this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

39052 readers
301 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TikTok's bid to overturn a law which would see it banned or sold in the US from early 2025 has been rejected.

The social media company had hoped a federal appeals court would agree with its argument that the law was unconstitutional because it represented a "staggering" impact on the free speech of its 170 million US users.

But the court upheld the law, which it said "was the culmination of extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents".

[...]

The court agreed the law was "carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC (People's Republic of China)."

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

But the free market is free, guys! Look at this freedom!

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Truly free markets suck. The inevitably become dominated by a small number of monopolies, who fuck over everyone else as hard as possible every day ...

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There's some equivocation going on there: On the one hand we have a theoretical model, due to Adam Smith, that says if you have perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information then you get very very nice results and that's called the free market. Then you have peddlers of institutionalised market failure saying that any regulation that would make people's choices more rational, or give them more information, is making the market unfree.

In short: While classical liberals and specifically ordoliberals are saying "there shall and must be regulation, so that the real-world market comes closer to approximating Smith's free market", neoliberals say "there shall be no regulation because Adam Smith doesn't like monopolies but we do so let's poison the conversation by calling inherently unfree markets free".

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah. That's.. what I said. It's a two-in-one--I recognise that regulation is necessary, yet people seem to oppose it.

Until it benefits them (or, leopards).

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It helps to think before you type.

The free market is free if and when you play by the same -democratic- rules. Look at Romania, just to name an actual example. Tiktok is much worse than Facebook and (most) others, and being worse is not an easy task here.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Tik Tok is not much worse than Facebook. The only reason is because Facebook cooperates with the US agencies, while they don't get the information from Tik Tok. US does not like that citizen data is going to China instead being able to collect it themselves. From privacy standpoint of the end user, it does not matter who has the data; lost privacy is lost privacy.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I think Tiktok is much worse. It's about a foreign country whose government is pursuing a dictatorial policy trying to interfere in foreign elections (again, look at Romania, for example).

The argument of FB collaborating with the US gov is true I guess, but isn't valid here. China is doing the same, the Chinese government is banning the Western version of Tiktok, too, let alone all other non-Chinese apps. So the 'free market'-argument doesn't make any sense here, it'd be even hypocritical.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah China sure is scary. Centralized social media owned by American billionaires on the other hand can totally be trusted never to interfere in elections.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because another countries takes away freedom and eliminates the free market, makes it a non argument if the US does the same? The US is doing the same what China does.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

@thingsiplay

Because another countries takes away freedom and eliminates the free market, makes it a non argument if the US does the same? The US is doing the same what China does.

If so, why then haven't you long been criticizing China the same way you do now the US? Where are these posts?

(Just to say that: The US, China, EU, and all the others can ban Tiktok, Twitter, FB, and all the centralized data collectors. I wouldn't miss any of them, and I think it would be better for the world. But the hypocrisy here in this thread is very telling.)

[–] giotheflow@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

When the dictionary points to bad faith arguments, your name comes up.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 points 6 months ago

So you are saying I am hypocrisy, because you could not find posts in my history criticizing China? And that makes my critique about the US less true or acceptable? I no longer believe in good faith of your discussion here and will end discussing with you. You have the last word if you want.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Dude, the US based social media platforms are no better than TikTok. Its all rotten to the core. X is a great example of this.