• Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’m saying that they have the ability to ban any freaking thing in their territory. That Huawei is doing well outside of the US is irrelevant. If Huawei’s US division was forced down by the US, that is killing it, and they’re still not American.

    That’s not nothing, but still not the be-all and end-all that you seem to want to make it.

    Explain further how it isn’t a Chinese company despite its origin and its base of operations. Even if it isn’t, all that’s relevant is that China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      China can influence TikTok into giving them their data for free today.

      Perhaps they could, but there’s no evidence that they as yet have. And of what use is your TikTok data to the Chinese state, anyway? Money is no object to them, and they can buy your data from other US companies as well. Anyone can.

      The US government doesn’t care about protecting your data. They care about accessing it themselves and controlling narratives on social media in order to shape public opinion.


      They’re after the fediverse now as well. Atlantic Council: Collective Security In a Federated World (PDF)

      Centralized and decentralized platforms share a common set of threats from motivated malicious users—and require a common set of investments to ensure trustworthy, user-focused outcomes.

      Many discussions about social media governance and trust and safety are focused on a small number of centralized, corporate-owned platforms that currently dominate the social media landscape: Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and a handful of others. The emergence and growth in popularity of federated social media services, like Mastodon and Bluesky, introduces new opportunities, but also significant new risks and complications. This annex offers an assessment of the trust and safety (T&S) capabilities of federated platforms—with a particular focus on their ability to address collective security risks like coordinated manipulation and disinformation.

      Trust and safety my ass. This is about manufacturing consent. They’re failing to control young American’s impression of and reaction to the Gaza genocide that’s being done in their name, so they’re pulling out all the stops now. Not the Onion but the NYT last week: Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe: A surveillance law referred to as Section 702 is needed to protect us from foreign threats.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        For most people, “could” is enough to worry about. Just look at the people flocking whenever their app is bought by an advertising company.

        (As for the NYT opinion, I’ll forward this comment: “Waxman worked under Bush as a senior national security advisor. So the administration that believes in torture is advising us that government surveillance is fine and keeps you safe? Not sure I trust the source.” My personal opinion is actually ambivalent towards surveillance, privacy, and safety.)