TikTok is taking the US government to court.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              2 months ago

              If this were true, it wouldn’t matter that the US set up the social security number system, because Experian leaked millions of Americans’ SSNs.

              It obviously matters who owns a service that millions of citizens use from a country that is a political rival. You’re just hoping to shut down any conversation against TikTok with a whataboutism

              • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                2 months ago

                We’re talking about individuals’ personal data stored by social media companies being accessible to others (governments, in this case). This has nothing to do with social security.

                The problem is that the data is accessable, but that’s not being addressed. This is an improper fix to an actual problem, just facts.

                • tborders@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  When signing up for a tik-tok account, I put in a birth date, a username, an email address for verifcation and that was it. I didn’t need to provide a drivers license, verify that the name I put in was my actual name, that the birth date was my actual birth date. Location isn’t allowed nor was it requested and neither was Nearby devices. It’s actually been a much better behaved application than any American social media app.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              So Americans having access to American’s Data is bad but you think China having access to American’s Data is good?

                • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Alright, thank you for clarifying that you want more restrictions and laws against these companies, it just seemed odd for you to bring up those other businesses in a post talking about the TikTok forced sale and resulting lawsuit.

                  I’m just happy about them restricting US Citizen data being brokered to adversarial nations including Iran, Russia, China, and others.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              “if one authoritarian government does surveillance even across borders, why can’t all? Anything less than ‘i agree’ here is hypocrisy!”

              • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Noone is saying that. The argument is pretty much that people want more scrutiny applied to other companies beyond tiktok, and ideally not be under constant surveillance by any of them, not that people want to be monitored by all police states equally.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  It’s a whataboutist cop out. People who like tiktok just wanna point out how supposedly since tiktok was targeted, then it’s all in bad faith and therefore there could never possibly be a legit concern with tiktok in particular. Any argument to be addressed with “ChInA bAd”

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            2 months ago

            It doesn’t matter who owns it. It’s the data that the US government is accessing.

            I couldn’t give a shit about TikTok, I’ve never used it in my life. I just think the US should be open and say we are banning this as we don’t have control over it. Sure China is only doing what we are doing but fuck em. I’d respect that.

            Also, it’s got to be about silencing pro-Palestinian rhetoric too.

            If they ban TikTok they should ban FaceBook and Instagram too.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Also, it’s got to be about silencing pro-Palestinian rhetoric too.

              Yeah trump was talking about banning it in 2020 because he used his time machine to find out what it would be used for in the future. After his harrowing story from the future, I agreed with the effort to ban it because I lOvE gEnOcIdE

              …of fucking course it matters who owns it

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Whataboutism isn’t the elevated level of discourse you’re pretending it to be

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You’re actually just mad you don’t have an actual response to the fact that you making the about Israel/Palestine makes zero sense

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          I have a question for you. What is the difference between Google being banned in China and Tik Tok being banned in the US?

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Can I ban NSA from spying on me? I’m not even on fReEeDoOoOoM land, I should be entitled to some amount of privacy

          • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is not whataboutism - it’s looking at the bigger picture. The point is that you should want to prevent all mass surveillance by social media companies. Not force them to sell so that the government can get its greedy paws on the data.

            • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The government can already access the data with a warrant. The ownership of TikTok has literally 0 effect on the government’s ability to access user data. Not being owned by the Chinese government has a huge impact on China’s ability to access that data.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        And if someone chooses to watch that, that’s their business. Not nanny government’s. Not saying I do. But none of us have any business telling someone else what they can and cannot watch. That’s part of living in a supposedly “free” country. We aren’t China. You want a “great firewall”, then move there.

        In our zeal to shun everything China-related, we must not become them.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes I need my government to tell me obvious facts like foreign surveillance is bad. I’m just that stupid /s

  • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    What would give them standing? They’d have to be an entity protected by the constitution to claim that protection was harmed. Is it this (Wikipedia)?

    TikTok Ltd was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and is based in both Singapore and Los Angeles. source

    I guess I’ve never thought about what makes an entity have rights here. Buckingham Palace couldn’t just open shop here and start suing our government, right?

    • Simon Müller@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      The case is essentially “hey you kinda passed a bill that’s against your own constitution? You’re kinda supposed to follow that…”

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Does the US constitution apply for rights of businesses, or is it just people?

        Not being snarky I actually don’t know

        • unphazed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Corporations are people. Thanks to Citizens United. Though I’d gladly give up TikTok for the court to reverse this decision.

        • FrostKing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Important rights of businesses in the US constitution include

          Important note regarding a business’s right to regulate free speech: The rules of the Constitution are meant to regulate Congress, not businesses or citizens. Therefore, the right to free speech means Congress cannot restrict someone from speaking his or her mind, but a business may be able to.

          For example, a radio show has the right to not allow a certain person to speak on its program or to say certain things. Ultimately, such issues are decided by the Supreme Court, and there may be some exceptions, depending on the circumstances.

    • riplin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The constitution applies to the government, not the American (or other) people. “Government shall pass no law…”

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      We decided a while ago that the Constitution protects everyone and every thing in the US because the loophole of declaring people and companies to not be protected was too dystopian even for conservatives at the time.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Something important to note here is that there are various exceptions to freedom of speech protections from various time periods, one such exception is Incitement – If a person has the intention of inciting the violations of laws that is imminent and likely, while directing this incitement at a person or groups of persons, their speech will not be protected under the First Amendment. This test was created by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

      This is relevant because alongside the TikTok forced sale they also passed a law against sending sensitive data including personal details and photographs to adversarial nations including Russia, China, Iran, etc. That means that Incitement could be used to describe TikTok operating in any capacity without completely centralizing to the USA, and therefor they would have no protections by the first amendment.

  • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    At this point, I’d like to ask: If a foreign company threatens democracy in a country, is it legal for the executive to ban business with that company?

    No? Then that doesn’t make sense. It’s a FOREIGN company, the government should have the right to do whatever it needs to protect its citizens in that regard.

    • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is the real question. Is there a loophole that allows foreign governments to freely exercise mass surveillance and psyops if they allow US citizens to post on a blackboard outside their offices?

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      If tiktok were a serious threat, the executive branch would have already banned it by now via an executive order.

      That’s not what happend, instead a whole bill went through congress and got passed with the explanation being “foreign influence” as if American social media platforms don’t already do the same thing

      This is more about removing foreign competition and not about saving democracy or ensuring security.

      DoD already banned it 4 years ago for military because of the actual security threat of data collection.

      • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        TikTok pushed a notifications to all US users with the phone numbers of their local congressmen to oppose the bill. So many calls came in that the phone lines were jammed.

        Let me distill that for you: China attempted to directly influence legislation with a mass propaganda campaign targeted at its US user base.

        Please explain to me why that isn’t a threat and why the US should allow hostile foreign powers to directly influence internal politics?

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          We’ve already established that Tiktok Tok is not the CCP. That’s what the whole first “gonna ban TikTok” fiasco was over. It’s why they don’t store US data in China but continue to do business in the US.

          That would be a business using the 1st amendment right (which everyone gets, not just citizens) to free speech to use it’s platform to ask it’s users to do something directly beneficial to them. Nothing illegal about it unless you want to reevaluate that “TikTok is the CCP” claim again.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      The government certainly does have the right to protect citizens and make whatever laws are necessary. In this case, the government can do so by amending the constitution. Until then, the 1st Amendment applies to all citizens, non-citizens, and business entities operating in the United States.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is just blatantly false, if an organization is committing crimes or doing something the government dislikes then the government will sanction it, like it has done with almost every Russian Oligarch’s business, or front businesses for terrorist groups.

        I’m pretty sure the whole point of banning TikTok is that the government is alleging that TikTok has engaged/can be forced to engage in abusive or illegal practices.

        • Dadd Volante@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Mitt Romney actually said the main reason everyone was on board for the ban was due to the sheer amount of Palestinian support on the app

          • irreticent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            While that is true, it is also a whataboutism. What does your comment have to do with the conversation? What did it contribute to the conversation?

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        There are already exceptions to the First Amendment that did not require updating the US Constitution, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 which excludes Incitement as protected speech, Incitement being the advocacy of or in any way leading to the breaking of US laws which *checks notes includes sending personal data to adversarial nations including China and therefor TikTok’s operations are not protected.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    When does a company care about the constitution? When it’s profits are threatened and the constitution suits their argument.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Down with vertical videos, down with short form content!

    PS, China already bought all your personal data from Facebook.

    • irreticent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well, you do care enough to feel the need to let everyone know your opinion on the subject.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh shut the fuck up. Can we please not devolve every online argument into circular “well you cared enough to post this” bullshit? It’s exhausting.

  • p3n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    The ironic thing is that if the US government wanted people to stop using it because of the PRC, they should have just leaked some fake Snowden style documents saying that the NSA was using it. Everyone would drop it like a hot potato then.

  • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not a fan of tiktok content but I do see that it was banned obviously for censorship. A good move.