|
duz posted:The law they passed should probably have done that instead of just forcing TikTok to sell itself to an American. I'm Pretty sure there are in fact laws about that but there is significant doubt about tiktok following them because of particularities of its corporate structure.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Lyesh posted:Yeah it really sucked when they drone murdered a man and his kids over poo poo he said. did you know that it's possible for more than one thing to be bad? were you also aware that one thing being worse doesn't make the other thing fine and acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I'm Pretty sure there are in fact laws about that but there is significant doubt about tiktok following them because of particularities of its corporate structure. Oh man, maybe they should have been taken to court instead of having a law written to force them to sell to an American.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:my point is that you don't get to point at them and decry them over poo poo you're doing too. so china doesn't get to point at the US and decry them banning tiktok, yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
duz posted:The law they passed should probably have done that instead of just forcing TikTok to sell itself to an American. For what it is worth I’m sure Facebook would be allowed to operate in China if it was sold to a Chinese company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
It's bad that the US is setting even more bad precedent about 1A protections. This is more in the trend of the bullshit about "foreign influence" that they're using to justify whatever they want since it's so easy to claim about anyone you don't like. It's bad that they're trying to claim moral high ground that they don't have, which deepens distrust between the US and other countries because it makes our government look even more unpredictable, cynical, and craven. It's bad that they're escalating tensions with China for no reason.Staluigi posted:so china doesn't get to point at the US and decry them banning tiktok, yes I don't live in china. Their government does not represent me, so i don't have as much call or right to complain about the poo poo they do. My government is continuing a long line of trumped up bullshit to distract from all the awful things that everyone else in that sphere is doing right now (as many people have pointed out, if China wants a lot of this data they can just buy it on the open market). They don't have any interest in addressing the very real problems in social media and are just stoking resentment. Something like a law about keeping PII of US citizens in the US would be totally fine with me. I'm not hard to satisfy on this issue. I just loving hate how much not-even-veiled lying goes on about foreign influence, literally a fake-rear end casus belli that China itself uses to justify their own attacks on protesters. Lyesh fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Apr 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 04:39
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I'm Pretty sure there are in fact laws about that but there is significant doubt about tiktok following them because of particularities of its corporate structure. There aren't even clear laws about that for PHI (last time I checked, at least), so I doubt it. Per HHS (https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-profe...ates/index.html): quote:Do the HIPAA Rules allow a covered entity or business associate to use a CSP that stores ePHI on servers outside of the United States? Which sounds a lot like, "you can do that, but it's on you for the breach if that cloud provider has their government force them to provide your data."
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 04:44
|
|
|
Can't it be sold to a buyer outside the US? I could not find the verbiage in the bill, but several articles I read a few days ago stated that it must be sold to a US buyer. Is this actually true, and if so, on what basis would, say, a Saudi buyer be disallowed from owning it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 04:47
|
|
|
Meet TikTok's new all American owner, Mr. Bobson Dugnutt.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 05:14
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:Unless your instance preemptively blocked threads.net from day one. Which a lot of them did. Weird thing to do imo. It's not like that'll stop facebook from hoovering up all that data from activitypub for their own advertising and ai purposes (it's public after all). And following people on threads isn't really meaningfully different from following an RSS feed. And it's not like threads can start publishing ads on your local mastodon instance. You are only exposed to accounts you follow on mastodon. Facebook can't inject ads if you don't follow any threads people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
I can certainly see some risks from becoming friendly with Facebook, although not immediately. If every instance accepts Threads, Threads gains a lot of power. What's stopping them from starting to influence changes to the base ActivityPub protocol to support their needs? And they can threaten to fork it if they don't get what they want and require all federated instances to follow their fork or get banned. A lot of smaller instances would have to choose between supporting FacePub or pissing off a ton of their users if they lose access to Threads. Certainly there are good long-term reasons to resist their grasp although it seems unlikely that any notable instances will do so given the size of Threads and interconnectivity being the core of ActivityPub.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
ActivityPub is a World-Wide-Web Consortium standard in the same way HTML is. The W3C has been made subject to the whims of powerful corporations like Microsoft and Google before, so it is not outside of the realm of possibility. However, W3C standards need to be easily-implementable on a practical basis. Any attempt at biasing the implementation of ActivityPub in their favour would be a double-edged sword. If Facebook wants to collect user information from other federations, then the same conduit would also enable those federations to collect data on Facebook users. It's not a "new" conversation by any means. Pawoo is/was a very big Mastodon service within Japan, but it very quickly became a "federate at your own risk" server due to the raw amount of CSAM it was piping through. I'd wager most well-managed Mastodon servers would just "limit" Facebook -- connecting to it on an as-needed basis as directed by their users, but not going out of their way to promote or "suggest" Threads-based content. If there is any inherent weakness I can see with the ActivityPub standard as I understand it, (or on the last draft of it I saw,) there's no agreed-upon standard for most forms of moderation. Even simple matters like anti-spam were left to the imagination with vague suggestions, and that was quite noticeable given how clear and practical the other given examples were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Weird thing to do imo. In my experience, quite a few smaller Mastodon instances are run by petty tyrants who are constantly blocking each other's instances over perceived slights or failings. In theory, the decentralized nature of Mastodon means that each instance owner can run their instance the way they like, and each user can choose an instance that's run the way they like. In practice, a lot of instance owners demand that every other instance be run exactly the same way theirs is, and "protecting our users" becomes the go-to excuse for hitting the big red Defederate button over all manner of petty arguments, personal drama, and moderation disputes. It's very "early-00s IRC chatroom rivalries" energy. Defederation was originally supposed to be a nuclear option used for much bigger problems than "an instance had one person make a couple of posts I didn't like". But the decentralized nature of the Fediverse means that a good portion of your experience is under the control of people who think paying 10 bucks a month to be a social media admin for fun is a good use of their time and money, and Mastodon communities haven't been particularly effective at keeping that in check. And big instances that dwarf their tiny little clubhouses are a threat to those admins' power, both by reducing their relative voice and relative power, by being so large that they don't give a poo poo about threats of defederation, and by being desirable enough that their users might not be happy with a petty defederation. Even larger Mastodon instances like Mastodon.Social or Misskey are too much for some of these people; Threads integration would essentially crush any influence they have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:I don't live in china. Their government does not represent me, so i don't have as much call or right to complain about the poo poo they do. that's a cop out punt to the original question, and someone sincerely relying on that logic can't give a useful answer about how either country should be handling the situation because they've announced that they're only really 'allowed' to criticize one country completely
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Staluigi posted:that's a cop out punt to the original question, and someone sincerely relying on that logic can't give a useful answer about how either country should be handling the situation because they've announced that they're only really 'allowed' to criticize one country completely I'm glad that you're fluent in Mandarin or Cantonese or w/e and can properly evaluate primary sources across Chinese society. I'm not and won't act like I can. But the US government has been proven to lie so thoroughly and so often about other countries and their governments that I'm totally unwilling to accept anything they're saying about them as true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 07:37
|
|