• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2024

help-circle
  • If they actually wanted to protect children, the answer is simple: reverse the responsibilities. Require porn sites to include metadata indicating it isn’t safe for minors. Require browsers to recognize that metadata, and filter out that content if parental controls are enabled. If parents are still too lazy to turn it on, make it default (like “safe search”, but more effective). The fact none of them have even suggested this is proof they don’t care about children or even porn, they just want to be seen as if they do.


  • Absolutely none of this law was ever about privacy or mental health. No one ever claimed it was. The law is banning tiktok because it is based in China. That is the reason given by the law itself. The possibility that meta or Google or some other American company will buy or replace tiktok and operate the same way is not an unintended outcome. It is literally the whole point of the law to get bytedance to sell tiktok to an American company.






  • Why do you need so much info on Mike? Can’t you just evaluate his statements/work on its own merit? The whole point of open source, federated platforms is that you don’t have to trust him. If he decides to enshittify it, you can just go with a fork or another instance. A nomadic identity isn’t a centralized alternative to the fediverse, it’s just a way of bringing some of the features of a centralized identity to a decentralized one (at least, that’s the way I interpreted the article).




  • I dislike TikTok as much as the next guy, but I think there are several issues with this bill:

    • It specifically mentions TikTok and ByteDance. While none of the provisions seem to apply exclusively to them, the way they are included would give them no recourse to petition this, the way other companies would be able to (ie, other companies could argue in court that they aren’t controlled by a foreign adversary, but TikTok can’t. The bill literally defines “foreign adversary controlled application” as “TikTok, or …” (g.3.A)). It also gives the appearance that this law is only supposed to apply to them, which isn’t what it says but it might be treated that way anyway.

    • It leaves the determination of whether or not a company is “controlled by a foreign adversary” entirely up to the president. He has to explain himself to Congress, but doesn’t need their approval. That seems ripe for exploitation. I think it should require Congress to approve, either in a addition to or instead of the president.

    • According to g.2.A.ii (in the definition of “covered company”), the law only applies to social media with more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. Not sure why that’s included.

    • There is a specific exemption for any app that’s for posting reviews (g.2.B). I’m guessing one such company paid a whole lot to just not have this apply to them.