this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
191 points (92.4% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 66 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Wouldn't actual data privacy laws stop this all the same? I can't help but feel this weird song and dance avoiding the privacy argument exists so US companies don't get in the crossfire for doing the same shit with your data.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No way in hell they'd ever argue data privacy.

That's only for apple to pretend to care about while selling your data to brokers.

[–] Nurgle@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Sorry Apple is selling user data to data brokers now?

[–] prashanthvsdvn@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. They do have their own data collection practices and privacy policies. IIRC, meta was crying over Apple implementing permission data for apps since it would allow people to back off from meta but Apple would be sole winner from that move.

[–] Nurgle@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Yeah I was curious about Apple selling data to brokers, which I think would be new news. For Meta yeah that was the ios14 update, which really messed with their bottom line apparently lol

[–] huginn@feddit.it 0 points 6 months ago

I think I was mistaken on that point. They're not publicly doing that - just selling ads.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 months ago

Yes, but congress just authorized a bunch of new surveillance

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Affective legislation rather knee jerk reactionary politics? Not in America, buddy.

Remember the golden rule of American thought:

CHINA BAD.

[–] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Both can be true, poor US legislation that protects their buddies (investors), and China’s bad

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

No, because it's more about the curation algorithm than it is about the data or privacy.

Regulating curation is a clear violation of free speech laws for citizens, but foreign entity that controls TikTok has no such protections. Giving them this protection could be a dangerous precedent.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This is still a problem with US based platforms, though.

I would think people of the fediverse of all places would feel strongly about allowing users to control their own curation rather than allowing private companies to dictate what individual users see.