this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
226 points (95.6% liked)

Technology

62853 readers
6344 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 other!
  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
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] itsathursday@lemmy.world 63 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They are going to ban themselves as protest for banning them..?

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Essentially yea, the laws enforcement mechanism as-is is just having the app delisted from app stores

Everything else is of TikToks own doing

[–] Technoguyfication@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago (6 children)

And that’s all it should be. Currently, the US government does not have the facilities to block traffic to specific websites or IP addresses on a country-wide basis. We don’t have a “great firewall” the way China does, and we should keep it that way.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Yes it does? All it would take is a single piece of legislation and a couple of hours for all ISPs to block all traffic to certain IP ranges.

Sure, it doesn't prevent VPNs but it would block 95% of access. The remaining 5% can be blocked through banning VPNs and deep packet inspection, the latter of which doesn't require that much new infrastructure.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 8 points 1 month ago

Idk why you are downvoted. They have that yes

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Except banning vpns would kill the economy immediately. Pretty much every big corporation is utilizing vpns to facilitate their work from home infrastructure. Hell, often even internally. Not to mention state and federal governments also use them. Suggesting they could do that is a joke.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They'll just make legal carveouts for government and commercial use, and go after consumer-facing VPN providers that refuse to comply. For VPN providers based outside the US, they could delist their websites from DNS or block their IPs. They can't stop someone who's determined from finding a way, of course, but just a few simple barriers prevents most people from putting in the effort.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 4 points 1 month ago

From what I understand, in my country OpenVPN and Wireguard work fine within the borders, but the protocols are blocked to foreign servers.

I wasn't talking about the technology behind VPNs. Every single country that "bans VPNs" still uses them commercially to some extent.

What I consider a ban on VPNs is a ban on commercial B2C VPN providers that do not comply with US legislation - meaning they'd allow customers to access banned sites.

Add the fact that pretty much all major payment providers happen to be US companies and I'd wager 99% of "normal" access could be blocked.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Viri4thus@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago

Actually...

I think if people in the US had the capacity for introspection and empathy we would have had a collective

are we the baddies

moment every year for the past 250y...

[–] arin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

False, feds have taken down whole domains for violations

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

It was either this or self immolation

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Zuckerberg is behind it, just like he was when they banned it on India. Politicians get what they want by eliminating a company that doesn't support them, Meta gets more usershare in the U.S. they can control the narrative and keep their guys in place so they don't get regulated and they get more tax breaks.

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In other words, the US government exists solely to serve its wealthiest constituents.

[–] MisterMoo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Meanwhile China says no American internet sites in their country and I guess that’s ok for some reason.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Censorship is bad when China does it. Censorship is bad when America does it.

Same for Germany, Australia, Japan, North and South Korea.

Governments don't censor speech because they protect their citizens, they censor speech because it protects their monopoly on violence and help propagate their visions to an unquestioning audience.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

who said it was ok?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Please criticize the us government for this as hard as I have been criticizing China for locking it's citizens out of the world stage with their "great firewall".

Or don't, it's not like hypocrisy doesn't get enshrined and worshipped here lmfaoooo

[–] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago

It's simply not even close.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago (3 children)

A shutdown would be preferable than a sale of the active app and userbase to Elon no?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago

Yes TikTok, that’s what a ban is.

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Yeah this just sounds like compliance with the media making it seem like a protest for clicks...

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is all theatre, trump is going to "save it" after starting the initial push to ban it (for the wrong reasons) to pretend he did something for you. Worst part is that all of the no/low info voters and non voters will eat it up.

It's the equivalent of a person pushing you into the middle of the street and at the very last second, that same person tells the drivers to all stop. "Wow, I owe you my life!"

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

Just fucking do it alreadyyyyyy

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

I'm surprised they're taking that approach rather than pushing the web version.

[–] vodkasolution@feddit.it 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

First time in years I see something not bad happen in the US

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're not looking very closely then

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You got some suggestions on where to look? We're speedrunning the fall of rome over here, it's pretty much to the point that even hope is an unreasonable thing to hope for...

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

I meant the claim that this was somehow a good thing, and not a performative "anti-china" bill that was really about cutting out the young people's current venue for organizing against the wealthy's interests, like their criticisms of the genocide in Gaza. China will still get all that info by buying it off the hundred other apps that collect it. If they cared about the data collection, they'd have addressed all data collection.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago (6 children)

get a vpn (that isn't proton) now people cause it'll only get worse

[–] valkyre09@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How come not proton? Did they get caught with their hands in the ~~cookie jar~~ traffic logs?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

CEO honestly thinks Trump and the Republicans are going to go after tech monopolies. Either he's detached from reality or he's trying to keep them from coming after Proton by cooperating. Either way is not great.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

and cozying up to american gov no matter who it is just gives me bad vibes that they would happily turn over anything they want when asked

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're shutting down instead of blocking new downloads, seems like a stunt. But the blocking of new downloads is obviously happening if SCOTUS doesn't step in...that's the law. That's just what the law says.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Still time to send them on some luxury vacations, I hear they like those!

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Can you order ~~an RV~~ a motor coach from Temu?

[–] roserose56@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

Do it, just do it with no second thoughts. They can't, they will lose all their business.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hoping they shut down and open source their algorithm. They already released part of it on github, apparently, but I haven't had a chance to look at it. Would like it if I could somehow use it for a personal Loops server in the future.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wild to me how much people here are celebrating the App ban.

I get that this is the fediverse and the goal is decentralized social media, but this ban also means thousands of small businesses will lose a primary or secondary source of income that they can't just replacewuickly, tons of people will lose access to methods of communication that would otherwise be censored on US platforms, and it eliminates a platform that has excelled at breaking down governments placed barriers of communication between different groups (which is something the fediverse does well, too)

Celebrating this is rather selfish and anti-free speech.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Its a platform that was secretly suppressing people for being disabled, black, queer or ugly. Cheering it's death is reasonable, defending it on the grounds that people will have to advertise somewhere else really isn't.

[–] umean2me@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I think most people on here would agree that TikTok is a shitty app, but you can't deny that just deciding to ban something in the manner they're doing with this bill is shady. The bill is very obviously targeted towards TikTok but is worded in a way that it can be used on any software owned by a "Foreign Adversary" as defined by the government.

It's proposed in the frame of national security with concerns of data collection being sent to China, but if that's the case there are far worse offenders of that violation of privacy than TikTok! Most large tech companies collect data from their users and sell it overseas. They may not sell directly to China but the amount of data collected is insane and once it is out of the hands of Meta or Google or whoever, it becomes hard to know for certain where it ends up.

The point I'm trying to make is that if the real concern is national security, their focus should be on regulating data collection instead of banning a singular app which collects the same data every other app in the world does. I don't defend TikTok, I couldn't care less if it was gone, but the grounds on which it is being banned are concerning and somewhat contradictory.

If I have been misinformed of any of this please let me know, this is just what I've gathered from reading sections of the bill myself and from the court hearings.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Disabled, black, queer, ugly (which is subjective but whatever) seemed quite unsuppressed on tiktok to my perception and the perceptions of many in those spaces... I'm sure there are exceptions due to the large sample size.

I fit several of those categories and have been immersed in those spaces on tiktok for a long time and the opinion has always trended to it being far superior for discussing and being in those groups than Instagram or YouTube. Especially for disabled and queer groups, tiktok was always the bigger audience.

defending it on the grounds that people will have to advertise somewhere else really isn't.

Shop is a lot more than advertising. Much closer to pre-enshittified etsy, and there's a reason a lot of small businesses formed around it instead of instagram. Tiktok would actually allow those products to be shown to people rather than supressed in favor of corporations.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›