• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Why assume they know what they’re talking about for every single topic?

    Because I would hope they know what they’re talking about when they write the legislation. Or at least can explain their reasoning for voting a certain way. Especially when nobody has made the case that TikTok is any more dangerous than Facebook or Twitter.

    • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      They largely don’t write the legislation. Lobby groups draft the materials and if we’re lucky, the congressional aides make a pass and clean things up.

      You can search for why TikTok is dangerous. There are plenty of examples of how the application and platform are not being forthright with how they collect your identifiers and weaponize them for information operations campaigns.

      As I mentioned earlier, the powers that be aren’t as worried about Facebook and the like because they’re US-based and have working relationships with law enforcement. Facebook has been used for the very campaigns that TikTok is being used for now, but a large difference is that another nation has near complete control over the platform.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        They largely don’t write the legislation. Lobby groups draft the materials and if we’re lucky, the congressional aides make a pass and clean things up.

        Yes but they should at least be able to explain why they voted a certain way on that legislation, right?

        I agree that social media is dangerous for all the reasons mentioned, but I don’t see why Zuckerberg and Musk still get to do all those things.

        • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I’m not arguing against them explaining their rationale. I originally argued that they shouldn’t be taken as experts.

          Zuckerberg and Musk “get” to do these things because they are in the US, with majority US-based workers, running off US-based infrastructure. If any of these platforms are being used to facilitate attacks against the US, the government can choose any number of methods to step in and enforce compliance to mitigate the threat. That’s it. This is about free speech in that not all speech is protected. If somebody uses TikTok to perform the digital equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater, the government sees a need to control it.

          If Facebook was run and operated out of Tunisia, I’d expect these same conversations to be happening with them as well.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Except Facebook and Twitter are being used to attack the US and spread disinformation and the government isn’t doing anything.

            But I guess that’s what I should expect from a government that cares more about national security than the privacy of its citizens.