• zaphod@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I couldn’t agree more. IMO the right solution is to regulate data collection, mandate algorithmic transparency, and require opt out for algorithmic curation.

    But the discussion isn’t about whether this is the right remedy (IMO it’s not) but about whether the remedy will be held up by the courts.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Well, I think the courts should strike it down because:

      1. It is content based speech regulation (Chinese influence on people), which deserves strictest scrutiny under the 1st amendment.
      2. It targets TikTok by name, which triggers equal protection issue. Congress is not allowed to pass a law that specifically bans Tom Holland from smoking. Laws need to be general. I don’t see why this would be an exception.