• GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    8 months ago

    Tankies failing to comprehend the fundamental difference between an actor who tries to make money off you and an actor trying to manufacture dissent and influence the public narrative

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Point taken, though it’s still an American company they could crack down upon if they prove too dangerous too.

        To be clear: I don’t want to get spied upon by anyone and I don’t use most of the American services for that reason. But obviously domestic bad actors are better than bad actors controlled by a foreign and hostile government

        • trebuchet@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s crazy to me that people such as you unironically believe the position you’re saying that American companies are easier to crack down on.

          We are literally seeing concrete proof in action that domestic companies are much harder to crack down on or regulate. They are much better positioned to lobby and are currently using their immense political power to protect themselves while removing their foreign rivals. There isn’t even talk of taking action against them because they are so politically powerful.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It would be a lot better if Congress could pass a comprehensive privacy bill, but we lack a functioning government so I guess this is the best we can do.

          Greatest democracy in the world, right here.

          • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            … it’s obvious because a domestic entity is subject to local laws, and can if push comes to shove be shut down or nationalized. A foreign one is essentially out of reach.

              • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                8 months ago

                Why is it contentious that a government can better curb foreign interference if it is done on a domestic platform? Regardless of how shitty the United States are that’s a simple fact and also practiced by China, only to a much greater extent.

                  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I have no horse in the race, I’m not an American. I don’t know or really care to what extent the corrupt shithole that is America can control its own corporations due to regulatory capture. That’s your own problem to fix.

                    All I’m arguing is that from the perspective of the us government it makes perfect sense to be wary of foreign influence before its own corps.

                    Didn’t tiktok just accidentally prove the American legislator’s argument by causing mass calls into the legislators office or something? Endless amounts of people who don’t even know why they are calling, just because “tiktok said so”. Are you telling me that isn’t a disturbing implication?

            • saga@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              The existence of the article you’re literally commenting on directly refutes what you’re saying here. Like you’re in a thread because of news that demonstrates that the opposite of what you’re saying here is actually true.

              If you need more examples - What happened to Facebook after the Cambridge Analytica scandal? They got banned by congress right? They got shut down? The government stopped them from continuing to manipulate the public?

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      trying to manufacture dissent and influence the public narrative

      That shit is all over American social media too buddy. If that’s the issue it should all be banned.