Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
Mathaetaes (mathaetaes@infosec.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 13:41:11 JST Mathaetaes
@northernlights @tinker @jerry TBH, I’m not sure I see a problem with this precedent.
Banning all billionaire-controlled, algorithm-defined social media would probably be a net positive for society.

In conversation about 4 months ago from infosec.exchange permalink
- Embed this notice
  Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 13:41:08 JST Rich Felker
  in reply to
  @gortbrown @mathaetaes @northernlights @tinker @jerry This is true, but the motivation to capitulate is capitalist. If TikTok were *actually* a Chinese company that wasn't running US targeted ads from US advertisers, and just happened to have lots of foreign US users interacting with their site, they wouldn't have had any reason to acknowledge this bullshit law.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Genette B :verified_trans: :hacked: :openbsd: (gortbrown@infosec.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 13:41:11 JST Genette B :verified_trans: :hacked: :openbsd:
  in reply to
  @mathaetaes @northernlights @tinker @jerry The thing is, it's not just a precedent for billionare-controlled, algorithm-defined social media, it's a precedent for any part of the internet they don't like. They could just as easily come after Mastodon instances, blogs or really any other websites that they feel are a "threat" in some way.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 13:42:28 JST Rich Felker
  in reply to
  @gortbrown @mathaetaes @northernlights @tinker @jerry Likewise Mastodon instances have no motivation to capitulate except risk of criminal or civil liability in their own jurisdictions, and can move if needed, or facilitate their users moving to safety.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink

Public

Notices

Feeds