• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

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

      I said Facebook because we know they’re doing it and you’d still have to actually prove that case.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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).