82
‘Your argument just confuses me’: judge questions Montana TikTok ban (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Federal judge seems to side with ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation that ban is unenforceable and unconstitutional

A federal judge appeared skeptical about Montana’s TikTok ban in a hearing on Thursday, telling representatives of the state that their argument for restrictions on the app “just confuses me”.

US district judge Donald Molloy heard arguments in a case filed by TikTok and five Montana content creators who want the court to block the state’s ban on the video-sharing app before it takes effect 1 January.

Molloy called the impending ban “paternalistic”, according to the Washington Post. After an hour, Molloy ended the hearing without ruling on the request for an injunction on the digital prohibition.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

Since what OP pasted doesn't actually say what the judge was confused by, and it's rightfully a confusing argument.

“Your argument just confuses me. You need to protect consumers from having their data stolen. But everybody on TikTok voluntarily gives their personal data. If they want to give that information to whatever the platform is, how is it you can protect them?” he asked.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 year ago

I’m NOT saying I disagree with the conclusion, but the judge’s reasoning would negate all sorts of consumer protections as paternalistic. You agreed to join Facebook, so you “voluntarily” allow them to track you, manipulate you, and sell your information without any limits. It’s a kind of deeply libertarian argument, just like how you “voluntarily” agreed to work a job, so why would you get worker protections? If you don’t like it, just quit!

Some “paternalistic” laws function under the reasoning that markets don’t always work. Not all consent is informed. Not all choices have sufficient alternatives that allow consumers to choose otherwise. Busy consumers may not have the information or energy to understand all the ways corporations abuse their power.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Well yeah, the ruling would effect all places that take your data then, not just tiktok.

[-] brianorca@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The law only specified apps that share data with foreign governments (as a way to target TikTok by it's China links) so the ruling would not go beyond that. The judge could rule the law is invalid, but could not expand it to include domestic companies. That would be up to the legislature.

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago

TT doesn’t steal your data. It weaponizes it, against you.

Banning isn’t the right way to go anyway. Controlling these companies, preventing them from harvesting and weaponizing your data is what needs to be looked at.

How are lawyers this inept.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

The lawyers are acting on behalf of the US gov &/or big tech. Their goal is to damage Tick Tock — not to kill the surveillance capitalism that employs them...

[-] Neato@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Because your suggest requires federal legislation that requires all of the big carriers and cell manufacturers/importers to fundamentally change how their platforms share and control data. All of which are currently monetized by those companies and thousands more. It's definitely the right direction but that's not what this court case is about and is too big of an ask. The court case is trying to protect users by disallowing a state from banning entire platforms of expression.

And besides, even if such regulation went through, that doesn't mean that apps like TikTok couldn't still weaponize the data you willingly give them: view history, engagement history. To do that you'd need to regulate apps wholesale and when someone like TikTok (and honestly, Google and Apple as well) say "no" the only answer would be to delist them from stores which gets us right back to here. And if something like TikTok were banned across app and play stores? A LOT of people would very quickly learn how to sideload apps, anyways.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

The judge's argument is not particularly compelling. "Everybody voluntarily smokes weed. If they want to give that chemical to their brain, how is it you can protect them."

[-] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

uh I think it's actually quite a good comparison. The only way to "protect" them is to make them the enemy, like smoking weed. Which is a terrible idea and we shouldn't try to stop them from smoking weed in the first place.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, this is like trying to ban smoking, but just for one brand of cigarette.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And yet, we do exactly that.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

it seems to me is that the US os stuck. They have many laws that google, amazon, apple, and other big companies encourage to spy and steal people data. Now another company took a big chunk of the market and using the information against the US. Instead of enforcing new laws to portect the user, they want to keep the ability to spy and steel while banning others from doing so.

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
82 points (96.6% liked)

News

23305 readers
5038 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world