• @Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    64 months ago

    My issue is with information flowing to the Chinese government.

    I understand that in the United States that information drain has been discontinued(as much as any American app discontinues information drain) but the fact that a few years ago, personal information was going straight from TikTok to the Chinese government who is actively seeking that information, and the app TikTok came from, douyin, still sends information to the Chinese government today like this is enough to give me pause.

    To me, it’s not the same as Facebook or Instagram or whatever getting banned because of that direct and recent connection to the Chinese government.

    • @hedgehog
      link
      44 months ago

      If that were truly the issue, why not instead pass a law that prohibits transferring that kind of information to entities that could potentially share it without foreign powers?

      • @atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        They mention tiktok a lot but the text of the bill reads “any foreign adversary controlled applications.” So I think it is more broad.

        • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Not really. They word it like that because laws need to look broad, but the purpose is to target TikTok.

          One thing I’m absolutely worried about is the definition of “adversary” is too broad, and it could potentially be broadened to include any foreign country that doesn’t do whatever the US wants.

          • @atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The “purpose” is to target TikTok, sure. But that doesn’t really matter as it could be used to enforce laws against any other company / country doing something similar. Laws are often used beyond the original intent.

            Though if it’s not written broadly enough I believe it could be ruled unconstitutional.

            • Yeah, I’m not Constitutional lawyer, but that’s my impression as well. I’m guessing they’ll just adjust the definition of “adversary” to match their political aims though.