Mastodawn

Eric Guidry Mar 23, 2023

Dr. Casey Fiesler

As your resident TikTok micro-celebrity + tech ethics/policy professor, I have a lot of feelings about the proposed TikTok ban. I think that this statement from Evan Greer of Fight for the Future articulates some points well. If the sole argument is "but China" I would very much like to see something beyond speculation. And if it's just not that, then go after Meta too. And either way maybe you could pass LITERALLY ANY DATA PRIVACY LAWS.

Elizabeth Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler seems like this is just about protecting trade secrets. We are the trade secrets.

Woozle Hypertwin Mar 23, 2023

@Elizabeth3 @cfiesler

What do they even mean by "ban", though? (I haven't gone hunting for the text of the bill, but I'm not sure I'd be able to parse out the relevant bits even if I did.)

Dr. Casey Fiesler Mar 23, 2023

@woozle @Elizabeth3 The bill itself doesn't do anything directly; it gives the secretary of Commerce the power to ban foreign technologies and companies from operating in the US if they present a threat to national security.

Woozle Hypertwin Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler @Elizabeth3

Ok. So it wouldn't stop anyone from using TikTok. (Still not sure it's a good idea, but it doesn't imply some of the things that a lot of people seem to think it implies.)

Might "operating" include, for example, using a US-based hosting service, do you think?

one non-non-blonde Mar 23, 2023

@woozle The censorship in the People's Republic of China that Americans tend to get very worked up about is basically the same as what you're describing. People in PRC can access censored content easily with a VPN and aren't punished for it.

Whether we think that's an acceptable status quo or not I just hope we can be consistent regardless of which country's politicians are doing it.

Woozle Hypertwin Mar 23, 2023

@chairgirlhands Well... there's a difference between being able to access content and being able to access it with a VPN.

There's also a difference between "can't operate in the US" and "can't be accessed from the US" or even "can't have servers in the US". It's not clear to me whether this legislation -- which I do not approve of, let me be clear about that -- goes beyond the first one.

one non-non-blonde Mar 23, 2023

@woozle we can split all the hairs we want but the goal is identical: make it harder to access the thing and kneecap its presence without directly punishing people who do access it.

Woozle Hypertwin Mar 23, 2023

@chairgirlhands I just want to make sure we don't self-strawman, in that fight.

Yes, it's wrong and we shouldn't be okay with it. If they really mean what they say about the danger, then privacy legislation or other types of consumer protections would be much more appropriate. (...and Twitter and Meta are at least as much of a threat.)

Dr. Casey Fiesler Mar 23, 2023

@woozle @Elizabeth3 If under this bill it IS banned then yes it would stop people from using TikTok. That's the point of this hearing. Not sure about the specifics though.

Edward L Platt Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler @woozle @Elizabeth3 These are some really interesting questions. If it included the web client, that would mean a state-mandate for private ISPs to block internet traffic based on IP or DNS, which as far as I know is unprecedented in the US

Woozle Hypertwin Mar 23, 2023

That would indeed be bad and, I think, a First Amendment violation.

@cfiesler @Elizabeth3

Dr. Casey Fiesler Mar 23, 2023

@woozle @elplatt @Elizabeth3 A number of digital rights groups have pointed out that there would be a high bar to survive first amendment scrutiny.

Anti-Fatalist Mar 24, 2023

@cfiesler @woozle @elplatt @Elizabeth3 Except if the Supreme Court justices are all super anti-communists, which they are (even though China isn't even a communist society), in which case they'll happily make an exception to the First Amendment for this bill. The idea that the Supreme Court actually acts according to any actually logical principle rather than the interests of the class that put them where they are, is laughable.

Anti-Fatalist Mar 24, 2023

@cfiesler @woozle @Elizabeth3 And by "national security" they just mean *capitalism*, because this isn't about 'national security' since capitalism ITSELF is the threat to us and the government is literally only set up as the means of the bourgeoisie to protect their preferred system (and profits) against its abolition by us, and they do this by massive state violence.

Woozle Hypertwin Mar 24, 2023

That seems like a good summary of the situation, yes.

@cfiesler @Elizabeth3

Mike Hanley Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler sinophobia

somehybrid Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler THIS IS SO TRUE like seriously if you apply privacy standards for one app, i dont think it's stretching the limits to enforce the same exact standards for another

one non-non-blonde Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler nail on the head.

katherine montalto Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler I'm watching the hearing right now and it's all red scare stuff

Derek Caelin is writing a book Mar 23, 2023

@cfiesler PREACH.

Jack Yan (甄爵恩)Mar 24, 2023

@cfiesler Literally writing about this when your post showed up as a boost! So I included it.

https://jackyan.com/blog/2023/03/if-you-take-out-tiktok-then-why-not-meta-too/

If you take out Tiktok, then why not Meta, too? « Jack Yan: the Persuader Blog

If banning Tiktok from parliamentary devices is about foreigners getting hold of data, then why not ban Facebook and Instagram?

Derek Powazek 🐐Mar 25, 2023

@cfiesler I have really appreciated your thoughtful TikToks. Thanks for being out there talking sense.

momen Mar 26, 2023

@cfiesler does any data privacy law prevent Law Enforcement Agency's (CIA or CCP) to access our data? Wouldn't they' always have exemptions? Pardon my ignorance.