• AmbiguousPropsEnglish
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago
    link
    fedilink

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

    • MelllvarEnglish
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago
      edit-2
      6 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

      • AmbiguousPropsEnglish
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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.

        • MelllvarEnglish
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.

          • AmbiguousPropsEnglish
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            6 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            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.

            • MelllvarEnglish
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              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.

              • AmbiguousPropsEnglish
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago
                edit-2
                6 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                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.

                • Psychodelic
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  It’s like people legit don’t want to understand your point.

                  It’s kinda insane seeing people/the Overton window turn progressively more and more authoritarian

                • MelllvarEnglish
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  No, but it does prohibit companies in those four sanctioned countries from operating social media apps in the US. The fact that it’s not a perfect protection is no good reason not to do it. The fact that it was written with an eye towards the first amendment is not a valid criticism.