Dr. Casey FieslerMar 23, 2023
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.
Show threadElizabethMar 23, 2023
@cfiesler seems like this is just about protecting trade secrets. We are the trade secrets.
Show threadWoozle HypertwinMar 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.)

Show threadDr. Casey FieslerMar 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.
Show threadWoozle HypertwinMar 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?

Show threadone non-non-blondeMar 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.

Show threadWoozle HypertwinMar 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.

Show threadone non-non-blonde
@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.
Mar 23, 2023 at 4:35pmWeb
Show threadWoozle HypertwinMar 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.)