TikTok has to try divest itself of Chinese ownership again or be banned in the USA

Remember when Donald Trump told TikTok to find a US entity to take over its US operations because the US government is paranoid that the Chinese government is gonna use TikTok to do some Bad Stuff to the USA (I still haven't heard a good argument for what that Bad Stuff is that a US company isn't also doing), but then the deadline for doing so passed and everyone forgot about it so nothing happened? Well there's a new bill to make it happen, for real this time. If passed (and it looks like it will as it has wide support) ByteDance has 180-days to give TikTok to non-Chinese company and if it doesn't, Apple and Google will be forced by law to remove it from their App Stores as distributing it in the US will be illegal. I dislike TikTok, but even I admit this is pretty fucking unhinged behaviour. Dunno what will happen, but Boobby Kotick, former disgraced CEO of Activision is keen to buy TikTok along with a few rich buddies, Elon Musk style. Meanwhile, ⬆ Share or Discuss

ACCC to hone in on deceptive videogame marketing and in-app purchases

The ACCC has the video game industry lined up for some regulation if it doesn't get its act together. In its Cost of Living and Digital Economy Shape 2024-25 Compliance and Enforcement Priorities report, it says it will focus on "consumer protection and fair trading issues for small business including misleading or deceptive conduct in influencer marketing, online reviews, price comparison websites and in-app purchases – especially in the video gaming industry". I think we can all agree its sorely needed. We've all seen online reviews that seem dodgy and influencers that are not disclosing the full nature of their relationship with the company they're discussing. Price comparison sites that only include services that have an affiliate/referral program, or don't disclose what they might get paid for referring a customer are a scourge too. Fuck 'em up ACCC!

Optus network manager resigns, Google's new building is a wi-fi "Bermuda Triangle", AWS waives egress fees if migrating away

• Lambo Kanagaratnam has quit Optus. Not a surprise considering the telco's big bed shitting while he was managing director of networks and the technical face of the farce. Optus' interim CEO and CFO said "the time is right" for new leadership. I wonder how he'd go getting a new job? Would it be seen as a positive Lambo had to handle such a spectacular outage (you'd hope he'd have learnt from it) or is it a mark on his reputation that it happened in the first place?
• Google's got a fancy new building at their HQ in Mountain View that is designed in a way that makes wi-fi suck. According to Reuters, "the 600,000-square-foot building's swooping, wave-like rooftop swallows broadband like the Bermuda Triangle", with employees saying "you'd think the world's leading internet company would have worked this out". The article also asks Gemini "if the campus has ample Wi-Fi" - really? That's what journalism is now? We're really doing this Reuters? Fucks sake.
• Amazon's announced that they are "waiving data transfer out to the internet (DTO) charges when you want to move outside of AWS" - i.e: if you're migrating away from AWS, Amazon won't sting you with a bazillion dollars in egress fees to get your data out. This was nothing but a way to keep you imprisoned in AWS as the cost of moving out would negate any financial benefits. Why the sudden change of heart? They're simply following "the direction set by the European Data Act". Thanks again Europe for doing the regulation the US hasn't got the guts to do themselves.

Yet another expose on car makers selling driving data wholesale with no user consent

Oh look, it's a car company hoovering up our data and selling it to a 3rd party without our permission. This time it's GM in the USA, who sell a vast range of data their internet connected cars collect - seat belt usage, times and locations of driving, braking habits and more - to a company called LexisNexis, who make all that data available and more (collected from other sources and mingled together in an unholy stew of data) to any insurance company that pays for it, which they then use to come up with pricing for each individual person based on their driving data despite never consenting to it being given to the insurer. There's no mention anywhere in GM's app or terms of service this is happening and it isn't obvious what GM does with the data if you opt-in to it, just the "benefits" their connected services provide. Not sure if it's happening in Australia, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they up to the same shenanigans.