A Federal TikTok Ban Is a 'Misguided Detour' from Doing What’s Needed to Protect People’s Privacy and Safeguard National Security
www.commondreams.orgOn Tuesday, the Senate passed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to divest its holdings of the popular social-media site or face an effective ban in the United States. The White House has indicated that President Biden will sign the legislation, which – after failing to move ...
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.12K Posts
- 78K Comments
- Modlog
From what I have seen, most people who object to a federal tiktok ban oppose it because they do not want the US government to censor the internet. I think privacy is brought up as a justification of the ban, and so opponents of the ban argue that it is selective to only focus on the app that is controlled by an adversarial country. I see the ban as addressing a symptom of weak privacy laws instead of addressing the root issue/cause. If privacy were actually taken serious by our government and not enforced selectively, then objections would be a lot less.
I’ve seen that too. But they’re mistaken. “Censoring the internet” is not what this law does. That’s hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.
Don’t misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.