• FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    I wonder how many of these lawmakers will be invested in the company that swoops in and saves the American public?

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If she’s investing at the same time you’re getting the information, she missed the best time to buy. She might have hedged her bets and bought early

        • Gork@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fun fact: Congresspeople can legally inside trade, but the rest of us cannot.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of bribery lobbying.

            The way the law is written, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

            What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

            • DharkStare@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              5 months ago

              Just to clarify. Insider trading is illegal but it is not illegal for politicians in Congress to use the information they obtain from their jobs (such as through classified meetings) to engage in stock market trades.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                That’s simply not true. They have no exemption to insider trading laws. It simply comes down to trade timing.

                The way the law is written, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

                What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

          • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Fun fact: Everyone with hundreds of millions+ in holdings either trades with insider information or pays others to do it, because our metrics and enforcement for insider trading are a gallows joke.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Pathetic watching ancient, feeble rich people about to return to the dust from whence they came still frantically positioning to boost their ego scores.

        It’s if they believe their preferred invisible sky mommy/daddy will accept a bribe of earthly currency.

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Well, as it is what her husband did for a living his entire very successful life, but sure the Lady you don’t like is wrong for him doing his job well.

        • venusaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          A. Her husband is not a lawmaker. B. I’m sure her position helps C. Don’t simp for politicians. They DGAF about you.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m pretty sure I could be incredibly successful at trading stocks as well if I was married to a Senator who could give me inside information, lmao.

          • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            As she didn’t join Politics until '87, guess they invented communicating to with their past selves, lmao. If you’ve got any proof, kindly advise the FBI. Where as you’ve none, head on back to peddle that shit to fux nooz.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Christ, am I supposed to memory hole that Pelosi’s husband making a shit ton of money off stocks THREE YEARS AGO is what led to a round of antitrust bills getting introduced? Is there literally any criticism of these rich fucks you can hear without immediately shrieking about conservatives?

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The company behind tik tok said they will not sell they America is only 20% of their global market. They have refused to give their source code.

      So guess app just won’t work in US. Dumb ass lawmakers only people this hurt are the US citizens that are using it to make money.

      • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’d counter that basing your livelihood on an app that harvests your and your viewers data for an adversarial government known to use this kind of data in psyops isn’t a sound business idea.

        In fact, I’d say this bill actually protects American users who have been using the app.

        If TikTok can’t prove that they use our data responsibly, and refuse to do so to the point of just leaving the market, we are all better off. Another company will fill that void and content creators have endless options to move to.

        I don’t think “but people need to make money while our data is harvested and provided to a government that uses it against us” is a great argument.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          They passed the bill because someone is getting a cut. It isn’t to protect the public. If they wanted to protect the public we would have universal healthcare and a ban on guns.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I disagree. I listened when it was presented to Congress. I read a good amount of the data justifying the required transfer. If you don’t think this bill protects the public, there really is no reasoning with you.

            Someone will get a cut specifically because TikTok chooses not to prove where their data flows. They had a choice, and chose to exit the market.

            But sure, you can frame it like we forced them to leave the market, which isn’t the case. They could have verified their data flow and remained if they were not abusing it.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’s never been to protect the public. If that were the case, the law wouldn’t apply to just TikTok and foreign companies. They would’ve passed something to protect us from our own domestic data brokers too, but they didn’t.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s almost like an action can protect people and enrich elites at the same time. Explain how the American public isn’t better of keeping their personal data away from the CCP. Interested to see how you think this doesn’t protect the public at all from an adversarial foreign government.

            • 4am@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              When you could just generalize the law to include protecting us from our own oligarchs and they did not, it clearly shows who they work for.

              • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                We could also feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick etc. we could ask why any law regarding healthcare, housing, nutrition doesn’t fix the issue, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

                The FTC is putting in work this administration, and are poised to bring back Net Neutrality (obligatory Fuck Ajit Pai). This is a huge step towards protecting all Americans, so I think you’re confusing this issue (adversarial governments harvesting our data) with the larger issue of domestic policy (which will be much harder to tackle).

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Let’s open the can of worms. Right here right now.

                  If the goal of a law is to keep people safe should we pass laws that do that or pass laws that don’t? Answer the question.

                  If goal is X should we try to get X or try to get Y?

                  Really really simple and you should manage it. Come on brought-to-you-buy-Meta, simple question I am sure you can answer it.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s almost like we don’t have universal healthcare. Are your BFFS in Congress going to fix that soon or are they busy banning a stupid dancing app?

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Their personal data won’t be kept away from the CCP. People that use TikTok will use VPNs to do so if needed (TikTok also would no longer have to listen to the US government, probably intensifying the data collection), and otherwise the CCP can just purchase (or steal) the data from US data brokers, because those are still very much legal. Did we forget about Cambridge Analytica, where an adversarial foreign government used our own domestic companies against us?

              • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs. They won’t have much content, if any, from domestic creators. They’ll only be interacting with the other 2% of American users along with foriegn content.

                I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN will are China’s target demographic, and I don’t think VPN users will constitute a fraction of activity you are suggesting they will.

                I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

                Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere. Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it. Glad we have accountability this time around.

                • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs

                  TikTok users or in general? Either way, it’s higher than that, and will only increase with bills like this (and the many state-issued porn bans).

                  I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN

                  VPNs aren’t hard to use, by design. Do you really think people need in-depth tutorials on how to press a button in an app? Also, there’s already people demonstrating VPN use on TikTok, for if the ban actually happens.

                  I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

                  You have very black and white thinking. I’m bemoaning it because it doesn’t actually protect US citizens. It doesn’t stop China from harvesting our data, and it doesn’t stop domestic companies either. But good try, trying to belittle the massive data breaches that have happened without TikTok’s help.

                  Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere.

                  Once again, this isn’t the start of that. Congress is more than happy to allow domestic companies to harvest our data, because half of the time they’re getting a cut. This will not open any doors for future privacy bills. The only possibility with this is that congress crafts another targeted bill to get rid of another company for whatever reason.

                  Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it.

                  Interesting that you’d bring that up, seeing as congress just set this precedent for banning companies right before that shitstain has a real chance of getting into office. Do you really want the Trump administration to pass a bill like this for another company?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s not how due process and liberal democracy works. The government has to prove you’re doing it. Setting any precedent that you have to prove you’re not doing something (an impossible task) is incredibly dangerous.

        • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s cute how you think that the only government that’s using our own data against us is china. Might want to step back and look at our own government, then apply your same line of thinking to all big tech companies in existence right now.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Exactly: banning TikTok is nothing more than a good start. We need to destroy Facebook, Twitter and Reddit next.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              That will never happen, at least not in this way. Because it wasn’t anything to do with their data collection, or their company structure. Congress is happy to allow domestic data collection and want Americans addicted to American apps so that they get a cut.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You’re extremely dull if youre suggesting I don’t know data is abused left and right all over the place. But if TikTok is so bad it’s can’t even fit within our abusive system, it deserves to transfer or exit.

            You’re missing the forest for the trees.

            • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              And you aren’t even reading what I wrote. In no post did I defend tiktok… I merely stated that what it is doing is also being done by american based companies and they should be addressed as well.

              • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                No doubt, but accountability starts somewhere, so why have a problem with this? Why not celebrate and then demand equitable action domestically?

                “I’m not defending TikTok. I’m just bemoaning action being taken against them because bad things happen with other companies!” Not a great look.

                • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Where did I say I had a problem with this? So much knee jerking in here. I am stating that lawmakers should apply these same laws to our own social media. The same lawmakers who will most likely profit off this decision.

                • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Because this isn’t accountability? It won’t start any change with domestic companies, because it doesn’t apply to them. This isn’t the start of anything. If you think they’re going to use this as the starting point for actual privacy legislation, you’re very ignorant of how congress works.

                  Data collection will still happen domestically, and another Cambridge Analytica will happen, so long as domestic data brokers are legal.

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s cute how you think many of us haven’t applied that big thinking to all big tech. A Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter ban absolutely should happen.

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Nobody is gonna use a VPN to get their TikTok fix. They’ll use Facebook Reels or YouTube shorts, since most content creators cross-post their stuff there anyway.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              People on TikTok are already discussing using VPNs, so it will happen if not sold.

              And either way, it’s almost like congress doesn’t care about addictive social media, seeing as it’s fine if domestic companies create addictive algorithms. They’ll even let foreign governments manipulate the populous via domestic companies, so long as they get a cut of the cash.

            • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Which is the actual intent of attacking a single point of the problem instead of the actual problem of the abuse of end users by all the corpo’s social media and other apps., free or otherwise is no longer important.

          • Hubi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You need more than a handful of brain cells for that, so it’s not exactly the easily manipulated target audience of TikTok.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Passing a law to give the executive branch overreaching censorship authority over the internet while simultaneously campaigning that the other option in the next election wants to use the power of that office to overthrow democracy. This is the “good ending”.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s almost like TikTok was given a chance to prove our data doesn’t flow to the Chinese government, and TikTok decided to exit the market than prove where their data flows.

            But sure, let’s just pretend we randomly forced them out with an executive overreach lmao

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        All the folks quoting what a small part of their audience the US is, never mention what percentage of their gross the US is. CCP won’t pay for eyeballs in Azerbaijan.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t see how anyone is hurt by losing access to Tiktok. The only sad part about this is that all social media isn’t banned.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          You are literally posting this to social media right now. Do you think it would be cool to ban or force a sale of Lemmy to a US corp?

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Is Lemmy using a predatory algorithm designed to enrich itself at the expense of the well being of its users and utilize its platform to influence US policy against its own interests? If that answer was yes, then absolutely. With Lemmy being of service to its users without making us its cattle, I’ll advocate for it as opposed to against it.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Does congress care about data collection and predatory algorithms, though? If so, why did they just waste their time crafting a targeted bill rather than actually making those practices illegal?

              If congress suddenly decided that they didn’t like a company for whatever reason, they’ll craft another targeted bill like this one. Trump could win this year, do you really want this precedent set right before that?

              Luckily, Lemmy is much more difficult due to it’s decentralized nature. However, since congress is clearly more than willing to craft targeted bills, it’s not out of the question.

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I see nothing wrong with posting to social media to advocate against it, I’ll feel free to stay.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Does your posting history bear out that that’s why you’re here, though? 🤷‍♂️ I’m not asking for you to justify it to me, it’s just silly to pretend you’re not participating in something you say should be banned.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          You joke but this has a chilling effect on all sm platforms based outside of the US. They just took a massive shit on the 1st amendment.

  • Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can’t believe this is the one thing this congress has actually managed to do. We just want healthcare

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Healthcare!?! Who needs healthcare when Congress is giving us our god given freedom of domestic surveillance capitalism, which is the freedomist freedom that ever freedomed, you filthy communist!

      So anyway, I started violating civil liberties… PEW PEW

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Healthcare? Nah, let’s fight about it for decades and never give people anything meaningful. Education? Nah, let’s make our people go neck deep into debt and still fight about it for decades. Ban TikTok? Hold my bribery, you got it. Gimme 24 hours and you got it, boss.

    • malloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      won’t happen

      Where do you think the FBI gets their domestic terrorist intel from 😂

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Fuck IKR, call the cops because someone side swiped your car and you’ll get no response. Get on FB or Twitter and talk about how you’re planning a bombing and federal agents will show up at your house.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Just as a reminder, we have been ‘fighting for 15’ since 2012. But when it comes to leveraging foreign companies with bans to force them to sell to US oligarchs we can move at blazing speed through the least functional congrss in recent history. There are two very different Americas depending on how much money you have.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Will there be a TikTok dance on TikTok that covers this event?

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    If social media apps exist to slurp up as much user info as possible, and they do, then it makes sense to be concerned about the government that they’re subject to.

    • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why is it okay for domestic companies to collect the same data and sell it to China, then?

      This shouldn’t just affect foreign companies if it’s about data collection. It should have been an actual privacy bill. US citizens’ privacy will be no better after this.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s not ok.

        But the fact is that China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia are adversaries of the United States, and the US government is justified in its concern.

        • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          They didn’t seem to care much when Cambridge Analytica happened, and that was a foreign adversary. So what’s different here?

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The United Kingdom is not an adversary of the United States. In fact it’s one of our closest allies. But, if anything, that suggests this law isn’t enough, not that it’s too much.

            • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I meant that the data they collected was breached by a foreign adversary, thought that was pretty clear but guess not.

              • Melllvar@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                And the fact that a foreign adversary obtained this information was very bad, agreed? Clearly, it makes sense to take steps to keep that kind of information out of adversarial hands.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m convinced that US lawmakers believe that the pro-gaza sentiment is coming from TikTok. The timing, the mechanism. They see themselves as no longer able to control the narrative and are blaming ‘non-US’ social media.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’d like to point out that the US has been publicly going after TikTok since the Trump Administration so I’m unconvinced that the timing lines up.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think it’s more so just about controlling narratives in general. Tiktok has a lot of real time tracking of politician corruption and trades. A lot of good useful info for political activism, etc.

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Here comes POS billionaire like Moron Musk to buy TikTok and turn it into Nazi propaganda machine

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Nah, it’ll get sold to a company registered in the US or Europe that is funded by various shell companies and private investment groups, most of which will be owned by Chinese Billionaires.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The kids were using the platform to talk about how the boomers got everything wrong, especially Israel, and it threatened their view of themselves.

    • malloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      TikTok will just be owned by a different company. It will still exist.

  • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This comment section is astounding.

    If you think it’s good that congress passed a ban of a social media platform tied to a bill funding two foreign wars you’re either a fed or delusional.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Seriously. The real solution is comprehensive privacy protection and consumer information export controls for all companies operating within the US.

      This whole thing is just going to give an American company the capability to use Tik Tok to spy on people and control information, which is barely better.

      And then they’ll likely sell the data to China anyway. Data brokers exist and make a fuck ton of money on us.

  • CaptKoala@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    TikTok is the primary source of brain-rot in 2024, please, somebody, change my mind.

      • CaptKoala@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Thankfully, I’m not forced to interact with any of those, it’s not a problem here. Here in Australia, TikTok is everywhere, and I feel at times as if I’m the only one here that hasn’t touched it, that doesn’t stop my friends from ignoring the fact I’ve asked them countless times not to send tiktoks to me.

        One of said friends is a nurse, one of the smartest people I know. She told me how to do CPR based on what she’d seen in a TikTok, as someone that’s done the CPR training, and actually performed it, I was really upset that her knowledge had been overwritten in a very short time of her TikTok addiction. I’m finding such cases are becoming more and more common kately and it’s terrifying.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Buy vertical videos you won’t be missed by anybody with a brain in their head.

    If only. Vertical videos suck and short form sucks harder.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Even though i dont think banning tiktok is a good idea purely because of the concept, those boards are funny. “Tiktok changed my life for the better”

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re also all printed, and with the same font. I’m assuming it’s a stock photo, but if that’s from a real protest I don’t trust those protestors.who the hell gets a protest sign printed?

        • SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          literally paid shills

          No *one outside of some influencers were paid lmao. People contacted Congress but they weren’t paid, and a quick Google search brought up zero result of people being paid *outside of the influencers. So I’d love to see where you’re sourcing this from.

          Edit: Correction - about 30 influencers were paid to visit events for Tik Tok. I’ll rescind saying that literally no one was paid: that’s point is wrong. My main point was that average users weren’t paid to call into Congress. And the vast majority that called in or have talked out against the ban did so of their own volition rather than being paid as implied by OP’s comment