Privacy

32177 readers

405 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

124

A Federal TikTok Ban is a 'Misguided Detour' from Doing What’s Needed to Protect People’s Privacy and Safeguard National Security (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 7 months ago by shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gassayping@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

From what I have seen, most people who object to a federal tiktok ban oppose it because they do not want the US government to censor the internet. I think privacy is brought up as a justification of the ban, and so opponents of the ban argue that it is selective to only focus on the app that is controlled by an adversarial country. I see the ban as addressing a symptom of weak privacy laws instead of addressing the root issue/cause. If privacy were actually taken serious by our government and not enforced selectively, then objections would be a lot less.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 7 months ago

I've seen that too. But they're mistaken. "Censoring the internet" is not what this law does. That's hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.

Don't misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.