I wonder how strange your own public policies must be to accept a situation like this... don't they see the impact this will have on thousands of people who literally need this platform? I don't think so... the American big tech lobby has the loudest voice, right?
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59285 readers
4501 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ew. I looked through the bill, and here are some parts I have issues with:
Main text
PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CON - TROLLED APPLICATIONS .—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, main- tain, or update such foreign adversary con- trolled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
So basically, the US can block any form of software (not just social media) distributed by an adversary county for pretty much reason, and it can block any company providing access to anything from an adversary.
Definition of "controlled by a foreign adversary"
(g) DEFINITIONS .—In this section:6 (1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY .— The term ‘‘controlled by a foreign adversary’’ means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is--
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a for- eign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indi- rectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
The adversary countries are (defined in a separate US code):
- N. Korea
- China
- Russia
- Iran
So if you live in any of these or work for a company based in any of these, you're subject to the law.
foreign adversary company definition
(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLI - CATION .—The term ‘‘foreign adversary controlled application’’ means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(A) any of—
(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
(ii) TikTok;
(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(iv) an entity owned or controlled, di- rectly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
(B) a covered company that—
(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
It specifically calls out TikTok and ByteDance, but it also allows the President to denote any other entity in one of those countries as a significant threat.
So here are my issues:
- I, as a US citizen, can't choose to distribute software produced by an adversary as noted officially by the US government - this is a limitation on my first amendment protections, and I think this applies to FOSS if the original author is from one of those countries
- the barrier to what counts is relatively low - just living in an adversary country or working for a company based on an adversary country seems to don't
- barrier to a "covered company" is relatively low and probably easy to manipulate - basically needs 1M active users (not even US users), which the CIA could totally generate if needed
So I think the bill is way too broad (lots of "or"s), and I'm worried it could allow the government to ban competition with US company competitors. It's not as bad as I feared, but I still think it's harmful.
Anyway, thoughts?
Isn't Nginx written by a Russian? So is it now banned in the US? What other software has been effected by this legislation?
Hah, well time to tell our CEO I'm shutting down our prod servers.
Don't worry an American will be available to own it instead! And there won't be any problems because we're the best!
You missed the /s in your comment.
I shouldn't need one for that. But in the same vein...
I don't know what you're talking about, it's impossible for the world's only bastion of freedom to do anything wrong! We should just have the president and do away with things like courts!
Woops! You forgot the /s again
Dang it. I'll remember one of these days.
If I was Biden and I wanted to make sure absolutely nobody under 35 voted for me, first thing I'd do is genocide.
If that didn't work, then I'd restart student loans.
If that didn't work, I'd ban Tiktok.
Edit: To the people downvoting me: Do you think giving Israel the bombs they use to carry out genocide, restarting student loans, and banning tiktok helps Biden's reelection chances?
Are you republicans who don't want him to change course? Are you democrats perpetually stuck in 2016, blaming voters rather than asking "What policies caused us to lose? What changes do we need to make to win?"
It really doesn’t seem like they want to win
I posted this in the other thread, but..
Now congress can tell any company to get fucked and sell to the highest bidder (edit: via bills crafted to target them specifically)? So much for free market republicans.
China will just find another company to buy our data from, because as it turns out, the problem isn't just TikTok, it's the fact the it's legal for companies (foreign and domestic) to sell and exchange our data in the first place. TikTok will still collect the same data, and instead of it going straight to China, it'll go to a rich white fuck first and they'll be the ones to sell it to China instead.
And if the problem is the fact that it's addictive, well, we have plenty of our own home grown addictions for people to sink their time into. You don't see congress telling those companies to get sold to a new owner.
Incorrect, the Bill is broad but it's not any company for any reason.
The "PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024" has this to say:
(a) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to—
(1) any foreign adversary country; or
(2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.
(b) Enforcement By Federal Trade Commission.—
(1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.
(B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
(3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
and then like a bunch of pages of hyper-specific definitions for the above terms.
The big point is, how does that power get used?
There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's not. You're just literally declaring it, no evidence required.
If ByteDance continues sending the outlined Data to any offshore location defined as an adversarial nation, then:
So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).
EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.
The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It's not due process if you break a law and it's not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it's ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it's whatever organization they don't like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They've wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don't even need to get an infiltrator into the Union's administration.
The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They've proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you're in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren't soldiers because words (police didn't exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.
As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
Courts of law aren't due process? Lmfao.
Not after the fact. They are due process when the government has to prove it's case before it can take punitive action. If the government is allowed to take punitive action without going to court to prove it's needed than there is no due process.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I guess parking tickets aren't due process either, then.
You realize the ticket is actually a court date right? Most people just choose to plead guilty and pay the fine.
That is literally analogous to an FTC fine in every way.
This isn't a fine. And there's no requirement to file charges in court and prove data is being mishandled.
If we're being semantic this isn't an anything because the only thing it says is that the FTC can do FTC things to any company that sends data to an adversarial nation.
Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for "foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary." And instead just in general
I've been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.
Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.
once again - not a ban, a seizure. Steve Mnuchin is heading a group of government insiders who want to buy TikTok, and this bill bans it if and only if they don't sell. The government has decided that TikTok is a dangerous propaganda and espionage network and intends to steal it and run it themselves. Even if you think that TikTok is that dangerous you have to ask yourself: why is it legal for everyone else and why does our government want so badly to do it themselves?
If China really is using TikTok for psyops, then they will refused to sell, flood TikTok with anti-government sentiment for its remaining days, and then direct people to just use the TikTok website hosted in China (is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
One silver line here is "the youths" will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.
One silver line here is “the youths” will learn, in an unusually clear way, that the government effects their lives and can screw up their lives.
this happened to be back in the 90's & 00's when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i'm permanently anti democrat party.
however i don't think think that this will have the same impact depth because being denied videos does not have the same impact on your life as your government deporting the person you built a life with because you can't sponsor them for legal residency simply due to the fact you're both the same sex and being driven towards taking on huge student loan debt because the military won't let you join to obtain the college tuition part of GI bill.
in addition: people will brand you a tankie or a "both-sides-ist" for pointing out these anti-gay & anti-youth laws online; so today's youth will be pressured away from giving voice to it publicly.
this happened to be back in the 90’s & 00’s when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i’m permanently anti the party that rolled back don't ask don't tell, embraced marriage and healthcare rights for queer people and have forgiven tons of student loan debt. I'm definitely not a psy-op. Pay no attention to the fact that no one calls them 'the democrat party' except people who have 1000+ hours viewing fox news.
sure, now that it's politically popular; nevermind that they did nothing to make that a reality and made it worse instead of standing up for us after promising that they would.
I can understand your frustration. I currently feel that way towards a certain political party, but I have to keep an open mind because things change.
For example, I don't doubt what you said Democrats was true in past decades, but today I believe the Democrats are more friendly towards LGBT rights than Republicans are. It appears things have changed on those specific issues.
Maybe we wont agree, but let's at lets at least find clarity: Do you believe Republicans or Democrats are currently more friendly towards LGBT people?
like abortion, the democrats did nothing when they had the chance and; in my case and many others like me; they actively made it worse.
it was hollywood that changed people's minds on lgbt issues and democrats are simply the political beneficiaries.
Also, to get that clarity I was seeking. Do you:
- Recommend people vote for Democrats (sounds like no).
- Recommend people vote for Republicans.
- Recommend people vote for third-parties or not vote at all.
These are the only 3 possibilities. Which are you?
For example, if you believe that Republicans are better for LGBT issues, then I want to hear you say it: "I think Republicans are better on LGBT issues". I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself, I really just want you to be clear about your view and then let everyone judge for themselves what they think is right.
All fair criticisms of Democrats in my opinion.
The only thing I have a problem with is your "never vote Democrat" rule. You do you, but I believe voting in a way that will most help LGBT people, and most help women's reproductive rights, etc--I believe that if you want to cast votes that most support those causes, it will sometimes require voting for a Democrat.
(is our government going to start blocking access to websites too?).
I can't imagine why they wouldn't. The movie industry is already lobbying for it
This isn't good, now we're only left with the tech giants dictating what people can see.
How is it any different for before the law? TikTok is a tech giant.
From what I know, certain special interests want TikTok under their control so they can censor certain topics. People keep saying this is happening because of CCP, etc. But I believe they want this platform "censored" before the elections. The other major players already play ball with censorship but TikTok caught them by surprise.
Why would it have unanimous bi-partisan support in the Senate if the bill had weight on the election results?
To be devil's advocate: We already know China loves to be meddlin' in Western elections, so both parties have a vested interest in getting them out of their pants.
That being said, China can easily meddle all over the place, so I don't consider that the primary motivator. Like I said before, this is 98% about protectionism.
They have until January 19th to divest, with a 90-day extension if they are pursuing sale. They aren’t mandating that it be done by November’s election regardless of the outcome.
Seriously, going through these comments, it's clear most people didn't read the article or didn't learn how calendars work in school (or are part of the Russian Internet Research Agency and trying to sow doubt in Biden).
Based on the timeline, it's clear the intention wasn't to protect against the 2024 election, since the potential ban would go in place after the election happens.
Whew the propaganda smokescreen almost fully fell apart with people waking up and seeing us support Genocide. Good thing we went full authoritarianism to stop it!
Free speech was always a lie I guess