4 ms·
Congress barely understands the internet, let alone the sheer amount of privacy that's being given up to use it. They just happened to have TikTok in the cross
by micromacrofoot 4y ago
Congress barely understands the internet, let alone the sheer amount of privacy that's being given up to use it.
They just happened to have TikTok in the crosshairs because of the fear of China. The broken clock strikes again.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoWeChat (a far more pernicious threat) was also in the crosshairs but then they just forgot about it. This is all just a performance to make a show of "doing something". Domestic companies are doing the same manipulative invasion as the Chinese apps. Any regulation would hurt the surveillance capitalism business model.
- pb7 4y agoWeChat is almost entirely used by Chinese people. It doesn't have broad penetration in the US unlike TikTok.
- eloisius 4y agoI think that threat was more specific to Chinese-Americans who use the app to stay in touch with family
- ridgered4 4y agoThat doesn't sound like something that powerful US corporations are that worried about so I'm surprised we talked about it at all.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoIt's a national security threat. WeChat is used to manipulate Chinese Americans in sensitive positions.
- henrikschroder 4y agoNo, you see, WeChat isn't taking marketshare from Facebook and Google, which is why no-one is paying politicians to be upset about it.
- cudgy 4y agoAgreed. The fact that 500+ mostly well-educated, privileged people in Congress can’t understand privacy on the internet suggests a systemic problem that is not only present in Congress.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> 500+ mostly well-educated, privileged people in Congress can’t understand privacy on the internet suggests a systemic problem that is not only present in Congress There is no national consensus on internet privacy. Most Americans simply don't care, certainly not enough to give up convenience. The minority who do are politically disengaged. To the degree there is consensus, it's on commons, e.g. national security.
- nailer 4y agoI personally find it bizarre that apps like GMail can be described as 'free' rather than 'ad supported'. But most people do not care at all.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y agoThroughout its history, 99% of people would have described broadcast TV as free rather than ad supported. Knowing that it's paid for by ads is irrelevant if I'm not shelling out cash. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
- nailer 4y agoI guess the difference is people that watch ad supported television know they’re seeing ads, people that use gmail often don’t know their personal data is being used to market to them.
- alephnerd 4y agoThose 500+ members of Congress each have a staff of around 10 (if in the House) to 50 (if in the Senate) working to help draft write these policiess but we'd be paid peanuts ($50k/yr in a city where rent for a studio is $2-2.5k and paying for 6 years of student loans - undergrad+grad school). You ain't getting good talent if you ain't paying for it. Those of us who know shit leave for the Private Sector. In general from my time working on the Hill, actual relations between most Congressmembers in both parties are pretty congenial and drama free. It's the pay gap that actually effects policymaking. Alternatively, the Federal Agencies (which do pay decently btw) end up implementing Policies and Directives on their own that tend to make sense. Congress is a laggard compared to unilateral action that Agencies and Regulators like the SEC, CISA, DoE, DoT, etc can take, but those actions are only bandaids because they can be rolled back when bosses are changed.