Technology

hideshow 18 child comments

[+] coarse@startrek.website 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (17 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 11 points 2 years ago (15 children)

I've actually read the law, so no one has to tell me that it really, actually is about privacy. I know that it is.

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Lemmy users are just going to believe whatever they want to believe, instead of actually checking the facts.

It's 100% about privacy. Data collection, and algorithm manipulation to sway what users see in the interest of the Chinese government. If users think Russian interference is a problem, we'll this amounts to the same thing.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago

the Cinese government

So it's about foreign policy and not privacy. Or does the law somehow affect Facebook products too which are the same crap from an individual privacy perspective?

parent

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

What about, say, giving users control or at least insight into what data is collected?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Again, it's not about data being collected. It is about the algorithm that let's them control what users see in their feeds.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

And again, there are ways to at least attempt to address that other than just passing the ability to control the algorithm to another opaque company.

parent

[–] hark@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

It's about privacy in the same way "protect the children" bills are about protecting the children.

Narrator: it's not.

parent

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

If it was actually about privacy then the US would be introducing data transparency and control laws (which only kicks in here if TikTok doesn't sell to a US company). Whether it's the US wanting to stream their own bullshit to kids or just that sweet sweet ad revenue, this is in no way about privacy or "protecting the children".

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] charonn0@startrek.website -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

That's a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

How so? If you're concerned about propaganda, require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired. Show users to the technical extent possible what data has connected them to suggested videos or ads. Put the power of users' hands to understand and control how they are targeted.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired

That would be a very different kind of law from the one we're talking about.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

My point is, why isn't that the law were making? Does it not address the same problem?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 point 2 years ago

Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn't address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.

The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.