerns I think it’s deeper then that. They can’t have a socialist like platform having an audience. Which in my opinion is why they wanted to force a sell or just ban Tiktok.
I don’t think, that they will go after Rednote if it doesn’t gain popularity the way that Tiktok did.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Jan 17:12
collapse
When they say “national security” reasons, they mean capitalist, imperialist, etc. reasons.
GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Jan 04:04
nextcollapse
Zuckerberg is behind it, just like he was when they banned it on India. Politicians get what they want by eliminating a company that doesn’t support them, Meta gets more usershare in the U.S. they can control the narrative and keep their guys in place so they don’t get regulated and they get more tax breaks.
MisterMoo@lemmy.world
on 16 Jan 07:41
nextcollapse
Meanwhile China says no American internet sites in their country and I guess that’s ok for some reason.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Jan 17:06
nextcollapse
It’s ok because USA is doing it too. Every state, every politician is basically the same. It’s all about violent control of the planet. These apps are just the tip of the iceberg.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 17 Jan 00:07
nextcollapse
Censorship is bad when China does it. Censorship is bad when America does it.
Same for Germany, Australia, Japan, North and South Korea.
Governments don’t censor speech because they protect their citizens, they censor speech because it protects their monopoly on violence and help propagate their visions to an unquestioning audience.
Yanks can’t complain about China blocking shit if their own government is doing the same. It’s like 2 brothers arguing about who annoyed who first. Shame Gaia can’t just tell them both to be nice to each other.
100% about the hypocrisy. Agree to disagree on citizen responsibility levels as it may differ in our respective countries. Freedom of assembly is something I hold dear to my heart.
CEO honestly thinks Trump and the Republicans are going to go after tech monopolies. Either he’s detached from reality or he’s trying to keep them from coming after Proton by cooperating. Either way is not great.
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 16 Jan 18:03
collapse
and cozying up to american gov no matter who it is just gives me bad vibes that they would happily turn over anything they want when asked
UntitledQuitting@reddthat.com
on 17 Jan 09:19
collapse
this is the most succint way of verbalising my problems with the situation. i know ceo’s largely sway R, i’m not surprised by andy’s politic pov. but this tweet was openly eating trumps ass which gives me the ick. like bro you are a ceo i know youre a lying pos but now you’re a liar and want to rim the nazis, your business is founded on trust how the fuck can i trust you?
DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
on 17 Jan 00:08
nextcollapse
I just bought a year of it :(
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 17 Jan 00:10
collapse
did you just buy it? i bought it yesterday and wrote to them for a refund
DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
on 17 Jan 03:19
collapse
Was just before Christmas
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 17 Jan 14:03
collapse
you should be able to get a refund then if you write to support
They’re shutting down instead of blocking new downloads, seems like a stunt. But the blocking of new downloads is obviously happening if SCOTUS doesn’t step in…that’s the law. That’s just what the law says.
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 16 Jan 22:53
collapse
The law prevents other American companies from hosting their infrastructure so they don’t really have much to do other than shut down and offer the minimum required to off-board employees and contractors.
recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee
on 16 Jan 20:14
nextcollapse
Please criticize the us government for this as hard as I have been criticizing China for locking it’s citizens out of the world stage with their “great firewall”.
Or don’t, it’s not like hypocrisy doesn’t get enshrined and worshipped here lmfaoooo
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 17 Jan 00:06
nextcollapse
“You don’t understand, their censorship and control over their citizens is evil and disgusting, our censorship and control over our citizens is defending our freedom from terrorists. What do you have to hide? Are you a China shill???”
lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
on 17 Jan 10:03
collapse
Comment: “Please complain about the US Gov as much as I have been about China”
Reply: Accuses previous commenter of shilling for the US Gov
Nice strawman, bro. Did Winnie the Pooh build it for you?
This is all theatre, trump is going to “save it” after starting the initial push to ban it (for the wrong reasons) to pretend he did something for you. Worst part is that all of the no/low info voters and non voters will eat it up.
It’s the equivalent of a person pushing you into the middle of the street and at the very last second, that same person tells the drivers to all stop. “Wow, I owe you my life!”
threaded - newest
Still time to send them on some luxury vacations, I hear they like those!
Can you order
an RVa motor coach from Temu?They are going to ban themselves as protest for banning them…?
Essentially yea, the laws enforcement mechanism as-is is just having the app delisted from app stores
Everything else is of TikToks own doing
And that’s all it should be. Currently, the US government does not have the facilities to block traffic to specific websites or IP addresses on a country-wide basis. We don’t have a “great firewall” the way China does, and we should keep it that way.
Actually…
I think if people in the US had the capacity for introspection and empathy we would have had a collective
moment every year for the past 250y…
I completely misunderstood the ban then. If you go back and read my previous thoughts on the matter, I debated IF this was good or bad.
And my debate was, do you allow actual spy services to keep spying in your country? Or do you ban the services, and introduce a precident which could easily be used towards a government lockdown of services?
And ultimately I landed of the belief that we shouldn’t ban tiktok. But that was under the assumption that it was a nationwide services ban. Not just a delisting from the app store.
Tiktok can still host the apk on their own website. Any other installations already installed on apple devices would still work. This isn’t a ban. It’s an app store delisting. And that’s fine. That initself doesn’t fly against the concepts of net neutrality. It becomes a matter of availability at that point.
And if tiktok is doing this of their own choice, then that doesn’t go against net neutrality either. That’s YOUR choice (if you are tiktok).
So, yeah. This small clarification really made this “debate” not much of a debate to me anymore. Ignore all previous positions I held. This issue just became simple. Fuck tiktok. Thats on them. The government didn’t ban them. They delisted an app.
Childporn is illegal on any network. As well it should be. Tiktok is not illegal as a result of this “ban”. That’s what I thought was happening. It’s not (assuming you are correct, which I have no reason to doubt).
(Edit 2: read the bill, it also bans American companies from offering hosting services to a company that is banned through the law www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/…/text)
Arguably, if the app isn’t easy to obtain then the cost of all the US-based servers would become an enormous expense. All US customer data is on its own US-based infra hosted by Oracle. Migrating all the US data elsewhere would also be an enormous expense. Server infa for 170 million Americans on an App is not gonna be cheap to keep running, esp since even if tiktok tried, the best they could do is get apk’s to android users. iOS users are SOL.
Given how iOS dominates the US still and only a small portion of android users are comfortable manually installing apps from non-store locations, why would they go through the effort to stay around for a fraction of the previous user base.
Its a perfectly uneerstsndable business decision, and its one they may be making on the hopes thay the ban will get reversed shortly after its put in place. Its also perfectly understandable to not want to sell the US-based component of the App when they still operate in plenty of other countries, including China, and the sale would devalue what they retained.
(Edit: and while their web offering has improved over the years, they probably are assuming a similar drop of userbase since only so many would be willing to move their usage to a web app that is not super easy to use for capturing video or handling notifications)
Why not read it? It is a ban and no it’s not a delisting
Yes it does? All it would take is a single piece of legislation and a couple of hours for all ISPs to block all traffic to certain IP ranges.
Sure, it doesn’t prevent VPNs but it would block 95% of access. The remaining 5% can be blocked through banning VPNs and deep packet inspection, the latter of which doesn’t require that much new infrastructure.
Idk why you are downvoted. They have that yes
Except banning vpns would kill the economy immediately. Pretty much every big corporation is utilizing vpns to facilitate their work from home infrastructure. Hell, often even internally. Not to mention state and federal governments also use them. Suggesting they could do that is a joke.
They’ll just make legal carveouts for government and commercial use, and go after consumer-facing VPN providers that refuse to comply. For VPN providers based outside the US, they could delist their websites from DNS or block their IPs. They can’t stop someone who’s determined from finding a way, of course, but just a few simple barriers prevents most people from putting in the effort.
That many carveouts pretty much renders the entire thing pointless.
Are you seriously trying to predict the actions of the US federal government using an argument based on logic and common sense?
No, I’m trying to predict when their corporate overloads would tell them to sit the fuck down.
I wasn’t talking about the technology behind VPNs. Every single country that “bans VPNs” still uses them commercially to some extent.
What I consider a ban on VPNs is a ban on commercial B2C VPN providers that do not comply with US legislation - meaning they’d allow customers to access banned sites.
Add the fact that pretty much all major payment providers happen to be US companies and I’d wager 99% of “normal” access could be blocked.
From what I understand, in my country OpenVPN and Wireguard work fine within the borders, but the protocols are blocked to foreign servers.
I said “currently”. Sure, the US could pass legislation that would require ISPs to implement that ability. I said they do not currently have that ability, and you seem to be disagreeing because it is hypothetically possible for the US to build its own great firewall. I do not want to assume your intentions but it appears you may have misinterpreted my message.
What I said is still correct. The point of my comment was that the US should not pass legislation to build a great firewall.
Oh, I thought you meant physically unable (for some time) - meaning they’d have to upgrade their router hardware or something which would take a couple of weeks/months.
But yes, right now the US is unable to implement a firewall. Though with the current Supreme Court it might as well decide tomorrow that free speech doesn’t extend to communication via electrons or something.
False, feds have taken down whole domains for violations
They cannot take down a domain registered with a registry and registrar outside their jurisdiction. They could try and compel domestic DNS providers to block queries for that domain, but there are numerous providers who are unlikely to comply with that request on grounds of the 1st amendment.
Given that the OP is about TikTok (a foreign website) being blocked in the United States, your point has limited relevance here. Further, if the website was hosted stateside they could just physically seize the servers themselves.
They have servers here otherwise it would be a laggy mess to use tiktok
Correct, but that doesn’t mean TikTok would be inaccessible if they didn’t have servers in the US. My point is that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to completely limit access to a foreign website. It would be very slow and they’d lose users, sure, but they could keep running as usual from outside the US and still remain accessible to people inside the US.
It was either this or self immolation
Um, well, they are first of all complying with the decision, in spirit. When someone has indicated to you, even in very diplomatic terms, that you may be unwelcome, it’s a reasonable response to stand right up and walk the fuck out.
Secondly I think they are doing it swiftly and abruptly to take advantage of this moment of public awareness. They want to create as abrupt a break as possible no doubt to maximize the outrage of their many millions of users and advertisers while everyone has the news fresh in their mind. They probably hope that this will create enough pain and disruption to stir opposition to the ban or at least political fallout for those who caused it.
Yes TikTok, that’s what a ban is.
Yeah this just sounds like compliance with the media making it seem like a protest for clicks…
A shutdown would be preferable than a sale of the active app and userbase to Elon no?
No. Elon would turn it into a far-right platform, like he did with xitter, and thereby accelerating Americas downfall.
And you prefer that?
Foshizzlemanizzle
Just fucking do it alreadyyyyyy
Hoping they shut down and open source their algorithm. They already released part of it on github, apparently, but I haven’t had a chance to look at it. Would like it if I could somehow use it for a personal Loops server in the future.
That looks to be 2 years old. It’s probably much different than the current one
First time in years I see something not bad happen in the US
You’re not looking very closely then
You got some suggestions on where to look? We’re speedrunning the fall of rome over here, it’s pretty much to the point that even hope is an unreasonable thing to hope for…
I meant the claim that this was somehow a good thing, and not a performative “anti-china” bill that was really about cutting out the young people’s current venue for organizing against the wealthy’s interests, like their criticisms of the genocide in Gaza. China will still get all that info by buying it off the hundred other apps that collect it. If they cared about the data collection, they’d have addressed all data collection.
Imagine cheering on your own imprisonment.
Imagine comparing not being able to scroll through brainrot to prison.
I’m surprised they’re taking that approach rather than pushing the web version.
Wild to me how much people here are celebrating the App ban.
I get that this is the fediverse and the goal is decentralized social media, but this ban also means thousands of small businesses will lose a primary or secondary source of income that they can’t just replacewuickly, tons of people will lose access to methods of communication that would otherwise be censored on US platforms, and it eliminates a platform that has excelled at breaking down governments placed barriers of communication between different groups (which is something the fediverse does well, too)
Celebrating this is rather selfish and anti-free speech.
Its a platform that was secretly suppressing people for being disabled, black, queer or ugly. Cheering it’s death is reasonable, defending it on the grounds that people will have to advertise somewhere else really isn’t.
Disabled, black, queer, ugly (which is subjective but whatever) seemed quite unsuppressed on tiktok to my perception and the perceptions of many in those spaces… I’m sure there are exceptions due to the large sample size.
I fit several of those categories and have been immersed in those spaces on tiktok for a long time and the opinion has always trended to it being far superior for discussing and being in those groups than Instagram or YouTube. Especially for disabled and queer groups, tiktok was always the bigger audience.
Shop is a lot more than advertising. Much closer to pre-enshittified etsy, and there’s a reason a lot of small businesses formed around it instead of instagram. Tiktok would actually allow those products to be shown to people rather than supressed in favor of corporations.
It’s pretty well documented that they did/do this. I’m sorry, you’ve fully bought into the PR TikTok spin. They present themselves as somehow an egalitarian organization. They aren’t.
This was absolutely happening in 2020. That was a long time ago and the App is practically unrecognizable from its 2020 state.
Shifting the goalpost muchSorry I insulted your app waifu with my… substantiated claims about it’s conduct? How disingenuous of me. I should be ashamed, presenting its previous actions as things that it has done in the past.
You’re the one who seems pretty upset about things but sure. Feel free to stoop to name calling and bad faith accusations if you’d like.
Time is, in fact, a thing that exists. Pointing out the age of an article is not shifting the goal post. Bad actions can be learned from and it is possible for things to become less shitty. You are welcome to couch your opinions in out of date information.
Tiktok is absolutely not perfect. It absolutely has issues of over-censorship at times. It absolutely should be critiqued. Even so, it provides a valuable place for people who are disenfranchised on other social media, even if it’s simply that they are disenfranchised less on Tiktok.
(um, name calling?)
Anyways, my criticism was not time delineated, you asked for evidence, and now are claiming the evidence I provided to support my initial claim isn’t good enough because of a new condition you’ve brought out. That’s… I don’t have another colloquial term to describe it besides “shifting the goalpost”. You’re changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid. There’s a term for that (a point I think I’ve amply belaboured by now).
And sure, poor behavior can absolutely be learned from. Thats a core tenet of society. But, just for fun, could you please give me an example of a massive multinational corporation, or a social media platform, voluntarily becoming less evil? There’s been absolutely no indication that TikTok has ever stopped these practices, too. So why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they ever done anything to justify such high regard?
Look I’m sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist? Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You’d think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human. So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?
It shouldn’t be banned for the reasons the law is stating. I’m all for people moving to better places. Centralized moderation will always be influenced by the ownership and succiptible to problematic choices (intentional or unintentional) that will effect people. some content will be less moderated on different platforms and that will change over time, which is just the reality of the current social media landscape.
I’d be happy to see a better option that works for people currently using Tiktok that doesnt have the baggage of the corporation. Maybe Loops can be that one day. Maybe something else will show up. But I’m not wishing an entire platform to just evaporate even if I have major issues with it, and pointing out things that it is good for compared to alternatives is not the same as being an apologist. Pointing out that a ton of people incomes (in a country in a time where small businesses and self employed income is at every increasing risk) is not defending EVERYTHING tiktok has done, currently does, or will do. Nor is any of that claiming it’s an egalitarian wonder app.
I’m all for people abandoning Facebook. While I’d be less caring if it got banned in a similar way, i would not celebrate it. There are still tons of normal people using it for normal reasons and they shouldnt be suddenly cut off like this. They should absolutely move away from it or their own voilition, not due to authoritarian intervention.
Facebook has actively promoted a genocide entirely of its own creation, which is quite a different issue from content suppression. You are mischaracterizing my arguments by making it out to be equivilant to a completely different situation.
I never said your evidence was invalid, I just said it needed context.
I offered my opinion (which is absolutely personal experience bias!). I suggested you consider that the article in question it may not be universally applicable to the current state of the App due to its age. I did not say you had an invalid opinion or reason to dislike it. I did not say that there was not a problem. I did not say that there still aren’t problems.
Being in a minority on social media sometimes means choosing the places that are the least awful. Tiktok can be both good and bad for groups. That doesn’t mean it deserves to be banned.
Look, I’m just advocating for people who are being harmed by the actions of an authoritarian government against an app and suggesting that celebrating the actions of said authoritarian government is problematic, even if there are other reasons to dislike the app.
I really dislike point by point breakdowns, it’s too easy to take individual statements out of context and the lack of a clear thesis makes it incredibly difficult to respond without resorting to comments of even greater length.
In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it’s okay to still use it because it’s extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? “The good outweighs the ill” as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.
(That’s not me being bitchy, I just genuinely do not have the time to respond to every single thing you’ve said there. Explaining the literary difference between explicit and implicit dismissal of evidence would alone take us beyond the character limit, as my self indulgent explanation spiraled further and further into the jargony depths of academic tedium…)
Not the biggest fan either but sometimes it’s the only way to organize a response in text with multiple layers of context. Far to easy in async discussion to branch off and it can be difficult to circle back or ask for clarification while addressing other items and it provides a way to organize.
I’m not here to have an in depth academic, cited, philosophical discussion. Not right now. I understand that you are pushing more in that direction and there’s nothing wrong with it. As such, I’m not formulating arguments or discussing with that in mind. We don’t need to have a discussion of dismissal of evidence because I’m sure we’re on the same page. But I don’t owe you a perfectly crafted argument in a Lemmy thread. This is informal, and as such there are times where one has to leave space for less rigid constructs for presenting evidence.
I’ve found this frustrating. But I don’t think you are outright trying to troll which is why I’ve engaged. I hope you understand that I’m not going to engage at the level you might wish I would. (Its exhausting to do so in a context like this even though I’m an academic and philosophical discussion-minded person at heart)
I’m more concerned about the methodology of the ban and its downstream effects of it than whether (in your case, extremely valid criticism) amounts to it deserving a ban. I’m not going to find some articles for you or counter that because it’s not something I want to spend my time doing since the reality is extremely nuanced and we could present evidence from both perspectives for days.
More or less. I think there are plenty of things to criticize the platform for and/or strive to adopt a less-bad platform for. Users of the platform should be allowed to stay or not stay, and not be abruptly cut off for a political stunt by an authoritarian act of government, and as such, my position is that celebrating this particular ban is antithetical to the overall goals that one would expect from people using the fediverse.
I think most people on here would agree that TikTok is a shitty app, but you can’t deny that just deciding to ban something in the manner they’re doing with this bill is shady. The bill is very obviously targeted towards TikTok but is worded in a way that it can be used on any software owned by a “Foreign Adversary” as defined by the government.
It’s proposed in the frame of national security with concerns of data collection being sent to China, but if that’s the case there are far worse offenders of that violation of privacy than TikTok! Most large tech companies collect data from their users and sell it overseas. They may not sell directly to China but the amount of data collected is insane and once it is out of the hands of Meta or Google or whoever, it becomes hard to know for certain where it ends up.
The point I’m trying to make is that if the real concern is national security, their focus should be on regulating data collection instead of banning a singular app which collects the same data every other app in the world does. I don’t defend TikTok, I couldn’t care less if it was gone, but the grounds on which it is being banned are concerning and somewhat contradictory.
If I have been misinformed of any of this please let me know, this is just what I’ve gathered from reading sections of the bill myself and from the court hearings.
I confess I phrased my intial comment a tad too harshly. There are many, many good reasons to criticize this; the loss of an advertising platform is not one of them.
Oh they also put TikTok’s name directly in the legislation. Which is unconstitutional. Not even by interpretation. The Constitution directly, and in plain English, bans the practice.
This entire thing is a giant cesspool of constitutional fuckery.
Wait, what about that is unconstitutional?
It’s called a bill of attainder.
Merriam Webster is literally using TikTok as an example definition.
That is interesting, I didn’t realize that was how it was being argued.
It does sound like there’s some contention about that, and although the national security bit is as cringingly craven as usual, the applicability of the restriction to corporate entities is going to be an interesting decision to see ruled on.
Yeah well I like my rights well protected.
Did you know they defined this to cover any organization running a website that allows you to create an account, has a million users, at least 1 person can share content, and at least 1 person can view that shared content?
With the exception of product, business, and travel reviews.
Does that sound an awful lot like a news organization to anyone else?
Furthermore we already decided that companies have first amendment rights when we let Hobby Lobby have a religion.
If they decide this is good enough then we open the path to any organization in that incredibly broad description being banned. Daily Kos certainly falls under it too. People think Meta dropping fact checkers and going anti immigration just in the US is because Zuckerberg went MAGA? No, he sees the writing on the wall.
This kind of law is how Authoritarian states lock down media in their country.
I’m pretty sure every imperial app is also censoring anti-genocide perspectives, etc. That’s literally the whole point of this ban.
newrepublic.com/…/mitt-romney-congress-ban-tiktok…
But the inquisition said it’s to root out heresy, so that means its okay when imperial apps do it.
You have evidence of that? Because I saw all of that in my feeds on the daily.
It’s exhaustively well documented that they did this, I’ve linked to one reputable source a couple comments up.
(FWIW putting users in those categories into a walled garden where their content is only shown some similarly-minded users is a popular form of suppression and you, one of the users in question, would still see that content on your feed. This is what TikTok was caught doing. Anecdotal evidence and all that.)
So people who didn’t want to see LGBTQ content didn’t see it? Seems like the algorithm was doing it’s job.
Glad to see you’re up to your usual form, buddy. Keep on fighting the good fight.
I’m a simple person. I see rhetoric being passed as fact and I cannot help myself. I know, super popular, invited to every single party.
Nah, you just come into every interaction cloaked in a miasma of confrontational obstinance. It can be really tiring to deal with.
So you’re saying I’m invited to your next party?
Bud we’re lemmy users. We don’t get invited to parties, even ones thrown by other lemmy users.
Haha, fair enough
“They” say they are banning it over national security concerns I think it’s deeper then that. They can’t have a socialist like platform having an audience. Which in my opinion is why they wanted to force a sell or just ban Tiktok.
I don’t think, that they will go after Rednote if it doesn’t gain popularity the way that Tiktok did.
When they say “national security” reasons, they mean capitalist, imperialist, etc. reasons.
Zuckerberg is behind it, just like he was when they banned it on India. Politicians get what they want by eliminating a company that doesn’t support them, Meta gets more usershare in the U.S. they can control the narrative and keep their guys in place so they don’t get regulated and they get more tax breaks.
Meanwhile China says no American internet sites in their country and I guess that’s ok for some reason.
It’s ok because USA is doing it too. Every state, every politician is basically the same. It’s all about violent control of the planet. These apps are just the tip of the iceberg.
who said it was ok?
Censorship is bad when China does it. Censorship is bad when America does it.
Same for Germany, Australia, Japan, North and South Korea.
Governments don’t censor speech because they protect their citizens, they censor speech because it protects their monopoly on violence and help propagate their visions to an unquestioning audience.
It’s not ok that the CCP block foreign apps either. Now that the yanks are blocking Chinese apps they can’t complain about the CCP blocking theirs.
What if we complain about both
That’s what I’m doing
But yanks aren’t allowed to?
Yanks can’t complain about China blocking shit if their own government is doing the same. It’s like 2 brothers arguing about who annoyed who first. Shame Gaia can’t just tell them both to be nice to each other.
P.s. I’m not pretending my government is perfect. Ffs we used to censor our immigrants by skin colour and place of birth.
There’s no hypocrisy if they’re complaining about both. People aren’t that responsible for the stupid things their government does.
100% about the hypocrisy. Agree to disagree on citizen responsibility levels as it may differ in our respective countries. Freedom of assembly is something I hold dear to my heart.
You dense as lead.
Thanks man. I appreciate it.
No one is saying that. Two governments can be wrong simultaneously.
In other words, the US government exists solely to serve its wealthiest constituents.
get a vpn (that isn’t proton) now people cause it’ll only get worse
How come not proton? Did they get caught with their hands in the
cookie jartraffic logs?CEO honestly thinks Trump and the Republicans are going to go after tech monopolies. Either he’s detached from reality or he’s trying to keep them from coming after Proton by cooperating. Either way is not great.
and cozying up to american gov no matter who it is just gives me bad vibes that they would happily turn over anything they want when asked
this is the most succint way of verbalising my problems with the situation. i know ceo’s largely sway R, i’m not surprised by andy’s politic pov. but this tweet was openly eating trumps ass which gives me the ick. like bro you are a ceo i know youre a lying pos but now you’re a liar and want to rim the nazis, your business is founded on trust how the fuck can i trust you?
I just bought a year of it :(
did you just buy it? i bought it yesterday and wrote to them for a refund
Was just before Christmas
you should be able to get a refund then if you write to support
And learn how to use it.
And get your FF fork loaded up with the right extensions to prevent fingerprinting.
Ugh, this world is so cooked, but we keep reaching out of the oven and turning up the heat on ourselves.
They’re shutting down instead of blocking new downloads, seems like a stunt. But the blocking of new downloads is obviously happening if SCOTUS doesn’t step in…that’s the law. That’s just what the law says.
The law prevents other American companies from hosting their infrastructure so they don’t really have much to do other than shut down and offer the minimum required to off-board employees and contractors.
Please criticize the us government for this as hard as I have been criticizing China for locking it’s citizens out of the world stage with their “great firewall”.
Or don’t, it’s not like hypocrisy doesn’t get enshrined and worshipped here lmfaoooo
“You don’t understand, their censorship and control over their citizens is evil and disgusting, our censorship and control over our citizens is defending our freedom from terrorists. What do you have to hide? Are you a China shill???”
Comment: “Please complain about the US Gov as much as I have been about China”
Reply: Accuses previous commenter of shilling for the US Gov
Nice strawman, bro. Did Winnie the Pooh build it for you?
You did not get that this was sarcasm?
I guess not, let’s see if my joke reply to them also upsets them
No, I didn’t m(
😆I see
Yes and I have honey and a funny tiger that bounces on his tail.
Yeah, I got it now. Thanks for the kind words.
It’s simply not even close.
Do it, just do it with no second thoughts. They can’t, they will lose all their business.
This is all theatre, trump is going to “save it” after starting the initial push to ban it (for the wrong reasons) to pretend he did something for you. Worst part is that all of the no/low info voters and non voters will eat it up.
It’s the equivalent of a person pushing you into the middle of the street and at the very last second, that same person tells the drivers to all stop. “Wow, I owe you my life!”
Please and thank you!