No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
What if I think Facebook and Twitter should be shit canned too?
Are you the US government cherry picking privacy concerns to eliminate competitors?
They all suck, yeah. I think banning individual social media services is not the solution. The solution is to create meaningful laws that hold any company, Chinese or American, accountable for data privacy and misinformation/election interference violations.
Funny you say that, because Chinese apps like tiktok can't ever be compliant with GDPR, and American ones are fully reliant on an executive order where Biden pinky swore to not use the Cloud Act against GDPR.
We don't do that here
Unless you live in California, they kinda do.
That wouldn't solve the problem because the Chinese government is not bound by US law in China.
They are while doing business in the USA
Yes, which doesn't solve the problem because the problem is in China. The Chinese government can demand any information that ByteDance possesses. Under Chinese law, they are bound to comply and bound to deny that they were even asked under threat of extremely harsh punishment.
It does solve the problem at least as far as then you’d have legal standing to ban til too, and equally anything else that doesn’t follow the law
I would expect a meaningful data privacy law would involve forcing the client software to be audited to ensure they aren't collecting the information in the first place?
You're conflating privacy and espionage. The reason basically every country in the world has laws about foreign ownership of media and telecommunications infrastructure is not because of privacy concerns -- it's because of the potential for espionage. That fanciful law with no chance of passing in the US (even if it should!) would reduce but not eliminate the problem. It's illegal for China to operate weird little secret police stations in foreign countries to threaten, intimidate, and control the Chinese diaspora, but that hasn't stopped them from doing it. Having them control powerful monitoring and tracking tools doesn't make it harder. They are very capable of surreptitiously doing shit they shouldn't.
No I'm not conflating anything, you're just moving the goalpost...
from
to
People can still do murder even though its illegal and most murderers are never caught, so we shouldn't have laws making murder illegal because it doesn't "solve" murder
🙂 perfect is the enemy of good. I don't think we're going to "eliminate" espionage, something that has existed for all of written history...
No, you're conflating privacy and espionage.
I'm not moving the goal posts. The order for China to divest is about espionage. The ban stemming from their refusal to divest is about espionage. Your privacy law doesn't solve this problem because it's not a privacy problem, it's an espionage problem.
To take your murder example, it's like saying 'I don't see why everyone's so worked up about China coming here and shooting people. People get shot here every day and the army doesn't get involved!' Despite sharing some details, domestic gun violence and war are different. You're focusing on the trees and missing the forest.
I'm not opposed to your proposed law. I'd support the hell out of it. It would solve other important problems, even if it wouldn't solve this one. But saying that a country can't do anything about espionage unless they pass that law is unrealistic.
Who said that?
You, in a nutshell. You're saying that they shouldn't address specific threats. Why not both?
Reading comprehension
lol no. But nice try. I applaud the attempt!