3 ms·
Because the ban is an admission of the influence that a company with nothing but troves of data can have, and thus is a step towards actually addressing the iss
by idrios 6y ago
Because the ban is an admission of the influence that a company with nothing but troves of data can have, and thus is a step towards actually addressing the issues of Facebook, Google and the like.
But what we really need is a US version of GDPR
- dopamean 6y agoHow's gdpr working out? Seriously, I'm in the US and have no idea what's going on with it.
- et-al 6y agoSince GDPR came out, the two companies I worked at have been more cognisant about how we stored user data for EU customers (e.g. making more fields optional, giving user deletion options). And we also undertook a review of how we stored data for California customers for CCPA.
- NoOneNew 6y agoYou'll never get enough credit for that statement. It's exactly why there is a large pushback from the other data collection companies. Once the DOJ can set precedent on one "low hanging fruit", it can start tackling the rest. Sort of like when RICO was first proposed and used. It was a huge issue, but once legitimized in the courts, many organized crime families started to crumble. While org crime is still a problem as it adapted and evolved, they're arguably less influential on a national scale as they used to be pre-RICO. Faang doesn't want the same thing happen to them.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rchaud 6y agoThe Tiktok ban is predicated on national security concerns. I guarantee that whatever precedent that sets will be deemed to not apply to FB and Google. They are two of America's richest and most powerful companies, and politicians tend to let those 'self-regulate' so as not be accused of interfering with market forces. It also helps that they both hand over a good amount of data to the US Government.