LengAwaits

You gotta use an escape character, specifically a backslash ( \ ), when dealing with *s on lemmy.

Otherwise you end up with "stufflike this!"

When it could have been "stuff*like this*!"

ETA: Damn, you're good. Fixed it before I even finished this post!

I'm not sure whether or not that will matter. Again, not a lawyer or lawmaker, myself, but this bit makes me wonder:

(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok).

And further down...

An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation.

It sounds as though your ISP would technically be "distributing" the info to you from the foreign server, and thus subject to these fines? Not sure how that all fits in with the rest of it, or with the erosion of net neutrality.

Not quite. As far as I can tell the US can now play whack-a-mole with any app owned or controlled by a "foreign adversary", thanks to this precedent. The decision as to which nations are considered a "Foreign Adversary" is made by the U.S. Secretary Of Commerce.

I am not a lawyer or lawmaker, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's the full text of the legislation (emphases mine):

DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

• would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
• precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).

The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user's request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

DIVISION I--PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual's data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

Woah. A gif from "The Great Outdoors". Now there's something you don't see everyday!

Agreed. The humor of the comic is in the hyperbole.

Definitely. Innocent until proven guilty. But then, the conversation does still have to happen, sometimes. That's how people (on both sides of the debate) learn the difference in the first place.

I'm unfamiliar with the show, but thank you so much for engaging with the nuance of the situation, here. I agree with what you have to say regarding context surrounding “Moliendo Café”. Context matters. OP's comic is a bit too "strawman" for my tastes.

There's discussion to be had, for sure, but this comic squeezes all the nuance out of a complex topic just to score an easy gotcha.

i dont know that ill say IP shouldnt exist.

And the authors aren't really saying that, either.

To be clear, I don't agree with all of the authors' positions. I also think it's worth noting that the authors are not advocating for an elimination of the patent and copyright systems without replacing them with systems better suited to ensuring creator prosperity while also allowing for speedier human innovation.

It's worth a read, if you're interested in the subject matter. It challenged my opinions on intellectual property, but didn't change them entirely. Things they discuss, such as patent trolling and patent squatting, are worth contemplation. How can we change IP law to disincentivize such antisocial intellectual property law use by bad-faith actors?

ETA:

The economic burden of today's patent lawsuits is, in fact, historically unprecedented. Research shows that patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in direct out-of-pocket costs; in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $60 billion in firm wealth each year.

(From the above article.... and that was in 2014!)

This is a great read on the IP topic. I highly recommend it:

Against Intellectual Monopoly

This is the co-author's site and it does contain the full text, although physical copies are available directly from the Cambridge University Press.

Here's a summary:

“Intellectual property” – patents and copyrights – have become controversial. We witness teenagers being sued for “pirating” music – and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high priced to satisfy patent holders. Are patents and copyrights essential to thriving creation and innovation – do we need them so that we all may enjoy fine music and good health? Across time and space the resounding answer is: No. So-called intellectual property is in fact an “intellectual monopoly” that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps. This book has broad coverage of both copyrights and patents and is designed for a general audience, focusing on simple examples. The authors conclude that the only sensible policy to follow is to eliminate the patents and copyright systems as they currently exist.

ETA: It's written from the perspective of believers in the broad capitalist structure. The authors are serious economists that support the free market in no uncertain terms.

We will always love to see others enjoy a part of our culture (as long as it is not in an exploitative and fetishistic way).

I think this is a big part of the reason why some people get all white-knight about cultural appropriation. It can be quite difficult to know, as a cultural outsider, and from a glance, when something is being done in an exploitative and/or fetishistic way.

100% agreed. I used the graphic to illustrate the point but really should have just linked to the Wikipedia article, which explains the difference.

In the instance I replied to, the slippery slope is invoked but the steps are not described, and no evidence is provided.

Besides, I'd argue (in good company) that centrism is and has been a cloak for fascism.

I'm still always surprised when people say "slippery slope" in earnest, as though it isn't a well-known logical fallacy to be avoided. As though, at no point along the slope, would we be able to reverse course. "This thing must necessarily lead to that thing over time!"

Okay Nostradamus.