#China Information Protection Law

[thelawandmore]

Recent Developments in Data Privacy and Their Implications for Business 

Recent Developments in Data Privacy and Their Implications for Business

Data privacy is a hot topic in today’s digital world. Here are nine recent developments that changed the data privacy landscape and what they mean for businesses and consumers.  1. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018, creating a unified data protection framework across the EU and giving individuals more control over their personal data. The EU General…

[evilminji]

Actually? You know what would be darkly hilarious?

If, when the GIW can't get ghosts declared both malicious AND non-sapient/sentient? They push for "dumb animals" instead.

Which is accepted. Ghosts are animals. Checks out, says scientists everywhere.

HOW "dumb"?

What? Says the GIW, mid-victory high fives. They did not expect a follow up question. They SHOULD have, as this is the SCIENTIFIC community and that is literally their job, but here we are.

How. "Dumb"? The scientists repeate slower. What methodology did you use? What is your sample size? Are their different sub-species? Is this dimension like ours? Is Ghost the equivalent to Mammal? It says here their are humanoid ones.

What IQ are we talking about here and HOW DID YOU TEST??

A goldfish, parrot, and dolphin are all animals. WILDLY different levels of intelligence. You can't treat them the same. Technically speaking, WE are animals.

The GIW does not like where this conversation is going. Tries to shut it down.

.......well NOW the scientists are both offended AND invested. How DARE you try to push faulty science and hide the Truth from them! They're gonna do their OWN studies! *picks up the phone and dials that one embarrassing spiritualist friend they had in college* Hey! You still think you can summon ghosts? I'll pay you to try it for Science!

And like? As a Ghost? It's degrading as hell. But ALSO these fuckos just Whoopsie'd you into having both protections under the law, since animal abuse IS illegal, AND just put the ENTIRE planets scientific community on their asses.... by accident.

So you take a deeeeeeep breath you don't even need. Remember you're doing this for the little ghost babies and fluffy ghost animals. And show up at a research facility like "yes, hello, I am Ghost. Here for you to poke and prod at. Please ask me to name the object on the flash card or whatever IQ tests do these days."

Should you HAVE to prove your own fucking sentience? No. But? You do it. You're even polite about it. Ask for a copy of the study they plan to publish so you can BEAT some mother fuckers with it. The scientists nod in understanding and use the BIG font for your copy so it'll hurt more.

They've been there.

And just? Shitty people getting what they wanted only to have it blow up in their faces?? I see all these angst "but what if they were declared ANIMALS" prompts and I just?? Are we talking PARROT or goldfish!? One has the average intelligence of about a human 4yr old and the other is a FISH! People get RIGHTFULLY furious when you treat INTELLIGENT animals badly.

And would, in fact, adapt pretty easy to discovering one of said animal has become HUMAN lvl intelligent. It's easy to grasp the idea of human intelligence lvl dolphin or monkeys. Maybe there was some mutated strain, maybe in uetro tampering. Who knows. But if I tried to sell you a human intelligent housefly? Gold fish? Lizard?

You wouldn't believe me. There is some kind of trick at play.

So if GHOSTS are seen as animals? Everyone nods and then later? Someone comes in TV and very excitedly informs you "we found INTELLIGENT LIFE amongst the ghosts!" You'd believe it. Probably be really excited by your conversation starter for the day. Get a taco and move on with your life.

But? Having to willing sit for a barrage of testing? Is going to suuuuuuck so bad. Poor Danny. SATs all over again. For HOURS. At multiple facilities, just to be CERTAIN it's not a one off. All because he not certain he can insure good behavior from other ghosts and This Is IMPORTANT. He ALSO can't be certain it's even SAFE.

Might be a trap.

But if he has to do it again and again and again? Mexico to Bavaria to China to the Maldives? If this is what it takes for the scientific community to bitchslap the GIW into ORBIT before the UN? Hand him that pencil.

He has no where more important to be.

@hdgnj @nerdpoe @mutable-manifestation @ailithnight @the-witchhunter

[accio-victuuri]

xiao zhan - shanghai jiuze law firm update on cases

Shanghai Jiuze Law Firm has accepted the entrustment of Xiao Zhan Studio and Xiao Zhan to carry out evidence preservation and litigation protection work and investigate the case where users of relevant online platforms continued to publish information that insulted and slandered Xiao Zhan and other suspected infringements, and allegedly infringed on Xiao Zhan's legal rights and interests.

At present, sina weibo uses “椰饽饽”(UID:5190008370)、“二千的颂伊”(UID: 6459308408); douban users“豆友5516575205”(豆瓣ID:252175254)、“小比爱比饭” (豆瓣ID:213393093) are suspected of fabricating false information, publicly making insulting and defamatory remarks against Xiao Zhan, and infringing on Xiao Zhan's reputation rights. This firm has completed the evidence fixation and will file a lawsuit with the court as soon as possible, requesting the court to order the relevant network platforms to disclose the real name identity information of the involved network users in accordance with the law, and hold them accountable through litigation.

Our firm has now accepted Xiao Zhan’s entrustment to pay close attention to online public opinion, notify relevant online platforms to actively perform their supervisory obligations as network service providers, and promptly take measures such as blocking and disconnecting infringement content that infringes upon Xiao Zhan’s legitimate rights and interests. To avoid further expansion of the damage caused by infringement. We will also continue to collect evidence and hold accountable those who fail to stop the infringement or those with serious infringement, and will never tolerate it, so as to stop the relevant infringement and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Xiao Zhan.

Our firm is entrusted to remind and advise Internet users: please immediately stop publishing and disseminating remarks that are suspected of infringing on Xiao Zhan’s reputation rights.

Cyberspace is not a place outside the law, and we cannot act arbitrarily without cost or burden. We should actively respond to the relevant clarification special actions launched by the Cyberspace Administration of China to jointly create a civilized and healthy network environment.

[mollyjimbly]

🚨🚨🚨DANGEROUS INTERNET CENSORSHIP/SURVEILLANCE BILLS WILL NUKE THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT🚨🚨🚨

WE WILL BE SPIED ON DUE TO NO ENCRYPTION

LGBTQ CONTENT WILL BE WIPED FROM THE INTERNET

SEX WORKERS WILL BE CRIMINALIZED

The EARN IT Act of 2023 threatens to undermine online encryption by punishing companies that provide encryption services. And by repeating the same mistakes as a previous bill called SESTA/FOSTA, it would lead to widespread Internet censorship and crackdowns on marginalized communities. When EARN IT was previously introduced in 2020 and 2022, it was shelved in the face of overwhelming public outcry and opposition from human rights groups. Now, lawmakers are introducing EARN IT for a third time, hoping to pass it and break the internet while we’re distracted.

KOSA claims to make kids safer, but it’s really a dangerous censorship bill that would give the government unprecedented control over the internet. This would put youth in danger by preventing them from accessing potentially life-saving resources. Lawmakers concerned about online safety should reject KOSA and instead work to protect all internet users from abusive tech companies by passing a Federal data privacy law.

Lawmakers claim the RESTRICT Act addresses privacy and security concerns around TikTok. But this is about so much more than just TikTok. RESTRICT gives Biden (and all future presidents!) extraordinary new powers to ban Americans from using entire apps simply by claiming they pose a “threat to national security,” outside of any democratic process. Politicians are pushing this bill to show they’re “tough on China”—but instead of protecting us, this law would lead to an internet censored by the president.

Regressive states across the country are taking away teenagers’ online rights. It started in Utah with two laws that create a mandated social media “bedtime” and give parents complete control over their kids’ accounts, messages, and passwords. Utah lawmakers claim their curfew-and-control bills help children, but these bills actually make children less safe by increasing state and parental surveillance and restricting access to community. To make matters worse, legislation like this is spreading. Arkansas has passed a copycat bill. Louisiana and Texas are trying to follow Utah’s lead, and it’s been introduced federally in Congress.

STOP CSAM wouldn’t actually stop CSAM. Instead, it would make CSAM cases harder to prosecute—like SESTA/FOSTA before it—while reducing privacy protections in ways that would harm vulnerable people. Like EARN IT, STOP CSAM undermines end-to-end encryption, a technology that’s vital for LGBTQ+ youth, survivors of interpersonal violence and stalking, abortion seekers and providers, and activists. Weakening E2EE as a means to funnel more information to law enforcement also sets an alarming precedent for government surveillance. All of us, including children, need to be able to communicate in the digital age without our conversations being spied on.

ALSO WE CAN TACKLE ALL OF THEM TOGETHER, LINKS BELOW

DISCORD THAT YOU CAN JOIN

[mariacallous]

TikTok went all out to defend itself in a court hearing last Monday, to block a law that could force TikTok to be sold or banned in the United States. That included using one surprising strategy: to bring other Chinese apps down with it.

Earlier this year, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which aims to prevent national security threats from apps like TikTok, took less than two months to pass both the House and the Senate, before it was swiftly signed by President Joe Biden in April. It caught almost everyone by surprise, including TikTok. The law requires TikTok to find a US buyer to take over its operation soon, or face being banned in the US. TikTok promptly sued the government over it.

At the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, on September 16, Andrew Pincus, a partner at law firm Mayer Brown acting for TikTok, argued that the law unfairly targets the social media app for the speech on the platform and that it violates the First Amendment. Specifically, Pincus said the law exempts other Chinese apps that could have been doing worse on the concern of data security protection.

“There are very significant ecommerce sites based in China and other places that collect much more data than TikTok does. Very sensitive data,” Pincus said. At another point in the hearing, he narrowed down the targets to “two Chinese, two e-commerce sites that would certainly meet all of the other criteria in the law.”

Pincus did not name-drop the two sites in his statements, but a TikTok court filing from August 15 cited the privacy policies of Shein and Temu—two ecommerce companies linked to China—to make the same argument Pincus made. The filing also cited research from April 2023 on the data risks of these two companies, collated by the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Shein and Temu came from China’s fiercely competitive ecommerce industry and were able to take over the world by storm by shipping low-cost apparels and goods globally. Each boasts tens of millions of customers around the world, and they are often compared to TikTok as the rare examples of Chinese tech companies that have truly succeeded in the US.

TikTok, however, claims there’s an exemption clause in the PAFACA Act that essentially protects Chinese companies like Shein and Temu but not TikTok. When defining what companies are covered, the Act has only one exclusion: companies and products “whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.”

To be fair, the clause that TikTok highlighted was a bewildering inclusion from the beginning. Even some lawmakers claimed they weren’t sure why it was necessary to put in place such an exception.

But TikTok is seizing this opportunity to argue that, because the clause would likely protect Shein, Temu, and similar ecommerce sites that also have significant presence in the US and collect a wealth of privacy data, the Act is narrowly tailored to punish TikTok. It went as far as to claim that the clause shows Congress favors topics like products, business, and travel instead of politics, religion, and entertainment, making it a First Amendment infringement. The DOJ has denied this characterization in written court briefs.

It is a valid legal strategy, Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School, explains to WIRED, as the First Amendment can consider a law unconstitutional “if the law hinges on solving a particular problem, does so in an extremely limited way, and leaves the law unsolved.”

But the judge didn’t seem to buy the argument. “It’s a rather blinkered view that the statute just singles out one company,” said Judge Douglas Ginsburg during the hearing. “It describes a category of companies, all of which are owned by or controlled by adversary powers, and subjects one company to an immediate necessity because it’s engaged in two years of negotiation with that company, held innumerable hearings, meeting after meeting after meeting, [and] an attempt to reach an agreement on a national security arrangement which failed.”

The DOJ also replied to TikTok’s problem with the exclusion clause, saying in a court brief that if the clause were to be found problematic, the right solution would be to simply take out that clause about excluding businesses, instead of invalidating the whole law.

In recent years, data security concerns have become one of the main friction points in tech policies in the US and China. While the Chinese government passed a law that regulates cross-border data transfers, the US government has taken a more piecemeal approach, investigating risks posed by products like TikTok and Chinese-made smart cars.

Some experts and lawmakers advocate for a more comprehensive legal framework to solve this issue. “This bill not only fails to solve the problem, but also jeopardizes the free speech and livelihoods of 170 million Americans who use the app. Instead, Congress should pass a bill to prevent apps, whether it's TikTok or any other social media platform, from collecting or transferring data and make foreign interference in social media algorithms illegal,” said Representative Ro Khanna in an emailed statement. Khanna voted no on the PAFACA bill.

For now, Chinese ecommerce sites like Shein and Temu have faced much less scrutiny around data security than TikTok. But TikTok’s legal strategy of highlighting the alleged data security risks of other Chinese companies will no doubt put more pressure on them. If TikTok fails its legal challenge and is banned from operating in the US unless it is sold, it’s not hard to imagine that lawmakers might turn their attention to other prominent Chinese tech companies.

“There might be some kind of legal strategy behind this, but in terms of how the public will now perceive TikTok, it has voluntarily opted to be associated with Temu and Shein and has undone a lot of the narrative work it has been trying to do,” says Ivy Yang, the founder of Wavelet Strategy, a strategic PR consultancy who has worked in Alibaba’s PR department.

By comparing TikTok’s data security concerns to Shein’s and Temu’s, the company essentially has labeled itself among a number of Chinese companies considered security risks.

So far, Shein and Temu have not made any statement about the PAFACA bill and its potential implications on their businesses. A Shein spokesperson responded in an emailed statement: “SHEIN has robust data security policies and practices in line with industry standards, and we are committed to only collecting and using the minimum amount of data needed to fulfill orders. SHEIN stores US customer data within Microsoft’s US-based Azure cloud-based solution and within AWS’s US-based cloud-based solution.” Temu and TikTok did not reply to requests for comment.

These ecommerce companies have plenty of problems to deal with at the moment too. A September White House decision to scrap a tariff exemption policy could significantly increase shipping costs for them and harm their profitability. Meanwhile, the two ecommerce companies have been embroiled in a tit-for-tat legal battle in the US since July 2023, accusing each other of monopolistic practices and deceptive marketing.

“What they are doing is basically airing all the dirty laundry,” Yang says about the Shein–Temu court fights. “It’s very much, ‘We are competitors and we have to beat the other party no matter how far we go, even though as a whole it’s a terrible look on Chinese companies.’” The same problem is playing out as TikTok seemingly decided to take down its fellow Chinese companies to save itself in the court.

But TikTok’s gambit may not pay off in the end. Even if it successfully argues that the Congress shouldn’t just target one app for its data security risks, it still needs to refute the government’s other justification for the law—that TikTok could be subject to content and algorithm manipulation by the Chinese government in the future. “The law has used two justifications. [If] one is invalid and the other is valid, the law is still valid,” says Rozenshtein.

There has been no proof—at least not in the nonredacted materials—that the Chinese government is currently interfering with TikTok’s content in the US. But during last week’s hearing, none of the judges seemed interested in discussing this point with TikTok or the government.

“[TikTok] made the best argument they could. Just the argument went very poorly for them,” Rozenshtein says. “I don’t think it’s conceivable that TikTok will win, at least on this level.”

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this press release from the Center for Biological Diversity:

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee renewed its call today for urgent action to protect the critically endangered vaquita porpoise in Mexico. With merely six to eight individuals estimated remaining, the vaquita faces imminent extinction from entanglement in illegal fishing gear.

The committee agreed to retain the Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California World Heritage site — the only home to vaquita — on its List of World Heritage in Danger. In its review, the committee determined that Mexico’s recent enforcement actions to quell illegal fishing in the area were “not fully effective” in protecting the vaquita. The committee also approved a suite of corrective measures for Mexico to implement to safeguard the species.

“I appreciate the committee’s continued pressure, but it’s disheartening that Mexico still hasn’t kept its promises to protect the quickly vanishing vaquita,” said Alejandro Olivera, senior scientist and Mexico representative at the Center for Biological Diversity, who is attending the committee meeting in Delhi. “Despite a 2020 ban, lethal gillnets still plague these little porpoises’ habitat. Mexico needs to step up immediately, expand the vaquita’s protected area, and enforce the law by stopping illegal fishing.”

Under the World Heritage Convention, a site may be listed as “in danger” if development projects or major public works threaten the natural values the site was designated to protect. According to UNESCO, the aim of the list is to “inform the international community” of the situation and “encourage corrective action.”

The vaquita population has declined drastically, falling from nearly 600 in 1997 to fewer than 10 in 2024 because of entanglement in gillnets used for illegal fishing. These nets target shrimp and a variety of fish, including totoaba, an endangered species whose swim bladder is coveted in China. Despite some reduction in illegal fishing within a no-fishing zone known as the zero tolerance area, the practice remains widespread outside this zone, posing a continuous threat to the vaquita’s survival.

The committee decided that for the “in danger” designation to be lifted, Mexico must enact the following corrective measures:

implement sustainable fishing practices that avoid harming marine life

demonstrate a five-year increase in the vaquita population with healthy individuals and calves

effectively protect the area from illegal fishing

eliminate gillnets from the Vaquita Refuge and Biosphere Reserve

collaborate internationally to combat illegal totoaba poaching and trafficking

[dresden-syndrome]

Political offender classification: Class 2

“Class 2 offense is a societally harmful act which undermines the authority of the East European Socialist Union government and its social and political order.”

“Class 2 offenders are potentially dangerous elements committing stated crimes with a possible deliberate anti-socialist intent.”

Rules: 

Can be applied to minors aged 16 and older

Used for most class 1 offenses during martial law 

Used for class 1 repeat offenders 

May be used for class 3 offenses when the state/region is in a great need of agricultural labor

Mostly used in peacetime

Offenses: 

Non-reporting on class 4 crimes

Contribution to class 3 crimes

Illegal country border crossing to an ally state*

Verbal anti-government propaganda in peacetime 

Personal acts of economical sabotage 

Unapproved foreign (Western) media possession

Showing support to enemy states or regimes 

Unregistered media broadcasting device possession**

Unregistered foreign property possession 

Leaking or disclosure of confidential information 

Penalties: 

Limitations on certain jobs, ranks and positions

Demotion from Party member to Party candidate

Termination from the Party (in more severe cases)

Forced resettlement to remote areas with corrective labor for up to a few years 

Deportation to labor communes for up to 10 years 

Protection status: 

All remaining constitutional rights legally and actually protected (may experience discrimination)

Further restrictions: 

Not allowed to get certain jobs or ranks 

Not allowed to be registered within EESU capital, region capitals and biggest cities (usually from 3 to 20 years after release)

Political literacy courses after resettlement or release from the commune

Life prospects: 

Back to freedom after detention or release from the commune

Back to life in a remote town/settlement after serving penalty 

Job, movement and travel prospects reduced

More often become political crime suspects later in life; may be arrested as class 3-4 while in labor commune or resettlement 

Rehabilitation possibility: 

Rehabilitated with a political criminal record after finishing courses

May be fully rehabilitated with charges dropped and rights restored for labor or political achievements

Party membership can be restored (usually a difficult process) 

Class promotion/demotion possibility: 

Promotion to class 1 for labor achievements and political loyalty 

Demotion to class 3 if aggravating circumstances are found during investigation/detention 

Demotion to class 3 if escaped from the labor commune

Prisoner use methods: 

Cheap unskilled labor within their commune or resettlement place 

Cheap labor in the offender’s skill field within their commune or resettlement place 

May be used as voluntary unofficial informers 

May be used in SSR*** for important projects 

Legal documentation: 

ID card stamped with a political criminal record mark

*Ally states (by 1960): USSR, Yugoslavia, China, North Korea. Yugoslavia is the most common EESU escape route aside from West Germany.

**TVs and radios, including DIY radio stations. Must be analyzed and approved by the government before purchase.

***Strategic Scientific Reserve (Science Division).

Picture: Ştefana Rusu and Ana-Maria Antonescu on the field work in a small labor commune. PUR Romania, 1965.

Art tag: @painful-pooch @prismpanic @generic-whumperz @suspicious-whumping-egg @onlywhump @whumpedydump @whumpthefifth @monarchthefirst @sunshiline-writes @project-xiii

Lore dump tag: @sweet-lost-husbands @whumpingandsmilinglikeanidiot

[witch-of-the-creek]

Fascinating flora, special edition.

White Sage

I am still doing a regular post about sage in general, but as a conservationist and student of ethnobotany, I wanted to address the conservation status and history of salvia apiana in particular.

White sage is endemic to Southern California and parts of Northern Baja, and is a valuable medicinal and cultural resource to indigenous populations who were forcibly relocated to these areas. Today, the majority of white sage is cultivated by indigenous Americans on protected land.

Smudging refers to a variety ceremonies that involve the burning of sacred herbs. The British, Spanish, and French colonizers started to relocate indigenous people, to wash away their culture, take their children, and erase their languages. Smudging is an English word that was used to generalize and belittle a widely held set of spiritual practices, and has now been reclaimed by many indigenous communities.

The use of this plant by non native people, and the misappropriation of the word ‘smudging’ came much later, around the time the first legal protections were established to protect the remaining people and culture. “In the 1960s, the hippie movement co-opted the use of white sage and evolved into the New Age Movement.” (Ramirez, Rose & Small, Deborah)

The popularity of white sage has only gotten higher, and with a boom in demand, illegal harvesting of the plant has become all to common a practice. “With very few commercial growers of white sage (Salvia apiana), the vast majority of products are wild-harvested.” (Ramirez & Small)

“What I learned when I was in California and visited the Etiwanda Preserve was that it is the epicenter of the current commercial harvest.” (Leopold, Susan).

“What is important to stress is that this underground sage mafia is not ethical or sustainable wildcrafting as it is portrayed in hipster IG accounts and stores! The scale of white sage commercial trade on the Internet and demand in China is alarming” (Leopold).

“I was invited by the owner of a white sage company to meet at the Etiwanda Preserve in March of 2019; he wanted to show his sustainable harvesting methods. I quickly pulled out my phone to show him that it was against the law to do so, and that recent arrests had been made. He carried on as if that was not the case” (Leopold).

The current elemental status of white sage is G4, which means ‘apparently secure.’ This rating has not been reviewed since June nineteenth, 2002. The lack of updated information on the plants range and occurrences have kept it off multiple endangered species lists.

The article referencing a book by Ramirez and Small, published in spring of 2020, evaluate that 50% of white sage has been eradicated due to urbanization.

I am not native, I can’t speak for any native people. All of what I have stated here is a summary or quotation of the words of indigenous activists, ethnobotanists, and conservationists. My hope here is to give a factual overview of the situation and provide direction to people more knowledgeable than myself.

Sources below

-News from Native California, Spring 2020 By Rose Ramirez and Deborah Small

[zvaigzdelasas]

17 Jul 23

China Law Translate - Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services

Quotes from direct English translation of law below

These measures apply to the use of generative AI technologies to provide services to the public in the [mainland] PRC for the generation of text, images, audio, video, or other content (hereinafter generative AI services). Where the state has other provisions on the use of generative AI services to engage in activities such as news and publication, film and television production, and artistic creation, those provisions are to be followed. These Measures do not apply where industry associations, enterprises, education and research institutions, public cultural bodies, and related professional bodies, etc., research, develop, and use generative AI technology, but have not provided generative AI services to the (mainland) public.[...]

During processes such as algorithm design, the selection of training data, model generation and optimization, and the provision of services, effective measures are to be employed to prevent the creation of discrimination such as by race, ethnicity, faith, nationality, region, sex, age, profession, or health;[...]

Respect intellectual property rights and commercial ethics, and protect commercial secrets, advantages in algorithms, data, platforms, and so forth must not be used for monopolies or to carry out unfair competition;[...]

Promote the establishment of generative AI infrastructure and public training data resource platforms. Promote collaboration and sharing of algorithm resources, increasing efficiency in the use of computing resources. Promote the orderly opening of public data by type and grade, expanding high-quality public training data resources. Encourage the adoption of safe and reliable chips, software, tools, computational power, and data resources.[...]

Where intellectual property rights are involved, the intellectual property rights that are lawfully enjoyed by others must not be infringed;[...]

Where personal information is involved, the consent of the personal information subject shall be obtained or it shall comply with other situations provided by laws and administrative regulations;[...]

When manual tagging is conducted in the course of researching and developing generative AI technology, the providers shall formulate clear, specific, and feasible tagging rules that meet the requirements of these Measures;[...]

Providers shall bear responsibility as the producers of online information content in accordance with law and are to fulfill the online information security obligations. Where personal information is involved, they are to bear responsibility as personal information handlers and fulfill obligations to protect personal information. Providers shall sign service agreements with users who register for their generative AI services (hereinafter “users”), clarifying the rights and obligations of both parties.[...]

Providers shall clarify and disclose the user groups, occasions, and uses of their services, guide users’ scientific understanding and lawful use of generative AI technology, and employ effective measures to prevent minor users from overreliance or addiction to generative AI services.[...]

Providers shall lawfully and promptly accept and address requests from individuals such as to access, reproduce, modify, supplement, or delete their personal information.[...]

Providers shall label generated content such as images and video in accordance with the Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis Internet Information Services.[...]

Those providing generative AI services with public opinion properties or the capacity for social mobilization shall carry out security assessments in accordance with relevant state provisions[...]

These measures take effect on August 15, 2023.

[staticart]

I need to know the lore behind Jackie and China’s beef 👀

They're both informants for skug and they both use their looks to their advantage

China thinks Jackie's just a common whore and a cougar and Jackie thinks China is cheating with her enchanted looks

Also both women love skug, both women are jealous people, so naturally, they don't want to share, the only reason they haven't tried to kill eachother is because skug protects Jackie from the law (she tends to break a few) and China is too paranoid and has too many safeguards to risk attacking her over something as silly as petty beef lmao

[rainbowsky]

Hi rainbowsky☺️ thanks for all the fun posts. I love them a lot! I am a fruit from 2021. Toxic mtjj has recently attecked fruit with this claim. 'The court ruled that bjyx is a disgrace to Mr. Wang Yibo.'

I am trying to find information on this, but I can't seem to find it. Do you know anything about it?

Hi remember! Thanks, I'm glad you're enjoying my blog! ☺️

If I've said this once, I've said this a thousand times, block and ignore toxic people (and report where appropriate). Don't give them the time of day. They are trying to hurt you. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

As for this particular claim, this emptyjiejie is misrepresenting what happened in order to upset turtles.

They're talking about the Lyfen case, where a BXG sued Lyfen for failing to give them a prize they had legitimately won. Lyfen's homophobic defense was that they were trying to protect DD's reputation by disassociating the contest/event from BXG.

Lyfen won the case. Of course they did! Anyone who thought the ruling would go against Lyfen is out of touch with reality.

This is a lone BXG against a large corporation with high powered lawyers. The BXG never stood a chance, regardless of what basis Lyfen argued its case upon.

Lyfen was the defendant in the case, and a brand arguing it was trying to protect its reputation and the reputation of its spokesperson is already at an advantage. I'm not an expert in Chinese law, but in most courtrooms around the world all Lyfen would have had to do to win the case was prove that, in their mind, they were acting in good faith. They wouldn't have had to prove anything beyond that. They wouldn't even have had to prove anything negative about turtles, just that as a brand, they were acting based on what they felt was best for their company and their spokesperson. If they weren't acting illegally in doing so, they win.

LGBTQ rights aren't protected under the law in China. In a country like China where there are no legal protections in place against LGBTQ discrimination (and where, in fact, the current government - which is very homophobic - is increasingly cracking down on LGBTQ people), courts are going to side with a defendant who is arguing against being associated with 'deviant queer culture'. According to the law in China, queerness isn't a protected class. Quite the contrary.

The courts didn't rule that BXG are a 'disgrace', they ruled that Lyfen was within their rights to not want to associate with them. Even if the courts had made that determination that BXG were a bunch of disgraceful, immoral monsters, anyone wanting to cite a LGBTQ repressive institution on matters pertaining to the morality of homosexuality/queer culture... uhhhh*... 🤔

I have said this before, but anyone who smugly cheers on this kind of thing is a fucking asshole, and a homophobe.

*This reminds me of shrimps gleefully quoting a bottom-feeding paparazzo as 'proof' that BJYX isn't real. Solos don't actually GAF about right and wrong when it comes to attacking BXG. They'll throw all morality out the window if they think it can help further their anti agenda.

Block and ignore, block and ignore, block and ignore.

And please, if you read any of my posts, make it this one.

I talked a bit more about brand antis here.

[greenhappyseed]

Hi, okay, I have to weigh in on this vote to ban TikTok happening in the U.S., because I’m seeing misinformation on Twitter. Here’s the deal: TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, and TikTok sends your personal data to China. Why is that a problem? Well, private companies in China aren’t exactly “private” in the way Americans think of them. It’s very easy for the Chinese government to influence Chinese companies…including ordering the company to change its algorithms (…and yes, access any personal data). If, say, China wanted to spread misinformation, sow chaos in the U.S., and disrupt the 2024 U.S. presidential election the way Russia did via Facebook in 2016, the Chinese government has the personal data AND control of the platform to do it. The PLATFORM is actually more important than the personal data. China doesn’t need to exploit Facebook when they’ve got TikTok. The only way to reduce the risk to zero is to ban TikTok in the U.S. https://www.wsj.com/tech/tiktok-pledged-to-protect-u-s-data-1-5-billion-later-its-still-struggling-cbccf203 (WSJ has its paywall BS, but the same point is made elsewhere across the internet). This idea has been kicking about in the U.S. for several years, and I can find articles going back to 2021-22 expressing the same concern. But of course, it’s coming to a head now that it’s actually 2024 and we’ve got another fucking election involving Trump.

Do not be deceived: The TikTok ban has little to do with personal data and absolutely NOTHING to do with Palestine. It is NOT a move to “hide the truth” about Palestine from you, as the ban idea predates October 2023. You can still use Twitter, Discord, Instagram, YouTube, BlueSky, etc. (or just look up your preferred news sources online). Also, any law designed for the purpose of stopping information on a particular topic would violate the First Amendment and the law would be overturned by a court.

Is this ban hypocritical of the U.S.? Yes, a bit. This is similar to what the EU says about personal data transfers from the EU to the U.S. To oversimplify, the EU alleges that EU citizen personal data isn’t safe in the U.S. not just because of corporate greed, but also because the U.S. government can subpoena that data under normal U.S. legal processes. It’s fair to criticize the U.S. for this. Then again, I don’t think there have ever been allegations that the U.S. government has tried to disrupt a European government or election the way Russia did in the U.S. in 2016. Also, to be snarky, the governmental bodies in the EU haven’t figured out how to use Microsoft Office without violating their own privacy laws. Like they can’t successfully apply their own laws to themselves. Last week this case was, I think, the third or fourth case the EU has brought against itself for GDPR violations. https://www.edps.europa.eu/system/files/2024-03/EDPS-2024-05-European-Commission_s-use-of-M365-infringes-data-protection-rules-for-EU-institutions-and-bodies_EN.pdf As a result, the EU comparison sounds similar at first, but doesn’t really materialize into a strong parallel to the national security concerns that U.S. legislators have about TikTok.

Look, the ban is clearly a protectionist move, and yeah we can debate it for all kinds of reasons, but don’t fall into the trap of thinking the ban is meant to stop TikTok from having “the truth” that the government or “mainstream media” is “hiding” from you. That’s some paranoid Fox News bullshit logic, and being young and leftist doesn’t make you immune to it. PLEASE read about what happened with Russia and Facebook in 2016 so you’re not repeating the same mistakes.

[joys-of-everyday]

Reading notes – Slavery in Medieval China

Okay, so reading fanfics, I had a lot of ‘wait a sec, is this historically accurate?’ moments around QJL, so I did reading and…

Tang dynasty law: A master who killed his slave with no provocation whatsoever was sentenced to one year of penal servitude…

Under no circumstances were male slaves to be allowed to marry the daughters of commoners. Masters who permitted such unions to take place were liable to two and a half years of penal servitude, and the marriages themselves were to be annulled.

Me: … damn.

This is from Slavery in Medieval China (Chapter 11) - The Cambridge World History of Slavery btw. 

Anyway, quick notes

I honestly don’t think fanfic (or just fiction in general) needs to be historically accurate (the cultivation world just isn’t, svsss world really isn’t) but this is here for anyone curious.

Big disclaimer: Any mistakes are probably my misunderstandings. Take everything with a pinch of salt. You have been warned. (Also if anyone knows more about this/has corrections, please tell me. *puppy eyes*)

Essentials

Since the Zhou dynasty (1045 BC – 221 BC), there has been the notion of liang or ‘good’ people and jian or ‘base’ people. Slaves were seen as a subset of ‘base’ people. Other ‘base’ people included convicted criminals and their descendants (who could be made into slaves). So there was an idea of slavery being punishment, and slaves being ‘deserving’ of their status. (Although by the Song dynasty (960-1279) the distinction between ‘good’and ‘base’ seems to be more based on occupation. For example, prostitutes were seen as ‘base’.)

There were two main types of slaves 1) official slaves owned by the government. 2) private slaves (SJ falls under this category). Legalities and stuff were different for the two categories.

Legalities

Slavery was legal. So no, QJL would not be punished/criticised in general for owning or purchasing slaves. (Although apparently Emperor Hongwu (1328-1398) of the Ming dynasty did try to abolish private slaves, without success.)

On the other hand, while slavery was legal, the method of procuring slaves was often not. In the Tang dynasty, technically the only legal way for a (Chinese) freeperson to become a slave was to sell themselves (which was common practice for the desperate), but many slaves were those kidnapped by groups of traders. Kidnapping a ‘good’ person and selling them into slavery was punishable by strangulation (which reflects the attitude that ‘good’ people were different from ‘base’ people and didn’t deserve the same treatment). Kidnapping foreigners was also popular, since they weren’t protected by the same laws as Chinese citizens. There were edicts conedemning and forbidding the practice but to little effect.

So maybe the slave traders could be condemned, and maybe if it could be argued that QJL knew they were shady he could also be condemned, but I have a feeling it wouldn’t be that serious a thing.

Treatment

Before and during the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420-589) owners of slaves could treat them in any way they liked, even if it resulted in maiming or death, with no consequence.

In the Sui (581-618) and Tang (618-907) dynasties, slaves had a few more rights. A master wasn’t allowed to just kill their slave (you needed government permission) but if it happened, it would be either punished with a beating, or one year of penal servitude (if the killing was unprovoked). In the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), the punishments were the same, but if the killing was unprovoked, the slave’s family would be freed.

Wikipedia informs me that in premodern China (??? When even is this), punishment and abuse of slaves was regular but was rarely reported or looked into. But it could be, if the master was being investigated for other crimes.

On the other hand, a slave threatening or harming their master was seen as a severe crime. In the Tang dynasty, even plotting against one’s master was punishable by decapitation, whether the attempt was successful or not.

So SJ is unlikely to have been seen favourably for what he did. The only way I can see this being turned around is if SJ’s status as a peak lord and reputation is enough for everyone to see him as a ‘good’ person, and then there might be outrage at his treatment.  

Marriages

During the Tang dynasty, marriages between enslaved men and free women was illegal and very taboo.  (But there was nothing preventing a free man from marrying an unfree woman.)

However for premodern slaves, Wiki gives me this: After their servitude, male slaves were either released from the main house to survive on their own, or they could have marriages arranged for them if their masters considered them to be extremely loyal or hard working. Those who were chosen to be married would be provided with an 'unlucky' woman, usually a person with disabilities or the daughter of another slave.

So QJL allowing SJ to marry QHT would have been extremely unusual. It would definitely have turned heads. People would probably have thought that either he was extremely fond of SJ, or he hated his sister. And since SJ was outwardly treated fine and QJL clearly loved his sister, they’d probably have assumed the former.

On the other hand, there was also a tradition of buying male slaves to become heirs, and they would become family. No source but adopting sons seems to be a big thing in Asia??? (Cao Song, father of Cao Cao, was the foster son of Cao Teng, a powerful eunuch at the time. There's also Matsudaira Katamori, a daimyo of the Bakumatsu period, who was also adopted.) It also just seems to be a thing where if a family has no sons, they go find a good marriage for one of their daughters and the son-in-law becomes the heir. WYZ remarked that QJL was SJ’s brother – this could refer to SJ’s (future) marriage to QHT, or maybe (???) it could be his position within the household as an adopted son of sorts???

Slave contracts

I have a feeling SJ’s situation is closer to premodern slaves than to medieval slaves, and for that we have a section (on wiki) on slave contracts: The contract stated the name of the person offering the slave, the name of the person buying the slave, the name of the selling agent, the name of the guarantor, the age of the slave and how many years the slave was to work for the new family, which was typically around 10–15 years.

Tl;dr QJL could not be punished for keeping or purchasing slaves. But – depending on the era you want to base the cultivation world in – had he outright killed SJ, he could have been (lightly).

[accio-victuuri]

xiao zhan - shanghai juze law firm statement

Shanghai Jiuze Law Firm (hereinafter referred to as "the Firm") has accepted the commission of Xiao Zhan Studio and Mr. Xiao Zhan to carry out evidence preservation and litigation rights protection work for suspected infringement of Mr. Xiao Zhan's reputation and other legitimate rights and interests by users of relevant online platforms who continue to post insulting and defamatory information about him.

At present, the real name information of online users suspected of infringement, such as Sina Weibo users "超急玛丽" (UID: 3121714161) and "thelastholle" (UID: 3938716772), has been determined in accordance with the law. For online users whose subject information has been determined in accordance with the law, our firm will file a lawsuit with the court based on authorization, requesting the court to order the relevant infringing parties to bear legal responsibilities for infringement, such as apology, compensation for mental damages, and all rights protection costs; In response to Sina Weibo users such as "露著晚瓜田" (UID: 7484772739), "安折说夫人的玫瑰花凋谢了" (UID: 7808747484), "明月别枝了" (UID: 3265906365), "西风染流年" (UID: 2715477801), etc., who fabricated false information and publicly made insulting and defamatory remarks against Mr. Xiao Zhan, suspected of seriously infringing on Mr. Xiao Zhan's reputation rights, our firm has completed the evidence requisition and will file a lawsuit with the court as soon as possible, requesting the court to order the relevant network platforms to disclose the real name identity information of the involved network users in accordance with the law and pursue legal responsibility through litigation.

We have now accepted Mr. Xiao Zhan's commission to closely monitor online public opinion, notify relevant online platforms to actively fulfill their regulatory obligations as network service providers, and take timely measures such as blocking and disconnecting infringing content that infringes on Mr. Xiao Zhan's legitimate rights and interests, in order to avoid further expansion of the damage caused by infringement. We will also continue to collect evidence and hold accountable those who are negligent in stopping infringement and those who have committed serious infringement, without any tolerance, in order to stop related infringement and safeguard Mr. Xiao Zhan's legitimate rights and interests.

We hereby remind and urge online users to immediately stop publishing and disseminating statements that are suspected of infringing on Mr. Xiao Zhan's reputation rights. The cyberspace is not a lawless place, we cannot act recklessly without any consequences. We should actively respond to the clear (qinglang) online environment campaign launched by the Cyberspace Administration of China, and jointly create a civilized and healthy online environment.

上海九泽律师事务所

Shanghai Jiuze Law Firm

[indiesellersguild]

We promised a detailed analysis of the COOL Online Act, and we have delivered!

A couple of excerpts from the introduction:

In the US and most other countries, when a consumer buys something new, they have the legal right to know where that product was made. This is the reason behind those stickers that say “Made in China”, “Made in Taiwan”, “Hecho en México” etc. However, these days more and more consumers are making purchases online rather than in person, and the laws that protect consumers’ rights are still catching up with the rise of online shopping.

The COOL (Country Of Origin Labeling) Online Act, a bill currently being considered by the US Senate, aims to make sure consumers who make purchases online rather than in person still have access to this important information.

[...]

The ISG worked hard with the office of Senator Tammy Baldwin, the sponsor of the bill, to make sure the new requirement will not hurt any of our members and will only target resellers misleading customers and driving down prices for authentic handmade sellers.

An FAQ has been included below the cut, but we recommend clicking through to the blog post for the full analysis.

Also, please note that this article is based on our research and understanding of the bill, but in no way should be taken as legal advice. The Indie Sellers Guild is not liable for any issues, legal or otherwise, sellers may encounter as the result of following the advice in this article.

Q: What is this bill all about?

A: In the US, when you buy an item in person you can see a “Made in _____” country of origin label on it somewhere. This is required by US customs law for items made outside the US. But there is currently no such requirement for items sold online. This bill aims to close that loophole and provide online shoppers with the same information they would have when shopping in person.

Q: How will I find the country of origin information for products?

A: It should be listed on the product or product packaging as a “Made in _____” label put on by the manufacturer. As long as you provide this information clearly in a listing, you are good to go. The limitations of liability in the bill means that you are only responsible for providing the information given to you by the manufacturer, and not liable if the manufacturer’s listing was wrong or false.

For a seller that creates their products (a handmade seller), the country the seller made it in would be the country of origin.

Q: How will I know if my handmade product counts as a new product that I made?

A: You have created a new product, with the country of origin now where you are, if you substantially transformed the item. “Substantial transformation means that the good underwent a fundamental change (normally as a result of processing or manufacturing in the country claiming origin) in form, appearance, nature, or character, which adds to its value an amount or percentage that is significant in comparison to the value which the good (or its components or materials) had when exported from the country in which it was first made or grown.”

So if you take fabric, thread, a zipper and buttons and make an item of clothing, you have substantially transformed those supplies into a new product.

Q: But what about taking an existing item and changing it? Like screen printing on a t-shirt?

A: That does change the t-shirts appearance and add value. Our contact at Senator Baldwin’s office said that would be a new product. But our advice is to be transparent about any country of origin labeling leftover in your handmade product. The goal of this bill is to provide the information you would see if you shopped in a physical store to online shopping. So if the handmade product you send out has a “Made in ____” labeling from one of the components you used (like a t-shirt), you’ll just share that information in the online listing.

Q: I am a seller in the US, does that mean I will put “made in the US” as my country of origin?

A: Actually, that is different. The “Made in USA” labeling is regulated by different marketing laws, not customs law. This bill is specifically for products made outside of the US, so US sellers do not need to provide country of origin labeling under the COOL Online Act. If you want to learn more about the “Made in USA” marketing laws, you can do so [via a link provided in the original FAQ].

Q: I am a seller in a country other than the US, will this bill apply to me?

A: Yes, it will apply to any products you sell to consumers in the US.

Q: So if I’m a seller outside the US, how will I label products I sell to the US?

A: If you are a handmade seller, then you are producing the new products and the country of origin would be where you live. Some countries have specific laws about labeling products as “Made in your country”, so please check the applicable laws for the best way to phrase your country of origin labeling. If you can’t find anything else more applicable, we recommend “Country of origin for US import law _______” as something to cover you for the COOL Online Act if it passes without going against any labeling laws in your country.

If you are a craft supply seller, this would be the country the item was manufactured in, so check the “Made in _____” labeling on the product and list that. If you are a vintage seller this bill does not apply to you.

Q: My shop is really small, do I really need to do all this?

A: The COOL Online Act has an exception for small sellers. If you make less than $20,000 revenue and sell less than 200 items in a year for each marketplace you sell on, this bill would not apply to you if it becomes law.

The each marketplace part of that means each place you sell would count towards its own total. So if you sell 150 items/$15,000 on Etsy and 75 items/$4000 on Facebook marketplace and 10 items/$2000 on Ebay, you would still be exempt as a small seller because your total at one marketplace never crossed the threshold.

Q: I am a vintage seller, will the bill apply to me?

A: Nope! It only applies to new products, anything sold that is used or pre-owned is exempt. So our vintage sellers don’t need to make any changes.

Q: I am a craft supply seller, how will this bill work for me?

A: For any products sold to the US you will need to list the country of origin provided by the manufacturer. This should be found on the product in the “Made in _____” labeling.

Q: I live in and design my products in one country, but use a print on demand company to make them. How will this bill work for me?

A: You could say “Designed in” whatever country you live in, and then would need to list whatever country the print on demand company manufactures the products in as the country of origin. The print on demand company will need to provide this information if they want to sell to the US themselves, so you should be able to get it from them. This is pretty much the same as Etsy’s already-existing requirement to list production partners. We think this will overall help our sellers, who tend to already be transparent about their process, by penalizing sellers that try to hide where their products are made. It will hopefully also make it easier for sellers to indicate when they use local print shops.

Q: What if I buy my materials from several different countries? Do I have to list all of them?

A: If you are creating a new product from those materials then no. You have created a new product and the country of origin is where you are. You do not need to provide country of origin information for all of the components used. If part of your handmade product has a clear “Made in ______” label of its own, for example a t-shirt you dyed, you could provide that information to customers if you want for full transparency, but it is not required by this bill. It would just be so that customers wouldn’t get confused upon seeing that tag.

Q: What are the marketplaces’ responsibility in all this?

A: Marketplaces are required to notify sellers of the new country of origin labeling requirements. They are also required to provide a way to list that information in the product’s description.

Q: How will this be enforced?

A: Anyone who violates this rule is subject to Federal Trade Commission’s regulations about unfair and deceptive business practices. But this is a civil violation, not criminal. The process can involve a hearing or interviews, or even formal subpoenas for information from the company. The FTC then brings the complaint to a judge, who either issues a cease and desist order or dismisses the complaint. Only if the company violates a cease and desist order are they liable to penalties.The penalty is up to $10,000 per violation. FTC cases tend to result in financial penalties paid back to consumers. The FTC can also forward a case on to law enforcement agencies if they believe a crime has been committed. [Two sources provided here in the original FAQ.]

Q: In the past I bought something that was claimed to be handmade, but when I got it there was a clear “Made in _____” tag and I found the same item for sale elsewhere at a much lower price. How would the COOL Online Act help keep me from getting ripped off like this in the future?

A: First off, if the COOL Online Act becomes law, that kind of false labeling of an item as handmade would specifically be unlawful and a violation of the unfair and deceptive practices regulations. If that happened again you could file a complaint with the FTC. More generally, it should increase the overall level of transparency from sellers about where their products come from and so make it easier to spot when a seller is being shady.

Q: What happens when I file a complaint with the FTC?

A: The FTC does not open cases for individuals. Rather, they use complaints to help identify patterns of unfair or deceptive practices from businesses. The FTC can bring enforcement action against businesses and one of the things that influence that is the number and severity of consumer complaints against a business. [Source provided here in the original FAQ.]

Q: What if I have an FTC complaint filed against me as a seller?

A: As far as we can tell, a single complaint against a small business is unlikely to do anything, unless it is for an issue specifically being investigated by the FTC. The FTC does not open cases for individuals, but instead pursues companies or industries based on public interest. So a single complaint of a single violation that did not cause much harm to the consumer may not get much attention.

According to our contacts, if the FTC does follow up with a complaint, they usually reach out to the business for more information, either informally or formally with civil investigative demand or subpoena. The FTC then takes the complaint and information to a judge, who either issues a cease and desist order or dismisses the complaint. Only if you violate a cease and desist order are you liable for civil penalties.

The bill calls for an interagency agreement to be publicly published that will give more guidelines on how this new requirement will be handled, so that should help provide more specific information. [Four sources provided here in the original FAQ.]

Q: If this bill passes will it actually make a difference?

A: It’s hard to predict exactly how much the COOL Online Act would change things, especially with enforcement through the FTC. What it will do is offer a clear legal requirement to provide country of origin labeling and a clear place to report violations. We hope it does a lot to reduce the problem of dishonest resellers on handmade platforms, but at the very least it will make it easier for customers to avoid resellers and make it more obvious when a seller is not being transparent. And it will be a clear win for creative indie sellers and consumers against the interests of large e-commerce platforms and retailers who don’t want this bill, which is a huge victory on its own!

Q: What is Etsy doing about this bill?

A: They are lobbying hard against it by saying that us, the makers, don’t want it. They say that it will be overly complicated and place a burden on handmade sellers, but we went over the whole bill carefully and found nothing to back that up. We think Etsy is resisting the bill because even though resellers are making Etsy a more difficult place for honest sellers to do business, the reselling and dropshipping industry still generates a lot of money for Etsy.

The bill is targeted at resellers dishonestly passing off foreign mass produced items as handmade while not causing a problem for genuine handmade sellers, and we were able to directly give feedback on how to make sure that happened. It is more important than ever now to make sure our voices are heard loud and clear, so that Etsy and other large e-commerce platforms can’t use us as puppets to protect their special interests.

Q: What can I do to support this bill and help it become law?

A: First off, sign up to support the bill and receive updates! [Link provided here in the original FAQ.] That way if there are any developments or calls to action, you will know right away. Then join the Guild if you haven’t yet! It’s free and anyone can join as an ally member. We are speaking on behalf of creative indie sellers for their interests, and the more members we have, the louder our voice will be as we continue to work with the Senate on this bill.

Q: What happens next with the COOL Online Act?

A: When the Senate reconvenes on September 5th, the next step will be to schedule a vote and to put it in a package with other legislation. We will be keeping a close eye on things to make sure it continues to move forward, and we’ll watch for any procedural road blocks opponents might put up. So please sign up to support and watch your email! If we need your help, we’ll need it fast, and we’ll email out a call to contact your Senator with a link to an email template.

Here is the link to the US congress official site to track the progress of the Online COOL Act:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1421

[mariacallous]

In March 2019, TikTok agreed to a US federal court order barring the social media giant from collecting personal information from its youngest users without their parents’ consent. According to a new lawsuit filed by US authorities, TikTok immediately breached that order and now faces penalties of $51,744 per violation per day.

TikTok “knowingly allowed children under 13 to create accounts in the regular TikTok experience and collected extensive personal information from those children without first providing parental notice or obtaining verifiable parental consent,” the US Department of Justice alleged on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission in a complaint lodged on Friday in federal court in California.

TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes says the company strongly disagrees with the allegations. He reiterates a statement the company issued in June, when the FTC had voted to sue, that many of the issues raised relate to “practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed.” Hughes adds that TikTok is “proud of our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and improve the platform.”

Lawsuits over alleged violations of children’s privacy are almost a rite of passage for social platforms these days, with companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Epic Games collectively having paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties.

But the case against TikTok also falls into the US government’s escalating battle with the service, whose ownership by China-based ByteDance has drawn national security concerns. Some US officials and lawmakers have said they worry about China exploiting TikTok to spread propaganda and gather data on vulnerable Americans. TikTok has refuted the concerns as baseless fear-mongering and is fighting a law that requires it to seek new ownership.

The complaint filed on Friday alleges that as of 2020, TikTok wouldn’t let users sign up on their own if they entered a birthdate that showed they were under 13 years old. But it allowed those same users to go back, edit their birthdate, and sign up without parental permission.

TikTok also wouldn’t remove accounts purporting to belong to children unless the user made an explicit admission of their age on their account, according to the lawsuit. TikTok’s hired content moderators allegedly spent just five to seven seconds on average reviewing accounts for age violations. “Defendants actively avoid deleting the accounts of users they know to be children,” the lawsuit states. Additionally, millions of accounts flagged as potentially belonging to children allegedly were never removed because of a bug in TikTok’s internal tools.

The lawsuit acknowledges that TikTok improved some policies and processes over the years but that it still held on to and used personal information of children that it shouldn’t have had in the first place.

Authorities also took issue with TikTok’s dedicated Kids Mode. The lawsuit alleges that TikTok gathered and shared information about children’s usage of the service and built profiles on them while misleading parents about the data collection. When parents tried to have data on their kids deleted, TikTok forced them to jump through unnecessary hoops, the lawsuit further alleges.

TikTok should have known better, according to the government, because of the 2019 court order, which stemmed from TikTok’s predecessor—a service known as Musical.ly—allegedly violating a number of rules aimed at protecting children’s privacy. Those rules largely come from the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, a law dating to the late-1990s dotcom era that tried to create a safer environment for children on the web.

Lawmakers in the US this year have been weighing a major update in the form of the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA. The proposed measure, which passed the Senate earlier this week, would require services like TikTok to better control kids’ usage. Detractors have said it would unfairly cut off some young populations, such as transgender kids, from vital support networks. KOSA’s fate remains uncertain. But as the case against TikTok allegedly shows, stricter rules may do little to stop companies from pursuing familiar tactics.