5 ms·

> The issue with that is many companies and platforms owned by "friendly" companies would also be impacted by increased security and privacy protections provide

by jen20 4y ago

> The issue with that is many companies and platforms owned by "friendly" companies would also be impacted by increased security and privacy protections provided to all US residents Doesn’t sound like an issue to me. Anyone tracking or profiling is inherently unfriendly, regardless of national origin. Ban the lot.

ajross 4y ago
> Doesn’t sound like an issue to me. Anyone tracking or profiling is inherently unfriendly, regardless of national origin. Ban the lot. I think that's somewhat strained. "Tracking or profiling" for the purpose of advertising when applied generically to all users in a reasonably anonymized way is... simply not in the same class as "tracking or profiling"[1] applied to target specific journalists in order to suppress coverage of inconvenient newsworthy facts. It's just not. Not remotely. TikTok got caught doing something way beyond the pale. And at this point[2] I think it's very reasonable for people to view their future behavior as inherently suspect. As a large actor, I can have very little trust in ByteDance's future behavior. But Facebook and Google and Amazon... quite frankly they've proven pretty trustworthy with the same kind of data so far. I think continued trust isn't unwarranted. [1] The more common term of art in this context is generally "espionage" [2] Until last week, I was absolutely in the "let them sell their app, they have the same rights anyone does" camp. But now? Sorry, they burned the bridge. You don't get three strikes once you're caught spying.
- jen20 4y ago
  It doesn’t have to be equivalently bad, just bad. Similarly to how murder and assault are different, but both still illegal.
  - ajross 4y ago
    "Ban the lot" certainly seemed to trying to equate them. Spying on journalists is bad in ways that selling me tailored junk is not. You don't ban companies for selling somewhat embarassingly appropriate junk. You do ban them for spying. What you absolutely don't do is ban the junk selling because someone else spied.
    - jen20 4y ago
      It doesn’t equate them. It establishes a threshold that both exceed by different margins. For clarity, Tik Tok is worse than Facebook, but Facebook itself is sufficiently bad to merit banning even absent the existence of Tik Tok. Again, ban the lot.

by jen20 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

> Doesn’t sound like an issue to me. Anyone tracking or profiling is inherently unfriendly, regardless of national origin. Ban the lot. I think that's somewhat strained. "Tracking or profiling" for the purpose of advertising when applied generically to all users in a reasonably anonymized way is... simply not in the same class as "tracking or profiling"[1] applied to target specific journalists in order to suppress coverage of inconvenient newsworthy facts. It's just not. Not remotely. TikTok got caught doing something way beyond the pale. And at this point[2] I think it's very reasonable for people to view their future behavior as inherently suspect. As a large actor, I can have very little trust in ByteDance's future behavior. But Facebook and Google and Amazon... quite frankly they've proven pretty trustworthy with the same kind of data so far. I think continued trust isn't unwarranted. [1] The more common term of art in this context is generally "espionage" [2] Until last week, I was absolutely in the "let them sell their app, they have the same rights anyone does" camp. But now? Sorry, they burned the bridge. You don't get three strikes once you're caught spying.

jen20 4y ago
It doesn’t have to be equivalently bad, just bad. Similarly to how murder and assault are different, but both still illegal.
- ajross 4y ago
  "Ban the lot" certainly seemed to trying to equate them. Spying on journalists is bad in ways that selling me tailored junk is not. You don't ban companies for selling somewhat embarassingly appropriate junk. You do ban them for spying. What you absolutely don't do is ban the junk selling because someone else spied.
  - jen20 4y ago
    It doesn’t equate them. It establishes a threshold that both exceed by different margins. For clarity, Tik Tok is worse than Facebook, but Facebook itself is sufficiently bad to merit banning even absent the existence of Tik Tok. Again, ban the lot.