←back to thread

Trudeau government bans TikTok from operating in Canada

(www.cbc.ca)
531 points empressplay | 4 comments | 06 Nov 24 23:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
not2b ◴[07 Nov 24 00:01 UTC] 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(10): >>42071557 #>>42071563 #>>42071688 #>>42071710 #>>42072099 #>>42072166 #>>42072254 #>>42072301 #>>42073186 #>>42073359 #
imgabe ◴[07 Nov 24 00:03 UTC] 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(25): >>42071596 #>>42071716 #>>42071772 #>>42071817 #>>42071833 #>>42071939 #>>42072002 #>>42072050 #>>42072201 #>>42072215 #>>42072256 #>>42072299 #>>42072351 #>>42072358 #>>42072658 #>>42072956 #>>42073124 #>>42073165 #>>42073184 #>>42073214 #>>42073220 #>>42073395 #>>42073441 #>>42073500 #>>42073558 #
kaliqt ◴[07 Nov 24 00:26 UTC] No.42071772[source]▶
As opposed to the domestic government controlling the algorithm that decides what millions of people see, and their ability to shape public opinion through that.
replies(5): >>42071880 #>>42071935 #>>42072000 #>>42072249 #>>42072720 #
macNchz ◴[07 Nov 24 00:46 UTC] No.42071935[source]▶
If you live in a democracy you have a vote and a voice to bring to the table. It’s wild to me that on this topic people seem to see their own governments as largely equivalent to an outwardly adversarial if not explicitly hostile foreign power.

I think it has been so long since the Pax-Americana West has dealt with an overtly hostile major power that we’ve collectively lost the concept that there can be real enemies with goals that run explicitly counter to our own.

replies(3): >>42071949 #>>42072023 #>>42073522 #
kaliqt[dead post] ◴[07 Nov 24 00:55 UTC] No.42072023[source]▶
[flagged]
1. YZF ◴[07 Nov 24 01:32 UTC] No.42072296[source]▶
Support for Israel reflects the broad support in the American public. You'll find that elected officials generally reflect the opinions of those that voted for them. They likely disagree with your opinions and think Israel is right to use force to defend itself against the aggression of its enemies.

That said these sorts of issues were way down the list in these elections and people have to compromise on some issues and vote on the aggregate. I do think that it's pretty clear the Republicans were and are a lot more understanding and publicly supportive of Israel vs. the Democrats. They didn't try to do a "both sides here" but clearly communicated who they consider to be the aggressor and who they consider to be defending themselves. That doesn't mean that every single republican voter feels that way but a lot of them do.

The US also supported and brokered quite a few peace initiatives in the middle east. It's not fair to say it only acts to support wars.

replies(2): >>42072549 #>>42072550 #
2. faizmokh ◴[07 Nov 24 02:11 UTC] No.42072549[source]▶
It only serves to support wars, and most of the American public has historically been fine with it as long as the conflicts aren't on their own soil. However, they can no longer have that sense of security under Trump.
3. monocasa ◴[07 Nov 24 02:11 UTC] No.42072550[source]▶
> You'll find that elected officials generally reflect the opinions of those that voted for them.

If you look into the data, you'll generally find that they don't.

"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

replies(1): >>42072714 #
4. YZF ◴[07 Nov 24 02:33 UTC] No.42072714[source]▶
This doesn't exactly contradict what I was saying. Just because elected officials hold similar opinions doesn't mean economic interests can't impact their policy decisions. Also in terms of methodology, skimming through the paper, the author uses "national survey of the general public" but my claim is whether a given official reflects the will of their voters - which is not the same thing. He does also look at what "affluent" people think as some sort of proxy for the power of money. Maybe there's something there.

I think it's an interesting area of research. However on many fundamental issues, let's say illegal immigration, foreign policy, or abortions, it's not immediately obvious that business interests hold power most of the time. If that was true then it really wouldn't matter if you have democrats or republicans in power but you see definite shift in policy when that happens.