Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:15:40 JST Tek say resist

   See ya, Tik Tok, the CCP-owned spyware so horrid that it’s not allowed to operate on its home turf.

   Banning malware isn’t the same as blocking free speech.

   • Embed this notice
     Joe Ortiz (joeo10@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:16:59 JST Joe Ortiz

     in reply to

     @tek It does open the door for more censorship by the US government.

     A very dark day for the open internet.

     https://mastodon.sdf.org/@joeo10/113853224134338309

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:18:36 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Joe Ortiz

     @joeo10 I completely disagree. The government blocked national security malware. I haven’t heard any credible argument that the US blocked specific opinions as opposed to malicious behavior.

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:20:17 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram

     @nateb I don’t see it that way. If the US blocked a botnet, it would be a national security issue, not limitations on the botnet’s freedom speech. I believe this is closer to malware in intent than to social media l.

   • Embed this notice
     Nate Bartram (nateb@mastodon.thenewoil.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:20:18 JST Nate Bartram

     in reply to

     @tek This might be the first thing you and I disagree on, sir. While I agree TikTok does have legitimate concerns, I fear for the slippery slope precedent this sets.

   • Embed this notice
     Joe Ortiz (joeo10@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:22:51 JST Joe Ortiz

     in reply to

     @tek How about reading these pieces in this thread from yesterday?

     https://mastodon.sdf.org/@joeo10/113844522801124951

     These may not change your mind but understand that this is going to be the beginning of the US targeting services they don't like an that's a chilling effect.

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:24:41 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Joe Ortiz

     @joeo10 I’ve read plenty from smart people on both sides of the discussion. I don’t think this is the start of a slippery slope. I think it’s something that needed to happen in this specific case.

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:28:24 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram

     @nateb Now, I’m with you on the banning porn thing. That’s ridiculous. OTOH, if the US banned a specific Russian porn site for collecting kompromat on Americans, that would be a different animal. And I think that’s precisely what Tik Tok is: a way to collect compromising information. Speak out against the CCP? Oops, hope we don’t accidentally leak your viewing habits!

     I still think it’s very telling that the CCP would rather shut Tik Tok down than sell it to a private company.

   • Embed this notice
     Nate Bartram (nateb@mastodon.thenewoil.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:28:27 JST Nate Bartram

     in reply to

     @tek Furthermore, much of the US is already banning porn. There is a clear trend toward censorship in this country. What's next? Banning VPNs cause they can be used to access porn (and theoretically TikTok, though I've been unable to prove that)? It's a slippery slope. Plus there's legal precedent: code is speech. PGP. We can't ban code.

     I agree TikTok presents legitimate threats worth discussion. I don't think this was the right solution.

   • Embed this notice
     Nate Bartram (nateb@mastodon.thenewoil.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:28:29 JST Nate Bartram

     in reply to

     @tek This isn't a botnet. This is a social media app that doesn't do anything more invasive than Meta or Amazon, who are not only allowed to operate freely, but were actually carved out in the law to provide exceptions for them. Meta & Amazon (and others) do EXACTLY the same level of privacy invasion. The issue isn't the app, it's our lack of privacy regulations. Salt Typhoon proved this: it doesn't matter where the company is from, the data is vulnerable. (1/2)

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:33:14 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram

     @nateb I do see the risk of that, but being owned by an adversarial government is different than being owned by people in a non-US country. And none of those have Tik Tok’d dangerously addictive algorithms.

   • Embed this notice
     Nate Bartram (nateb@mastodon.thenewoil.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:33:15 JST Nate Bartram

     in reply to

     @tek Valid points, and worthy of action for sure. I'm still worried about this for the fact that it sets a dangerous precedent. I worry this was killing a fly with a sledge hammer (as the quote loosely goes) and I especially worry about the precedent it sets. What other apps can we ban? Notesnook is Iranian. Cryptee is Estonian. Tuta is German, Proton is Swiss, Mullvad is Swedish.

     Dangerous shit we're wading into. This wasn't the right solution, IMO.

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:38:11 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram

     @nateb There’s a reason it’s the slippery slope fallacy, though. If someone proposed blocking a non-malware service, I think there would be much more outcry. I genuinely, truly, see this as the same as blocking a virus gang or similar. Even if the people using the malware enjoy it, it’s still malware.

   • Embed this notice
     Nate Bartram (nateb@mastodon.thenewoil.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:38:12 JST Nate Bartram

     in reply to

     @tek It's called a slippery slope for a reason. You and I both agree that the incoming administration is a threat to freedom. Why stop at banning adversarial apps? Why not apps that can be used to access adversarial apps? Why not apps that "go dark" and inhibit proper dispensing of "justice" and "rule of law"?

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:39:08 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Draken BlackKnight
     • Nate Bartram

     @drakenblackknight @nateb Don’t threaten me with a good time. 😀

   • Embed this notice
     Draken BlackKnight (drakenblackknight@mastodon.online)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:39:09 JST Draken BlackKnight

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram

     @nateb @tek
     I'm not broken up over this, but this isn't the way. If we had meaningful privacy legislation (which won't happen, Schumer's daughters work for Big Tech), the gubbmint could legitimately block access in the US for everything ByteDance, Meta, the deadbirdsite, Google, Microshit, crApple, Amazon, et. al. does on an hourly basis.

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:39:47 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Draken BlackKnight
     • Nate Bartram

     @nateb @drakenblackknight 100%. I couldn’t agree more.

   • Embed this notice
     Nate Bartram (nateb@mastodon.thenewoil.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:39:48 JST Nate Bartram

     in reply to

     • Draken BlackKnight

     @drakenblackknight @tek Schumer's daughter is the least of my worries. Big Tech outlobbies Big Pharma even. They might even be the worst offender. Nothing useful is getting past until we oust those fuckers, nepotism be damned.

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:41:58 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram

     @nateb I hope I’m right, and of course, I might not be. I think *not* acting, and continuing to allow it, has its own risks, and that in this case those risks are greater.

   • Embed this notice
     Nate Bartram (nateb@mastodon.thenewoil.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 14:41:59 JST Nate Bartram

     in reply to

     @tek I mean, fair. Sometimes it truly is a "fallacy." I would LOVE for you to be right. But I personally would prefer not to put ourselves in a position to find out. We're fucking around, as the saying goes.

   • Embed this notice
     Tek say resist (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 15:16:26 JST Tek say resist

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram
     • Bastien Quelen

     @banux @nateb I'd find that understandable. If EU pulled the plug on FB or X, I personally wouldn't blame them.

   • Embed this notice
     Bastien Quelen (banux@mamot.fr)'s status on Sunday, 19-Jan-2025 15:16:27 JST Bastien Quelen

     in reply to

     • Nate Bartram

     @tek @nateb You know for national security and because of cloud act with the same logic Europe must block a "lot" of US product.