| ▲ | Mordisquitos 6 hours ago |
| Maybe it isn't any different to Facebook, I don't know. Why would if matter if Facebook isn't any different from TikTok in the context of this news? |
|
| ▲ | iepathos 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Apparent hypocrisy and injustice in government policy is an ugly thing in the world that should be pointed out and eliminated through public awareness and scrutiny. |
| |
|
| ▲ | hagbard_c 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It matters because everyone - people, companies, countries - is supposed to be equal in front of the law. Selective application of the law shows this not to be the case and shows that there are other factors in play which decide whether someone - a person, a company, a country - gets to violate some law without legal consequences while someone else is prosecuted for the same violation. If you now think "they have to start somewhere in prosecuting these violations" you're partly correct but also partly mistaken. Sure they have to start somewhere but they could - and if they are really serious about their claims should - have started prosecuting all those other companies which did this way before TikTok or even its predecessor Musically was a thing. Algorithm-driven endless scroll designs to keep user's eyes glued to the screen have been a thing from very early on in nearly all 'social' app-site-things and the warning signs about addictive behaviour in users have been out for many years without the law being thrown at the proprietors of those entities. As to why this has not happened I'll leave for the reader to decide. There are plenty of other examples to be found in this regard ranging from the apprehension of the Telegram CEO to the sudden fervour in going after X-formerly-known-as-Twitter which seem to point at politics being at play in deciding whether a company gets to violate laws without being prosecuted or not. So what's the solution you ask? As far as I can see it is to keep these companies from violating user's rights by keeping them in line regardless of who owns or runs the company and regardless of whether those owners or proprietors are cooperative on other fronts. Assuming that these laws were written to stem the negative influence these app-things have on their users they should have gone after many other companies much earlier. Had they done so it might even have led to TikTok realising that their scheme would not work in the EU. They might not have launched here or they might have detuned their algorithmic user trap, they might have done many things to negate the negative effects of their product. They might just have decided to skip the whole EU market altogether like many other companies have done and do. I'd have thought 'good riddance', what you? |
|
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Maybe because FB are getting away with the same thing? |
| |
| ▲ | fifilura 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I doubt they would if this becomes illegal. EU laws are slow, sometimes stupid, but consistent. | | |
| ▲ | sithadmin 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are they consistent? As a North American, I find it difficult to take EU/European countries’ stances on addiction seriously when they seem to be decades behind on reducing the prevalence of smoking and drinking, which almost certainly cause more practical harm than TikTok ever could. | | |
| ▲ | KaiserPro 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > seem to be decades behind on reducing the prevalence of smoking and drinking, the EU isn't a federal government. the UK, when it was in the EU did a full smoking inside ban, and tightened it after leaving. It however had a massive problem with binge drinking and sorta didn't do much to stop that, apart from make it more expensive. the netherlands has a smoking ban, but it was brought in later (I think). they had a different drinking culture so didn't have the same issues as the UK for drink. That kind of issue is usually left to member states. Packaging however is more the EU's purview | |
| ▲ | ulbu 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | what is more damaging, a hammer, a sword, or poison? i hope i don’t have to go out of my way to explain the analogy. | | |
| ▲ | 7tflutter7 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So social media is pure 'poison' with 0 positive impact but other addictive media like video games are tools with noble utility? The World Health Organization has reached the exact opposite conclusion. The ICD-11 doesn't include 'social media addiction.' It doesn’t exist clinically. What they did include is 'Gaming Disorder', classifying your 'sword' alongside substance abuse and gambling. My point is governments could just as easily justify video game crack-downs with this same logic. Is that something we should be cheering on? Really? | | |
| ▲ | fifilura 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It is not about that. There is surely lots of hypocrisy in particular around alcohol. In most parts of the world TBH. The discussion is whether companies are treated equally with regards to a particular law. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pil0u 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism |
| |
| ▲ | xienze 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem I have with the way the EU doles out these punishments is that they like to spring them on tech companies after years and years of radio silence and then suddenly it’s “hey TikTok, we just determined you’ve been breaking the law for years, pay us a couple billion please.” Like, where were they years ago saying “hey TikTok, we think your design is addictive and probably illegal, you need to change or face penalties.” If TikTok continues to operate in the same manner despite a warning, sure, throw the book at them. Otherwise it just seems like the EU waits for years and years until a company is a big enough player and then retroactively decides they’ve been breaking the law for years. Doesn’t help the impression that they’re running a non-EU tech company shakedown campaign. | | |
| ▲ | KaiserPro 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Its never really like this. Tiktok spend a lot of money talking to EU regulators. They know shits coming down the track because these directives have to be put into law by eu members. that takes time. > Doesn’t help the impression that they’re running a non-EU tech company shakedown campaign. But thats not the point, companies shouldn't be doing stuff they know is harmful. Thats literally the point of regulation. | |
| ▲ | AnssiH 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Like, where were they years ago saying “hey TikTok, we think your design is addictive and probably illegal, you need to change or face penalties.” That is basically what happened today. No penalties have been issued at this point. Also Commission had sent various requests for information to TikTok in 2023 before they opened these proceedings in early 2024 (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...) - this didn't come out of the blue. | |
| ▲ | 7tflutter7 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fines on US tech companies bring in more money to the EU than the EU's entire tech industry combined. | |
| ▲ | nickslaughter02 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You answered it yourself. They can't extract billions if the company is still small. | |
| ▲ | troupo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Otherwise it just seems like the EU waits for years and years until a company is a big enough player and then retroactively decides they’ve been breaking the law for years. Lol. It's never like this. These companies are given plenty of warnings and deadlines. After years and years of ignoring them these companies get slapped with a fine and start playing the victim. BTW at this point DSA has been in effect for three years |
|
| |
| ▲ | hnbad 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let me rephrase your question: "But if it's illegal for TikTok to do this, shouldn't Meta also be sued over it?" The answer is "Yes". |
|