I’m not here to claim that Tiktok is completely harmless, or that it’s even a good site. I’m sure they absolutely do collect as much personal information as they can, and I’m sure they give it to the Chinese government whenever they ask. But I don’t understand how Meta and Facebook are meant to be any better? There’s always a lot of hoo-haa going on with politicians promising to ban tiktok, and (at least back on Reddit) everybody’s vowing they will never use tiktok because it’s such a privacy invasive site. Yet I never see anybody going up against Facebook, at least the average person, but they collect just as much personal info and I’m sure hand it over whenever any government agency in the US asks them to
It kind of feels to me like this is some sort of country thing. China is bad, so they shouldn’t have your personal info. But the US is the last bastion of free speech and privacy, so their companies would NEVER dare to invade your privacy, and their government would never abuse their power to get people’s personal info
I’m aware Lemmy probably isn’t the best place to ask since most people here seem to be deep into open source software and often privacy focused (so I suppose wouldn’t use either) but this also feels like the only place on the internet I might actually get an answer that isn’t just “TIKTOK BAD”. If you refuse to use tiktok but are ok with Facebook - why?
Tiktok is bad because it’s Chineese, Facebook is ‘good’ because it’s American.
Alas, that’s all.
I used Facebook because everybody I know uses it. My wife and me are the 1st to delete that account, as we hate the constant tracking of Facebook. Alas, Google is even worse, but as Android user we’re linked to that. I’m trying to minimize contact there as well, but it’s hard with purchased apps and content.
For some strange reason having your own country or ‘friendly’ countries and their companies track you is ‘good’ and when less friendly countries or their companies do that it’s ‘bad’. When somewhat privacy minded, all tracking is bad.
When someone tels me they have nothing to hide, I’ll ask if they would like a camera in their bathroom or bedroom, as they have nothing to hide. All say that’s an unfair comparison, but it shows that there is nobody that has nothing they waht to keep private.
For me, US companies are even worse then the Chineese ones, as US companies will try to enforce US law and morals upon it’s users. (But I don’t trust either)
For the most part, I 90% agree with your stance. However, you can’t take the statement “I have nothing to hide” literally to the extremes. That would be suggesting that the person is okay giving you the passwords for their bank accounts under the guide that they have nothing to hide.
It’s a common colloquial expression which expresses how one accepts the situation as is. I’ve got nothing to hide doesn’t mean that I then consent to a strip search or house search, those are uncomfortable and inconvenient. You can’t always apply the same single justification to support multiple separate events, because you need the full context. Imagine “can I borrow a dollar? sure thing, you’re my friend” Well whoops, you’ve now just given your friend complete reign over all your money for as long as the friend title exists
A more accurate interpretation here is “They’re not collecting any information that I’m embarrassed about”
Sorry, language is messy and oftentimes there are differences between literal and intended meaning. I just wanted to point out why it is indeed, an unfair comparison. You can achieve your point without attacking someone’s (as I argue) correct statement when taken in context, since your underlying point still stands that the majority of people have some limit of sharing information that they would not be comfortable with.
Nop . that’s not what I meant. What I indicate with the camera in the bathroom is, would you trust the government to be able to watch to keep you safe and do a perfect job at keeping your data safe? Over here (Netherlands) it’s even illegal for the government to fit camera’s on spots where they can look into houses. (those video doorbells are illegal as well and a pest)
To use your anology, would you be at ease when your banking website is forced to use http instead of https because https is encryption and encryption is bad, so not allowed by your government. When you use encryption, you have something to hide (your banking password) and thus are a criminal. Would you accept that situation, knowing that either de government can collect all your data or a company or even worse, criminals?
When they collect ‘all data’, there is bound to be something you wouldn’t want to share freely, say your banking password. (amongst others). People always have something to hide, even as simple as being in the street while picking your nose when a google maps car drives by (let alone kicing that nice neighbour while married).
Knowing that government/companies/criminals can take/gather information from/about you without telling you exactly what they do with it (even when you trust them enough to keep to their words) is bad.
When I ask you for your banking password it’s your choice to either give it to me as you trust me (bad choice, but your choice). When companies entise you to give them access to all information they can gather (including your banking password) and then dowith it as they like takes away the choice.
Yep, language is messy (especially when the language used is not your main language), but I use the literal meaning to point out that everybody has something to hide. How they look underneath clothes is for most a pretty private detail they share with a limited group of people. Giving a company/government access to those details are generally accepted as bad, but most don’t see data gathering as taking away privacy rights, as long as it’s ‘for a good cause’. Privacy should never be taken away from everybody because ‘the cause is good’ or given away easily (and no, neither tiktok or facebook are a good cause).
Everybody has something to hide, so it’s everybody has the right for privacy. That right can be revoked under very specific curcomstances, but only when there is enough cause to suspect criminal behaviour.