https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2024/03/23/steve-wozniak-apple-cofounder-tiktok-lcl-sot-vpx.cnn
CNN’s Laura Coates speaks with Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple, about online privacy and Congress’ pending legislation that could lead to a ban of TikTok.
He's right, we should ban Apple too if we're getting rid of bullshit we shouldn't trust.
Of course he's right but that doesn't stop generational propaganda from wearing off that easy.
There is somehow always a boogeyman that's making US suffer, it's never the US itself because it's the "greatest country" in the world and everyone is jealous. It can't be anything else.
I think you stopped reading after the first two words but that's okay, he's wrong and I think anything that transparently threatens the security of a populous has a right to ban it. Yes, a bunch of boomers banning a phone app looks bad but there's a reason we don't use Huawei phones either. I know a lot of people have US derangement syndrome because the most influential country in the world seems to not have a steering wheel and the gas pedal glued to the floor, but please, try not to make stupid conclusions like "They're jealous"
The only thing we're jealous of is the fact your government will occasionally change something for the better. We have to pick between slowing down towards a car crash or accelerating rapidly.
android is open source.
it doesnt need google to exist. in fact i think it would be better without it.
All profit social media should be held accountable for the content, and the accuracy of it. That’s what the money is for—moderation of disinformation and illegal content.
I agree.
I don't use TikTok, I never have, I never will and I advice against anyone else doing so not only for privacy reasons but also the effect it has on mental health and attention span. I lose nothing if it gets banned - and I'm still against banning it. The only difference between TikTok and other social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram is that TikTok is Chinese owned. Do they actively influence western politics by it? Absolutely. We'd be doing the exact same thing if our platforms weren't banned in China. If the US decides to ban it then that's a move from the Chinese playbook. Don't be like China.
If the US decides to ban it then that's a move from the Chinese playbook. Don't be like China.
It has a bit of the same vibe as the "tolerating intolerance" paradox.
I'll refer you a video by Ryan McBeth. He gives some great insight on why the US is considering a ban.
This feels like a soft landing for Infowars.
He advertised a no-name VPN, do you trust that product with your traffic? The he goes on to cite a movie as a source. And then another one...
Dude I can't even finish watching this.
I'm not saying he's wrong, he's just not credible. You can read citations from primary sources from politicians in actual news articles that are ... shockingly ... less hairbrained and more concise than this guy.
He works in the cyber security field... But whatever... I did my part and tried to inform.. can't help ya if ya dense.
Can you provide a tldr of the video?
I learned a trick to send videos to AI to summarize but it can't do this video because there's no captions.
The title of the video is pretty clear "TikTok is a Cyberweapon".
Reasonable people can disagree over wether or not that's actually true... but it's worth noting China has banned TikTok within their own country. Clearly they think it's harmful.
It's also worth noting that congress was acting on an intelligence report which has not been published. I've heard there are rumours they might declassify the report and release it. Personally I'm inclined to reserve judgement until we actually know what evidence they have but the fact China has banned it themselves is a huge red flag.
It's the same thing, it's just called Douyin instead.
I didn't dig deep, but I got curious after seeing your comment: https://brandmentions.com/wiki/Is_TikTok_Banned_in_China
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The only difference between TikTok and other social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram is that TikTok is Chinese owned.
The law would also appy to Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Everybody talking about nonexistent bans, playing into TikTok's hands of shifting the narrative away from them being forced to sell.
The end user won't be aware anything happened. If a ban kicks in then they will start to notice issues when the app updates don't occur.
We are talking about management going from a Chinese company to a US company. They're will be no guarantees we will end up with the same service.
Service could change at any point though. If new American owners are smart they are not going to break something that's obviously working.
Forcing them to sell means TikTok will continue to operate under new ownership, owners who are not an arm of the Chinese Military.
Banning them would mean TikTok will no longer operate.
The legislature in the works is a forced sale.
A forced sale on a timescale that these kind of sales have never and will never work on. It's framed like a sale for those reasons but in practice it's an impossible task designed to force failure and thus removal.
We'll see, I suppose. Some business sell in a couple months, some businesses take years to sell. I haven't read the legislature so idk if there is a time limitation set on the forced sale, please enlighten us.
A decent article on the time frame of similar sales
"web hosting services in the U.S. would be barred from hosting any “foreign adversary controlled application,” specifically calling out ByteDance’s TikTok, per the text of the bill (H.R. 7521). The ban would go into effect unless such a “foreign adversary” (i.e. ByteDance) divests its ownership in the app (i.e. TikTok) within 165 days of becoming law."
The paraphrased relevant section.
165 days seems to not match the bill you linked to, it appears they get fined after 180 days from when the law is enacted. That means it's entirely possible the CCP never sell TikTok at all and just pay the fees.
(2) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply—
(A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection
(g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
and then there is this bit about the consequences for taking too long:
(1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—
(A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation.
(B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation. (2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General— (A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and
I thank you for providing this information for us, though, you've gone above and beyond and I thank you for that.
The idea that "it's ok cause we'd do the same" is ridiculous. There is no comparison: China is an authoritarian government and the parent company is practically an arm of the state. There are legitimate criticisms of American tech companies obviously, but they're ultimately subject to the market and democratic governments. We shouldn't be doing any business with authoritarians in the first place, much less inviting them to control a significant social media app in the guise of a legitimate business.
I mean acting like American tech companies aren't basically an arm of the American intelligence services is a bit ridiculous too. Just cause they also make money and have to compete in the "fair market" doesn't change that. If anything it makes it worse cause they'll sell their data to anyone, whether that be America or China. I'm not saying what TikTok does is good, I'm saying all these companies are bad and focusing on one like this because it's foreign is dumb.
I agree. We do the same and it's not okay when we do it either. But you can recognise that the world (and the US at large,) needs better privacy laws and regulations regarding user data while also feeling that tik tok is invasive and so closely tied to the CCP that it is actually a dangerous attack vector that has its hooks in the American people. I honestly think the bill is BS. Sure, the CCP is a threat to US national security. And yes, they absolutely are using tik tok to that effect. I fully believe that. But I want user privacy laws. I want protections. I don't want this kind of invasive app (tik tok, meta, Amazon, google et al) tracking me. And I want the government to do something to allow me to take back control of my data.
Not on a comparable level with China, Iran, or Russia. This isn't a fair comparison. Which makes this comment somewhat disengenuous.
IMO the important detail is about the control the country's government is able to have and use over the company. What things are they sharing with the state? We know the big American social media companies are either forced or choose to comply with sharing data, or the data is used without asking. I don't trust Meta, Google, and Microsoft any more than I trust ByteDance (the makers of tik tok), and I don't want my data to be used by the US, China or anyone else.
I don't disagree. If you read any of my statements on this topic you'd see that I am not Pro US when it comes to US companies and user data. It's a crap shoot. Literally every American tech company is supplying the US government with access to their user data, and that's been in the news for years. Their user data centric business practices and ad aggregation services are how they make money and that's what I would think is a well known fact except some people even here don't seem to recognise it. Tik tok is definitely not alone in this.
However, the way that US and China control and access that data is not the same, and further the way the two countries are run, the control they exert over their citizens and the repercussions are different. My statement was not about whether or not you should trust either government or the tech companies of either country more or less.
It was acknowledging that the two countries and their relationships with their citizens is not the same and further that while both are problematic (and I don't necessarily agree with forcing the sale of Tik tok because I don't think it will fix the real problem which I believe is user privacy and regulation of that/ rights given to users), tik tok is problematic and China is not safe. China should not be allowed to operate this kind of operation in a foreign sovereign nation and use it as a way to exert outside control over its populace. And yes. No country should be doing that, US included.
If you think this bill is somehow going to make your user data safer? You're wrong. If you think tik tok is going to just up and leave the US? I seriously doubt that. If you think the US and China are one and the same, you're wrong. Every single time there is push back against these companies in the US, we gain ground. That cannot ever be said for the Chinese populace in relation to the CCP's control over the user data of its citizens and they are actively monitoring those citizens (which I wouldn't claim the US is doing whole hog). If people in China try to push back against the monitoring the CCP disappears them and their families. Jack Ma? Made some anti-CCP comments and disappeared for like a year. What billionaire in the US is just missing for a year after making anti-government comments?
And unless you have some data to back up that the US is actively monitoring every single one of its citizens user data (yeah I know about the silly NSA data base and the laws and protocols enacted after 9/11, I'm talking new and relevant data) to back up any claims that China and the US access, or treat user data the same, don't bother responding.
At this point America is censoring a Genocide which puts them exactly where China and Iran are.
And the WMD's in Iraq of course which killed millions of Iraqis and turned out to be a complete lie.
The only difference is that you believe there's a difference.
I literally see post about the Genocide all the time and not just on Lemmy. So is the government censoring that? Is it?
You're talking about genocide right now? Government came and got you, did it?
Seriously, nothing is stopping people from talking about it, sharing information, or providing claims it's happening or proof. If you're suggesting platforms are taking that info off their servers, I am just gonna say that social media is awash with videos, articles, and claims. Those platforms may remove data that violates their EULA, or would leave them open to litigation which makes sense. You wouldn't make the claim that they're censoring the war on Ukraine. But violent video of first hand accounts have absolutely been removed from social media. The same happened in Yemen, Iran, and half a dozen other war torn countries including several African countries.
I don't agree with the US providing weapons or support to Israel. I don't disagree that genocide is happening in Gaza. I am not Pro Israel. I absolutely believe that Israel is actively violating the Geneva convention and committing crimes against noncombatants and people who have nothing to do with any terrorist activity.
But I also agree that Hamas is a terrorist group. And unfortunately that's just how any group of anti-government freedom fighters who attack their governments are labelled. It's been this way throughout history. The American side of the revolutionary war? They were terrorists. The victors write the history books everywhere.
And hiding in schools, places of worship, and hospitals and getting innocent people killed because those are losses you're willing to allow? That's terrorist behaviour. What is happening is absolutely unconscionable. From both sides. Hamas has its fair share of atrocities. To them, that's the price of freedom.
Talk about authoritarianism to the dozens of countries that the US has destabilised and installed a US friendly regime into. The "we're not as bad as those other guys" argument rings a bit hollow.
it would be hypocrisy if ccp's china were democratic, didn't practice party dictatorship or rule by law.
else it's right to ban an app that could sway public opinions,especially one that is a hostile towards america.
Ah yes the two party system of Genocide and Genocide. A real democracy.
At least China has the decency to be honest about their dictatorship.
Uhh, it's not hypocrisy.
The US government demanded access to the US based social media companies to pull whatever sensitive information they wanted. They just don't want China to have the same access.
Also, TikTok has been caught abusing exploits to get additional information outside of the permissions granted by users. IIRC, TikTok was caught stealing the MAC address from phones a few years back.
It's odd the Steve Wozniak is pretending to be ignorant of the distinction. US government wants Intel, and doesn't want a rival nation to possess similar Intel. That's basic intelligence 101.
Woz, like me, believes that nobody should have that intel. Trusting nation-states is always a bad idea.
Not to mention everyone's ignoring how China bans multiple American internet services so they can force their population to use Chinese replicas of the same thing.
The US government demanded access to the US based social media companies to pull whatever sensitive information they wanted. They just don’t want China to have the same access.
Or Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
I'm listening to a 4 part Behind the Bastards on Steve Jobs right now, and Woz is presented like a pretty good dude, all things considered
I still think it's a bit funny that someone on Apple's payroll is being critical of another company's shady business practices when they are essentially doing just as much shady shit with user data.
The guy who left and sold most of his stock in 1985 because he didn't like Jobs doing exactly this kind of thing?
I didn't say you had to find it funny. Humour is subjective. But go off.
I'll explain since people insist. You'd think Apple's lawyers would have advised against this since really the company also makes money from gathering and monetizing user data. But apparently not.
Yeah but he doesn't work there anymore, why would Apple lawyers be able to stop him from saying this? He also calls Apple "the good guy" when it comes to privacy.
He's still the guy making money off the slave labor Apple employs. Best thing he can do is shut up and play the role of the cool guy billionaire who isn't out of touch, but defending China and tik tok doesn't help his image
According to what I just looked up, they pay him a weekly salary of $50 so he'll show up every so often for special events. Hardly raking in the big bucks.
$10,200,000,000 net worth when he died in 2011.
It would take Woz 4 million years to make that much on what Apple currently pays him
He's not a billionaire - I'm pretty sure he got X million, then decided that he had enough
He weighs in frequently on technology issues, his takes aren't always ideal, but he's a consistent advocate in an area he's qualified to have an opinion in. He also helped found the EFF
From Wikipedia:
Wozniak has discussed his personal disdain for money and accumulating large amounts of wealth. He told Fortune magazine in 2017, "I didn't want to be near money, because it could corrupt your values ... I really didn't want to be in that super 'more than you could ever need' category." He also said that he only invests in things "close to his heart". When Apple first went public in 1980, Wozniak offered $10 million of his own stock to early Apple employees, something Jobs refused to do.
You guys fall for these fucks like Bill Gates as well, who have more money than you and your next 10 generations will ever need, and you defend them, why? He can talk about how much he hates being rich, but he's still worth over 150 million cause he won't give it up.
He gives just enough to keep the wolves at bay. But he's just as bad as the rest.
Bill Gates as well, who have more money than you and your next 10 generations will ever need, and you defend them, why
Is having money a reason to attack a person?
Yes. A person like Gates only has as much as he does, because he stole it from the people below him. Every wage theft, underpaid worker, every instance of "just stick around another hour for free, for the team!", is money that went into Gates pocket. He has that much wealth because he fucked everyone on the way up. I think it's our duty to do harm to billionaires and the ultra rich. They are parasites, viruses on the human race.
And then you have Woz, who is an engineer, who shared his own stock with employees when Jobs declined to, who sold off his investments when he had enough money to live the rest of his life in the utmost luxury. Which stopped him considerably short of being a billionaire, people who continue to hoard amounts of wealth far beyond what a person could ever use (like Bill Gates)
Woz was an engineer who figured out how to make a computer run on televisions to make it more affordable for the average person. He worked for a living - comparing him to Bill Gates is unfair.
He actually did the thing, personally with his own hands. He isn't rich because he exploited people, he's rich despite others becoming far richer by exploiting his work
He did the thing that all billionaires should have done long before they became billionaires - he realized he had more than enough, and he stopped hoarding wealth.
So being Bill Gates is a reason to attack someone, as long as the person you’re attacking is Bill Gates?
Man who profits from slave labor in China, is against China being fucked with. Why is this news?
Woz doesn't profit from slave labor in China any more than any of us since he hasn't actually worked for Apple since like 1985. Since then, he's started a number of other companies doing a bunch of other stuff, like cleaning space junk most recently
From a quick search:
According to Forbes, Steve Wozniak’s net worth is $140m, making him one of the wealthiest people in the tech industry. This wealth is primarily derived from his early involvement with Apple and his continued ownership of shares in the company.
Right, exactly. He could be worth billions if he wanted to, but he quit Apple early on. He still has shares of Apple which means he is worth that much, but he's also given shares away to other Apple employees just because he believed they deserved them more. He does profit off slave labor in China, but my argument was that it's not any more than the rest of us. Basically everyone participating in capitalism will benefit from its worst parts, but Steve Woz is not the poster child for capitalism, greed, or slave labor.
Are you saying "not any more than the rest of us" as in "lots of people own stocks or investment accounts and many of those are in businesses profiting from China"?
I think the difference for me is that he's in a position to influence things since he's famous, and he has a ton of money from it already.
Norms need to invest in stocks to be able to retire or afford healthcare. He has the luxury to not need to worry about any of this.
But more importantly, stock holders can absolutely (and should) criticize the companies which they hold stocks in. They have power to vote and influence their business decisions. Owning stock does not mean you have to agree with existing decisions.
He was one of the largest shareholders. One third of the company in fact... but he sold most of those way back when they were worth almost nothing (as in hundreds of dollars). And as far as we know virtually all the rest of his shares since then have been gifted to charities. Mostly schools.
"I do not invest. I don't do that stuff. I didn't want to be near money because it could corrupt your values." -- Steve Wozniak, five years ago
He makes a good living doing speeches at universities/etc - that's his primary wealth, not his shares in Apple. If he had kept even a tenth of the shares he once owned, he'd be richer than Elon Musk. As it is, the house he lives in is likely more than half of his total worth (it's a nice house, with six bedrooms, in a nice location... more than most people can afford but hardly extravagant, 6 bedrooms is enough to host a large family holiday party, which I think is quite reasonable).
My man doesn't even see the name of the person, just the company he worked for... Over 30 years ago.
Bro, do some reading, it would help you.
He's a major shareholder and has made over $150 million off his apple association. Stop defending the ultra rich, this guy would fuck and kill your children if it made him an extra buck, he doesn't give a fuck about you. Don't buy into their pr "I'm a good one" narratives
Can you cite a source for that?
Also, I realize 150m is a lot of money to people.. But making only 150m ever from apple stock? Sounds like not alot considering apples valuation so I doubt him being a major holder with that profit from stocks, nor enough that I'd consider "ultra rich" when CEO of reddit makes more than that as a salary per year apparently. That's not even considering stock spez owns.
Judging by your comment history, you seem like a rather unhappy person. I hope you can find peace some day soon, I don't think social platforms will help you find that peace however. Good luck.
He gave a lot of his stock to the workers/friends/fellow founders Steve Jobs deliberately screwed over when they went public.
He could have been a billionaire, as the engineer actually doing the work of early Apple, but he decided his coworkers deserved to share the profit.
Huh.
What does that sound like again?