• Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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!”

  • Rose56@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Do it, just do it with no second thoughts. They can’t, they will lose all their business.

  • recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    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

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

    • hansolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            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?

  • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

  • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          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.)

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            So people who didn’t want to see LGBTQ content didn’t see it? Seems like the algorithm was doing it’s job.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 days ago

              Glad to see you’re up to your usual form, buddy. Keep on fighting the good fight.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 days ago

                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.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Nah, you just come into every interaction cloaked in a miasma of confrontational obstinance. It can be really tiring to deal with.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          But the inquisition said it’s to root out heresy, so that means its okay when imperial apps do it.

      • umean2me@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.

              • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                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.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  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.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.

      • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

          • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            This was absolutely happening in 2020. That was a long time ago and the App is practically unrecognizable from its 2020 state.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              Shifting the goalpost much

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 days ago

                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.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  (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?

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    I’m surprised they’re taking that approach rather than pushing the web version.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        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…

        • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          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.