• Atomic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yes. But the US can control US based companies, and create laws regarding how that data is used. They can’t control a chineese one.

    Do you understand how the US government might think it’s a problem that foreign countries get access to every step their citizens take?

    • devraza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      But the US can control US based companies, and create laws regarding how that data is used

      Does that matter if they don’t create said laws - since they’re equally interested in their citizens data as facebook, google, etc. are?

      • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It does matter. Because the US can do it if they decide to. They have significant power over companies based in their country.

        They do not have significant power over companies NOT based in their country.

          • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s not what that means.

            The fact that a company who wants to operate in the US has to follow US guidelines is obvious. But doesn’t mean the US government has significant power over them if they’re not based in the US.

    • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      us gov IS controlled by us corps they banned tiktok to get rid of competition. with the ever green excuse in amerikkkan politics of appealing to racism

      • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure buddy. And 9/11 was an inside job and airplanes are spreading chem-trails to control the population and weather too.

              • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                No. You can serve without being controlled. And you can be controlled without serving.

                The waitress is serving me but they’re not being controlled. It’s something they choose to do.

                And you can be controlled in what you say and so, without serving. E.g. a prisoner.

                So no. They’re not the same.

                • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  that is meaningless semantics. both words have multiple meanings, when i said politicians serve corporations i meant that they are ultimately subservient to them because they get paid by them and their live style is contingent on this servitude and that is a system of control in this context both words refer to the same thing.

                  in the example of the waitress she is being controlled when u call them or tell them to get u a certain food u are controlling their actions control doesn’t have to be absolute and it doent have to be forced.

                  a better example would be a social worker who helps people aka serves them but does not respond to them and are not controlled by the people they serve.

                  in the example of a prisoner there is control but no servitude sure, but it is trivial to think of an example where there is control and servitude like a serf, u know cuz world have different meaning and all.

                  • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Yes. Well done. Words does have different meanings. Some idiot previously said “its the same thing.”

                    Which is why I made the comment that they are not. The same thing. Glad you agree.