It’s time to start taxing the acquisition, retention, and selling/trading of personal data.
Actually, that time was 40 years ago.
Better solution.
Data are owned by the generator. Only they can sell it etc…
This also solves the privacy problem of law enforcement agencies applying warrants to phone companies etc. for access to your data, which has been an end-run around 4th Amendment rights for decades.
Exactly. If a company wants to sell my data, they should have to make an explicit agreement with me to do that. If law enforcement wants data from my phone company, they should either produce a warrant or get my permission to release it. And so on.
If a company holds my data, they should be legally accountable for safeguarding it, and liable if it gets in the hands of someone I don’t have an agreement with. Banks do that with my money, I don’t see why social media companies should have any less expectation here.
And no, burying some form of consent in a TOS isn’t sufficient, it needs to be explicit and there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the customer understands the terms.
I’d say it also needs to be entirely optional and be opt-in only. Any service, program, whatever needs to work fully for anyone who doesn’t allow their data to be sold or released with extremely few exceptions.
Google and Microsoft would be scrambling to pay off every single person associated with that before it ever hit the first courtroom floor.
ohhh data collection taxation, I like it. You would think it would be a no-brainer but look at marijuana taxation and the continued resistance to rake in all that public funding. Would make most of the controversy around AI disappear if they tax it’s collection.
GDPR is a start, but we need to actually ban it, not just annoy people until they click Accept at the 20th popup of that tantalising offer to share your details with 1473 trusted data partners.
You can just click deny instead. The law says the site must make it easy to do so.
There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.
Fortunately there’s a third option which is leave the site and never come back.
Plus most of the sites will ask you again after a period of time. Until you say yes. After that they can strangely remember your choice.
There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.
The EU has ruled that this isn’t sufficient and that people shouldn’t have to pay for privacy.
Of course, companies in the USA won’t care, except for customers in California (thanks, CCPA and CPRA).
Good call. Let’s ban them both.
So ban them too
I’m surprised so many people think this is a good argument. TikTok is a social media platform. Temu is an online marketplace. The potential to cause disruption within US society is completely different.
Not environmentally…
I thought we like disruption.
Legally it is a very good argument. A law targeting a single company in name or effect is literally unconstitutional. It’s called a “Bill of Attainder”.
The counter argument is indicting Facebook because they never stopped selling information directly to the CCP.
Cool, let’s ban Temu then. Nothing of value will be lost.
In all honesty though, I disagree with banning software, and that includes TikTok. I think it’s a terrible platform and I refuse to use it, but I think we need to solve the underlying problem another way, otherwise we’re just picking and choosing what speech is allowed in this country. The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone.
That said, if we’re going to ban one, let’s ban them all. These apps haven’t provided any tangible value IMO and they’ve arguably caused a fair amount of harm, so I’m not going to die on a hill defending them.
The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone
Uh, no. It doesn’t protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.
…And this isn’t about which speech they’re allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov’t inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they’re no longer based in China and subject to China’s laws and interference, then there’s no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it’s collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.
As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.
The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.
True, but the US constitution guarantees Chinese citizens, living in or visiting the US or its territories, all the rights in the Constitution. So when TikTok operates in the US and provides services to US customers, it gets the protections of the US Constitution, as well as the obligations of US law.
TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t
And this is covered by freedom of the press. There’s no legal requirement for press to be pro-US, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be accurate, it just can’t be fraudulent. If TikTok is being fraudulent, then they should be held accountable for that.
As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate.
Yes, according to the law that they’re contesting.
I’m saying that I don’t think this law is constitutional. I don’t use TikTok, I believe TikTok is dangerous, and I don’t think anyone should use it, but I’m also uncomfortable with the government picking and choosing which apps I can use, especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app. So even though I wish TikTok would disappear, I don’t think that justifies using the law to accomplish that.
And this is covered by freedom of the press.
Their freedom of the press isn’t what’s in question. Their ownership is. They are welcome to continue operating as long as they are not owned by a Chinese company based in China and subject to Chinese national security laws.
But, even if it’s really, truly, a 1A issue, no rights are absolute. You can not, for instance, publish classified information, and then claim that it’s a free speech issue. National security interests can, and do, outweigh individual and especially corporate rights to free speech.
especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app
But that’s not the justification. The justification is first, access to data, and second, manipulation of that data. The gov’t is arguing that TT is hoovering up massive amounts of data on users, and then is manipulating the content that is shown to them in order to unjustly influence international policy, and all done with no transparency at all. It’s on-par with Russian election interference, although perhaps a little longer lasting and more subtly done.
There’s no been proof that Tik Tok sends all the data to China or that China manipulates the algorithm. In fact, to appease the US before, they agreed to let Oracle and a purely US subsidiary look at all their code and data and content moderation. Oracle would spot check the data flows and where it goes. Tik Tok would report to Committee on Foreign Investment in the US on everything, even hiring practices. And a 2021 study found Tik Tok didn’t really collect data beyond the norm of other players in the industry, or beyond what it said it did in it’s policy.
All this scaring is literally just because politicians are scared that people in Gaza can use it to report what’s happening to themselves during the genocide, without the blatant censorship of American companies on the issue. Even Romney admitted that’s the reason. I don’t actually use Tik Tok and I think it’s algorithms are bad for our ADHD addled brains, but I would also apply that to YouTube shorts and Instagram stories. They should all be regulated, not banned. Hell, we actually could use more foreign companies that aren’t vulnerable to US censorship, not the opposite. This is especially important since reporters aren’t being let in Gaza and the ones who are are killed. And we’ll probably lose it once they finish their restructuring in Project Texas, although sounds like they’ll be banned before they do.
I said Facebook because we know they’re doing it and you’d still have to actually prove that case.
Sure, and we should absolutely indict Facebook. And ideally our government wouldn’t be so corrupt that it could indict our own government agencies from buying information from them in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments (and probably the 14th).
How about making data collection other than necessary to operate a website illegal, then making the sale of that data illegal, and absolutely require a warrant to collect it, including from FISA court?
I disagree, especially because “other than necessary” is a pretty squishy concept (i.e. selling tailored ads could be considered “necessary to operate a website”). Instead of that, I think selling or providing any form of data collected without the customer’s explicit consent (and to consent, the customer must know what data is being s hared) or without a warrant (and only the data in the warrant) should be illegal.
That should be sufficient and actually enforceable, since it has very clear boundaries on what’s included.
I think we’re in agreement. I could have said “technologically necessary” to have been more clear, but I don’t agree sale or sharing should be by consent. I think it should be illegal, full stop.
A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
- The law inflicts punishment.
- The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
- Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.
Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.
You mean the CCP is not an “individual or group”?
#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.
The parent company don’t have judicial protections. They’re based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn’t being punished, they’re explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.
The parent company don’t have judicial protections.
But the subsidiary does.
And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.
But explicit prohibition on continued operation if they don’t. ByteDance is not affected outside of the US. Only US employees are being threatened.
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3
The bill doesn’t target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.
unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down
A rule that applies exclusively to the US subsidiary of TikTok.
It would be akin to passing a law that says @finitebanjo must have all of his possessions seized in the next nine months, because he took money from the Canadian government. Canada isn’t the target of the legislation and the scope of the legislation isn’t universal - it’s only assigning a punishment to a single domestic resident - and entirely on the grounds that the current chief executive doesn’t like Justin Trudeau.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose’s friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.
The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose
Except, again, the business being penalized is the American subsidiary.
The fact that you think you can remove all context
The context is that the commercial assets and employees being threatened by the US government are all within US territory.
I mean. Why not?
I generally think that TikTok sucks but do agree with this argument. It’s silly to say that domestic companies can be evil but foreign ones no.
If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.
Tiktok is probably used 10 times as much though (users x time on the app) and Temu isn’t spreading messages in quite the same way. Comparing apples and gerbils, whataboutism, etc.
The argument isn’t that they’re “evil”, it’s that they could be used as tools by strategic rivals.
That’s not a silly argument if your argument is about national security. For the exact same reason, China blocks almost all western apps. It gives a potential route for whatever nation is considered hostile to influence your population, and TikTok has actually activated this influence at least once directly. They tried to activate their users to protest congress from passing laws restricting them.
Basically, they have the ability to influence users, and they also have the will to do so as they’ve already shown. In what world eould they not be a national security threat? It’s also really hard for me to accept this argument from a Chinese company when China has the great firewall to “protect” it’d citizens from outside influence.
You can argue that it is not to benefit the citizens and rather just the state, which is fair. You can’t reasonably argue that the state has nothing to fear.
Laws don’t exist to protect the state, they exist to protect the people.
Also, what another country decides to do shouldn’t really impact what we decide to do. If China blocks our apps, fine, their loss I guess. But if we start blocking their apps in retribution, that doesn’t make us any better than them. We should be fighting disinformation with information. This means better education and transparent government-funded research and information. But when the US government is secretive and frequently caught spreading its own disinformation, it makes it hard for me to agree to block other countries doing the same.
TikTok should be allowed to offer its services here, but US companies shouldn’t be obligated to host them on their services, and the government should publicize the negative information it has about them so journalists can help the public digest it.
National security interests are the interests of the people though.
The fundamental issue is that, assuming I’m not leaking national security information, I can say nearly anything I want on Facebook, Twitter, etc. (as long as I’m not in violation of their terms of service). The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov’t. If I am an authoritarian communist, I’m more than welcome to spread these views on any American social network that I choose without gov’t interference. I can spread anti-vax and Q nonsense if I wish, and the worst-case scenario is that my neighbors will stop talking to me. I can attack the very foundation of the country if I want, as long as I’m not spreading military secrets.
This is not the case in China. Spreading pro-capitalism and pro-democracy messages can quickly get you arrested. Trying to share accurate information about what really happened in Tianamen Square in 1989 can result in you disappearing. Words and phrases are actively censored by the gov’t on social media. The Chinese gov’t takes a direct role in shaping social media by what it promotes, and what it forbids. Anything that’s perceived as an attack on the political system of the country, the party, or any of the leaders (remember the internationally famous tennis player that abruptly disappeared when she accused a local party leader of sexual assault?) will put you at risk.
This isn’t a case of, “oh, both sides are the same”.
National security interests are the interests of the people though.
In a broad sense, sure, but “national security interests” are a huge excuse for bad policy.
assuming I’m not leaking national security information
That only applies if you are in a position that has access to classified information, or have reason to believe that a certain piece of information is classified. If you acquire information without access to classified information (i.e. if you see something on government property with binoculars or something), you are free to share that information.
The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov’t
Not individuals, sure, but there are backroom threats for journalists that can significantly impact what the average person sees. If you get a big enough audience, you’ll start to see these threats.
Here’s the press freedom index the RSF posts, and while the US is better than most, it’s not at the top, and it’s a big reason why I like to read news publications from other areas (Canada and UK).
And yes, China is way worse, that goes without saying. But that doesn’t mean we should completely block them, it means we should be taking an active role in pointing out the propaganda so the world can see through their BS.
This isn’t a case of, “oh, both sides are the same”.
Never claimed it was.
The part that actually describes how the ban would work is at least one hyperlink away from the article.
If ByteDance doesn’t sell TikTok, app stores in the US would have to drop the app, and Internet hosting services would be prohibited from providing services that enable distribution of TikTok in the US. Companies that violate the prohibition would have to pay civil penalties.
(5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.—The term “internet hosting service” means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.
Now do Facebook and Amazon
Temu isn’t a social media network that has been known to boost specific narratives with their algorithm. The U.S. isn’t saying that China can’t sell and market to the American audience, just that they’ll need a supervisor if they want to mess with media.
Yeah, better ban them all, don’t see why not
I understand blocking TikTok, and China already blocks US social media sites. I don’t really understand blocking a shopping app, though. TikTok are grasping at straws.
Wouldn’t this set a dangerous precedent? If the government blocks a shopping app, what else will they block in the future? It’s a slippery slope to government censorship. China may do the same thing and block US stores, which would hurt the US economy.
Shopping apps aren’t really needed, I mean people could use the websites instead. So banning them wouldn’t do any harm. Apps takes too much space & data anyways, which is not needed to function.
China bans stuffs all the time for no reason and makes laws that makes it difficult for a foreign business stay in China.
China’s Anti-Espionage Law Raises Foreign Business Risk
A lot of companies are preparing to leave or left China already for like India or Vietnam. It’s a slow transition, but it’s happening.
Apple’s iPhone factory shift has left a ghost town behind in China
Why Companies Are Exiting China And What Leaders Can Do About It
Shopping apps aren’t really needed, I mean people could use the websites instead
You could say the same thing for probably half the apps in the app stores, and yet people keep installing the apps. On iPhones, I think part of it is the fact that iOS had such poor support for PWAs.
more control and better monetization was probably the reason, y’know so apple can get that unfair cut.
The concern isn’t that these companies have microtargeting data. The concern is about what these companies could use that data for.
An off-brand t-shirt site would be a fairly ineffective vehicle for political propaganda. Tik Tok would be great at that.
*tiktok IS great for that.
Isn’t the primary critique of TikTok the number of American leftists and progressives posting on it?
Seems like the propaganda is coming from inside the house.
That’s definitely the critique coming from America’s right.
That said, both America’s left and right wing politicians seem to agree that it’s dangerous to have a mass media recommendation algorithm in the hands of a foreign adversary.
If they want to promote content favorable a Chinese political objective, they can use micro targeting data do that with extreme precision - if they wanted to.
It doesn’t matter who created the content or where it was created. What matters is the message of the content and who it’s being directed to.
That said, both America’s left and right wing politicians seem to agree that it’s dangerous to have a mass media recommendation algorithm in the hands of a foreign adversary.
The presumption that social media is an international weapon of war does raise some disturbing questions about the right to free speech.
It doesn’t matter who created the content or where it was created. What matters is the message of the content
What specifically are we referring to on TikTok qualifies that can’t be found on a rival platform?
Propaganda is a very well known way to enact influence on a foreign nation. It’s so well known that the US has 90 year old laws that limit foreign ownership of US media. For example, in order for Rupert Murdock to own media in the US, he had to become a US citizen and renounce his Australian citizenship in the 80s.
The people making the content have the right freedom of speech, but the people making the editorial decisions on what is / isn’t shown do not have that same right if they are not American citizens.
If tomorrow morning, the CCP decided to start promoting pro-CCP videos made by Americans, they could. And they could use micro targeting to connect people with pro-CCP influencers that were relatable. For example, I like nerdy shit, so I might get propaganda from a content creator that liked a lot of the same nerdy shit I liked.
The primary concern isn’t the content, it’s who controls the editor’s desk.
Propaganda is a very well known way to enact influence on a foreign nation.
Historically, the most effective use of propaganda is by the domestic government on its own citizenry. Closing out foreign sources of media, shutting down opposition venues for news and discussion, and criminalizing private parties that attempt to distribute outside opinion tend to facilitate the imposition of a national propaganda campaign.
The people making the content have the right freedom of speech, but the people making the editorial decisions on what is / isn’t shown do not have that same right if they are not American citizens.
This isn’t simply closing off access to “free speech”, it is closing off access to reporting on world events and international opinion. American citizens do not have the right to free expression of they are blinded and deafened to any kind of outside perspective.
How, exactly, do domestic residents gain information from the outside world if the state has the right to censor anyone outside of its borders from sending news into the country?
The primary concern isn’t the content, it’s who controls the editor’s desk.
If the US policy towards international media is “only American citizens have the right to sit at the editor’s desk” then we’re not talking about free speech, we’re talking about political control of the press. The “American citizens” canard is simply an excuse to deny Americans access to outside media.
It is also highly disingenuous. Nobody is proposing the US block access to the BBC or CBC on these grounds.
The US has different laws for media ownership depending upon what the type of media is owned. For example, networks like BBC America fell under less scrutiny because legacy regulations around paid cable broadcasters were less stringent than those given to free airwaves.
That all being said, all of these regulations, old and new, are basically trying to do the same thing - limit propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors.
IMHO, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to look at what’s going on in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and say “maybe the CCP shouldn’t have easy access to a major media algorithm where stars are literally praised for their ability to ‘influence.’”
For example, networks like BBC America fell under less scrutiny because legacy regulations around paid cable broadcasters were less stringent than those given to free airwaves.
Internet communications are functionally paid cable broadcasts.
That all being said, all of these regulations, old and new, are basically trying to do the same thing - limit propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors.
They are not, and that’s where this line of argument falls apart. The purpose of these regulations is to limit ownership of media institutions not propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors. If Steven Mnuchin’s group wants to take ownership of TikTok and run identical content, he’s free to do so. The important thing is that his insider business partners lay claim to the profit generated by the property.
What’s more, if Mnuchin is under the influence of a foreign government - his Saudi investors or UK/German financial allies or even other Chinese state actors using his firm as a foreign investment vehicle - that’s also fine from the perspective of the US government.
While it is inevitable that a Mnuchin owned property will see editorial content in line with his Trumpy friends, in the same way that Elon’s takeover of Twitter has turned it into a slurry of Apartheid South African style bigotry, this isn’t the purpose of the forced divestment. It’s just an anticipated consequence.
IMHO, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to look at what’s going on in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and say “maybe the CCP shouldn’t have easy access to a major media algorithm where stars are literally praised for their ability to ‘influence.’”
Wrt Hong Kong, isn’t this exactly what they were protesting? Chinese bureaucrats stepping in and closing off communications to the outside world, on the grounds that American liberal media might trick Hong Kong residents into violent disruption of the municipal economy?
If you’re a Free Hong Kong kind of guy, I would think the pacification of the city under Beijing rule is exactly what you don’t want to see. Similarly, in Taiwan, if people are being cut off from communicating between the island and the mainland, I would say that’s sending these two regions in exactly the wrong direction.
It’s akin to the mistake the Great Powers made wrt North/South Korea or East/West German during the Berlin Wall era. These divided states ratchet up tension as individuals lose contact with one another and states become a hot-house of domestically produced misinformation.
TikTok literally got people to commit check fraud
That’s like saying YouTube or Facebook I forget which one, got people to eat tide pods. Information spreads on all platforms whether good or bad.
Not really considering Youtube will nuke your fucking account if you promote criminal activity, TikTok will not. Therefore TikTok is liable.
TikTok also lied and made it seem like it wasn’t a crime
Then how did all these people eat tide pods. Once tiktok realized they were promoting check fraud they stopped it but you can’t react fast enough for some of these things
Twitch promoted gambling for children.
They’ve infested other places too. Fuggin the sketchier pirate movie streaming sites have movies that just have gambling site watermarks all throughout the movie. It’s crazy.
TilTok likely got my car stolen (Hyundai vulnerability trended on TikTok)
yes i know a kia owner with a similar story
That’s Hyundai/Kia’s fault though. For whatever reason, they cheaped out and didn’t include an immobilizer in 2011-2022 models (meaning the cars don’t actually verify that there’s a key in it, so you can just remove the key hole and turn the ignition with a screwdriver or USB cable or whatever to start it).
Before TikTok, this would have just spread on different platforms…
I’m not defending TikTok though.
I bet you they can actually
What about Lenovo, Aliexpress, Xiaomi, Didi (It’s famous in latam), BYD, NIO?
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit…
They’re right, we should regulate or ban then too.
Technically, the second partof that bill bans sending user data to China for all companies, so it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.
I hope the Facebook multi-billion dollar fines act as precedent.
it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.
Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.
American trade with China only ever increases year-to-year, despite all the noise about a Trade War. Chinese based drop-shipping schemes only ever eat into our domestic market share, because American incomes are falling into line with the global average and that’s the kind of trade good international middle class workers can afford. And all this shit is getting blended together - Indian and Chinese businesses outsource to Indochina and Malaysia and Indonesia where labor is cheaper. Everything gets routed and flagged through Singapore anyway, so the real origin of a good is obscured by the time it lands on your doorstep. And nobody in the business of making money wants to pay a politician to do anything about this in practice.
Nobody is getting fined, much less into-the-dirt.
Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.
That is literally what Facebook was fined for, BEFORE the new laws were put in place. Cambridge Analytica did what you just described.
