[HN Gopher] As TikTok grows, so does suspicion
___________________________________________________________________
As TikTok grows, so does suspicion
Author : samizdis
Score : 190 points
Date : 2022-07-10 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| > Users' ... viewing could be moulded by Chinese propagandists.
|
| Not a problem during the decades of Voice of America broadcasts,
| of course.
| aparticulate wrote:
| Strawpoll literally any sample of people in the world if
| they've heard of VoA, indeed, have ever listened to the radio.
| Now do the same for TikTok...
|
| You could maybe make a better case for something like Western
| cultural exports like music and movies. e.g. Like _The Beatles_
| with impressive centralised data gathering. Marvel movies, but
| more addictive.
| tonymet wrote:
| they mention data harvesting and influencing public relations as
| risks, and both are worrisome . another more subtle but
| pernicious concern is the trivialization of entertainment (which
| started from a low bar )
|
| tiktok is addictive and much of the content is low bar ,
| slapstick and sexually suggestive thirst traps .
|
| there may be a good share of high quality content , but we all
| know time spent is on garbage.
|
| our grandparents said "tv will rot your brain" and we laughed at
| them, but maybe because we just didn't notice
|
| tiktok will finish the job
| novok wrote:
| Imo tiktok is a bit of a mirror. Its a thirst trap for you. For
| the short time i used it, it quickly started centering around
| cute/funny pets and science explainer videos. I also doubt it
| would show thirst traps to the typical straight female user too
| too.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| I hate this argument. Firstly, the content is still on the
| platform and can be shown to a user at any time for any
| reason. Over time it could influence what you watch in any
| way TikTok wants. Secondly, it paints the user as some kind
| of pervert if they fall into "thirst trap". Men like looking
| at women - it's not something that needs to be swept under
| the rug.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| I think GP's point still stands. There is good content on
| TikTok, but given the time many users spend, the content
| isn't a good trade for time. Same could be said for other
| platforms. Tiktok/youtube worry me most since they seem to be
| the most addictive for kids.
| [deleted]
| Avamander wrote:
| > tiktok is addictive and much of the content is low bar ,
| slapstick and sexually suggestive thirst traps .
|
| Unlikely judging by the most popular videos and creators (the
| disclaimer here being that I can't see the whole picture).
|
| More likely you are seeing that content because something
| indicates to the algorithm that you like such content. Very
| bluntly, you are most likely telling on yourself right now.
| nindalf wrote:
| This comment follows a pattern common in other comments
| criticising TikTok - the person says "this content I saw isn't
| very good. Why would anyone spend their time watching X?"
|
| > sexually suggestive thirst traps
|
| Not realising that only they (and people with similar tastes)
| are seeing X. And it says more about them than it does about
| TikTok.
|
| There's plenty of room for thoughtful critique of TikTok and
| it's current/potential impact on society - but this ain't it.
| The original article by the economist is much closer.
| Drew_ wrote:
| Yeah people who complain about Tik Tok being filled with X
| bad thing are spending their time engaging with X bad thing.
| There's A LOT of really good content on Tik Tok.
| [deleted]
| collegeburner wrote:
| fr it's scary how i watch ppl on it, they're like zombies. and
| yeah like half that shit is just girls "dancing" (shaking
| jiggly parts) in short clothes, like i mean that's fine but
| watching it all the time isn't healthy. look at how much is
| under #fakebody which is basically all people in short clothing
| trying not to get banned. and yeah probably you can make it
| show interesting stuff but it plays to people's weaker natures.
|
| besides that literally the only reason we need to oppose tiktok
| is that it's chinese. i'm fine with them manufacturing
| commodity goods but they should not be providing any cutting-
| edge tech to us. personally i would like to see the government
| try to subpoena the tiktok algo from oracle and make it public
| so anybody can knock it off. that would be some poetic justice
| against china.
| ravenstine wrote:
| It's pretty ironic how a large swath of the public decided it
| was the right thing to ban anything that's Russian, but
| somehow it's a no-no to be opposed to an app because it's
| from the PRC. Not saying that necessarily means that no one
| should use any Chinese apps, but those against anything
| Russian really ought not to come to the defense of the PRC.
| trasz wrote:
| Russia is being banned because of their invasion on Europe
| and mass murdering civilians. It's more similar to US in
| this regard than to China.
| lostmsu wrote:
| PRC is not quite on the same scale as long as they respect
| borders.
| butterfly771 wrote:
| Why can you talk about stealing technology so openly?
| shikoba wrote:
| Why not do the same with other companies? Do you totally
| assume that it's just economic war?
| ravenstine wrote:
| chrischen wrote:
| This is not tiktok specific. This is pretty much all user
| generated short form social media content.
|
| Tiktok has just been better at surfacing the content. Also
| tiktok is more for consumption and less for socializing with
| friends or acquaintences.
| voisin wrote:
| So here's my tinfoil hat theory. When I watch Tik Tok (and I am
| fully aware my feed is different from others), I become genuinely
| happy. I see people singing, creating music together via duets,
| showing homesteading skills, teaching things they know, telling
| funny jokes, etc. I never see dangerous challenges, though I am
| not a teen. Here's the tinfoil hat theory: Tik Tok is what social
| media was meant to be, but unlike American social media giants
| that made their deal with the devil and drive growth via
| separating and polarizing people, Tik Tok makes people feel like
| the world isn't a scary awful place with "them vs us" mentality,
| and so it poses a threat to our political culture which feeds off
| division.
|
| All I know is that when I go on Facebook I just see angry boomers
| being quasi political, when I go on Instagram I am filled with
| envy, when I go on twitter I feel overwhelmed by the sheer flood
| of information and vileness, and when I go on Tik Tok I feel
| happy and a new ambition to pick up the guitar again.
| rcpt wrote:
| Urbanism TikTok comment sections are the absolute worst out of
| all the apps. Completely made up economics on a level that
| surpasses FB and I just can't believe how many tankies are in
| there. The algorithm is the perfect soap to blow filter bubbles
| with.
|
| Crazy but Twitter has better content when it comes to bike
| lanes.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I agree that my experience with FB/Twitter vs. TikTok is as you
| describe. I'm not sure that our political leadership
| understands how social media work well enough to see what
| you're describing.
|
| I do think that they are angsty about a foreign government
| having control over a major social network. Imagine if a
| partially Chinese-owned company had to make the call of whether
| or not to ban the account of a sitting US President, for
| example. Plus, I have zero doubt that the US government
| requires Microsoft, Facebook, and other US tech companies to
| give them access to data in extremis, and there's no reason for
| the US gov't to expect China not to.
| ThalesX wrote:
| TikTok is the only social media app I use anymore. I didn't
| even change my default 'user12345' account nor have I linked
| anything to it. I also consume it differently than I used to do
| the others, by going maybe once per week or two and binge for a
| couple of hours. It fills me with joy and ideas just as you
| say.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| How is it social media then?
| voisin wrote:
| I just replied to a similar sister comment.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| So what is the social aspect if you're not connected with
| anyone?
| voisin wrote:
| This is a valid point. I am not the poster you are
| responding to but the top level poster. I too don't follow
| people I know and perhaps that's the difference from the
| social platforms. In that regard it is more like YouTube,
| but unlike YouTube, the algorithm isn't radicalizing me
| other than making me want to learn guitar again.
|
| So what is it about YouTube that makes people more likely
| to become radical incels willing to shoot up a school, and
| TikTok makes people more like to learn a new dance routine
| and leave with a smile?
| gardenhedge wrote:
| I disagree with the premise of the question with regards
| to YouTube and TikTok.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| There are some very vile areas of tiktok with white supremacy
| and lgbqt+ hate and those are as easy to get to as dance videos
| of chinese algorithm designers see that you're watched one of
| those, or just randomly throw one up in front of you and see if
| you immediately kill it or watch it all the way through. This
| isn't rocket science level of propaganda/and brainwashing.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| I get pissed off at TikTok all the time. Most of the videos are
| awful. TikTok trends include all the showboating that Instagram
| has.
| mantas wrote:
| US social media amplifies human nature which isn't pretty.
| Meanwhile CCP's love to building facades of utopias produces
| this... Utopias are nice till you step out of line and it
| becomes dystopia, eh?
| voisin wrote:
| > US social media amplifies human nature which isn't pretty.
|
| If you only consume western media and social networks, this
| is certainly the conclusion you are led to. But if you
| observe your surroundings with your own eyes, my experience
| is that there is a stark contrast with the above quote. I
| have travelled continuously all over the west for the last
| five years and I have found people to be kind, generous, and
| friendly.
|
| There's money and power in dividing people. I don't think we
| are as divided as the news media and social networks would
| have us believe.
| [deleted]
| mantas wrote:
| Majority of people ain't on social media either. Well, they
| may be lurking or registered at most, but won't post or
| comment much if at all.
|
| And then there's a portion of nice people who will befriend
| you and then use for their benefit.
|
| And then there's one's own bias. When traveling, at a
| random city in foreign country you'll probably pick a bar
| accordingly, skip heated topics and distance yourself from
| people that may cause trouble. Meanwhile engagement-driven
| interwebs make sure you meet such people and keep
| discussing.
| ectopod wrote:
| China passed a law a couple of years ago requiring all Chinese
| companies to give the government live access to their databases.
| Is TikTok exempt? If not, statements that the government hasn't
| requested any data are misleading. They don't need to.
| trasz wrote:
| >China passed a law a couple of years ago requiring all Chinese
| companies to give the government live access to their
| databases.
|
| Yeah, just like US. TikTok isn't any different from, say,
| YouTube in this regard.
| ThisIsMyAltFace wrote:
| This is just 100% untrue
| thrown_22 wrote:
| Yes, what happens is that the US asks Australia, part of 5
| eyes, to use their back doors, which need to be install by
| law there https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-
| unprecedented-encryptio..., for any user data US agencies
| want.
|
| Completely different to China just having access to that
| data.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| Is there any type of due process for when the Chinese
| government accesses data? Like do they need some court order?
| Or can a government official just go browse the databases for
| fun?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| The FCC commissioner just point out there is no firewall
| between Chinese engineers from rifling through and copying all
| the data from the "USA based" servers. It defies belief that
| anyone thinks that the CCP isn't doing exactly that lol and
| building up dossiers on every TikTok member. For example just
| find all the MAGA leaning people and try to convert them over
| to CCP terrorist cells. I mean I'm not a CIA analyst, but this
| is global espionage 101
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| bytedance is partially state owned, so there's zero chance it's
| not happening
| yorwba wrote:
| TikTok is technically not a Chinese company, so it wouldn't be
| affected by such a law. But I haven't read the law and don't
| know how accurate your summary of it is. Do you have a link?
| ectopod wrote:
| https://harrisbricken.com/chinalawblog/chinas-new-
| cybersecur...
| dqpb wrote:
| > TikTok is technically not a Chinese company
|
| I guess the economist has it wrong then:
|
| > As the first consumer-facing app from China to take off in
| the West, TikTok is a source of pride in Beijing. But the
| app's Chinese ownership makes politicians elsewhere uneasy
| about its tightening grip on their citizens' attention
| stale2002 wrote:
| The point being here is that the company ownership is setup
| in a complicate way, that is different than just being
| straight up controlled by china.
|
| As in, there are apparently sub companies, that are in the
| US, not in china, that makes it different.
| shbooms wrote:
| > As in, there are apparently sub companies, that are in
| the US, not in china,
|
| Sure, the US "sub companies" are located physically in
| the US and managed day-to-day by US-based employees but
| they are still owned by a Chinese parent company meaning
| at the end of the day, they still report to
| managers/executive in China and are obligated to follow
| directions given to them by people working for Chinese
| parent company. If the Chinese government cotrols the
| Chinese parent company then they, by definition, control
| the US-based company as well.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| If you are a major company in China you are controlled by
| the CCP. They may leave the day to day business to execs
| but they are 100% at CCP beck and call. Look at what
| happened to Jack when you go too far off script. CCP has
| full access to US Servers (yeah I know that TikTok "US"
| says all data is kept here.
| dqpb wrote:
| They're headquartered in Beijing.
| dqpb wrote:
| Besides which, it's routine for China to rip off and ban
| foreign businesses.
| api wrote:
| Even if TikTik claims to be exempt I would not believe it.
|
| I would also assume that US police and intelligence have access
| to Facebook, Google, etc. regardless of what anyone says.
|
| End to end encrypted or it is not private. No exceptions.
| winternett wrote:
| I don't think it's the privacy issues that will defeat TikTok, I
| think it's the deception of a success economy being possible on
| the platform.
|
| In the past few weeks I've been observing a lot of marginal
| content trending on the platform which indicates to me that a lot
| of the more quality posters aren't posting new content.
|
| The minute quality creators leave a platform is the minute it
| dies. TikTok has not really been rewarding creators fairly, and
| pushes the idea that organic growth is possible, and that people
| have become really successful, but many creators realize after
| months of working for little to no reward that it's a false
| narrative.
|
| There are billions of accounts on these platforms yes, but the
| main question is are they actively posting, engaged, and
| satisfied? The answer is most likely no, and that's why Twitter
| didn't sell fast too.
|
| I wrote about this issue just earlier today -
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046338
| jacooper wrote:
| > The minute quality creators leave a platform is the minute it
| dies. TikTok has not really been rewarding creators fairly, and
| pushes the idea that organic growth is possible, and that
| people have become really successful, but many creators realize
| after months of working for little to no reward that it's a
| false narrative.
|
| I heard the opposite story from 2 creators in my local
| language.
|
| Their growth on Tiktok is crazy, one got a million followers in
| less than a year, this is almost impossible in YouTube or Any
| Facebook based social media, also the amount of interaction and
| views on videos is amazing compared to YouTube.
|
| Its why many are going to tiktok, even if they don't like the
| Platform, its actually possible to reach people, while on other
| platforms such as Instagram, you have to pay to reach even half
| of your followers.
| quest88 wrote:
| What does one million followers mean though? Who cares about
| that unless you can monetize. Teens can't monetize so their
| social capital is views.
| throwoutway wrote:
| They monetize by advertising on behalf of companies to
| their viewers. And they have no idea how to price their
| monetization so I presume the companies are winning here
| CommitSyn wrote:
| Now that YouTube has shorts I wonder how many creators are
| switching. Part of the reason you can get so many followers
| on TikTok is the video length. When it started you could only
| post a 15-second video. Later on they allowed you to link
| 15-second videos up to a minute in length. Then it was 3
| minutes, and in February they changed the maximum video time
| to 10 minutes.[1]
|
| Viewers can watch a lot more 15-second or 1-minute videos
| than 10-minute videos. If 5-10 minute videos start becoming
| popular, expect the reach new creators can get to drop
| drastically.
|
| 1. https://screenrant.com/tiktok-videos-minimum-maximum-
| length-...
| okasaki wrote:
| "Economy"? What "economy" is ByteDance promising?
| analyst74 wrote:
| For successful YouTubers, the money coming from YT is actually
| not their primary income, one YouTuber publically said YT
| payout is ~1/4 of their total revenue. Their other main sources
| of revenue includes brand deals, affiliates, product/merc sales
| and direct donation.
|
| Tiktokers are generally following YouTuber model in how they
| monetize their content, minus Ads revenue share.
| winternett wrote:
| If Microsoft said "Come work for us every day for free, you
| may get brand deals!"
|
| Would anyone with talent, skills, and self respect jump to do
| it?
|
| Working for free at a large and quite profitable company?
|
| The problem is that because of how perception can be
| manipulated on social platforms based on that success
| illusion. It makes people think that the success comes just
| for creating simple content, and trumps one's ability to
| prioritize making money to do real world things like paying
| rent and for food. It's borderline exploitation of children,
| who often over expose themselves just for likes, and that is
| going to be bad for their future prospects in being taken
| seriously when they want to get real world and respectable
| jobs.
|
| It's free work with little reward. The brand deals go to
| celebrity creators, NOT to normal creators, while the
| platform profits massively and underpays most everyone who
| does the real work. Most of the influencers on these
| platforms find that even the popularity they gain fades
| quickly in the real world, especially as the platforms begin
| to decline in popularity as well, and the minute they stop
| working hard for free.
|
| We need to stop fooling ourselves about it all.
| bluehorseray wrote:
| Umm people definitely don't consider posting on tiktok
| "labor" like you're suggesting. a) It's fun, and b) they're
| getting social status / minor celebrity status. Even if
| there was no chance of making any money I can guarantee you
| people would still try to grow a following.
|
| Posting tiktoks =/= working a 9-5 at Microsoft
| winternett wrote:
| There are quite different experiences outside of your
| own. Many people and businesses work on TikTok and every
| other social platform, there is a creator fund on pretty
| much every major platform out there. Millions of people
| work full time to find success on sites like TikTok, and
| almost every trending post is an ad for some sort of
| business, or for profit. Don't just lean on your own
| personal understanding and experiences.
| bluehorseray wrote:
| Fair. I guess I just don't think TikTok is misleading
| anyone into thinking once you hit x views, x likes, and x
| follows, you'll see an appropriate financial return.
| Maybe I'm wrong though. I figured everyone views (or at
| least should view) TikTok HQ as a kind of neutral medium,
| not an employer.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Even normal creators, on YouTube and TikTok, can get paid;
| it's called the Partner Program and Creator Fund
| respectfully the bar to clear it is relatively low. From
| there you can earn yourself a percentage of those millions;
| at roughly one dollar for everyone million views.
|
| It's not different than acting or professional sports; and
| it's far better than Facebook/Twitter model where they
| monetize your content with no path revenue at all. Among my
| list of problems with YouTube/TikTok, the revenue model is
| not one of them.
|
| Vine died because quality creators left the platform, and
| they left the platform because Vine wasn't willing to pay
| them to stay. The formula is remarkably simple and for
| these next generations, many of them _only_ know social
| media personalities. I fear that your definition of
| "quality content" has been shaped by your upbringing; what
| you consider "simple content" is "real content" for people
| who grew up on these platforms. I'm sure you are unaware of
| the thousands of creators who have millions of followers in
| niches you have never even heard about. While the content
| is "simpler" it is more diverse than you can even imagine;
| and thats where the staying power comes from.
| mjmsmith wrote:
| I"m open to good-faith criticism of TikTok, but "our
| authoritarians don't like an app controlled by their
| authoritarians" isn't particularly compelling.
| rcpt wrote:
| "the US and PRC are equally authoritarian" isn't particularly
| compelling either
| okasaki wrote:
| Indeed, abortion is legal in China[1], the last time a police
| officer killed someone was in 2019[2] and their incarceration
| rate is 5x lower[3].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_China
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enf
| orc...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarc
| era...
| lostmsu wrote:
| The police in China doesn't kill with guns. It kills by
| preventing people from demanding better healthcare.
|
| The same goes for incarceration. In US 3M people can't use
| Internet due to being incarcerated, but in China more than
| 1.5B have significant restrictions. (This is just an
| example for the idea of total restricted freedom)
| okasaki wrote:
| > The police in China doesn't kill with guns. It kills by
| preventing people from demanding better healthcare.
|
| Given the efforts that China has put in to stopping the
| spread of cov19 over the past 2 years, that seems
| delusional.
|
| Also, Chinese life expectancy has exceeded the US now[1]
|
| [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7vevb/us-life-
| expectancy-fa...
|
| > The same goes for incarceration. In US 3M people can't
| use Internet due to being incarcerated, but in China more
| than 1.5B have significant restrictions. (This is just an
| example for the idea of total restricted freedom)
|
| All countries have restricted interactions on the
| internet. Go ahead and google how to make a pressure
| cooker bomb and see how long you have a job after the
| secret service starts asking your employer questions
| about you, or download some songs and get sued 150k per
| song by the RIAA.
|
| Given the head start by foreign countries and the radical
| nature of the internet (totally different way to
| communicate) some caution and restrictions probably
| aren't out of order.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| It's ironic you even mention abortion, given that abortions
| were forced to maintain the one child policy until 2015,
| and then 3 child policy until 2021. Is not the government's
| absolute power to control family size the most blaring
| example of authoritarianism?
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| In the West, the abortion thing is a (ideally immutable)
| moral line in the sand.
|
| In China, it's just an instrument the state turns on and
| off as needed for population control.
|
| The difference in approaches is so interesting.
| trasz wrote:
| >given that abortions were forced to maintain the one
| child policy until
|
| [citation needed]. Various accounts I've seen claimed it
| was more like a financial fine; forced abortions sound
| like Zenz-type fabrication.
| lmm wrote:
| Officially there was only the massive financial
| incentive. However local officials also had financial
| incentives to keep birth rates low in their areas, and
| many of them resorted to more direct coercion, which is
| widely thought to have been a not entirely unintended
| consequence.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Look if you disagree that china is more authoritarian, then
| I would encourage you to go there, and make a large amount
| of public statements making fun of their leaders, or saying
| that Taiwan in a country, (while in china). And to do it in
| a public and viral way, and see how it works out for you.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Please don't do this.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > and their incarceration rate is 5x lower
|
| You should see our incarceration rate for Chinese
| Americans.
|
| > abortion is legal in China
|
| I'd have to say, between abortions being prohibited and
| abortions being mandatory, the mandatory abortions are
| significantly worse.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| forced births cause deaths
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| So does everything else.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| If you're an avid TikTok user, maybe the algorithm is
| already working and your post is proving the skeptics
| point?
| drno123 wrote:
| Sure, since in the last 20 years US invaded Iraq, Afganistan
| and Lybia while PRC invaded 0 countries.
| jjcon wrote:
| "Invaded" language and situational nuance aside, that has
| everything to do with superpower status and nothing to do
| with being authoritarian...
| foverzar wrote:
| I don't really get why people imply that these two are
| somehow disconnected.
|
| A global superpower that systematically employs military
| agression to impose its will somewhere far away around
| the globe is definitely authoritarian. Even if it had
| managed to create a convincing brand of democracy
| benifiting only, like, 5% of global population.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Authoritarianism is not measured by invasion count.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It can't be used alone, but invasion or not destroying
| the lives of dozens of millions of people violently for
| marginal gain is authoritarian and it's the essence of
| the problem with authoritarianism.
| aesthesia wrote:
| Authoritarianism and military aggression are not the same
| thing.
| mjmsmith wrote:
| I didn't say they were equally authoritarian. But if you're
| more concerned about TikTok's corrosive effect on American
| democracy than Donald Trump's and Ted Cruz's, I'm not sure
| what to say.
| ravenstine wrote:
| No one here said that TikTok is more corrosive than Trump
| or Cruz, and you're the only one who brought up democracy.
| Speaking of the latter, even a purely democratic society
| can be authoritarian.
| mjmsmith wrote:
| From the article:
|
| "TikTok's growing role as a news platform has sparked
| fears that, in the words of Ted Cruz, an American
| senator, it is "a Trojan horse the Chinese Communist
| Party can use to influence what Americans see, hear and
| ultimately think".
| ravenstine wrote:
| Maybe _you_ have the opinion that Ted Cruz 's policy is
| corrosive to democracy (however you define that) and more
| so than that of TikTok, but neither the article nor
| anyone in the thread suggested anything contrary. The
| article is remarkably neutral, considering it's from the
| Economist. So what is your point? That no one should be
| concerned about TikTok until the eternal evil of the
| Republican party has been thoroughly addressed?
| djbusby wrote:
| It's been demonstrated that Facebook heavily influenced
| what many Americans "see, hear and ultimately think"
| jokoon wrote:
| I'm not a fan of china controlling such a popular app, but at the
| same time, I don't see how it could be a security risk. I guess
| in the same way fake news and deceptive political advertising was
| used on Facebook to elect Trump, for example?
|
| I'm really puzzled by how the US believes in free speech, but
| when speech comes from another country, it's a security risk. Now
| I totally get that China can use propaganda for "bad ideologies",
| but again, isn't propaganda part of free speech?
|
| What this whole thing reveals, is that US likes to influence
| other countries (with its long history of foreign policy), but is
| afraid to be influenced by others, so it's a bit hypocritical.
|
| And if it's not hypocritical, it's fair game at worst.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Hard to believe that the US government just doesn't cut them off
| unless they sever all ties with China. Again Trump was a garbage
| President and dumpster fire of a human being, but he definitely
| got that right. It's a national security matter at this point.
| mrkramer wrote:
| From the economic point of view TikTok's arrival is more than
| welcome so Meta's and Alphabet's dominance of digital ad market
| can be challenged but looking it from US national security point
| of view it is a disaster. Thanks Jack Dorsey for destroying Vine,
| now you can let Elon Musk destroy Twitter and your job will be
| done. Adios Amigo!
| joeman1000 wrote:
| It's a subversive platform. It quickly profiles someone and
| begins serving them mind-altering content. Content which will
| change someone's perception, behaviour and world-view. Part of
| its power is our new belief in the transcendental nature of 'the
| algorithm'. People believe they 'should' be viewing the content
| that TikTok serves to them, so the messages in the content are
| more potent.
|
| When you put this limbic weapon in the hands of a communist
| regime, incredibly bad things will happen. Facebook at least had
| some backlash over manipulating their users mood using their
| platform. It's not hard to imagine China attempting some fairly
| subversive things with TikTok. I would never sign up for it.
| mathverse wrote:
| I am really annoyed at how we (EU) and the US treat chinese
| companies and citizens.
|
| We (europeans and americans) cant do really anything in China, we
| have essentially no rights and cant really conduct business.
| Unlike chinese who are pretty much granted all of that when they
| want to immigrate or conduct business in EU/US.
| trasz wrote:
| >We (europeans and americans) cant do really anything in China
|
| We - Europeans and pretty much anyone who's not an American -
| can't do really anything in US.
| wizofaus wrote:
| That arrangement seems to be almost entirely to the benefit of
| the EU/US, as there's little incentive for bright/ motivated
| Europeans or Americans to move to China, vs significant
| incentive in the opposite direction.
| bgorman wrote:
| Google and Meta are the best software companies the US has
| produced in the last 25 years. These two companies are also
| largely responsible for driving up wages for SV workers.
| TikTok could destroy both companies.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Those two companies will be "destroyed" when they can no
| longer do what they do as well as their competitors. What
| the current laws are in China are unlikely to have much
| impact either way.
| [deleted]
| lizardactivist wrote:
| And so does hypocritical accusations.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/f0Rkv
| crmd wrote:
| 85% of US teenagers use tiktok. That's 85% of the future
| generation of US senators, Cabinet members, and Supreme Court
| justices, of police chiefs, civil rights activists, mayors, CEOs,
| etc. in their bedrooms right now consuming content curated by,
| and filming their lives and that of their friends, and uploading
| the video to data centers, that are controlled by a strategic
| adversary of the United States. This is, to put it lightly, a
| huge national security risk.
| jen20 wrote:
| > 85% of US teenagers use tiktok. That's 85% of the future
| generation of US senators, Cabinet members, and Supreme Court
| justices, of police chiefs, civil rights activists, mayors,
| CEOs, etc
|
| Are we really sure this follows (even if the numbers are
| correct)?
| meowtimemania wrote:
| should be edited to be: 85% of future generation will open
| tiktok at least once this month
| mrtksn wrote:
| I do agree about the risk and that cuts both ways, it's why EU
| and Russia and other countries are taking some precautions
| about the US companies and govt access to their citizens data.
|
| On the other hand, TikTok is a result of the stagnant US-made
| social media platforms. TikTok did innovate and gained its
| market share fair and square.
|
| As I said it multiple times before, I hope US takes the EU
| approach, that is, regulating the data access and not the
| Chinese approach of banning.
|
| US is facing this issue for the first time and it is a touchy
| topic. But please consider the implications, what happens if
| each political block chooses the banning/blocking approach? Do
| you want to live in a world with each country having its own
| separate internet?
|
| A lot of people are quick to rise the pitchforks and believe in
| the US superiority but ironically they demand government
| solution upon free market failure. I was genuinely scared about
| the future of the internet when the Trump admin tried to force
| acquisition by US tech giant or App Store ban over TikTok. What
| a relief when it failed.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TikTok essentially just a
| more developed version of Vine?
|
| I remember Vines taking off in popularity before it being
| shut down for a reason I never fully understood.
| mrtksn wrote:
| And where is Vine now? Nothing is blank sheet new,
| everything is building on top of something and iterates and
| the truth is, when the US-made social media consolidated on
| politics and glamour photos TikTok came up with something
| fun and creative and apparently people love it.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Because having it all public and on moot's server in Virginia
| is so much better
|
| I just can't make this different enough. I see the difference,
| just not _enough_.
| HaZeust wrote:
| 4chan always served warrants, lol.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 85% of US teenagers would be debased by the poor and foreign
| morals of James Joyce, if only we could get them to read
| Ulysses.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Something must be done. Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/United_States_v._One_Book_Call...
| jimmytucson wrote:
| It's possible that the first generations who read Ulysses
| were worse off than the ones before--who thought Ulysses was
| harmful--but still better than the generations now, who don't
| read much at all. If today's next generation spent their time
| reading literature that was considered obscene 100 years ago,
| I think we'd all agree they'd be better off than spending 3
| hours a day scrolling.
| airza wrote:
| The invisible comparison you seem to be making here is to
| Facebook or Twitter, companies which also do not seem to have
| my best interests in mind.
| wslh wrote:
| In a scifi tone, it is interesting to extrapolate the
| personality of teenagers once they take roles in future
| governments.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| TikTok's data centers are in the US.
| Quillbert182 wrote:
| That doesn't mean China can't access the data, and we have no
| guarantees that there aren't copies of all that data in
| China.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Yes. What would be a good way to regulate this; still
| allowing open and fair competition while protecting the
| privacy of the broad population?
|
| So if the EU forces Facebook to store EU's citizens data in
| the EU. What would prevent Facebook copying that data to
| the US?
|
| Or have some American (potentially working for the NSA)
| remotely accessing EU data?
| dijit wrote:
| This might sound like a fallacious argument; but do you think
| the same about Europeans who consume almost exclusively US
| media and interact almost exclusively with US social media
| platforms?
|
| The US (famously) does not have Allies, only temporary
| allegiances.
|
| If you're discussing ties to government, Twitter and Facebook
| have members on their boards publicly who are sitting and/or
| former members of government including, at least in facebooks
| case: Robert Kimmitt (who was United States Ambassador to
| Germany from 1991 to 1993, Under Secretary of State for
| Political Affairs from 1989 to 1991, General Counsel of the
| U.S. Department of the Treasury from 1985 to 1987, and National
| Security Council Executive Secretary and General Counsel from
| 1983 to 1985).
|
| Is it different rules for us in Europe? or are you suggesting
| that we should never have allowed this to happen?
|
| tl;dr: Why is US/China much different from EU/US or US/Japan
| (whom also makes a resounding impact on our technology and
| strongly affects our culture in the west).
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| US has the same stance on the Democratic world like the EU.
|
| As it appears, China actually supported war in Europe. As
| long as it didn't happen during the games.
|
| So yes, China should be under suspicion a lot more than the
| US from an European viewpoint.
|
| Ps. I'm from Belgium
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| The US feels too incompetent to try to manipulate other
| countries and it feels more like they have a bad culture and
| they export it to European countries (where kids in half
| broken and sad schools dream of partying in cool
| fraternities).
|
| China, on the other hand, sounds perfectly capable and
| willing of manipulating our society to make it weak and
| broken, while at the same time forbidding the same content in
| their land.
|
| I'd argue it even predates tiktok and it could explain why
| media and politicians are so much worse than 30 years ago.
| The other explanation is that we got complacent, and all
| great empires need generational weakness before collapsing.
|
| Probably there's a bit of truth in both.
| OJFord wrote:
| We won't really find out until there's a big European social
| media platform or whatever - I agree with you it's weird, but
| the obvious response (and you've received it) is along the
| lines of conjecturing that they wouldn't worry about UK-Tok,
| Tetebook, or Deutschezon. Maybe that's right. It'd be fun to
| find out. (Also for other reasons, come on, what's going on
| that there isn't really even one to name?)
| meowtimemania wrote:
| there is spotify which I think is winning in the us
| lumost wrote:
| There have been international competitors in key US
| industries for decades. The most that's occurred has been
| bailouts of US heavy industry such as cars. Examples
| include Toyota, Ericsson, Sony, Hyundai, VW etc.
|
| When there are reciprocal markets between countries with
| similar approaches to government and law, there isn't much
| of a problem. When one country adds tariffs, the other
| usually just matches them.
| OJFord wrote:
| Of course but I'm talking about more consumer-facing
| (and.. 'interactive' in a way car manufacturers aren't)
| companies, social media, etc.
|
| Closest I can think of are Ocado and Monzo, neither of
| which (especially the latter) are big enough to compare
| yet. Perhaps Just Eat (UberEats competitor) too which
| recently announced US partnership with Amazon. (Veering
| off-topic here but I've long been surprised that
| Deliveroo hasn't massively expanded globally? That's the
| dominant one in London at least, and very quickly ate
| Just Eat's lunch, which long predated it.)
| dijit wrote:
| The majority of the time something successful comes out of
| the EU, the US buys it wholesale.
|
| Skype, Shazam, iZettle, Mojang etc
|
| I'm not sure it would be different for social networks.
| (similar to how the match group owns practically all the
| dating sites and apps; interestingly I just found out that
| the match group refused to pull out of Russia.)
| threatofrain wrote:
| Europeans are free to quantify the threat which the US poses
| to European geopolitical concerns, and many European
| countries have decided to avoid AWS for such reasons.
|
| The US, similarly, ought be free to feel that EU is not the
| same as China, and allow a different economic relationship
| with the EU than with China. The US is currently amicable
| with the EU and is thus willing to treat the EU very
| differently than with China.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| The US interference and surveillance in the EU is well-
| documented and at a massive scale. The Chinese ditto is much
| smaller though the media attention much bigger.
|
| Hopefully non-US tech finally will lead to reasonable
| regulation: Storage of citizen's data on national ground and
| protection against arbitrary surveillance by foreign
| governments whether perceived friend or for.
|
| Unfortunately the push to simply ban anything Chinese is
| strong as it has massive commercial interest of old US-tech
| (Facebook, Google) behind it. But it is not in our
| (Europeans) interest and I hope our politicians can resist.
| ipython wrote:
| > The US interference and surveillance in the EU is well-
| documented and at a massive scale. The Chinese ditto is
| much smaller though the media attention much bigger.
|
| Citation needed.
| ConstantVigil wrote:
| Not the person you are asking, but I think I have a point
| that can help shed some light on the matter. I'm going to be
| speaking from the Canadian side of things, and so I'll be
| saying 'We' a lot due to the US and Canada tending to trade
| alike in a lot of ways AFAIK.
|
| Ultimately, it all boils down to known trajectories. The EU
| and other places in the general area such as the UK, are all
| known to have histories of their own no doubt. Not just good
| histories, but bad as well. We trade with Germany, despite
| WWII. We trade with middle eastern countries, despite having
| many beliefs and ideologies and laws that are not exactly
| loved by all to put it lightly. We trade with even out
| economic adversaries because why not. Cheap labor, etc.
|
| In all of these cases where we trade with any one of these
| places that someone could make some argument or another that
| they would be undesirable trade partners for; the future
| trajectory of that nation is what is the key point of where
| the decision is based off of to keep trading, or go with
| sanctions, etc and so forth.
|
| The key to understanding this as I do, is the basis of Canada
| still trading with China when USA decides not to, or to
| restrict trade, etc and so forth. This is because our
| government for the past while now has decided that they
| wanted to help China get out of its economic slump from the
| past decades. And so of course since America tends to be a
| bit hawkish around working with communism in any form, while
| Canada has more socialist roots established; we tend to be
| more willing to work with such nations than America tends to.
| (And this absolutely sometimes pisses them off, government
| wise so to speak. And the nationalist types...)
|
| Now in the past, most of this would have been water under the
| bridge, and nothing to be concerned about. Trade is trade,
| nothing more, nothing less; usually.
|
| But with the advent of all of this digital revolution we are
| going through, and politics being stuck into everything that
| has a usable screen; the end result is stuff like this where
| countries with histories of X thing that Y government doesn't
| like automatically get extra scrutinized.
|
| Especially when those countries have active militaries that
| support that kind of regime in said country. Doubly so when
| that country is in support of those militaries. One might say
| militia instead, but I fail to see the difference once they
| own navy vessels. I think this should be a fair opinion on
| the matter.
|
| Anyways, right or wrong on the military/militia part as I may
| be, the end point is that we are seeing a rise in more
| extreme behavior in that country, in this case China and
| Russia lately; and so it only makes sense to be even more
| scrutinizing of anything to do with them.
|
| Literally anything, since again; politics is in everything
| now.
|
| Even us in Canada are starting to pull back from China, even
| though we are doing it at a slower rate. Our government is
| trying very hard to basically only enact these kinds of
| retracting changes only when it is going to hurt their future
| election outlook the least; or hurts their opponents outlook
| the most.
|
| As for an example of this in action; Huawei 5G networks are
| effectively banned in Canada now. It took a while to come
| into fruition, but it finally happened. Whether or not they
| were right or wrong to do so is not my hill to fight on right
| now, but it is a great example of them biding their time til
| the last moment.
| trasz wrote:
| >we are seeing a rise in more extreme behavior in that
| country, in this case China
|
| Can you give some specifics? What exactly is this extreme
| behaviour, and how does it compare to easily observable
| extremes found in US, from police routinely shooting random
| people, to religious fundamentalists denying woman basic
| human rights?
| ConstantVigil wrote:
| aparticulate wrote:
| You are asking whether sporadic US police abuses and a
| _literal police state_ stack up comparably in terms of
| human rights?
| che_shirecat wrote:
| what is a police state?
| illiac786 wrote:
| Huh, a single guy having all the power and changing the
| fundamental rules of the game (aka constitution or
| however it's called in China)? Not a red flag?
| [deleted]
| dymk wrote:
| Yes, US/China relations are pretty distinct from US/EU
| relations.
| dijit wrote:
| Why do you think that's the case? Aside from the trade-war
| that's going on, which is pretty arbirary;
|
| The US has routinely spied on Europe, allowed backdoored
| technology to make it's way into the continent including to
| spy on _government officials_ from another sovereign
| (allegedly _allied_ ) nation.
|
| It's hard for me not to draw direct comparisons, because
| other than the surface level of "everything's fine, we have
| a common culture and we're all white" - I don't see them as
| being much different.
|
| Of course you're right, they're not the same, we don't see
| them the same. But China has arguably done less to the US
| than the US has done to the EU.
|
| Can you explain it to me?
| ralusek wrote:
| EU and US are both fundamentally liberal democracies and
| not adversarial. China is an authoritarian single party
| state which openly declares the US an enemy...
| trasz wrote:
| Because of course a two party system is fundamentally
| different from one party one :-D
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| ... + the liberal institutions + the non-totalitarianism
| + the actual, real life democracy + historical and
| political context + ... :D
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's correct, yes.
| illiac786 wrote:
| I'm assuming there is irony and you mean 2 is not enough.
| But it's still day and night compared to single party,
| irony is not an argument in itself.
| trasz wrote:
| No, two parties representing largely the same lobbyists
| and sharing largely the same views are not "night and
| day" compared to one party. I'd go as far as to say they
| are exactly the same, except for pretending there's some
| actual, working opposition.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This was an easier both sides-ism to get away a decade
| ago. It stretches credulity today.
| simonsarris wrote:
| At enormous expense the US rebuilt Europe (Marshall
| plan), protected it from Soviet Encroachment (and is
| still doing so to this day, apparently), and is above all
| _reciprocal_ with Europe in a way that China is not.
|
| Facebook is not banned in Europe. Spotify is not banned
| in America. Both are banned in China. On that basis alone
| both entities have ample cause to limit China's influence
| in their own domestic spheres.
| interactivecode wrote:
| The rebuilding of Europe was all done with loans not
| gifts, so it was just a money making cheme
| shostack wrote:
| Well for one, there's this thing called NATO. For another
| there isn't constant saber rattling between the EU and
| US.
| raverbashing wrote:
| > Why do you think that's the case?
|
| The whole history of the XX century
| ruined wrote:
| >This might sound like a fallacious argument; but do you
| think the same about Europeans who consume almost exclusively
| US media and interact almost exclusively with US social media
| platforms?
|
| i'm not OP, but yes.
|
| >Is it different rules for us in Europe? or are you
| suggesting that we should never have allowed this to happen?
|
| this should never have been allowed to happen.
|
| the mass collection and storage of video, audio, location
| data, public and private messages, browsing history, topics
| of interest, sentiments and mood, social graphs, menstrual
| status, political leanings, and so on, is a travesty. it is
| an unprecedented and powerful invasion of personal privacy,
| and it's happening to every online adult and child around the
| world, and there is essentially no way to opt out, and no
| expectation that the collected data will ever be deleted.
|
| if it only scares you when china does it, something's weird.
| beebmam wrote:
| The Chinese government owns all of its businesses. In the
| US/EU, businesses are independently owned by private
| individuals.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| You mean to say that the US government isn't spying on data
| held by large US companies?
| bluepizza wrote:
| > The US (famously) does not have Allies, only temporary
| allegiances.
|
| Far from me to defend American imperialism, but this is not
| true, is it? The USA has a decent list of long standing
| alliances, that include a variety of countries: Japan,
| Australia, Canada, UK, South Korea, among others.
| deanCommie wrote:
| It may be true but if it's true it's true for all
| allyships.
|
| Look at the history of Europe and observe the shifting
| trends of alliances.
| c048 wrote:
| You're right, and that list also includes European
| countries like France. You're just quoting a bad actor, no
| way that he ever opened a history book about the subject.
| dijit wrote:
| > America has no permanent friends or enemies, only
| interests.
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/633024-america-has-no-
| perma...
|
| From Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State.
| CommitSyn wrote:
| Am I missing where this is quoted from, or is it like
| many other quotes where it could be attributed to the
| person, but nobody really knows?
|
| Edit: if I'm reading right, it seems to be a quote from
| Dinesh D'Souza's book "What's so great about America"
| quoted by Henry Kissinger in his book "The White House
| Years"
|
| https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger (Quotes
| -> 1980's)
|
| Aside from the aforementioned countries, I'd say Israel
| is quite a strong ally of the United States.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| By that pessimistic definition, no country can really
| ever have allies.
|
| The US has a number of nations with which its interests
| have long aligned with, and are likely to continue to,
| and are formalized via treaty. I'm ok with calling those
| alliances.
| dijit wrote:
| That might be a perspective, but it feels weird to say it
| the way Kissinger does if it doesn't elude to something
| deeper.
|
| For example: There could be war between Finland and
| Sweden, but it's fair to call them allies, in this day
| and age, they are friends... friends can still fall out.
| I know he says _permanent_ friends, but permanence in
| friendship is simply the act of not sabotaging it.
|
| In the same way it might be fair to call the US and
| Canada allies, but given that the US has been
| considerably more hostile to the EU, even spying on
| politicians, I think the quote is more telling than you
| believe.
| bluepizza wrote:
| A man who is widely reviled by a decent chunk of American
| population. One of the few issues that both parties and
| independents agree on is how terrible and damaging this
| person was.
| ardit33 wrote:
| "The US (famously) does not have Allies, only temporary
| allegiances."
|
| What? Are you a troll or just a cpp bot?
|
| NATO is an alliance, and also the US has many other defense
| pacts. (AUS, and more). Those are not temporary allegiances
| (if you call 70 years 'temporary' then you are either
| trolling or just delusional).
| thinkling wrote:
| It's roughly a Kissinger quote, so no, GP is not a troll.
| Note that a recent President was interested in possibly
| withdrawing from NATO.
| sharadov wrote:
| The data centers are running on Oracle cloud - which last I
| checked was a 100% US company, your entire argument is moot.
| galaktus wrote:
| > That's 85% of the future generation of US senators [...]
|
| That is false. Many young people who are material for such
| position, don't care about tiktok.
| lumost wrote:
| In what world does it make sense to allow a country who blocks
| access to their market unrestricted access to the US market?
|
| If china is a rival to the US, why do they have one of the most
| favorable trade deals?
| gampleman wrote:
| One of these countries spent a century preaching to the world
| the benefits of free trade, the other ridding itself of the
| capitalist class. So the issue from the point of view of the
| rest of the world is that the US should practice what they
| preach even in the one case where that would mean allowing
| some mild competition to their massive and insanely
| profitable internet monopolies.
| tchalla wrote:
| In the world where US controls the petrodollar system. That
| world.
| SkinTaco wrote:
| > If china is a rival to the US, why do they have one of the
| most favorable trade deals?
|
| I don't have an answer for you, but when you rephrase the
| point you're getting at it's easy to see there are plenty of
| valid reasons, because this is not true:
|
| > There are no reasons for the US to give a favorable trade
| deal to a country that is otherwise a rival
| thrown_22 wrote:
| There is a difference between letting China export low
| value added products with many producers vs a literal spy
| in your bedroom.
|
| Is this now US policy too:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18
| lumost wrote:
| You claim you don't have an answer, but then state that by
| simple rephrasing the answer is obvious?
|
| Can you specify a specific reason? There are historic
| examples of trade deals made for this reason such as with
| the Soviet Union or communist china. However I cannot think
| of an example where a country has given unilaterally
| favorable trade terms to a rival except out of
| fealty/tribute.
| paulcole wrote:
| A world where we want $29 microwaves and iPhones produced
| 24/7 and delivered to our doorstep. People in America need
| China in order to keep living the lives we have.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I'm not so sure that is really true anymore. I think that
| was the case in the past, when most manufacturing was very
| labor intensive. But now, so much is automated that things
| could be made anywhere for almost as cheap. Unfortunately,
| the US doesn't really have the infrastructure and
| capabilities to do so now.
| paulcole wrote:
| If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a
| merry christmas.
| naavis wrote:
| So effectively they couldn't be made just anywhere, if
| they can't be made in the US?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Because it's not true that they have unrestricted access to
| the US market, see Huawei, ZTE, etc...
|
| And it's not true they have one of the most favourable trade
| deals, many tariffs are still in effect.
| Teever wrote:
| But surely you see that there is a difference in how China
| regulates American companies operating in China and vice
| versa?
|
| Perhaps the US should adopt a tit for tat policy with
| regards to China in this matter?
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| What's the importance of means to an end?
|
| US rules the world through a liberal voting political
| propaganda; a rule-based capitalism market economy; a USD
| denominated financial structure.
|
| Sure, US blocked Huawei through rule of law; and you
| think China has no laws to block FB & Google? But behind
| the cloak of laws regulations, the intention of mutual
| exclusion is pure and same, nothing different.
| mikae1 wrote:
| Or it will be the 15% that takes those positions while the 85%
| stay glued to TikTok...
| djantje wrote:
| I think the danger is way more in the addictive part.
|
| It is al interessting, and the users are a nice research group.
|
| But here in the Netherlands, 25% of the young people have the
| chance to become illiterate (yes become,
| reading/writing/communication skills dropping after primary
| and/or high school), part of it is the mobile phone, part of it
| social status and background.
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| > 85% of US teenagers use tiktok. That's 85% of the future
| generation of US senators, Cabinet members, and Supreme Court
| justices, of police chiefs, civil rights activists, mayors,
| CEOs, etc.
|
| What's the basis of social elites are coming uniformly from the
| population?
|
| I think it's obvious that the social elites in all areas are
| predominantly from wealthy and affluent families. So the line
| of thinking of 85% teens corresponding to 85% or some number
| close elites, is baseless at best, and misleading at worst.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| I feel like the 15% that do not use TikTok are more likely to
| be from lower class or impoverished families. Likely because
| they have limited access to smartphones or electronics of
| their own.
|
| I'm sure there are "elite" families who strictly forbid their
| children from using social media, but I suspect this
| population is very low. In my own anecdotal experience, the
| most affluent teens had the most access to drugs and things
| our parents forbade us from having.
| jjeaff wrote:
| Is there reason to believe that the elite use TikTok at
| disproportionally lower rates than the rest of the
| population? If anything, it's probably higher.
| api wrote:
| So say it's 50%. That's not much better.
| illiac786 wrote:
| Yes it is. And it's still baseless.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > huge national security risk
|
| National security is the sum total of the individual earned
| securities of each citizen, no more or less.
|
| The distortion occurs when "national security" becomes the
| interests of a business elite, or a political party, or the job
| security of the security services themselves. We lose focus
| about what "security" really is.
|
| I agree with your point (as I understand it), but to my
| knowledge there isn't and never has been a division of national
| apparatus dedicated to defence of culture, national values, and
| the sanity of our children from insidious foreign propaganda.
| And as for direct counter-propaganda we are not allowed to
| direct psyops internally, at least not with a taxpayer's
| dollar.
|
| The "disappearance of the perimeter", as understood through the
| lens of the Huawei debacle is an example of how fast this has
| materialised and ambushed us in the social media age. But to be
| honest, I see the same problems with Facebook or US companies
| filtering and amplifying values.
|
| There isn't an easy answer. There are not enough human
| resources. There is very little common agreement. Nobody wants
| to open that can of worms. Doing so would mean going up against
| powerful businesses and I don't think the IC has the stomach
| for it or can adapt to the changing threats fast enough.
|
| So we just keep pretending "national security" is limited to
| industrial espionage by the Chinese or hacking by the Russians
| and so on.
|
| That's why I think individual Digital Self Defence via
| education is the only option. It needs baking into the
| curriculum for age 6 upwards.
| codemac wrote:
| The "forecast" graph seems a little ... optimistic given the
| market these days.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| excellent article, surprisingly nuanced and - I think - fair in
| its analysis.
|
| The main fear is not that it is a foreign owned app - after all,
| most people in the countries all over the world are using foreign
| owned (US) apps - it is because it is the first non-US app used
| by US citizens which unnerves both the US government and US
| commentariat.
|
| Whether those fears are justified or not, I suspect US will
| follow the China's vision of the internet, prioritise national
| security concerns over freedom of choice, and ultimately ban
| TikTok
| curious_cat_163 wrote:
| I hope that the US doesn't ban TikTok. That would be a very bad
| outcome for the concept of an open internet.
|
| I do think more regulation are likely in order. There are some
| very good arguments for not letting children under a certain
| age to be allowed on the social media platforms. However, the
| enforcement of those laws is spotty and is left to parental
| controls.
|
| What we need is an outbreak of social media literacy among the
| youngest members of society. Like, this needs to be taught at
| school in first grade or something.
| lumost wrote:
| This is effectively demanding an impossible solution to a
| present problem.
|
| Asking grade school children to weigh the geopolitical
| consequences of their cat videos is never going to happen.
| You're talking about an age group which is still learning
| basic literacy.
|
| The solution is regulation, we already regulate children's
| television programming for this exact reason.
| curious_cat_163 wrote:
| I don't see how we disagree.
|
| If by "present problem" you mean, the fact that TikTok
| happens to have been built by a Chinese company, then I see
| what you mean.
|
| Even still, for a democracy, the best protection against
| any potential threat is to prepare its citizens. In this
| case, the citizenry needs to be prepared cognitively.
|
| Arguably, it would help, if we started early -- get them
| while they are young?
|
| I don't see what other long-term things that a democracy
| can do.
|
| Other than starting a war in the near-term, I suppose?
| aparticulate wrote:
| > Even still, for a democracy, the best protection
| against any potential threat is to prepare its citizens.
| In this case, the citizenry needs to be prepared
| cognitively.
|
| There's no way I would trust managers, certainly, their
| managers to not simply regurgitate the most "CNN-
| friendly" curriculum imaginable. Maybe pre-2015 I would
| agree. US education simply isn't a trustworthy system at
| the moment. The threat has already arrived and the good
| teachers are leaving in droves.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _In this case, the citizenry needs to be prepared
| cognitively._
|
| This is such a pie in the sky suggestion that I'm forced
| to wonder if you even pay attention to US politics. To
| give you some context some of the biggest issues in
| education right now is:
|
| 1. Arming teachers with rifles
|
| 2. Dismantling the public school system and replacing
| them with vouchers.
|
| The last federally mandated educational solution, No
| Child Left Behind, was a massive failure and has soured
| most future federally mandated educational policies.
| Asking underfunded teachers to teach 9 year olds why they
| shouldn't use the "funny cat app" because of complex
| geopolitics will end up ignored at best or lead to
| incredibly xenophobia at worst (Ms. Adams told me not to
| use TikTok because China is evil, henceforth all asians
| are out to trick me).
|
| > _I don 't see what other long-term things that a
| democracy can do._
|
| Actually enforce data privacy laws universally. Of course
| this will anger the Facebook/Google trillion dollar
| oligarchs so we are told there is nothing we can do. The
| crux of the issue is that US wants everyone else data
| (EU, Oceania, Asia) but it doesn't want other companies
| to do the same. Your solutions are either you ban it for
| hegemony reasons, and pray that
| Europe/India/Japan/Australia doesn't enact the same law,
| or you ban it for privacy reasons.
| aparticulate wrote:
| >What we need is an outbreak of social media literacy among
| the youngest members of society. Like, this needs to be
| taught at school in first grade or something.
|
| I use TikTok loads and I'm completely onboard with the idea
| that it's extremely concerning for democracy. Nuanced
| education doesn't help any more than it would for say,
| healthy eating advocacy vs fast food industry. We need carrot
| and stick approaches.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Imagine getting downvoted for what you just said lol. HN
| people can't be so out of contact with children to think
| they will make complex political decisions. All they want
| to see are funny dance and cat videos. I remember when I
| was a tween and early teens. All I cared about was decent
| grades, baseball, my crush, and my computer side jobs. I
| wouldn't have cared if tiktok was based in Iran as long as
| it entertained me.
| ramblenode wrote:
| You are also describing most adults.
| OJFord wrote:
| Is that not already technically the case? It certainly is/was
| in the UK. And I assure you everyone was using whatever they
| wanted, including e.g. eBay which probably has more
| stringently regulated rules.
|
| It's a _lot_ easier to lie about your age on a Facebook sign-
| up form than to buy drugs or alcohol, and teens will find a
| way to do the latter if they want to.
| mantas wrote:
| Open internet is already dead.
|
| Now the question is if West defends or is it up for grabs for
| other countries that already built their own walled gardens.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| same, I think the argument for open internet can only be made
| by example. However, there is no domestic political mileage
| in maintaining that position, vs plenty of political mileage
| in china bad policy making. He is out of office but we are in
| the trump timeline
| yellow_postit wrote:
| Long have primary education financial and internet literacy
| been proposed but the pessimist in me sees a low likelihood
| of US-nationwide adoption of either given the polarization.
| Ironically due to those exact same issues.
|
| This seems like a classic case that needs some more direct
| regulatory intervention.
| im3w1l wrote:
| I never got the feeling that US distrusted EU software.
| lmm wrote:
| They definitely ignore and dismiss anything made in the EU. I
| don't think there's been an overwhelmingly popular app that's
| forced them to confront the idea of most US citizens using EU
| software yet.
| alex_smart wrote:
| >The main fear is not that it is a foreign owned app - after
| all, most people in the countries all over the world are using
| foreign owned (US) apps - it is because it is the first non-US
| app used by US citizens which unnerves both the US government
| and US commentariat
|
| As you can imagine, citizens from other countries are observing
| this development with great interest.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| we can anticipate - maybe even observe - countries which
| retain something close to sovereignty make moves in this
| direction. China obviously, but also Modi's India, and I
| would also say any version of France, still have the ambition
| to maintain an independent line
| gravitate wrote:
| dcchambers wrote:
| The addictive nature of TikTok scares the shit out of me. It's
| like the culmination of 20 years of social media research and
| testing purposely designed to create the most addictive product
| possible. Such a large percentage of young people use it...it's
| absolutely terrifying.
| Brybry wrote:
| I wouldn't worry too much about TikTok's impact on the youth as
| a population (rather than specific individuals with evidence of
| actual struggles).
|
| Similar fears were expressed about music corrupting the youth.
| And TV rotting their brains. And video games turning them into
| mass murderers.
|
| And yet, even with all the actual addictive poisons generations
| of youth have imbibed, those youth turned into us and here we
| are posting on HN.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| Are you sure TV didn't rot our brains?
| wyre wrote:
| Social media addiction is a very real thing and tiktok does
| it better than any of its competitors.
| lmm wrote:
| I've heard this but it doesn't match my experience at all.
| I see far more addictive behaviour on facebook or twitter
| (or, hell, HN).
| davesque wrote:
| I'd be in favor of banning TikTok just so I don't have to see
| those mind-annihilatingly stupid ads for it on YouTube anymore.
| And before people comment, I'm seeing ads because I like using
| the YouTube mobile app.
| Fargoan wrote:
| It's been evident from the beginning what it is
| mkl95 wrote:
| TikTok is the most successful espionage operation of the 21st
| century so far, and it is based on a simple idea - people will
| happily give away their data and privacy if you consistently
| entertain them.
|
| In my opinion the application should be shut down as soon as
| possible, but there are many lessons to learn from it. And most
| of them have little to do with technology.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| As a non-US, non-Chinese citizen, is there something that makes
| TikTok espionage and Facebook not? Or is it just "china scary"?
| option wrote:
| under which rule would your rather live Western (US) or
| China. And no, realistically you do not have "your own"
| choice
| EamonnMR wrote:
| TikTok's format is more successful at micro targeting and
| influencing people than Facebook. Other future social media
| networks will probably work in a similar way and be just as
| concerning. YouTube is another one that's very good at
| influencing people. I wonder if video is unsafe at any speed,
| so to speak...
|
| A spooky example of TikTok-the-emergent-system's ability to
| influence people at scale. This one gave me pause.
| https://www.wbur.org/endlessthread/2022/06/03/tiktok-tics
| shikoba wrote:
| It is because China is the enemy. When it's Facebook or
| Google strangely it's never an issue. Moral is always a
| facade for international economic war. And some people fall
| for it.
| bko wrote:
| I think there's a difference between a private company
| having my data and an adversarial government. The company
| has a clear motive, profit. They're lawful neutral. An
| adversarial government may be chaotic evil. I don't know
| why this isn't obvious.
|
| Wasn't everyone freaking out just a few years ago when
| Russian government was manipulating people with political
| groups on Facebook? And that's even with Facebook's earnest
| effort to prevent these things. With this company, there's
| a direct tie in with an adversarial government.
|
| Yes, ideally I don't want anyone to have my data, but lets
| not pretend Zuck and CCP are the same thing
| phyrex wrote:
| How are they "The Enemy"? Are they coming and killing
| Americans or is it just generic xenophobia?
| vinyl7 wrote:
| Economic enemy
| inopinatus wrote:
| It's an issue with Facebook and Google as well. Kindly take
| this false dichotomy off the table.
| pempem wrote:
| While most people on HN would agree that they would like
| more regulation of their data on FB and Google, these are
| largely still separate actors from the US government. You
| can even indicate that something like Cambridge Analytica
| is starting within a party, rather than the actual
| governing body.
|
| There is too much sharing, IMO, without a doubt. That being
| said, they are not near synonymous as TikTok is.
|
| Data regulation, privacy, influence through exposure are
| real issues worldwide. Tiktok has a raised profile due to
| its closeness with a governing state body.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| The thing is that "government = bad" is typical American
| mindset. As another non-US, non-Chinese citizen, the fact
| that those megacorporations are independent from the
| government makes it worse, not better.
|
| At least governments respond to their people (especially
| in the case of democracies, much less so for
| authoritarian governments, but they still have to worry a
| minimum to avoid revolution). Corporations respond to
| profit only, everything else be damned.
| bko wrote:
| When Facebook starts opening concentration camps, I'm
| likely to agree with you.
|
| > especially in the case of democracies, much less so for
| authoritarian governments, but they still have to worry a
| minimum to avoid revolution
|
| What do you think is more likely to still be relevant in
| 100 years from now, China or Facebook? I think a
| 'revolution' is more likely to affect Facebook than China
| dnissley wrote:
| If a security hole was found in Google and in the US
| government, which do you think would respond in a way
| that would make that less likely to happen in the future?
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| > these are largely still separate actors from the US
| government
|
| Yes they're separate actors, but programs like PRISM
| suggest that they're still on a very short leash
| Calvin02 wrote:
| Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to
| the world.
|
| It is surprisingly that simple.
|
| While the US and the western governments have their issues,
| they are still a largely law abiding. China, however, is not.
| Additionally, under Xi, it has become more authoritarian and
| more willing to undo the rules based order that has someone
| kept the world somewhat sane since WWII.
|
| I don't know why anyone would be afraid to say this.
| onelovetwo wrote:
| If you're looking at it from that perspective, tiktok
| should be the least of your worries. Currently The U.S. is
| entirely dependent on this "geopolitical threat" to
| survive. At least with tiktok its as simple as shutting
| down the app.
|
| The U.S and China are entangled in ways you cant imagine.
| bool3max wrote:
| You are delusional.
| [deleted]
| guywatershow wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_
| r...
|
| Rules were made to be broken!
| fabianhjr wrote:
| I am from latin america and at least neither China nor
| Russia have participated in coup d'etat to install a
| military junta to then torture and massacre anyone slightly
| left of the US "Democratic" Party.
|
| Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI
| bitlax wrote:
| Yeah Russia has been totally hands off in Latin America.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#/media/File:Che
| inM...
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Russian Federation != Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
|
| More so: Russian Federation != Russian Soviet Federative
| Socialist Republic
| ciroduran wrote:
| Hi from Venezuela
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Ah yes, also curiously enough the US is way more prone to
| completely embargo Cuba and Venezuela but neither Russia
| nor China. (Due to political-economic reasons and not
| moral/ethical ones)
|
| Edit: profile I am replying to has the following in their
| about section: "about: I play music and I code
| videogames. I live in Brighton, UK." so assuming the "hi
| from venezuela" was sarcastic.
| ciroduran wrote:
| I lived there 29 years of my life, I lived the
| dictatorship, and I still got family and friends. Far
| from sarcastic.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Ah yes, compared to the constitutional monarchy of the
| United Kingdom.
| lmm wrote:
| > While the US and the western governments have their
| issues, they are still a largely law abiding.
|
| Perhaps on an internal level. But for those of us in third
| countries what matters is how they act outside their
| borders, and the US is doing considerably more
| dronestriking of their political enemies than China is.
|
| (And even if you just look at domestic aspects, the
| relevant area is one of the exceptions. The NSA seems to be
| decoupled from any oversight - its leaders lie to congress
| with impunity, any attempts to hold them to account via the
| courts are dismissed...)
| option wrote:
| you conveniently left Russia out of your "acting outside
| of their borders" discussion... In case you haven't
| noticed they started a bloody war in Ukraine this year.
| starfallg wrote:
| Or CCP troops engaging in bloody border skirmishes with
| shovels.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| > they are still a largely law abiding
|
| Where does one even begin...
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| You would be surprised if you polled non-US, non-China
| citizens about what country is the biggest geopolitical
| threat to the world.
|
| Wait, I don't even need to talk in conditionals. I Googled
| it and apparently it has indeed been done several times,
| and the results are what I expected.
|
| https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-
| demo...
| konschubert wrote:
| okay, go poll Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, ...
| RONROC wrote:
| What people are afraid to say is that the United States
| arguably has a bad enough rap sheet as China, but still, even
| with its shortcomings, it's still _not_ China.
|
| And yes, China bad.
| pfisherman wrote:
| More effective than Facebook or Google? Last I checked they
| didn't have their "pixel" or SDK embedded in every web page or
| mobile app, beaming data back to them.
|
| Not saying that TikTok is benevolent or not a surveillance
| operation, just that they are not yet as big, insidious, or
| effective as Facebook or Google.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Last I checked they didn't have their "pixel" or SDK
| embedded in every web page or mobile app, beaming data back
| to them
|
| Oh you might actually be surprised about that one
|
| https://ads.tiktok.com/help/mobile/article?aid=9663
| pfisherman wrote:
| Lol! Of course they would! Thanks for this info.
| jsemrau wrote:
| You are likely mistaken. FB/Meta is still the leading data-
| broker because
|
| (a) they track you even though you are not on their app [1] (b)
| they own 55% of app downloads in the US [2]
|
| [1]
| https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_...
| [2] https://app.finclout.io/t/b9BbQa4
| rvz wrote:
| Some naively said that it was _' The best thing to have
| happened to the Internet.'_ [0] This is an example of a user
| under the spell of the glorified algorithm that dictates what
| is seen and unseen.
|
| So given that this [1] is the general capability of what the
| algorithm can do, it looks like that it is the largest and the
| most dystopian controlled experiment of the 21st century. Even
| worse than Facebook.
|
| We have hit a new nadir on screwing with 'users' with this new
| digital crack / cocaine invention that Bytedance has created.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28151067
| chaostheory wrote:
| What data are we exactly giving Tiktok? I would agree with it
| being called a propaganda platform, but I'm not sure about it
| being a surveillance platform.
| groffee wrote:
| You can't sign up with just an email, you need third party
| integration like Twitter, and surprise, you need to give
| TikTok full access to your account.
|
| Still pretty entertaining though.
| xan92 wrote:
| There is lot of good content creators on TikTok apart from
| (dancing/singing) ones, the TechTok community is huge , It really
| depends on what interest the end users have, It's all individual
| attention driven algorithm that caters to the end user needs
| based on their likes/dislikes. It's faster to learn if you don't
| like something it does a good job in not recommending those type
| of content again. Which I believe Instagram/youtube isn't that
| great at.
| Avamander wrote:
| It's hypertailored compared to YouTube and the likes. When
| people complain about the content they see, be it terrible DIY
| hacks or something more bizarre, I can't help but wonder what
| they've done that TikTok recommends such content to them. After
| dropping a few hints that it's very tailored a few have gotten
| a bit embarrassed and stopped complaining.
|
| Interestingly it also separates a lot of the users from the
| rest, people call them [thing]-toks and crossovers aren't very
| welcome. Kinda like subreddits, but algorithmic.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Eventually something China made had to stick, surprising it took
| this long really.
| djbusby wrote:
| A lot of the other Chinese apps were clones. TikTock was a
| novel improvement to the crap of Twitter and Facebook, etc. And
| it's algo is(was?) very "good"
| ThisIsMyAltFace wrote:
| TikTok filled the void left by Vine after it was stupidly
| allowed to die
| meowtimemania wrote:
| I would put TikTok in a different category than
| Twitter/Facebook. I see it as an improvement of Vine.
| Ekaros wrote:
| One has to wonder why none of the big USA based players don't
| have as good product? From what I have heard there isn't
| really anything special with the app itself. Ofc, it has
| reached the critical mass in creators, but it was there for
| taking...
| Avamander wrote:
| Because TikTok has so far kept its strongly algorithmically
| tailored content to retain users, instead of optimising for
| more ad minutes like YouTube or Facebook.
|
| YouTube could be just as good, even without shorts, if it
| actually gave people what they want instead of what makes
| YT the absolute maximum amount of money over.
| [deleted]
| est31 wrote:
| Youtube has built shorts (youtube tiktok competitor), and
| according to Google it has more users now than tiktok [0]
| even though it's been launched in September 2020. It
| contains tons of reposts of tiktok videos, sometimes legal
| ones by the original creators, sometimes uploads by third
| parties.
|
| That being said, I would take that claim with a big grain
| of salt, for multiple reasons. First you need to look at
| the relevant generation where tiktok is strong, whether
| youtube can break that monopoly. Also, it's fairly easy to
| make existing youtube users "try out" shorts via an in app
| pop up, and then mark that down as successful use of the
| feature. If your app has enough users, you can reach
| relevant usage counts easily, even though none of the users
| are there for the shorts feature only.
|
| Also, what matters with social apps like these is also not
| just the content consumption but whether friend groups etc.
| are communicating on that app or another one. This has
| extremely strong network effects that are hard to break.
|
| [0]: https://www.investors.com/news/technology/google-
| stock-rises...
| ok123456 wrote:
| Yeah they stuck "shorts" on the homepage so that anyone
| who visits "youtube.com" has to see them. That's not
| actual engagement.
| HaZeust wrote:
| Well the real slimy thing they did was make posts under a
| minute on YouTube default to a Short.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And the browser UI is quite pointless for them... Why
| even have that? Is it only there to increase the metrics?
| est31 wrote:
| The shorts browser UI is a clone of the tiktok UI. I
| don't really like either, they could have innovated at
| least a little by introducing more powerful video
| controls like the seeking shortkeys that work on youtube
| for example.
|
| But it wasn't built to appeal me (or you), but other
| parts of the population, people who prefer tiktok like
| experiences.
|
| For me personally, the reason to use shorts every now and
| then is because tiktok is authwalled while shorts is not.
| But I don't know what other users of shorts would say why
| they prefer it.
| ok123456 wrote:
| They prefer tiktok's content and recommendation system.
|
| Just trying to recreate some of the UI aspects of it is
| just cargo culting.
| charcircuit wrote:
| That's only if it's a vertical video. Most videos on
| YouTube are horizontal.
| HaZeust wrote:
| Sortaaaa. I've seen horizontal videos that, in the past
| were standard videos but under 60 seconds, and they were
| cropped down to Shorts compatibility.
| unixhero wrote:
| TikTok is an AMAZING platform for original content on just about
| everything.
| preommr wrote:
| really?
|
| So many videos are just reaction videos, or doing trends which
| are the same concept (e.g. a dance, or challenge) just by
| different people. There's so much reptition, lots of creators
| that keep doing the same shtick because that's what gets them
| views. But it's so much worse than something like youtube where
| it's something that has to be condensed into a few seconds so
| it's all very superficial.
| rasz wrote:
| for reposting copies of original content?
| Avamander wrote:
| There's a significant amount of original content on TikTok,
| so I'm not sure what you've seen exactly, but you might want
| to scroll past those to see less of them.
| unixhero wrote:
| No, wrong. I have never seen any reposted content.
| ok123456 wrote:
| Most of the content I get is original.
|
| The reality is, Facebook is where content goes to die.
| OJFord wrote:
| How can you possibly know that?
|
| I'm not even saying it isn't, I just think it's basically
| unknowable.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| you can simply look at the blatant content copying which
| does not attempt to hide it, across these platforms, and
| for that category see it easily
| ok123456 wrote:
| And that's the reason people use it.
|
| It eats into the consent manufacturing pipeline that the US has
| carved out and that's the reason they're really worried.
|
| "Military recruitment is down because of TikTok!" No. There are
| just service members who are showing what it's really like
| there.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-10 23:00 UTC)