https://kbin.melroy.org/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/169337/-/comment/1533639 Pretty much.

Lol Did you know India banned tik tok?

The thing is, the Chinese Government has some serious real aspirations for world domination. They literally want to supplant the US as THE world power. And tik tok is very open exposing US citizens to propaganda if nothing else. On top of that Tik Tok literally admitted that their algorithm was used to try to spy on journalists and track down their sources. They claim it was a lapse of judgement. But that alone has terrifying implications. I don’t use tik tok but my understanding is it still has data on me and other people like me because I know several people who use it.

All the other tech companies who are gathering data like this on their users are a problem. And the number of algorithms used by theses companies and their effect on the mental health of the users are also a problem. But the only reason the US government is going after tik tok is specifically because of its ties to the CCP.

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2023/03/24/what-tiktok-knows-you-should-know-tiktok/

Can you be more contagious? Virulently so? Pandemic level? I need some of that good EU user privacy law plague in my life.

It’s always been that way though. Back in the day on Myspace or MSN chatrooms there were whole lists of words that were auto censored and could result in a ban (temp or permanent). We literally had whole lists of alternates to use. You couldn’t say sex, or kill back then either. The difference is the algorithm. I acknowledge in my comment that these platforms already censor things they find objectionable. Part of that is to keep Section 230 as it is. A perhaps more relevant part of it is to keep advertisers happy so they continue to buy ad space. A small portion of it may even be to keep the majority of the user base happy because users who don’t agree with the supposed ideologies on a platform will leave it and that’s less eyeballs on ads.

Hasn’t been my experience and I use one pretty exclusively at my work. Had a surface pro 4 before the surface pro 7 and that was still working when I got upgraded to the 7 (mostly for better specs as some of the programs I need got updates that needed more processing power). I work in an industrial environment too so that thing goes through some rather extreme work areas. I have also personally owned the surface Go and it still works just fine.

So, I can see a lot of problems with this. Specifically the same problems that the public and regulating bodies face when deciding to keep or overturn section 230. Free speech isn’t necessarily what I’m worried about here. Mostly because it is already agreed that free speech is a construct that only the government is actually beholden to. Message boards have and will continue to censor content as they see fit.

Section 230 basically stipulates that companies that provide online forums (Meta, Alphabet, 4Chan etc) are not liable for the content that their users post. And part of the reason it works is because these companies adhere to strict guidelines in regards to content and most importantly moderation.

Section 230©(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Reddit, Facebook, 4Chan et all do have rules and regulations they require their users to follow in order to post. And for the most part the communities on these platforms are self policing. There just aren’t enough paid moderators to make it work otherwise.

That being said, the real problem is that this really kind of indirectly challenges section 230. Mostly because it very barely skirts around whether the relevant platforms can themselves be considered publishers, or at all responsible for the content the users post and very much attacks how users are presented with content to keep them engaged via algorithms (which is directly how they make their money).

Even if the lawsuits fail, this will still be problematic. It could lead to draconian moderation of what can be posted and by whom. So now all race related topics regardless of whether they include hate speech could be censored for example. Politics? Censored. The discussion of potential new laws? Censored.

But I think it will be worse than that. The algorithm is what makes the ad space these companies sell so valuable. And this is a direct attack on that. We lack the consumer privacy protections to protect the public from this eventuality. If the ad space isn’t valuable the data will be. And there’s nothing stopping these companies from selling user data. Some of them already do. What these apps do in the background is already pretty invasive. This could lead to a furthering of that invasive scraping of data. I don’t like that.

That being said there is a point I agree with. These companies literally do make their algorithm addictive and it absolutely will push content at users. If that content is of an objectionable nature, so long as it isn’t outright illegal, these companies do not care. Because they do gain from it monetarily.

What we actually need is data privacy protections. Holding these companies accountable for their algorithms is a good idea. But I don’t agree that this is the way to do that constructively. It would be better to flesh out 230 as a living document that can change with the times. Because when it was written the Internet landscape was just different.

What I would like to see is for platforms to moderate content posted and representing itself as fact. We don’t see that nearly enough on places like reddit. Users can post anything as fact and the echo chambers will rally around it if they believe it. It’s not really incredibly difficult to radicalise a person. But the platforms aren’t doing that on purpose. The other users are, and the algorithms are helping them.

With the rise in power banks and phones being rated in Amp Hours, I think this may be a recent change, and certainly one I have noticed.

My father in law drives a 2015 F150. That outlet on the center console is 120 Volt outlet supplies 400watts. But a fridge can be anything from 300 to almost 800. I’m not saying it’s impossible. And with newer trucks (especially the lightning and the F150 hybrid), I would believe it more readily. Ford is quick to market this in new trucks but I wouldn’t count on it with older trucks. I’m just pointing out that real work experience says your mileage may vary. Especially in places like Texas or Arizona where your battery is going through extreme heat cycles due to the weather from like February to November.

While it’s true that it won’t be at max capacity, I will say that batteries these days will rate themselves in amp hours. For instance usually an 800 CCA AGM battery lists itself online as 7.5 AH.

The conversion process involves using the formula CCA = 7.2 x Ah to convert from Ah to CCA, and Ah = CCA / 7.2 to convert from CCA to Ah.

From the owners manual: “There is a 115 Volt, 150 Watt inverter outlet located on the back of the center console to convert DC current to AC current. This outlet can power cellular phones, electronics and other low power devices requiring power up to 150 Watts.”

I don’t know if I’d plug in a fridge to that. I was wondering because my father in law’s truck has a similar outlet and I know he’s blown a fuse using it to power power tools.

But the government literally already does that. There’s a whole food and drug administration. Weed isn’t completely de-scheduled yet despite the number of states that have legalized it. You literally can’t go to a shooting range without following the rules of the range, or go skydiving without signing a waiver, you can’t buy alcohol until you’re 21, and in some states can’t even buy cigarettes until then either. Want to rent a car? Can’t at 19. The government interferes in cases of public safety all the time.

That being said they aren’t attempting to ban tik tok because of the effects on the public’s mental health. That’s BS. They are trying to force the sale of tik tok to a US friendly tech company because they don’t like how much power the CCP has over it. The purpose isn’t to protect privacy or mental health. It’s to only allow companies friendly to the US to affect the mental health of its residents and collect their private data.

Disagree. It is the governments job to protect themselves and their citizens. The problem is the government only wants that responsibility when it suits them. When Google is collecting your data it’s fine. When Facebook is collecting your data and leaking it, and poisoning you with unsolicited propaganda, that’s fine. But when tik tok does it it’s not fine because tik tok is controlled by the CCP and they’re a foreign power who are trying to sabotage the US. This bill is a BS money grab being pushed by politicians who’s pockets are being lined by big American Tech companies. It has nothing to do with consumer protection because if it did, Facebook and Google and Twitter and Amazon would all be in the same boat.

I haven’t had this kind of problem but I’ve had Google Fi since it was project Fi around 2017. And had a yubikee on my Google account for just as long. Wonder if that’s why. I do remember back in the day losing an old Verizon flip phone and buying a new one in store. They didn’t properly disconnect my account from the old phone and someone was deleting messages before I could read them etc for a solid month before Verizon figured it out. But that was like 2001? Things have changed quite a lot.

They won’t accept historical context for anything they believe in. Why should this be any different?

Let them come. I take this as an opportunity to radicalise them.

The way I look at it (as a German car owner myself), you gotta be able to afford repairs, and you have to do maintenance. Too many people wait 10k miles to do an oil change and no car should be treated that way.

Tesla’s do this.

I mean. America’s isn’t doing much better on the engineering front. Ford and Chrysler issued the most recalls in 2023 apparently. GM is also in the top 10.

I have a question. How would it be moderated and by whom? In an age where the warthunder forums literally have a leak of classified info like monthly, and the US is increasingly losing the cyber security war because people can’t do simple things like not plug random usb’s they found on the side of the road into their work computers, I don’t really understand why it’s hard to believe tik tok is a threat to national security.

The permissions it asks for on your phone are kind of a red flag. Specifically access to the camera and microphone. Mostly because with it being controlled by the CCP (as most successful Chinese Businesses are), it is absolutely trivial for them to gather information “anonymously” about their users, de-anonymize it, and then target those users with anything and everything including pro CCP propaganda. That alone is reason enough for me to understand why federal employees aren’t allowed to use tik tok on any federal device (work phones and computers for instance).

I don’t necessarily think forcing them to sell to another entity will fix the problems with tik tok. I think this bill is intended to be a “solution” to placate people. Mostly because it doesn’t seem like it’s been written by people who understand the technology. But I also wouldn’t say that tik tok is harmless or blameless.

Why does tik tok need to gather information about what banking apps I use? What healthcare apps I use? Why does it need my GPS location? Why can it collect this data without my consent? Why and how does it collect information on people even if they don’t use tik tok? Have never used tik tok?

On top of that Tik Tok got caught spying on reporters with the intent to track down their sources. That’s terrifying.

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2023/03/24/what-tiktok-knows-you-should-know-tiktok/