• EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    My gf is Chinese and her feed is littered with Americans trying to look cool, and speaking zero Mandarin. The other one constantly occurring are Americans saying “so what Chinese are getting my data? You know what’s called sharing? It’s called Kindness❤️🙏” i almost spit my coffee, but I was in bed and I had dry mouth

    It’s so wierd to see those people to go out of their way, to another soulless corporation, for no benefit.

  • Gerudo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I think a handful of influencers found it and just started promoting it. It’s a bandwagon thing, I’m not expecting 95% of the TikTok base to be going to another Chinese app just to stick it to the man. They are going their because the people they follow are going there.

    • rzlatic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      no. the ban is not against chinese apps, its against tiktok specifically.

      • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        58 minutes ago

        Not quite. As far as I can tell the US can now play whack-a-mole with any app owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary”, thanks to this precedent. The decision as to which nations are considered a “Foreign Adversary” is made by the U.S. Secretary Of Commerce.

        I am not a lawyer or lawmaker, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s the full text of the legislation (emphases mine):

        DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

        Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

        (Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

        Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

        For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

        A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

        • would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
        • precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).

        The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

        Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user’s request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

        The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

        (Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

        DIVISION I–PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

        Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

        This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

        Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

        A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual’s data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

        The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        isn’t it unconstitutional to target specific entities with laws?

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            59 minutes ago

            it’s called the law of the land, not the law of the people. if laws don’t cover non-american entities then they can’t commit crimes.

  • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Honestly, The government isn’t protecting our data anyways so it really doesn’t matter. Amazon has had yet another massive breach but no worries the government is sitting idly by. Not a single action will be taken even though this happens all the time. No penalty means no reason to change.

    • vulture_god@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Is this the Amazon breach you’re talking about?

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/11/11/amazon-confirms-data-breach-exposed-2800000-lines-of-employee-data/

      I hadn’t heard of it, and I usually follow this stuff pretty closely. FWIW, in this case, it appears that the data was employee data from a third party vendor’s systems:

      The exposed Amazon dataset includes employee work contact information, email addresses, desk phone numbers, and building locations. While Amazon spokesperson Adam Montgomery confirmed the breach, he emphasized in a statement to TechCrunch that core Amazon and Amazon Web Services, or AWS, systems remained secure.

      People misconfigure AWS resources all the time, so it is definitely true that data stored by Amazon leaks out from time to time, although they don’t have much culpability in these cases.

    • mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yeah, if the government really cared, they would be pushing privacy laws instead of trying to ban a platform.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah…but it’s much easier to get elected with "ChInA bAd!”

        Then “We need a nuanced approach to privacy and social media.”

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      And it’s understandable. 170 million US citizens are on TikTok. More than 1% has a significant business enterprise that has flourished in that app (not so on the other apps).

      The US government, beyond just violating* the free speech of half the population, would be shooting itself in the face by banning the app, considering how much lost tax revenue is likely to occur.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The government says it’s for our own good and we should trust them.

    Except we don’t trust them and don’t care about our own good.

  • SleepyPie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    They really have cut off their nose to spite their face imo. Only way this makes sense to me is that the users want a noble justification for their ignoble habit.

    “The data would’ve ended up in China anyway since American apps would’ve sold it.” -Rationalizations of a feed addict fiending

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I mean both suck and short form & vertical videos are trash, so now it’s your chance to watch better content.

  • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I’m too old to be up to date with American internet culture. What app are the cool kids using now?

  • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I don’t trust China at all, ban all their social media app in the same way they ban ours. I would like the US to be more like the EU in terms of privacy, but China not only doesn’t care, they actively try to use that data to screw over people.

    • CharmOffensive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Specifically tell me how china is using your data to personally screw you over. And then tell me exactly how Zuckerberg et al. aren’t.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        35 minutes ago

        Whataboutism. Zuckerberg being bad doesn’t make China acceptable, and vice versa. Both are wrong and to be avoided at all costs.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Conveniently the USA has the first amendment (which, admittedly has been being degraded over time) that, at least in spirit, should protect an individual right to publish information (such as ip packets) to another location (such as an ISP) and that other location’s right to forward that information to a second location (such as a VPN) that is outside of the USA’s jurisdiction.

      It’s like how banning advanced cryptography is practically impossible and idiotic because it is just a small amount of math. The internet protocol can be transmitted over so many different mediums that all the government could realistically do is create a bigger VPN market.