←back to thread

423 points empressplay | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
not2b ◴[] No.42071538[source]
Instead of the laser focus on TikTok as a threat, it would be better for the US and Canada to have real data protection laws that would apply equally to TikTok, Meta, Google, Apple, and X. What the EU has done is far from perfect but it bans the worst practices. The Chinese can buy all of the information they want on Americans and Canadians from ad brokers, who will happily sell them everything they need to track individuals' locations.

Perhaps the way to get anti-regulation politicians on board with this is for someone to do what was done to Robert Bork and legally disclose lots of personal info on members of Congress/Parliament, obtained from data brokers and de-anonymized.

replies(8): >>42071557 #>>42071563 #>>42071688 #>>42071710 #>>42072099 #>>42072166 #>>42072254 #>>42072301 #
imgabe ◴[] No.42071557[source]
It is not about the data. It’s about a foreign government controlling the algorithm that decides what millions of people see, and their ability to shape public opinion through that.

Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish.

replies(16): >>42071596 #>>42071716 #>>42071772 #>>42071817 #>>42071833 #>>42071939 #>>42072002 #>>42072050 #>>42072201 #>>42072215 #>>42072256 #>>42072299 #>>42072351 #>>42072358 #>>42072658 #>>42072956 #
cool_dude85 ◴[] No.42071833[source]
Let's take this one step further, then, and ask why we should allow private media ownership if it's this important. Why should some malevolent billionaire be able to own CNN or NYT and decide what stories they could publish? Does it matter if the billionaire has a US passport or not?
replies(3): >>42071848 #>>42071899 #>>42072157 #
jvanderbot ◴[] No.42071899[source]
I really don't see why there's this cognitive dissonance. Limiting enemy states' government broadcasting power inside your territory is pretty low on the controversial things a gov can do.
replies(3): >>42071911 #>>42071965 #>>42072180 #
cool_dude85 ◴[] No.42071911[source]
What's an "enemy state"? We're not at war with China.
replies(2): >>42071941 #>>42072095 #
dghlsakjg ◴[] No.42072095[source]
China is known to be actively spying and meddling in Canadian domestic politics in ways that are not legal or the normal diplomatic channels.

Describing them as an enemy might be too far, but you certainly wouldn’t describe China as a friend.

replies(2): >>42072224 #>>42072265 #
1. cool_dude85 ◴[] No.42072224[source]
All fair complaints, but are those the standards you want to set for "banning any state-owned media from that country"? We're not enemies but I wouldn't call them our friends?
replies(1): >>42072892 #
2. dghlsakjg ◴[] No.42072892[source]
Canada didn’t ban non state-owned media. It didn’t even ban any media. TikTok is still allowed, RT is still accessible, private news sources, foreign annd domestic, exist at all levels through Canada.

We banned a single corporate entity from operating offices inside the country in response to credible intelligence that those offices pose a national security threat. That corporate entity is directly linked with an adversarial government with active election subversion campaigns.

Is there some reason you are twisting the actual circumstances around this?