this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
609 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59881 readers
5148 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] helpImTrappedOnline 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

For me the downside is the precedent it sets. Yes, most of us agree getting rid of TikTok is a good thing, but how long until they start banning other sites "for the children"? How long until they target federated sites they can't control "for the children"?

To top it off, it doesn't solve the data harvesting problem their so scared of with TikTok. They only care about that one because the data is going to China. Instagram and others can stay because they are American companies spying on citizens.

[–] maplebar 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is a slippery slope argument.

The "problem" re TikTok is that they are a Chinese company with ties to the Chinese government who have managed to get a closed source black box app on millions of Americans phones that servers as about the most perfect avenue for social/political manipulation as any adversary could dream of.

The solution to that problem that was offered to TikTok more than a year ago was to simply sell to an American company (and thus a company that could in theory be held somewhat accountable, but probably not if we're being honest) for doing bad things here in the USA. ByteDance would have made billions of dollars selling the American version of TikTok, but they knowingly chose the other option, which was to face a ban at the end of this year.

FWIW, American companies cannot operator or sell product in China without going through a Chinese company, and social media platforms like Facebook are banned in China, so in my opinion some degree of reciprocity here is at least warranted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I don't see a problem with a slippery slope here though. Given how many people would have a strong motivation to evade said censorship, they would likely use it as an excuse to improve their censorship infrastructure.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

I understand your argument, and I don't disagree with it. Nor do I agree with the absolutely ridiculous reasons the government has given for the ban. It's the end result that doesn't bother me.

As for federated sites, they aren't as threatened as you might think. Sure, the government could shut some of them down if they tried. But that's only true for those that are hosted and ran by people in jurisdictions that the US government can affect. That's the strength of federation. Not only can platforms like Lemmy not turn out like Twitter, since you can defederate from instances that allow things like white supremacy, effectively purging those types of people from the fediverse at large, the decentralized nature of the system means that there's no practical way for any one government to take down the entire ecosystem. A good example of governments trying to take down something they collectively hate, is piracy. Even united behind the cause of capitalism, and with the billions of dollars of the recording and motion picture industries behind them, nations across the world have not had great success in stopping piracy of any kind, mostly due to the patchwork nature of takedowns. I don't have any fear that the US government would be any more effective in tackling federated platforms.

I would go so far as to say that federated sites are the only social media people should be using, because it's much easier to control things like disinformation, since the power in adjusting the flow of information isn't centralized to one group with one agenda. Some would say that just creates an echo chamber, and for some instances that's true. But unless those admins defederate from everyone, their users are going to be exposed to viewpoints that disturb that echo chamber, from places they don't have power to control.