2 ms·

I don't really mind that per se. What I do mind is the government letting domestic companies run roughshod over the population with surveillance/influence for

I don't really mind that per se. What I do mind is the government letting domestic companies run roughshod over the population with surveillance/influence for the past few decades, and then when a significant enough foreign company finally does it, focusing on that foreign company while continuing to ignore the longstanding deeper problem. Rather than focusing on TikTok, how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement (or even additional regulation) to stop this widespread bundling of client apps with publishing services? Then people would have the right to inspect/delete records TikTok keeps about them, independent clients for TikTok would have a toggle of whether to show recommendations provided by the TikTok service, and the US government would have a much stronger case to go after TikTok if they didn't comply with either general legal requirement.

rightbyte 3y ago
I for one miss this type of humour. It is dead. Mailing list humour is dead. Chain mail humour is dead. The book is a 200 page rant. Like, it is beutuful that someone can care so much.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Ops wrong post.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement I'd agree if such a solution was also being considered and would take the same amount of time. How long do you think it would take to write and pass such a bill? I think it would take so long to be essentially a useless diversion. It's an idea that people would push who never want any of these changes because it sounds like a viable alternative but it's impossible in practice.
- mindslight 3y ago
  The best time to plant a shade tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is today. And realpolitik, I get that both parties work for and benefit from the corporations in their own ways, and aren't too keen on legislation that protects individual rights at the expense of corporate control. I just hate the blatant hypocrisy - this TikTok situation has only come about due to the past two+ decades of regulatory abdication.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Yes. Pass the bill that we have now and keep fighting for more.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      I question the assumption of "for more". Singling out individual companies based on specific foreign ownership is of a completely different character than making general laws aimed at preserving individual liberty. The way I see it, going down this path cements continuing centralized control from corporate and government authoritarian synergy - for example the actual mechanism of this bill is targeting the Apple/Google corporate app repositories, because telling individual users that it's illegal to communicate with TikTok is a straightforward first amendment violation.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement (or even additional regulation) to stop this widespread bundling of client apps with publishing services? There isn’t public support for this. Remember the warrant requirement for FISA? Virtually nobody called their electeds in support (see my other comment [1]). Unless someone can show a general privacy bill isn’t a similar boondoggle, it’s not worth policians’ time. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40099703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40099703
- mindslight 3y ago
  I don't get the point of half-cynicism. The fully cynical take is that this is just another inevitability in a long line of gradual steps of the unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex infiltrating our lives, having neutralized whatever democratic oversight there might have been via manufactured consent. But the overall comment thread isn't just taking the development as a forgone conclusion and talking about technical mitigations, but rather still judging it on what ought to be. As such, I think it's worthwhile to point out that there is another straightforward approach that preserves individual liberty rather than undermining it. And back in the cynical context, this approach seemingly not being on the table is another data point supporting the cynicism.
edgyquant 3y ago
Well the tictok ban stands a chance at passing while general regulation does not

rightbyte 3y ago

I for one miss this type of humour. It is dead. Mailing list humour is dead. Chain mail humour is dead. The book is a 200 page rant. Like, it is beutuful that someone can care so much.

rightbyte 3y ago
Ops wrong post.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement I'd agree if such a solution was also being considered and would take the same amount of time. How long do you think it would take to write and pass such a bill? I think it would take so long to be essentially a useless diversion. It's an idea that people would push who never want any of these changes because it sounds like a viable alternative but it's impossible in practice.

mindslight 3y ago
The best time to plant a shade tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is today. And realpolitik, I get that both parties work for and benefit from the corporations in their own ways, and aren't too keen on legislation that protects individual rights at the expense of corporate control. I just hate the blatant hypocrisy - this TikTok situation has only come about due to the past two+ decades of regulatory abdication.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Yes. Pass the bill that we have now and keep fighting for more.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I question the assumption of "for more". Singling out individual companies based on specific foreign ownership is of a completely different character than making general laws aimed at preserving individual liberty. The way I see it, going down this path cements continuing centralized control from corporate and government authoritarian synergy - for example the actual mechanism of this bill is targeting the Apple/Google corporate app repositories, because telling individual users that it's illegal to communicate with TikTok is a straightforward first amendment violation.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> how about a general solution of a US GDPR plus anti-trust enforcement (or even additional regulation) to stop this widespread bundling of client apps with publishing services? There isn’t public support for this. Remember the warrant requirement for FISA? Virtually nobody called their electeds in support (see my other comment [1]). Unless someone can show a general privacy bill isn’t a similar boondoggle, it’s not worth policians’ time. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40099703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40099703

mindslight 3y ago
I don't get the point of half-cynicism. The fully cynical take is that this is just another inevitability in a long line of gradual steps of the unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex infiltrating our lives, having neutralized whatever democratic oversight there might have been via manufactured consent. But the overall comment thread isn't just taking the development as a forgone conclusion and talking about technical mitigations, but rather still judging it on what ought to be. As such, I think it's worthwhile to point out that there is another straightforward approach that preserves individual liberty rather than undermining it. And back in the cynical context, this approach seemingly not being on the table is another data point supporting the cynicism.

edgyquant 3y ago

Well the tictok ban stands a chance at passing while general regulation does not