[HN Gopher] The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns
___________________________________________________________________
The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns
Author : clockworksoul
Score : 272 points
Date : 2022-11-18 12:54 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| theknocker wrote:
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| II2II wrote:
| There are a couple of things we have to be careful of in these
| discussions: one is that the US has strong motivations for
| (economic) protectionism. We should be focussing on evidence of
| wrongdoing, not innuendo.
|
| The second is how the accusations are being made. Too much of it
| reeks of borderline racism and there seems to be an uptick in
| outright racism against Chinese people. Remember, it is acts of
| the Chinese government at issue here _not_ the acts of people who
| have no ties to the Chinese government.
| computerfriend wrote:
| There is absolutely no hint of racism.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I think economic protectionism is generally bad, but might be a
| reasonable response to similar moves on the part of other
| nations. I think this should not be conflated with the national
| security arguments (which aren't totally invalid, but may be
| overhyped to achieve a policy goal.)
| scohesc wrote:
| There's no racism to be found - why do people conflate issues
| with the way the Chinese _government_ chooses to operate with
| the Chinese _people_ themselves?
|
| The Chinese government technically owns TikTok - No doubt in my
| mind profile/algorithm data is being sent overseas for
| processing and manipulation by the Chinese government.
|
| The Chinese government uses strategies that span
| _decades/centuries_ to influence countries. They can do that
| because they don't have to rip and replace
| governments/officials on regular election cycles - that's the
| way their government works and why some people consider
| Democracy to not be a great government structure - a separate
| tangent to go down.
|
| The Chinese government creates/purchases a social media app
| that happens to attract easily influenced
| children/teenagers/adults, cater content directly for them to
| keep them on the platform for as long as possible, with the
| _very real_ potential for the Chinese government to influence
| people through algorithm manipulation, which app users don't
| even realize.
|
| Don't get me wrong, it's equally as harmful when Facebook,
| Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat does it - it's just that China
| studied this formula and has likely adapted it to be used as a
| form of cultural/government warfare against enemy countries -
| without even putting boots on their soil.
|
| Distract as many minds as possible, feed them information that
| tells them the US/Canada/Europe isn't as "free as people say",
| deliberately promote key cultural "wedge" issues to emotionally
| enrage/depress people and eventually you have a population in
| 50-100 years that welcomes the Chinese government into their
| country because there is no cohesive American identity anymore
| able to stand against aggressive foreign
| influence/interference.
|
| I'm not saying this is the sole purpose and goal of TikTok, and
| I'm not saying it's the _sole_ thing China is doing to "take
| over America!" - but it's a multi-faceted approach to foreign
| interference that nobody seems to even consider or think about.
| See - Belt and Road initiatives, foreign spies in high
| political positions influencing US politics, committing
| corporate espionage to steal trade secrets and technologies...
|
| Yes, I'm also sure the USA does all of these things -
| personally, I'd rather have the USA doing these things instead
| of China, since I have more of a chance of influencing what the
| US is doing with our data rather than a country on the opposite
| side of the globe operating without recourse to western law.
| 63 wrote:
| I don't think it's racism for the most part, but I do agree
| that some people seem to have some incredibly strong feelings
| about China without great justification. I wonder how much of
| it is caused by the US's anticommunist history.
|
| Maybe it's right to dislike China for ideological reasons. But
| even if that is the case, isn't banning Tiktok hypocritical? If
| you dislike China because they censor information coming from
| other countries, don't follow the will of their citizens, and
| regulate speech, it appears to me that urging an executive
| agency to ban Tiktok is doing those same things in the US.
|
| I genuinely don't see much harm in Tiktok but plenty of people
| on HN seem to hate it just because it's from China and that
| doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.
| sliq wrote:
| Wow, here in Germany this concern was always called a "right wing
| conspiracy theory" by literally every mainstream media outlet.
| Headlines like "Is Trump afraid of dancing teens?" were quite
| popular (even when it was clear that it's a technical problem).
|
| We live in bizarre times.
| ok123456 wrote:
| Do the opposite thing the FBI wants.
| plgonzalezrx8 wrote:
| So basically what the democrats did when Trump was the one who
| said that TikTok was a national security concern.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| While my knee jerk reaction is to agree, I also would want to
| do the opposite thing China wants, so I'm in a bit of a pickle
| here.
| liminal wrote:
| I'm much more concerned about WeChat.
| allisdust wrote:
| It's banned overnight in India along with a lot of other Chinese
| apps. I don't see why that can't be done in USA under national
| security policies. It's ridiculous to let an app from foreign
| adversary which can manipulate citizen behaviour through its
| algorithms while being able to keep track of what interests whom
| is allowed to operate freely. Its frankly surprising they are
| even having this debate. Yes meta, Google and God knows what
| other companies are also in a position to do this. But then the
| government can always drag the executives to trial legally. They
| can't do any of that with a foreign company.
| realgeniushere wrote:
| If only a previous president had said so and banned it. Oh, that
| did happen. And then Biden unbanned it because a bunch of liberal
| journalists told him to.
| NickC25 wrote:
| I have no idea if it's a legitimate security risk, but
| regardless, if China wants to play the game with us that they are
| currently playing (banning non-Chinese apps from their country)
| we have to play that game, too. It makes no sense to play the
| "we'll take the high road" approach with them. If they ban our
| applications and services in their country, we need to ban their
| applications and services in our country. Full stop. The
| surveillance aspect isn't even a starter here, it's larger than
| that. If we have to play by their rules in their country, they
| have to play by our rules in our country.
|
| I don't give a shit if it pisses off GenZ. GenZ's ability to
| share stupid videos of themselves dancing to crappy music is
| completely irrelevant to the wider geopolitical threats that
| China poses.
|
| In full disclaimer: I helped build a service that was partially
| aimed at Chinese users, and had Tsinghua University as a client.
| When the trade wars started, our relationship was "ended" and
| Tsinghua took our idea & software and essentially cut us out of
| the equation completely. (Yes, their copycat version of our
| software and idea was completely useless and didn't work, but
| that's besides the point)
| standardUser wrote:
| "if China wants to play the game with us that they are
| currently playing (banning non-Chinese apps from their country)
| we have to play that game, too"
|
| That's not the American way. The United States became the
| center of the modern global economy because it said "you can
| sell your goods here, and we're gonna push really hard to make
| you let us sell our goods there, too. But if you don't, fine,
| you can still sell your goods here".
|
| It's basically the opposite approach of a trade war.
| NickC25 wrote:
| I don't care if it isn't the American way. This is an
| economic cold war. China views all trade as a zero-sum-game
| war, and currently, we've ceded the fight completely. They
| can collect info and revenue in our markets, but we can't in
| theirs. If appeasing them is how we decide to continue, we've
| lost the fight and will continue to lose the fight.
|
| Remember, to the Chinese government, a Win-Win situation is
| not when both parties walk away happy, it's when the Chinese
| side wins twice.
| standardUser wrote:
| "China views all trade as a zero-sum-game war"
|
| No, they don't. That's an absurd statement. China has
| become a great power by virtue of engaging with the global
| trade system.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Yes, they do. Go read Sun Tzu's "Art of War". That's
| their playbook. They played along because it was
| advantageous to them, and now that they have a shot at
| taking the driver's seat, they will do as they please.
| They will also do as they please once they get in said
| driver's seat.
|
| I've worked around Chinese people for a long time, have
| studied their culture extensively, and have done business
| with some of their top institutions, including tutoring
| students from Tsinghua, most of whom are the children of
| Party elite.
| glitchc wrote:
| Sorry to hear you got shafted by Tsinghua U. But this is a race
| to the bottom. GenZ is our future. They will be in charge of
| our country and will make their own choices.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Yes, and GenZ needs to be educated on the geopolitical
| ramifications of a foreign power wielding control of a
| popular communications application.
| 404mm wrote:
| TikTok is only a part of a much larger problem that US was not
| ready to deal with.
|
| Sure, TikTok having "coarse location" permissions seems like a
| very bad idea, give the fact it's Chinese owned app. This is the
| obvious one and I personally absolutely cannot understand how
| this is allowed to happen. (And there is more... Russian owned
| family tracking apps for example)
|
| But the larger and harder problem to solve is social media and
| their involvement in targeted advertising, potentially having a
| significant impact on election results. This applies equally to
| all platforms. Where do we draw the line? Should amount of money
| determine who gets elected? How do we know the money even comes
| from the parties and not from other governments? Or a new problem
| we have- should the richest person be able to own very
| influential social media? This is no longer a democracy.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > How do we know the money even comes from the parties and not
| from other governments?
|
| I'm sure Canada would say that this isn't important..
| aeze wrote:
| I have a couple questions:
|
| 1) How is TikTok worse than other social media apps? Both in
| terms of privacy and "the algorithm".
|
| 2) What another country's government does with my data is far
| less important to me than what my government is doing with my
| data. Am I wrong for thinking that?
| spacemadness wrote:
| I'm not making strong claims, but I think it's a fairly simple
| formula.
|
| 1) Do you believe social media algorithms can have large
| negative outcomes concerning human social behavior?
|
| 2) Does the entity controlling those algorithms then matter
| assuming 1 is true?
| tenpies wrote:
| Exactly. The scariest part to me is that an unelected,
| partisan, US intelligence agency literally moderates the
| content on social media through their own purpose-made
| moderation portals[1], than anything China is doing.
|
| ---
|
| [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23129270-fb-portal
| krolden wrote:
| People here worried about tiktok seem to be in denial about
| how the USA has treated the internet (not to mention our
| constitutional rights, specifically the fourth amendment) for
| the last 20+ years.
|
| There are no privacy laws of consequence when the people
| running the show report to no one and have zero oversight,
| yet they want us to worry about tiktok and China instead of
| pay attention to the gross violation of our rights by our own
| government.
| night-rider wrote:
| Zuckerberg wants TikT0k banned in the US so badly
| gravitate wrote:
| How does watching fail videos and memes radicalize people and
| make them politically polarized? Would it not be obvious to
| TikTokers that they are being manipulated in some way, even
| subtly? If I want to control narratives and shape opinion, TV is
| how I would do it. Fox News is basically a propaganda machine,
| and isn't questioned, because, hey, 'merica.
| UberFly wrote:
| Maybe you should just read the NPR article.
| darkteflon wrote:
| Utterly ridiculous to allow TikTok to continue to operate in the
| current geopolitical climate. China is a surveillance autocracy
| and has been engaged in adversarial conduct against the West for
| years - including extensive psyops.
|
| Shut it down, yesterday. Build a local clone so that people can
| get their fix or whatever. China sure as shit doesn't allow its
| citizens to cough up their personal information for algorithmic
| consumption to Twitter et al.
| standardUser wrote:
| "engaged in adversarial conduct against the West for years -
| including extensive psyops."
|
| And the US has an extensive and well-documented record of doing
| exactly this to other nations (and far, far worse). If we start
| a new Cold War every between every two nations that try to
| undermine each other we'll quickly run out of trading partners,
| which isn't going to work out too well for a preeminent trading
| nation (or it's people).
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I read an article the other day that argued that TikTok
| should not be banned on the basis of free speech. The
| argument is, while American's have the freedom to say
| whatever the hell we want, we have an arguably even more
| freedom when it comes to what we consume, with only very
| select content (CSAM for example) being illegal to consume.
|
| Yes there might be targeted misinformation there, but it's up
| to individual Americans to decide if they want to consume
| that content, government should not be in the business of
| curating content.
| clcaev wrote:
| The government should be concerned about protecting its
| citizens, as well as its political and economic
| environment. If a product is unsafe, it should be
| regulated; if the producer does not comply, it should be
| banned.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| _> Build a local clone so that people can get their fix or
| whatever._
|
| Seems like the perfect startup and perfect timing for all the
| recently laid off Twitter folks.
| drcross wrote:
| Trump tried this and had to back down due to it being an
| unpopular decision.
| https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-...
| sleepymoose wrote:
| Anything Trump did was an unpopular decision. If this starts
| to move forward under the current administration people would
| be more receptive to it purely based on the fact that it's
| the other side now.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I'm about as libby a lib as ever lib'd and Trump's action
| on China was maybe the single thing I agreed with him on.
| Neoliberal free-trade-over-all-other-concerns policies are
| actually pretty unpopular among voters in _both_ parties,
| but are very popular with the donor and policy-wonk class,
| with the result that both parties typically favor it and
| have since the 80s, despite their voters mostly disliking
| it. One of the notable things about Trump 's candidacy and
| presidency was his breaking from this (unpopular) long-
| standing norm, which fit with the rest of his messaging in
| that he mostly ignored whatever was ordinary or standard
| and instead picked the kinds of positions you'd hear
| talking to a Republican trucker in a diner ("They ought to
| just build a wall" is _straight_ out of those kinds of
| conversations, for instance).
|
| Oh, wait, one other thing I agreed with him on: leaving
| Afghanistan ASAP. The whiney push-back he got on that and
| the way the military managed to sand-bag the effort until
| well into Biden's term and _still_ fuck it up, was
| straight-up embarrassing. Heads should have rolled.
| marcusverus wrote:
| To clarify: Trump issued the ban, but it was Biden who backed
| down and rescinded it.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/9/22525953/biden-tiktok-
| wech...
| mmmlinux wrote:
| I cant imagine how unpopular it must have been to make him
| back down on something.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I mean the US is just as guilty of that, with e.g. Facebook and
| companies using it manipulating global politics; see for
| example Cambridge Analytica and the list of elections they
| influenced [0] through nasty means. There's also the Snowden
| revelations that revealed the US security services have free
| access to social media; if you want surveillance, that's the
| one. And let's not even start about the psyops that the US has
| been doing for decades, pushing the narrative that they are the
| saviours of the world and all that through media and Pentagon-
| approved movies.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Elections
| p0pcult wrote:
| Cambridge Analytica, while problematic, isn't a government,
| which makes your analogy extremely weak.
|
| Cambridge Analytica, while problematic, doesn't have control
| over FB/its algorithm, which makes your analogy extremely
| weak.
| hokumguru wrote:
| Facebook did not intentionally share information with CA.
| That was a data breach and was corrected after made known.
| glitchc wrote:
| You know not what you ask for. You are giving up freedom for
| safety.
|
| How do we cut the app off? Remove it from the app store? People
| will post apps disguising a Tiktok connection. Block
| connections to servers in China? Doing that means creating a
| great firewall controlling what sorts of connections are made
| to American clients. If we get there, China will have proved
| that their method of government is better than ours. They will
| have already won.
| derefr wrote:
| "Build a local clone" -- the obvious answer is that both
| Instagram and Snapchat already have; and that nobody wants to
| switch. If only the US blocked TikTok, that'd just mean there'd
| still be a TikTok that every other western country has access
| to except the US, full of content interesting to Westerners.
| People with Android devices would just sideload it, and use
| VPNs to access it if necessary.
|
| The less-obvious answer: TikTok _is_ the local clone, in a
| sense. It's a separate app from the Chinese Douyin app.
|
| Personally, I'd suggest copying China's own strategy here: tell
| ByteDance that if they want to operate in the US, it has to be
| through a contract with a non-owned US company staffed by US
| citizens. Essentially making TikTok into an American company
| that just happens to license some Chinese software IP.
| cwkoss wrote:
| You gotta get the SV nerds who run instagram stories to stop
| bending the knee to ads and focus on UX and make a product
| users actually enjoy using to be a viable competitor.
|
| Instagram has like a 3% success rate at suggesting content
| from people I don't follow. Tiktok is easily over 30%.
|
| Calling instagram a competitor to tiktok is about as naive as
| thinking an infomercial will pull market share from a prime
| time drama: it'll catch a few, but its so much worse it has
| no hopes of cornering the market.
| josefresco wrote:
| > nobody wants to switch
|
| There's no reason to switch now. Ban TikTok and people will
| switch.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Both TikTok and Instagram are banned in Russia, and yet
| people use still them. You're underestimating the "network
| effect". (Is there a proper name for that?)
| trekz wrote:
| Maybe Streisand Effect?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
| tenpies wrote:
| Will it? Part of Tiktok's genius is that you don't even
| need an account to view content, or even the app - the
| browser experience is quite good.
|
| Now compare the friction between wanting to see a Tiktok
| right now, versus trying to see one of whatever Snap's
| equivalent is, or Facebook and Instagram's.
|
| Tiktok is absolute butter, on browser or app.
| spookie wrote:
| Maybe that friction exists cause western companies follow
| some pesky regulations about user data. And, they want to
| make sure they can monetize their content by blocking
| unlimited access to those who have not accepted their
| terms and conditions.
|
| Maybe tiktok doesn't follow those to begin with...
| Tenoke wrote:
| I don't think it's that ridiculous. The default should be not
| to ban entertainment, and it's not so clearcut whether the
| danger outweighs the benefits much more than for many other
| legal forms of entertainment.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > The default should be not to ban entertainment
|
| It's only entertainment if you're completely blind.
|
| They're using our tolerance as a weakness, while themselves
| having absolutely 0 tolerance for western bs/propaganda in
| their home country
|
| This is next level "turning the other cheek"
| CyanBird wrote:
| > It's only entertainment if you're completely blind
|
| "I don't like it so it should be banned"
|
| That's such a low level engagement with the matter at hand,
| sadly these days is the level of discussion here in HN, sad
| to say that it seems astroturfed, but again, at this point
| what isn't, right?
| lm28469 wrote:
| I don't like it and it has measurable negative effects
| while providing 0 value besides brain washing teens *
|
| Then they'll come crying because they don't understand
| why teenagers depression skyrocketed exactly at the same
| time as these types of social medias flourished
|
| There are plenty of things people like which are banned,
| that's like the whole basis of living in organised
| societies....
| angio wrote:
| It's not a huge conspiracy theory. TikTok moderates content
| based on the country's law, the US values free speech and
| so anyone can post anything they want on TikTok (and
| facebook, twitter). China has strict censorship laws, so
| content there is moderated. If you don't want to see that
| type of content on TikTok, then ask the US governemnt to
| start censoring internet.
| Tenoke wrote:
| It's obviously entertainment. It could additionally be
| other things, how Top Gun is both entertainment and
| propaganda or bar drinking is both entertainment and has
| health risks.
|
| The math might come to the risks being higher than the
| benefits but pretending people aren't entertained by it
| ironically suggests that you might be more radicalized or
| brainwashed than TikTok users supposedly are.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > It's obviously entertainment.
|
| it's not obvious to me at all, in France it's used by
| islamist organisations to push for communitarianism and
| separatism, I don't call that entertainment
|
| https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/de-youtube-a-
| tiktok...
|
| https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/111122/ados-en-
| abaya...
|
| https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2019/10/23/de-la-
| propa...
| lzooz wrote:
| I'd blame France for their immigration policies more than
| I would blame a platform full of user-generated content
| lm28469 wrote:
| Feel free to elaborate on this cryptic comment
| lzooz wrote:
| France allowed particular demographics to come to the
| country until they reached a critical mass and became
| dangerous. That shouldn't have happened.
| Tenoke wrote:
| By that logic paintings aren't art because the Soviets
| made some for propaganda purposes.
| lm28469 wrote:
| ISIS decapitation videos aren't cinema, yet they're
| videos, the medium doesn't matter, what matters is the
| message. Unless you want to show ISIS decapitation video
| at Cannes ?
|
| If you want to play on words we can do that all day long,
| the problem is that it doesn't change the reality, and
| the reality is that like any other medium it's used for
| nefarious things, the second problem is that modern
| technology enables a small amount of people to have an
| increasingly greater reach and larger audience with fewer
| and fewer restrictions
|
| If you can't see the difference between a soviet era
| propaganda painting and a 24/7 tool behing used 45 to 90
| minute every single day on average by millions of
| kids/teenagers in their formative years I just feel sad
| for you to be honest.
|
| I can kill someone with a fork, I can kill someone with a
| 100mt nuke, will you argue they are the same ?
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Just because the end user in the US sees it as
| entertainment doesn't mean that the CCP treats it as
| such.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| > It's obviously entertainment. It could additionally be
| other things, how Top Gun is both entertainment and
| propaganda
|
| I think you're proving the point here. Yes media can be
| more than one thing or serve more than one purpose. A
| good question to ask is how much is it entertainment vs
| how much is it propaganda? I'd wager that there is a lot
| of content on TikTok that is mostly propaganda, even if
| it isn't produced by state actors. Social media has given
| rise to a new form of propaganda that is self-
| perpetuating, individuals can gain social clout by
| repeating the propaganda they hear and adding their own
| flavor to it (even if they don't add content). Maybe call
| it Performative Propaganda. Social media algorithms help
| match up the people producing to those who are
| susceptible to consuming it and provide a selection
| mechanism to promote the most effective content. This is
| all that's needed for "memes" (in the original sense) to
| behave like their namesake genes and undergo rapid
| reproduction and evolution.
|
| Is any of this state controlled? Maybe a small amount but
| I would ask does it even need to be state controlled?
| There's enough folie a deux out there in the world, all
| you need to do is provide an easy way for it to spread
| and you could severely damage other cultures.
| moneytide1 wrote:
| > how Top Gun is both entertainment and propaganda
|
| The recent conscription of Mr. Cruise to showcase air
| superiority is an insight tactically granted at the
| behest of American government as a reaction to
| international upheaval. A reminder. After the success of
| "Star Wars", Mr. Ford fulfilled a similar role in a film
| about infrastructure sabotage (hydroelectric dam and
| bridge - Force 10 from Navarone).
|
| I always appreciated the Top Gun franchise because there
| are many scenes showing a large group of people enjoying
| each other's company.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| >including extensive psyops
|
| american social media should be shut down yesterday everywhere
| in the world then - including the US, lmao
|
| there was a really good example really recently with japanese
| twiiter, where trends were dominated by the diarrhea of
| progressive politics, and then suddenly stopped when Musk had
| fired a ton of dead weight. now it's all anime and games. some
| journo even complained that the stories they submit no longer
| get promoted and wondered why
| soup10 wrote:
| Not sure that US really wants to set a precedent of
| protectionism when so many large US technology companies
| operate globally.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| Why shouldn't the US be protectionist? The country does not
| exist for the benefit of large technology companies.
| zip1234 wrote:
| Reciprocal protectionism is much different than unilaterally
| doing it. Also, the Chinese gov has clearly taken an
| aggressive and adversarial stance against the US.
| mc32 wrote:
| We're among the least protectionist -not to say we are not
| protectionist, but comparatively. Others have set the
| precedent for us. They need no examples or encouragement.
|
| That said, yes, the 1A implications are thorny.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 1A was not written so that hostile foreign governments can
| flood your zone with shit.
| mc32 wrote:
| It's interesting question. We have VoA or whatever.
|
| Would the FCC allow a VoRussia or VoChina radio
| transmitter in the US whose sole purpose was to push
| Chinese or Russian propaganda?
|
| Probably in a war declaration we could shut them down,
| but what about peacetime?
| pjc50 wrote:
| > Would the FCC allow a VoRussia or VoChina radio
| transmitter in the US whose sole purpose was to push
| Chinese or Russian propaganda?
|
| I'm sure they already do?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America was operating
| right up until the imposition of sanctions.
| mc32 wrote:
| Yeah, but that was more akin to the BBC or even Xinhua. I
| mean a specifically propagandist station like the VoA or
| RFE.
|
| But that said, looks like all the Biden admin needs to do
| is set up some sanctions (for whatever reason) and put TT
| under that umbrella and voila!
| computerfriend wrote:
| The BBC and Xinhua are nothing at all alike.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I see news articles about US mass shootings on VoA- how
| is that US propaganda?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| A smart foreign propaganda news outlet doesn't simply
| censor _everything_ that makes their sponsor country look
| bad. You can push a worldview while still reporting most
| of the same stuff any other outlet would, and having
| actually-decent coverage means more people will tune in--
| then you save the heavy-handed slanted coverage for when
| it _really_ matters.
|
| Hell, look at something like The Economist. They're
| regarded as an excellent news source, which makes their
| efforts at pushing a certain economic and political POV
| _far_ more successful than if they pushed it so hard that
| they weren 't a good news source.
| hvs wrote:
| The U.S. has a long, proud history of protectionism: https://
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| I would say a bit more about my position rather than just
| make the claim that the US has a _long_ and _proud_ (?)
| history of protectionism. The US had and still has
| protectionist policies. Interestingly, the trade war was
| not so much protectionist as anti-China. The difference
| being that the US would rather buy from somewhere else, and
| if from China then it will be taxed. But protectionism
| means to protect a countries businesses. There were of
| course protectionist elements but in my opinion that was
| not the focus. A famous example of US protectionism was the
| Japan situation in the 1980s where Reagan forced Japan to
| limit their output to the US market.
|
| Speaking of Japan, it, from 1930 until about 1970, was a
| great example of protectionism. No foreign companies were
| allowed to operate in Japan until 1960, and even then it
| was only in uninmportant low-margin industries. Imports
| were completely controlled by the Japanese government,
| which imported _everything_ based on what they thought was
| needed: automobiles are something that were almost never
| imported, for example. China today is less protectionist
| than Japan at it's peak but still many factors more
| protectionist than the US. For example, one cannot directly
| open a foreign business in China. They must work with a
| domestic company that takes half their profits.
|
| All this isn't to say that the US isn't protectionist, or
| that protectionism is even bad. But your claim that "The
| U.S. has a long, proud history of protectionism" really has
| no qualifying element, and in fact all the qualifiers seem
| to go in the opposite direct that they should.
| refurb wrote:
| Did you post the wrong link? It's basically all about
| China's trade protectionism and US attempts at stopping it.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > China is a surveillance autocracy and has been engaged in
| adversarial conduct against the West for years - including
| extensive psyops.
|
| CIA and its satellites have been doing that for decades, and on
| top of that it has a habit of kidnapping, jailing and torturing
| other countries' citizens. Even the episode of 'rendition
| flights' could totally delegitimize any complaint from the US,
| leave aside its cooperative satellites.
|
| Projecting problems and criticism to outside, imagined or
| concocted enemies and veering the attention away from the
| plague inside their own society are things which prevent the
| Western public from addressing the enemy in their midst. That
| behavior pattern is why the West has been tumbling downhill for
| the last 40 years.
| pjc50 wrote:
| _sigh_ can we not have targeted-by-nationality bans and instead
| have .. rules?
|
| If Tiktok the app is performing surveillance, _ban surveillance
| by apps_. All of them. Or make it technically impossible to
| escape its little sandbox, and let people have their
| entertainment.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| Rules are great but rules are not _always_ great. Sometimes
| the particularities of a situation are more important than
| _the system of rules itself_. There is a reason law becomes
| more like, a guideline in war.
| krageon wrote:
| We can't have rules that aren't governed by nationality,
| because the US basically only sees nationality. TikTok is
| called "an issue" not because of what it does, why it does it
| or how it does it. It is called that because of who is doing
| it. As such, we can expect all this racism couched in careful
| political language to continue and keep continuing.
| sgu999 wrote:
| Not everything is rooted in racism... If Bytedance was a
| company from any of the Asian allies to the US, it would
| likely not be much of an issue.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I was with you till the r-bomb. Racism may be one
| _consequence_ of US-China relations, but the proper r-word
| for the US celebrating Meta 's data harvesting while
| condemning TikTok's is realpolitik.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Why is this racism?
|
| Is this racism because China is mostly made up of one race?
| Then, we should ask why that is the case. (E.g.
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/chinese-communist-
| party...)
|
| > because the US basically only sees nationality
|
| Is China more generous here?
|
| It is funny that any valid criticism of China is fought
| with claims of racism.
| LightHugger wrote:
| This is rather specifically not racism. You are allowed to
| have opinions about a country that has to do with it's
| government and the way it operates, without being racist.
| How do you or anyone else benefit from trying to connect
| this to racism?
| OJFord wrote:
| Ok, so what, you ban warrant-less data-sharing with
| governments? Warrant-from-certain-trusted-countries-less
| data-sharing with governments? Can't just ban data-sharing
| with governments, there's the infamous US 'CLOUD' act and
| surely similar/less-specific but essentially amounting to the
| same legislation all over the place.
| hellfish wrote:
| > If Tiktok the app is performing surveillance, ban
| surveillance by apps. All of them.
|
| No way in hell this will happen, just saying
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Global rules for user privacy would be fantastic!
|
| But lets start by simply banning the most criminal
| organizations first. If the KGB, CCP, or any other group
| known for imprisoning and killing literally millions of
| people is running a social network we need to block it right
| away.
|
| Bytedance has forced CCP members on their board and you can
| bet the government uses the user data, behavior data and
| biometrics to help squash dissent.
|
| Then we can move on to blocking the networks sharing data
| with less dangerous groups.
| CyanBird wrote:
| > But lets start by simply banning the most criminal
| organizations first
|
| NSA and cghq have tapped onto the global fiber optic
| systems on a global scale and see spying on every single
| person on the planet with dragnet systems alongside as you
| say biometrics, and that includes US citizen data.
|
| Where does that fall into?
| computerfriend wrote:
| Lots of things can be bad at the same time. What NSA and
| GCHQ do is worth discussing, for sure. But it has nothing
| to do with this.
| shkkmo wrote:
| The NSA and GCHQ can literally and legally do the exact
| same things. In what possible what does it have "nothing
| to do with this"? If you are making a list of the worst
| actors in terms of global surveillance, they have to be
| at the top...
|
| The only reasons not to include them are purely
| nationalistic.
| computerfriend wrote:
| Because it's a separate topic and you're engaging in
| whataboutism.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Literally the exact same topic: making a list of the
| worst infractors.
|
| Edit: Here's the summary of this thread so far:
|
| 1) Let's make a rule against it instead of just hitting
| companies based on their nationality
|
| 2) A rule would be great, but in the mean time let's
| target the worst actors
|
| 3) These US based spy agencies do a bunch of stuff that
| is similar, where are they on that list?
|
| 4) That's off topic whataboutism
|
| 5) Seems like the same topic, why is it different?
|
| 6) It just is, no explanation required
|
| Using "whataboutism" to try to shut down discussions you
| don't like is not intellectually interesting or useful.
| computerfriend wrote:
| I actually love this topic. It's not at all a discussion
| I don't like.
|
| You can see throughout these comments, and everywhere
| else, every time this topic comes up, the "but also the
| USA" fallacious argument is brought out. It's really not
| relevant.
| pksebben wrote:
| I think we either need to narrowly define whataboutism or
| stop using it altogether. in discussions like these it
| takes the role of a hammer to beat anyone that questions
| American exceptionalism and it's kinda gross.
|
| it always goes along the lines of your thread;
|
| a: "hey, look at awful thing x <other country> is doing,
| we should do something about that"
|
| b: "we do that too, and it is bad. we should fix it"
|
| a: "that's whataboutism and it's off topic"
|
| where x includes, but is not limited to: class-based
| legal asymmetry, extralegal incarceration, the existence
| of a ruling class, unprovoked invasions of sovereign
| territory, race-based murder by state actors, news
| suppression...
|
| .. and mass surveillance with a political agenda.
|
| Were I to Don my tinfoil chapeau, I'd say there's a taste
| of astroturfing to conversations like these. Abusive
| patterns of social interaction that certainly seem like
| they're in service of a national agenda. But lacking
| proof, I won't.
| computerfriend wrote:
| That's interesting, because I feel the exact same way but
| on the opposite side. "we do that too, and it is bad."
| just reads as deflection to me. This comment section is
| full of it and it's very tiresome.
| shkkmo wrote:
| I see nowhere in this comment chain, where "we do that
| too" was used as an attempt to shut down discussion or to
| justify the bad behavior.
|
| What it was being used to do was to support the argument
| that "instead of just banning one company, we should
| create rules that apply fairly."
|
| That isn't deflection.
|
| Notably, the first non-TikTok entities that were
| mentioned as needing to be reigned in were the KGB.
| Nobody complained that was off topic.
|
| So while "whataboutism" and allegations of "whataboutism"
| can both be (edit: and frequently are) used to distract
| and deflect, that doesn't mean that every instance of
| either is doing that. You have to ACTUALLY READ what is
| being said and how it relates, not make snap judgments.
| 2devnull wrote:
| That falls into "whataboutism."
| xvector wrote:
| I would say it falls into "pointing out hypocrisy."
| 2devnull wrote:
| We agree. "The other guys are hypocrites too" is a
| truism. Great power competition is real a thing. People
| tend to be hypocrites, and whatabouttism is commonplace.
| But we can do better.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Who is the priority here? Stopping the US who is spying
| on everyone or stopping the CCP who is murdering hundreds
| of thousands of it's own citizens.
|
| You climb a mountain one step at a time.
| amelius wrote:
| > ban surveillance by apps
|
| ==>> How??? <<==
| thesuitonym wrote:
| Levy fines on app stores that allow surveillance apps.
| kube-system wrote:
| How would an App Store possibly know? Surveillance often
| happens out of band, and under foreign jurisdiction. The
| apps themselves may not even know or may be prohibited
| from disclosing it.
| jononor wrote:
| That is something the apps and App stores can solve in
| collaboration. And if they are required to in order to
| make money, they very likely will.
| pksebben wrote:
| this is literally impossible in any case that uses a
| server to process unencrypted data.
| kube-system wrote:
| Or encrypted data where keys are shared or stolen.
| kube-system wrote:
| If a government decides that it wants some data, they can
| just take it and silence whoever they want along the way.
|
| Nobody is going to care about some App Store TOS
| agreement, when faced with the government monopoly on use
| of force.
| amelius wrote:
| What if the phone/appstore is Chinese?
| thesuitonym wrote:
| If they do not operate in the US, then US laws don't
| apply.
|
| If the do operate in the US, they must comply with US
| laws.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Isn't that the point of the sandbox?
| mc32 wrote:
| Targeting by nationality is how it works: Iran, Russia, N
| Korea, Venezuela, etc. Else it turns into whack-a-mole.
| make3 wrote:
| rules are a tradeoff. being restrictive has downsides on what
| you can and can't do, you may affect negatively something
| that had only good intentions, you don't know. when you know
| someone is a bad actor, it is normal to make rules more
| restrictive, as you know that you're not negatively affecting
| good uses.
| darkteflon wrote:
| We can - and should - have robust privacy laws at home. We
| should also not roll over for our adversaries. China under Xi
| Jinping is, without a doubt, adversarial, and the risks are
| existential.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| You need to specify who "our" is there. USA's upper
| echelons, presumably?
|
| The risks are _existential_ to ...? Again presumably you
| mean those who thrive under USA-centric capitalism? You
| think the CCP are planning a forced takeover of Western
| democracy?
| computerfriend wrote:
| > You think the CCP are planning a forced takeover of
| Western democracy?
|
| Forced or otherwise, yes. This is the whole point of the
| "making the world safe for dictators" thing.
| xwolfi wrote:
| But are you sure you're not being manipulated a bit ?
| China and many dictatorships, already have enough
| problems ruling their own shit, you think they want to
| like ... take over americans ? What does that even mean,
| how can they even do that when they cant even take Taiwan
| ? The "Republic of China" Taiwan...
|
| All they seem to want is make sure you dont talk to their
| own sheeps while you focus on yours lol
| computerfriend wrote:
| I am extremely sure, thank you.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I think the genocide of a people concerns us all.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| The loose use of the word "genocide" in recent years is
| extremely concerning. Nothing that is going on in China
| can be called a "genocide." No one (that I am aware of)
| is even alleging that China is carrying out any mass
| killings of any group.
|
| The use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Uyghurs
| is transparently propaganda, which began with Mike Pompeo
| during the Trump administration. Even the US State
| Department said they had no evidence of genocide, but
| Pompeo went ahead anyways and officially labeled it
| "genocide."
|
| You can very justly criticize China's crackdown on what
| it views as separatism in Xinjiang, but it's beyond the
| pale to label a situation "genocide" when nobody is being
| killed, and when life expectancy and income of the group
| supposedly being genocided is increasing.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| They are locking a distinct ethnic minority in internment
| camps and sterilizing their women.
|
| That is a genocide. They are attempting to remove the
| Uyghur people.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| It would be a lot easier to talk about this subject if it
| hadn't been so shamelessly exaggerated for propaganda
| purposes.
|
| The Chinese government has, by all appearances, carried
| out a harsh crackdown on what it views as separatism and
| religious extremism. It has forced large numbers of
| people to go through political indoctrination, based on
| suspicions of being sympathetic to the Uyghur separatist
| movement or of harboring fundamentalist religious
| beliefs.
|
| The Chinese government has also begun imposing the
| 3-child policy on Uyghur families. The 1-child policy
| used to only apply to the Han majority. It has been
| relaxed to 3 children, but is being applied more broadly.
|
| However, the Uyghur population continues to grow. The
| Uyghur language continues to be an official language in
| Xinjiang and it is one of the primary languages used to
| teach children in state schools. And as I said before,
| life expectancy and average incomes are increasing among
| Uyghurs.
|
| The Chinese government doesn't intend to "remove" the
| Uyghur people. It is trying to stamp out separatism, both
| by implementing harsh police methods and by pumping money
| into the region to improve living standards.
|
| This is not what a genocide looks like. That term is just
| propaganda in this case, meant to influence people who
| aren't at all familiar with the situation in Xinjiang.
| krolden wrote:
| You mean like the native Americans? Pretty sure that's
| still the largest scale, most drawn out genocide in the
| entire history of our species.
| hoolabooladoola wrote:
| Lakota checking in to tell you that a basic reading of
| history would confirm that you're pretty wrong.
|
| Please don't what-about the Uyghurs to Native American
| history because it's disrespectful both ways, and
| minimizes their suffering. For all the conflict with
| Europeans, our historical experiences with them, painful
| as they may have been and remain, were much more nuanced
| and complicated than what is happening in China. I have
| also never met anyone native who thinks of our history as
| a genocide, and I'm involved in tribal politics.
|
| Honestly even calling our history a genocide is a
| dramatic simplification that removes our agency (all too
| common in non-native takes). We fought back and won some
| things, lost others. That's not something you can say
| about victims of genocide.
| texaslonghorn5 wrote:
| despite not wanting to discount your lived experience, I
| am more inclined to believe settler colonialist theory
| (drawing on work from trained scholars, both indigenous
| and not) which suggest that European settlement did lead
| to what was in fact genocide.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| If you know of any Native Americans currently being
| genocided, please do call someone about it.
|
| Unless you are suggesting that because of some previous
| genocide we should ignore an ongoing one?
| pessimizer wrote:
| > sigh can we not have targeted-by-nationality bans and
| instead have .. rules?
|
| That won't work because China will just follow the rules. How
| would that hurt China?
| rdevsrex wrote:
| Not nationality, nation states that are known bad actors.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| We really should have some sort of reciprocity with China by
| now. Frame it however you want, don't mention China
| specifically in the bill, etc. But they are no longer a
| developing nation, they are the largest or second largest
| economy and military power in the world, and are advancing a
| set of totalitarian values completely antithetical to what
| the US and our democratic allies have been fighting for
| (literally and figuratively) since WWII at least.
|
| If US social media, search, and other internet companies are
| banned in China, then similar Chinese companies should be
| banned in the US. If US companies can't operate in China
| except through a joint venture with a Chinese company, to
| which the US company must transfer its technology to, then
| same should apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.
| Etc.
|
| It should be clear at this point that negotiations with China
| won't change anything internally in China. The only option is
| for the US to do what is in its power to within the US (and
| perhaps with fellow democratic allies). Aka reciprocity.
|
| Reasons for banning Chinese social media particularly:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657429
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| China has uniform rules that any internet company operating
| in China has to follow, whether that company is Chinese or
| not.
|
| Some foreign companies follow the rules and are allowed to
| operate in China, while others are unwilling to follow the
| rules, either because they have ethical qualms about the
| rules (which involve censorship), or more cynically,
| because implementing those rules would be bad for PR back
| in the US.
|
| More broadly, American tech companies do a massive amount
| of business in China. Apple is the largest smartphone brand
| in China. China is the or one of the most important markets
| for Nvidia, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and many other
| American tech companies.
|
| > If US companies can't operate in China except through a
| joint venture with a Chinese company, to which the US
| company must transfer its technology to, then same should
| apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.
|
| Your understanding of how things work in China is out of
| date by about a decade. China has continuously reduced
| joint-venture requirements over time. There is a select
| list of industries that require joint ventures, and that
| list shrinks every year. For example, automobile
| manufacturing was removed from the list a few years ago,
| which is why Tesla was able to build its own plant in
| Shanghai.
|
| > It should be clear at this point that negotiations with
| China won't change anything internally in China.
|
| China is actually willing to negotiate over many aspects of
| how foreign companies operate in China, trade barriers,
| intellectual property, etc. If the conflict with the US
| were only about regulations on American companies in China,
| it would be relatively easy to solve. The Chinese
| government is very pragmatic about those sorts of issues.
|
| However, the conflict is about something much more
| fundamental: the US government believes that China will
| soon surpass the US in overall geopolitical power, and the
| US government desperately wants to prevent that from
| happening. The US views the high-tech sector as China's
| Achilles' heel, and believes that it can blunt China's
| economic development through sanctions (for example, on
| imports of high-end chips, or on companies like Huawei,
| SMIC and YMTC). There's no way for China to negotiate with
| the US over this issue, because China is never going to
| agree to _not_ develop its economy.
| ehnto wrote:
| Surveillance isn't the issue I don't think, it's influence.
| It was easy to underestimate the affect of misinformation
| back in 2016, but I think by now, after a few political
| sojourns and a pandemic both riddled with division and
| information chaos, we should be taking it seriously.
|
| It's not that China would try to convert Americans to
| communism, but I think we should be worried that they could
| attempt to sway election results via TikTok. TikTok is the
| most efficient algorithmic feed based website to date, it's
| ability to take a human and just pour bite sized information
| into their lives is unmatched in my opinion. It makes you
| feel like you're part of a group that doesn't even exist, get
| enough talking heads talking about a topic and you get grass
| roots cultural movements as people imagine extreme ideas are
| widespread when they're not.
| extrememacaroni wrote:
| Ah yes, rules. For China. Which now decides pretty much most
| of the content that the western world's children see. TikTok
| is part of it, them acquiring gaming companies is another,
| and there's likely even more ways in which China is gaining
| control of what we're consuming.
|
| I bet China's going to be like "guys we can't do this
| anymore, they just updated their terms of service with this
| brand new rule so we can't proceed with the head-in-toilet
| challenge operation".
|
| China is pretty smart, you trying to do the same thing in
| _their_ country would be impossible. Guess why?
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > can we not have targeted-by-nationality bans and instead
| have .. rules?
|
| Let's have reciprocal rules. If country X bans US social
| media then why shouldn't the US do the same?
| sgu999 wrote:
| I've never understood either. This should be de facto for
| any market...
| mhb wrote:
| Because, ceteris paribus, unilateral free trade benefits an
| entity regardless of whether its counterparty taxes or
| restricts its trade.
|
| Because comparative advantage.
|
| Because you don't jump off a bridge because Johnny jumped
| off a bridge.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > Because you don't jump off a bridge because Johnny
| jumped off a bridge.
|
| Why not? Is 'below the bridge' a place we need to get to,
| and do we have a parachute?
| computerfriend wrote:
| > Because, ceteris paribus, unilateral free trade
| benefits an entity regardless of whether its counterparty
| taxes or restricts its trade.
|
| Tell that to the Qing dynasty.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Because you don't jump off a bridge because Johnny
| jumped off a bridge.
|
| Sorry, no, that analogy doesn't apply.
|
| Here is a better one:
|
| You invite Johnny to your home and he keeps hitting you
| and stealing from you (and you are banned from his
| house), you need to respond at some point.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Because USA supposedly values freedom of conscience and
| actions (within a framework) of its citizens, something it
| says distinguishes it from China. If they're distinguished
| in this way then them acting differently is expected.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| To be tolerant, you have to be intolerant of intolerance.
| zip1234 wrote:
| The rule is that if you arbitrarily block American
| companies then your country gets blocked too. It's called
| fair competition. If you open your country for American
| companies that are treated the same as your companies
| then we will do the same. Otherwise, no. The Chinese
| government and it's companies should not be treated as
| American citizens.
| ZainRiz wrote:
| If you read the first paragraph of the article, the primary
| concern mentioned is not surveillance, it's influencing the
| American public in ways that benefits China and harms the US.
|
| Psy-ops effectively
|
| Here's a segment by 60 Minutes explaining how they show their
| own citizens educational, beneficial content inspiring them
| to be better citizens, while the rest of the world gets the
| degenerative content we usually associate with ticktok.
|
| And China could easily further adjust their ranking algorithm
| further to highlight the views it wants us to have. All
| social media has the power to do this, but China has both the
| most adversarial incentive and a demonstrated willingness to
| do so.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY
| pjc50 wrote:
| Are "psyops" illegal, or are they free speech? How far
| beyond the Chinese government does this categorization
| extend?
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Don't know why you're being downvoted without explanation,
| this is absolutely the case, among others.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657429
| spookie wrote:
| The bots be crazy, y'know?
|
| But in all honesty, I have noticed among fellow
| colleagues that this is the case. Even outside of the
| country, you can tell that people are afraid to speak
| about politics.
|
| I would be too.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| _But what about national security? Surveillance by _our_ guys
| is necessary!_
| shapefrog wrote:
| Nahh US surveillance is the good kind /s
| trident5000 wrote:
| One predatory thing TikTok does that app stores should have
| banned ages ago is they repeatedly ask you to show them your
| contacts. The point is for you to slip up that one time and
| accidently hit "yes" so they can collect all that info. This
| should not be allowed.
| animitronix wrote:
| Nope, we can't do that because we can't force TikTok to make
| code changes. Banning it is the only solution.
| dylkil wrote:
| >ban surveillance by apps
|
| if only
| samatman wrote:
| We should have rules that include forbidding any Chinese
| company from selling SaaS or social media until CCP takes the
| Great Firewall down. They've made a pariah internet and they
| should stay there.
|
| Suit you? Suits me.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| So your response to the Great Firewall being bad is to...
| implement one of our own?
| samatman wrote:
| I see a sharp difference between preventing Chinese IP
| addresses from accessing whatever they would like, and
| allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's
| liberty while denying it to their subjects.
|
| So, no, that is not my response at all. There is no
| technology involved in kicking these corporations out of
| the civilized world, just political will.
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's because there is one.
|
| > preventing Chinese IP addresses from accessing whatever
| they would like
|
| is a technical thing that you can do with computers, and
|
| > allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's
| liberty while denying it to their subjects.
|
| is nationalistic nonsense that lacks any reference to
| anything material.
| est wrote:
| How about block .edu access to China in exchange for GFW?
| pjc50 wrote:
| What about Russian social media (I think vk got sanctioned
| but not livejournal)? What about, given the other thread,
| Qatar? Should Orkut (Brazilian) have been allowed?
|
| My point is that the rules should target what it does
| rather than simply "China=Bad", since that offers a way
| back into compliance with the rules. However unlikely that
| actually is.
| vajrabum wrote:
| Orkut by the way was created by a Stanford trained
| engineer at Google. It wasn't Brazilian. Rather it had a
| Brazilian community.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Brazilian
|
| Nobody is calling for blanket bans of foreign apps. This
| is a straw man argument.
| solardev wrote:
| China isn't going to listen to your rules. Ban whatever you
| want, Chinese companies don't have to comply, and don't have
| to tell you when they're not complying...
|
| Unless you audit every foreign app's source code and sign its
| binaries, those laws are meaningless. And if you do that
| you're really just swapping foreign advertising for domestic
| wiretapping. _shrug_ Lose-lose.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > Unless you audit every app's source code and sign its
| binaries
|
| Isn't that called "an app store"? Good luck getting non-
| signed binaries on an iPhone.
|
| My point is that if TikTok is somehow able to escape its
| sandbox and perform surveillance, that's a fault in the
| sandbox, and there should be a general process for handling
| this otherwise you just have to deal with the next week's
| app "TokTik".
| spacemadness wrote:
| The actual media is not stored in the app. The only thing
| you're countering is tracking user behavior outside the
| app sandbox.
| derefr wrote:
| You don't need to escape a sandbox to monitor people's
| communications that are done through your own backend
| servers.
| xwolfi wrote:
| And God knows China is collecting all that important
| juicy information on teenagers' love for the latest fad
| ...
|
| Man the FBI acts like tik tok is used in jet planes and
| nuclear power plants...
| joxel wrote:
| Those teenagers will grow up to be the leaders of
| tomorrow, and shit they liked or interacted with on tik
| tok is blackmail material.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Man the FBI acts like tik tok is used in jet planes and
| nuclear power plants...
|
| That is the only information that should be protected?
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| There are at least three worrisome things that data can
| be used for:
|
| 1. Shaping and manipulating minds. Eg, show healthy,
| educational, intellectual content to Chinese users, and
| unhealthy, addictive, emotional, short-attention-span-
| inducing content in US and foreign markets (already
| happening [1]).
|
| 2. Train AI for analyzing and further manipulating
| foreign publics, or for providing strategic insight into
| political and election dynamics, making political and
| election interference operations more effective.
|
| 3. Collate data on individuals gained from TikTok with
| other sources like credit ratings agency breaches, OPM,
| etc. for their entire life, to create a continually
| growing lifetime data profile on every American,
| European, Asian, South American, African, etc. which may
| be used for pressure, coercion, or manipulation
| operations or similar. Think of it as "customer lifetime
| value" [2] for political purposes.
|
| None of which we want an adversarial, totalitarian
| foreign power to be capable of doing to us.
|
| [1]:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tristan-harris-social-
| media-pol...
|
| [2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_lifetime_value
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| I am worried that 1, 2 and 3 is already being used by the
| western governments to do the exact same thing against
| it's own population. The FBI is just jealous they didn't
| have the boot on Tiktok like they do with all other kinds
| of social media and websites.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| I'm aware of that too, it's a problem, but the lesser one
| imho. At least there's some modicum of accountability
| with Western companies subject to Western laws, which
| Western citizens have some say in (if they get agitated
| enough at least), thus some possibility for reigning them
| in. There's much less or none with with Chinese companies
| operating in the West, and sending all the data they
| collect back to servers in China, under CCP "law".
| unity1001 wrote:
| > I'm aware of that too, it's a problem, but the lesser
| one imho.
|
| How the hell CIA rendition flights are a 'lesser
| problem'.
|
| > Western companies subject to Western laws, which
| Western citizens have some say in
|
| Western public has not been able to change neither the
| economic policy, nor forign policy, nor the surveillance
| state laws in the past 40 years. Also, the western laws
| are wantonly ignored in the west when western corporate
| or state interests are at stake. So no.
|
| ...
|
| This is exceptionalism. You are applying to others the
| standards that you are not applying to your own side,
| where you have no means to do anything about the problem.
|
| Its a coping mechanism that helps avoid cognitive
| dissonance by projecting 'worse' problems to outside, to
| external 'enemies'.
| cwkoss wrote:
| You place a lot more faith in the federal government than
| I do.
|
| CCP can do very little to impact me directly. The feds
| could ruin my life if they wanted to - just fabricate a
| few charges.
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| I don't live in the US, I have no clear way at all to
| change how US government agencies deal with data gathered
| from citizens of my country. I can't even vote there, not
| that "voting blue/red" would change this mess at all.
|
| It can't be more than a week ago that we discussed here
| on HN a way that MS Powerpoint can leak your entire
| presentation to microsoft. Lots of people in my country
| use the entire MS suite, and I don't think the
| CIA/FBI/ABCDEFG should have our data.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| It's not impossible for other countries to affect US
| internet companies. The EU GDPR is probably the best
| example. Once that went into effect, every website began
| showing popups enabling users to control cookie settings
| for that website, even within the US to US citizens not
| subject to GDPR. If there's a country or block of
| countries with large enough population relative to US,
| and where US companies operate, it can have some
| influence on US.
|
| That said, yes if you use FB/etc you should assume your
| data could be used by US intel agencies for similar
| purposes. Just don't use those apps. Heck, I'm American
| and refuse to Facebook or any of their other services
| (Insta, Whatsapp, Meta). None of this stuff is actually
| necessary to live a happy healthy life, and often even
| detracts from it.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > 1. Shaping and manipulating minds. Eg, show healthy,
| educational, intellectual content to Chinese users, and
| unhealthy, addictive, emotional, short-attention-span-
| inducing content in US and foreign markets (already
| happening [1]).
|
| That is happening, because the US audience is CHOOSING to
| interract with sh _tty content online. Actually, the
| majority of sh_ tty content, from flat earth to Reagan
| being alive et al, come from the US.
|
| > which may be used for pressure, coercion, or
| manipulation operations or similar
|
| So Chinese government will coerce and pressure me to do
| what, exactly. Will it be any worse from the rendition
| flights of CIA.
|
| ...
|
| This sounds like double standards.
| imbnwa wrote:
| >1. Shaping and manipulating minds. Eg, show healthy,
| educational, intellectual content to Chinese users, and
| unhealthy, addictive, emotional, short-attention-span-
| inducing content in US and foreign markets (already
| happening [1]).
|
| You mean China has _regulations_ on how youths interact
| with the internet and the US prefers an on-going social
| experiment lead by sheer engagement numbers that will
| continue with or without TikTok?
| solardev wrote:
| There's not really a process for monitoring what happens
| on an internet-connected app's backend.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > China isn't going to listen to your rules
|
| And then they are banned. Not because they are China or
| TikTok, but because they break specific rules we hold
| everyone to.
| solardev wrote:
| You won't be able to tell when they're not following the
| rules.
| shkkmo wrote:
| We regulate foreign companies that do business in the US
| in other markets, what makes this one special?
|
| If we actually care about surveillance by App, we have to
| make rules that can prevent that including requiring
| levels of access and transparency to enforce those rules.
|
| Of course, there is little appetite for making those
| rules... But that doesn't mean that such rules are
| impossible.
| CyanBird wrote:
| Just stop moving the goalposts while discussing and
| people might take you more seriously
| Izkata wrote:
| ...they haven't moved any goalposts...
| chitowneats wrote:
| You need to work on your reading comprehension.
| solardev wrote:
| Err, pretty sure that was the entire premise of my post
| -- that you wouldn't be able to tell when they're not
| complying unless you audit and sign all their code before
| distribution.
| imbnwa wrote:
| This seems like an argument _no_ Chinese software on
| American devices, what makes the difference?
| solardev wrote:
| No, it's the opposite argument, that we SHOULDN'T do that
| because one it's impractical, and two if they actually
| did it, the solution (mass government wiretapping and
| auditing and pre-censorship of all "foreign" apps) would
| be worse than the problem it's trying to solve (TikTok
| not playing nice).
|
| I'm no fan of the CCP, but I'd take Chinese propaganda
| over American censorship any day.
| [deleted]
| teh64 wrote:
| Well the FBI seems able to tell, or else why are they
| alleging it poses a national security concern?
| rodiger wrote:
| I think it's more of a "China has been known to conduct
| mass espionage/monitoring of its citizens and abroad.
| Given that known fact, TikTok poses a concern." Don't
| think there's hard proof they are doing nefarious things
| via TikTok.
| plushpuffin wrote:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-
| white/2022/10/20/tik...
|
| > A China-based team at TikTok's parent company,
| ByteDance, planned to use the TikTok app to monitor the
| personal location of some specific American citizens,
| according to materials reviewed by Forbes.
| pessimizer wrote:
| We won't be able to tell when they're not following the
| rules that are not important enough to impose on domestic
| companies?
| kube-system wrote:
| Espionage is covert by definition, and is already
| illegal. Spies break foreign laws as a part of their job
| description, and yet, they still exist.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is a great argument for expelling all Chinese
| people, people of Chinese descent, people who have said
| anything nice about China, and people who have never said
| anything nice about China but I think are hindering our
| competitiveness against them.
| imbnwa wrote:
| Can someone downvoting explain how this is not an
| implication or were people thinking this parent wasn't
| criticizing grandparent?
| kube-system wrote:
| It is a nonsequitur that the existence of spies
| necessitates widespread banning of people by national
| origin. We did this during WWII and it was clearly a
| misguided mistake.
| cwkoss wrote:
| A lot of people in this thread don't seem to realize how
| they are starting down a path that will inevitably lead
| to McCarthyist fascism.
| [deleted]
| still_grokking wrote:
| But this would make Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and
| all the other big US tech business illegal...
|
| Nobody (in the US) wants this obviously.
|
| Btw, the EU isn't anything better in this regard: We would
| like to forbid other countries to spy on us, but the EU
| authorities "need to have" the possibility "because
| terrorism, child abuse, and other 'harmful content' &
| 'disinformation'". (Just see the fresh Digital Services &
| Digital Markets acts).
|
| Same surveillance everywhere. Only it's "OK" when done by
| "us", the "good ones", but not "the others", because they're
| the evil "bad ones"; of course.
| k_paleologos wrote:
| Why should the government decide which apps a user can install
| in their device?
| clashmoore wrote:
| So I'm an American who uses TikTok for entertainment.
|
| I don't think it's utterly ridiculous to allow TikTok to
| continue. Even hearing these threats that China is possibly
| surveilling me - what do they get that other social media apps
| like Instagram get from me? From the FBI it sounds like the
| national security threat is that China may use it alter my feed
| to influence me or take over the control of my Apple phone? Has
| Apple warned users that TikTok will take control of their
| phone?
|
| As far as I'm concerned, I'm just watching short 60 second
| videos and could not care less if China has my birthdate.
| piva00 wrote:
| You are oversimplifying the issue. It's not about having your
| birthdate, it's about capturing data about your tastes and
| preferences over time to feed into a profiling model.
|
| It's a way to capture data to use inference models to
| understand who you actually are, your tastes and personality.
|
| Yes, Instagram/FB/Meta do the same, Google does the same, the
| difference is that Meta and Google are not the government or,
| worse, an adversarial government from your nation that could
| weaponise such data. Tailor-made suggestions and
| recommendations already work pretty well for adtech, tailored
| suggestions of content with aims to slowly shift cultures and
| perceptions is much more dangerous than serving compulsive
| consumption.
|
| And yes, very likely the US government has some access to
| FB/Instagram/Meta/Google profiling data, I also believe
| that's dangerous (even more that I'm not an American citizen,
| nor live in the USA and still am probably surveilled by its
| government) but in a different degree and level than what
| TitTok and China might be able to.
| clashmoore wrote:
| The article mentioned the company sharing birthdates which
| is why I used it myself.
|
| I'm just failing to understand why China using whatever
| data TikTok has on me to understand my tastes and
| personality is a national security issue for the United
| States.
|
| The fear seems to be that China could tweak a US citizen's
| feed, based on their profiling, to inject Chinese
| propaganda?
| piva00 wrote:
| > The fear seems to be that China could tweak a US
| citizen's feed, based on their profiling, to inject
| Chinese propaganda?
|
| Yes, that's the assumption. And just to be clear, not
| feed you direct Chinese propaganda but drip-feed
| behaviour-changing content to make you more or less
| sensitive to some topics, and not necessarily you but
| maybe a different cohort they identify as being more
| easily manipulated. For example: teenagers or young
| adults (which are the majority of users on TikTok) that
| are still not mature enough to have developed critical
| thinking about what they are being fed.
|
| It's exactly to avoid this kind of possible operation
| that the bells are ringing. Not necessarily because they
| are already exploiting it but because it's definitely a
| massive risk to allow such data to be vacuumed by an
| adversarial government.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Reposting from another comment [0], but there are at least
| three reasons you should be concerned what happens with your
| TikTok data:
|
| 1. Shaping and manipulating minds. Eg, show healthy,
| educational, intellectual content to Chinese users, and
| unhealthy, addictive, emotional, short-attention-span-
| inducing content in US and foreign markets (already happening
| [1]).
|
| 2. Train AI that can be used for analyzing and further
| manipulating foreign publics, or for providing strategic
| insight into political and election dynamics, making
| political and election interference operations more
| effective.
|
| 3. Collate data on individuals gained from TikTok with other
| sources like credit ratings agency breaches, OPM, etc. for
| their entire life, to create a continually growing lifetime
| data profile on every American, European, Asian, South
| American, African, etc. which may be used for pressure,
| coercion, or manipulation operations or similar. Think of it
| as "customer lifetime value" [2] for political purposes.
|
| None of which we want an adversarial, totalitarian foreign
| power to be doing to us.
|
| [0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657429
|
| [1]:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tristan-harris-social-media-
| pol...
|
| [2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_lifetime_value
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| The reason for #1 is that China has regulations on what
| content can be shown to children. The US could pass similar
| regulations, but chooses not to. This isn't TikTok's or
| China's fault.
| weego wrote:
| The US is a surveillance pseudo-democracy.
|
| The problem here being this time they can't insert themselves
| into the surveillance pipeline.
|
| They're not better or worse (unless you're fine with your own
| Govt surveilling you but not another state), just not the
| status quo.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Surveillance isn't the primary issue. INFLUENCE OPERATIONS
| is. China's ability to direct content to achieve their
| strategic goals, and to do so at a very granular level, is
| too great a risk. Its not the only property with this
| capability (cough, 4chan/pol/, cough), but its by far the
| largest.
| CyanBird wrote:
| > China's
|
| Tiktok is not China, Tiktok is owned by a private company
|
| All the arguments that you are using can be successful
| leveraged against any Inqtel funded private company (of
| which there are plenty), so I'd recommend you to speak in a
| measured way
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Absolutely not. China is an authoritarian state with no
| rule of law other than what the CCP says goes. There are
| no meaningful firewalls between corporate operations and
| the Chinese government.
| sgu999 wrote:
| In China, private companies large enough cannot operate
| without a fair amount of control and involvement of some
| layer of the CCP.
| https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-
| business...
| pjc50 wrote:
| Aren't influence operations free speech?
|
| (thread locked after 1,397,957 comments)
| zip1234 wrote:
| There is no right for foreign governments to have free
| speech in the US. If they are outside of the US they do
| not get US rights.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Yes. So is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Nothing
| is without limits, and with out limits we are nothing.
| tbihl wrote:
| >So is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
|
| A course of action so blatantly legal that a Supreme
| Court Justice used it as an example for what is clearly
| allowed, dislikeable though it may be.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowde
| d_t...
| dahfizz wrote:
| This is absurd, frankly.
|
| "The US government collects taxes on US citizens, why not let
| China collect taxes on US citizens? Its the same."
|
| "The US government throws US citizens in jail, why not let
| Chine throw US citizens in jail? Its the same."
|
| Yeah, it would be great if the Federal government turned down
| their surveillance. That doesn't make it okay for China to
| run psy-ops against us.
| conductr wrote:
| > That doesn't make it okay for China to run psy-ops
| against us
|
| Downloading and using TikTok is a personal choice and
| you've allowed it by doing so as an individual. I don't
| think we should ban individual apps from other countries.
| If we want that, we need some larger more thoughtful
| policy. But to do so effectively, we essentially need to
| put up a firewall and ban the sharing of domestically
| collected data as well (amongst other things, like
| enforcing these bans.)
|
| PSY-ops as mentioned sounds negative but I'd argue it's
| what TikTok and social media consumers enjoy the most.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > Downloading and using TikTok is a personal choice and
| you've allowed it by doing so as an individual.
|
| Not if it interferes with security of the country.
|
| The same personal choice argument is what folks use to
| justify other choices that are bad (refusing well test
| vaccines, not paying taxes, etc.)
| conductr wrote:
| I view it more like a vice (smoking, gambling, etc) and
| as mentioned we need an actual thoughtful policy if we
| think it's a security issue.
|
| Banning one app at a time is not the way.
| pozdnyshev wrote:
| pjc50 wrote:
| https://www.newsy.com/stories/american-athlete-shares-
| experi...
|
| (and obviously if you're a US national in China you'll pay
| Chinese and US taxes, because of the weird extraterritorial
| taxation of the US)
| dahfizz wrote:
| Yes; you are pedantically correct, and missing the point
| entirely.
| CyanBird wrote:
| But you don't have a point, you just said "x thing is
| absurd" then proceeded to write a bunch of strawmen
| arguments which are not applicable
| sharperguy wrote:
| Isn't the logic reversed in this case? Spying on US
| citizens is fine as long as you aren't the US government.
| Hence 5 eyes and so on.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I see a lot of US psyops and I'm an American. That is even
| more disturbing IMO. I'd expect it from a foreign nation
| but not my own country. Also, why can't we just make
| education about foreign influence part of our curriculum
| and national discussion. Why do we have to ban things like
| speech to protect people? That is borderline just becoming
| China-like in itself.
| sgu999 wrote:
| Critical thinking would be a good start... but TikTok
| also targets a very young and immature audience that is
| already protected from many other things by rules.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| In public elementary school here in the US they literally
| taught me indoctrination everyday by doing cult like
| rituals and allegiance to a cloth and history that
| whitewashed the crimes. How are young people in America
| supposed to be taught to think freely when they are
| shunned for thinking outside of the American way?
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Have you seen what happens in China *today*?
|
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/chinese-communist-
| party...
|
| Back to topic:
|
| Applying critical thinking, you can be patriotic and a
| critical thinker.
|
| You can love a country and still be a critical thinker.
| Just like you can love a person but be aware of their
| flaws.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| There's a golden mean between insufficient patriotism to
| defend your kin domain from an outsider whose victory
| would be genuinely worse than the current status quo, and
| insufficient self-criticism to prevent your kin domain
| from becoming worse than the current status quo through
| inertia. Navigating that kind of dichotomy can be learned
| through practice, I think the challenge in the US in
| particular is that the two political parties so associate
| the other one with one of the unhealthy extremes that the
| center has trouble holding.
| dd36 wrote:
| The US is not better or worse than an autocracy?
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| Their post is exactly the kind of non-blatant thing that
| would be used to undermine US interests on TikTok.
| whateveracct wrote:
| Any thread criticizing China on HN is full of logical
| fallacy, whataboutism, and other similar bad faith
| arguments that gum up the discussion.
|
| Contrarianism runs rampant on HN and is easily weaponized
| by bad actors.
| pozdnyshev wrote:
| plaguepilled wrote:
| There is a very relevant difference between a country which
| affords you civil rights surveiling you, and a country that
| you are not a civilian of surveiling you.
|
| Its not just about being "fine" with one surveiling you and
| not the other.
| piva00 wrote:
| So many argument threads on HN (and other discussion
| platforms) could be avoided if people understood that level
| and degree of issues matter.
|
| It seems to always start from blanket statements or false
| dichotomies where "if your country does X why are you not
| ok with C country doing X?" and completely ignoring the
| nuances in between.
| sgu999 wrote:
| And in this case it's even C country going Y.
| solumunus wrote:
| They're very clearly "better". What an insane assertion.
| Yawnzy wrote:
| Seriously. The only problem the FBI's owners have with TikTok
| is that they can't police the content
| mattgperry wrote:
| They are better though? People don't routinely go
| disappearing (at least on the same scale) and there are free
| and (mostly) fair elections. It isn't perfect but it isn't
| the same beast.
| OnlyMortal wrote:
| As a counter point, the US actively tries to hack UK security
| networks.
|
| Source: My job was to prevent that.
|
| I've no doubt we do the same to the US.
| yesSoTho wrote:
| Kukumber wrote:
| "When we look at all of these wide-ranging apps that are
| connected to Chinese firms, it's actually almost nonsensical to
| ban just one when we see platforms in areas like precision
| agriculture, communications, gaming, all connected to Chinese
| firms," she says. "So what's really important is to develop more
| robust data privacy regulations in the United States to protect
| users.
|
| TLDR:
|
| It has nothing to do with "national security concerns", it's just
| they are great competition, and the US is lagging behind, so
| banning it would mean having a chance to catchup
|
| Hence why they tried to lure them to move to their US based
| servers, so they could peek at the source code ;) ;)
|
| Because US firms are lagging behind, some stagnating and are
| greedy, therefore no competitors is allowed to do better until
| they wake up
|
| The plan is clear, another confession of defeat
| RadixDLT wrote:
| this is laughable, it's more about data collection
| Kukumber wrote:
| it's nothing about data collection
|
| a law and data collection problem is fixed
|
| the problem is: it's a Chinese company, and they do better
| than US companies
|
| it happened in the past with European companies and Japanese
| ones, also with Samsung and their chip
| Reason077 wrote:
| Besides the obvious concerns about tracking/spying, TikTok has
| great potential as a propaganda tool to gain subtle influence
| over America's youth. For example, its algorithm could be tweaked
| to elevate content that is favourable to the Chinese Communist
| Party.
| mc32 wrote:
| It would not be that blatant. They look more to add ambiguity
| and instability. They may be interested in amplifying police
| brutality in the eyes of users as well as lawlessness and
| looting simultaneously to sew discord, as an example. Or,
| spying isn't so bad, the US does it, why shouldn't China, etc.
| OscarTheGrinch wrote:
| I think their strategy is more insidious than that. Chinese
| social media inside China is actively directing youth towards
| vigorous / productive / pedagogical endeavours, whereas
| ticktock outside China heavily promotes pointless endless
| innane naval gazing such as pranking, gaming, influencers etc.
| They seek to create a generation of feckless know nothings in
| The West.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > naval gazing such as pranking, gaming, influencers etc
|
| Yes surely none of this existed in western entertainment
| before TikTok and was all concocted by the the Chinese in a
| grand conspiracy to bring down the US. At this point I'm
| trying to figure out who's better at contrived cartoon
| supervillain plans according to HN: Musk or China.
| nemo44x wrote:
| > They seek to create a generation of feckless know nothings
| in The West.
|
| We're doing that just fine on our own.
| nemothekid wrote:
| It's hard to call this a strategy when the reason TikTok
| operates the way it does in China is due to regulation.
| Instagram reels promotes the same garbage, does the CCP
| direct Meta as well? If you tried to push for the same kind
| of social media regulation in the US, the internet would shut
| down in protest.
| PheonixPharts wrote:
| > social media inside China is actively directing youth
| towards vigorous / productive / pedagogical
|
| I have a fair number of friends/relatives living in China and
| at least from what I've seen this is a pretty laughable
| claim. Very curious where you heard this from?
|
| TikTok in China is different than the US in that it is
| increasingly inundated with various "get rich quick" schemes.
| It's essentially turned into large scale social advertising
| platform where everyone is trying to pitch some angle to make
| a quick RBM.
|
| I'm sure there exist some "vigorous / productive /
| pedagogical" accounts, but there are plenty of this in the US
| as well. There are a lot of accounts in the US that focus on
| learning, exercise, getting a software job etc.
|
| Again, would love to hear your source of this information,
| especially if it's first hand experience, because based on
| the people I talk with in mainland China this comment sounds
| like a very off the mark hot take.
| somedude895 wrote:
| > ticktock outside China heavily promotes pointless endless
| innane naval gazing such as pranking, gaming, influencers
| etc.
|
| Have you ever seen the type of content that's popular on
| Instagram and Youtube? The CCP doesn't need some "insidious
| plan" to push that to the top.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| "Hey guys, it's Mr. Beast about to fight Jake Paul in a
| boxing ring made of ferraris!"
|
| The YT Algorithm is much more spammy when it comes to
| influencer content that I never click on.
|
| Whereas my Tiktok is chock full of interesting art, design,
| music, and programming.
| mc32 wrote:
| Yep, shore up your own and undermine your enemy. Promote
| strength, work ethic, and achievement at home and promote
| idleness, listlessness and parasitic attitudes for the enemy.
| dbsmith83 wrote:
| > Chinese social media inside China is actively directing
| youth towards vigorous / productive / pedagogical endeavours,
| whereas ticktock outside China heavily promotes pointless
| endless innane naval gazing such as pranking, gaming,
| influencers etc.
|
| This would be interesting if true. Do you have any sources
| for this or is it just an observation?
| dd36 wrote:
| Or by radicalizing people to try to destroy democracy.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Is there concern that other platforms could do the same thing?
| Or is biased propaganda acceptable so long as it's American in
| origin?
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| TikTok can't do anything worse than domestic
| advertising/marketing firms already do. The idea that the CCP
| wants American youth for any purpose that doesn't already align
| with American businesses--who depend on the slave-labor priced
| cheap stuff from China to sell to them--is ridiculous.
| computerfriend wrote:
| > TikTok can't do anything worse than domestic
| advertising/marketing firms already do.
|
| Can't it?
| dd36 wrote:
| China wants internal conflict that weakens the country or
| destroys democracy. Social media can be weaponized to do
| this. Foreign media ownership limits are not novel.
| scottmcleod wrote:
| This is the biggest issue; they are already controlling the
| media for large population of young Americans.
| vachina wrote:
| I wonder why when China does this it's always a bad thing.
| Isn't the inverse also true i.e. western media influencing and
| nudging narratives, except that we can actually observe this
| happening right now. Where do you stand in that case?
| uniqueuid wrote:
| This one's pretty simple: China is a totalitarian regime that
| is in direct conflict with western constitutional values. So
| if influence is aimed at democratic foundations, of course
| it's a bad thing.
| mromanuk wrote:
| Doesn't banning a social network undermine the democratic
| principles you mention?
| dd36 wrote:
| Not if it's a psy op tool of an adversary.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| Not in principle. Practically all democratic systems have
| provisions to defend against subversion of their core
| principles. Those provisions may be designed to safeguard
| institutions, processes such as elections and regulate
| information flow.
|
| It's important to remember that the US concept of "free
| speech" as an absolute right is very untypical, and that
| it also has limits due to being narrow in its scope.
|
| Of course, banning a social network _due to arbitrary or
| without reasons_ would be against democratic principles.
| But following democratic and legal principles to openly
| apply laws and procedures designed to safeguard the state
| - that 's not undermining at all, to the contrary!
| superfist wrote:
| Collapse of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in XVIII as
| form of proto-democracy can be here good case study. It
| show us how authoritarian systems can exploit democratic
| system.
| devilbunny wrote:
| No. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| Wow, thanks! I didn't know this phrase [1], but it really
| nails the concept of self-balance in constitutional
| democracies.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not
| _a_suic...
| TinkersW wrote:
| I don't see why those principles should apply to a
| foreign country with malign intentions, they aren't a
| person nor do they represent a populace given that China
| is authoritarian.
|
| The spying seems secondary to the influence they can
| wield by pushing certain stories while burying others.
| laputan_machine wrote:
| China is under the rule of the CCP, an authortarian party to
| which you cannot challenge.
|
| For all democracy's failings, for the mess the US is in, and
| rise of populist parties in Europe, it is still freedom.
| mistermann wrote:
| Does the US public have any _genuine, identifiable_
| democratic power over the FBI?
| dd36 wrote:
| Absolutely. The FBI head must be appointed by the
| President and approved by the Senate. Oversight is
| performed by Congress. He can be fired.
| mistermann wrote:
| I don't disagree that it is possible in theory, but are
| there any _substantial_ examples of initiatives genuinely
| spawned at the general public level changing policy of
| the FBI? This would be required to upgrade the binary
| (True /False) proposition from a belief to a fact... _but
| then only as a binary_ (the FBI could still be 99% beyond
| the will of the people).
| sdsd wrote:
| This is technically true, but I wonder in practice. Like,
| the King of England absolutely has the power to withhold
| consent on acts of parliament. How accountable is
| parliament to the King? But replace the King with
| Congress, and parliament with the FBI.
| angio wrote:
| Ironically, right wing parties in the EU rose thanks to
| disinformation on american social media. Following this
| discussion's logic, Facebook and Twitter should have been
| banned in the EU a long time ago.
| mc32 wrote:
| If China were pushing a WEF narrative, everything would be
| okay. Instead they have their own separate agenda that does
| not dovetail. Look at it this way, if it were Japan or
| SKorea, we would not be hearing about this from that PoV.
| That said, even if it were a purely American company, setting
| aside tracking and all that, it is not a psychological net-
| positive. It's manipulative and induces poor choices on some.
| That some is on this side of too much.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| For the record, I also think nudging in and of itself is a
| bad thing and incompatible with democracy. Henry Farrell and
| Cosma Shalizi have a great essay on that [1].
|
| [1] https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/23/cognitive-democracy/
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I mean, yes, but there's no communist bogeyman to blame, just
| our own vanities.
| rafale wrote:
| Or to shape what the youth value: science or twerking/vaping.
| lm28469 wrote:
| What is this ? China ? This is a free country, twerking and
| vaping are valid life plans !!! /s
| zug_zug wrote:
| I mean yes, that's a scary made-up scenario. I'd be in favor of
| banning the app if that made-up scenario ever becomes a non-
| made-up scenario.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Sure, but so long as any manipulations are kept subtle, it's
| hard to prove whether or not they're actually happening.
| 1995moz wrote:
| once center-left news orgs start echoing this line as well, time
| to buy Meta stock, because you know the ban is closing in.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Briefest of case studies: Anyone whose watched the rapid growth
| of antisemitic propaganda and disinformation since the 2016
| election may note 4chan/pol/ took the lead in dissemination of
| stereotypes and tropes intended to influence user thinking.
| Because there was widespread distrust of other media sources, and
| b/c /pol/ appealed to younger audiences, and b/c /pol/ developed
| a reputation for aggregating breaking news (often untrue but
| thrilling), its audience grew dramatically, to over 11m unique
| visitors per month. Fast forward to today and Kanye, Irving and
| others repeat and show /pol/ meme's as their "proof" of
| antisemetic conspiracies. Antisemetic propaganda has gone
| mainstream to the point the Jewish community is viewed by one of
| favorite comedians on SNL as a cabal suppressing AA aspirations,
| when the opposite has been true since the civil rights movement
| and the two are actually more in alignment on issues than apart.
| Tearing groups apart is geopolitics 101 and the US is losing this
| battle.
|
| ** Now multiply that by 50m daily users fed disinformation on
| whatever topic roils you and you have an idea of the scale of
| threat posed by TikTok. **
| TMWNN wrote:
| >b/c /pol/ developed a reputation for aggregating breaking news
| (often untrue but thrilling)
|
| On New Year's Eve 2015 I saw mention of the Cologne mass
| attacks on women by refugees *as they were occurring* on, yes,
| 4chan/pol/, and checked /r/worldnews and /r/europe to find out
| more. I didn't see anything and--naively, I soon realized--
| assumed that it was another /pol/ "it's _happening_ " dank
| maymayism.
|
| (Cue "/pol/ was right" couplet)
| RadixDLT wrote:
| just in time for twitter to resurrect vine
| computerfriend wrote:
| Bet they regretted shutting it down.
| [deleted]
| advisedwang wrote:
| TikTok is hitting a much broader slice of the US population, and
| getting a much broader slice of political opinions. And it's
| connecting all these people and all these opinions. You can find
| communists and nazi's on TikTok, building communities, and
| getting their voice out.
|
| The administration hates TikTok because it is potentially
| destabilizing. The FBI's concern is not that it's foreign
| influence, but that it's allowing internal movements to gain
| traction. Just as the FBI suppressed internal movements
| throughout the 20th century they want to suppress this new medium
| that may threaten the status quo.
|
| Now I don't want to see the US fall into chaos, but neither do I
| want to see a world where political change is stifled, which is
| what the FBI wants to do here.
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| Can you actually find nazis on Tiktok? I believe they have a
| pretty clear policy against hate in general which they apply
| just as liberally as for example facebook and youtube does.
| advisedwang wrote:
| TikTok's policy enforcement is pretty unreliable - sometimes
| it's very overzealous and sometimes it leaves bafflingly
| obvious stuff up. Folks on TikTok are pretty good at gaming
| it, there's lots of substitute words used and so on.
|
| You won't see people saying "I love Hitler" or something, but
| you will hear Nazi ideology rephrased.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Ever heard of "The Foundations of Geopolitics"?
|
| According to Wikipedia, the prescription for destabilizing
| America is: "Russia should use its special services within the
| borders of the United States to fuel instability and
| separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists".
| Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal
| American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and
| ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all
| dissident movements - extremist, racist, and sectarian groups,
| thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It
| would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist
| tendencies in American politics."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
| nivenkos wrote:
| I hope the EU bans Facebook, etc. in response.
| deely3 wrote:
| Why downvotes? TikTok never ever be able to trace visitors
| across multiple sites as Facebook or Google.
| luckylion wrote:
| The US can probably replace TikTok with something "homegrown"
| that's sufficiently like TikTok that people will be happy to
| use it once it becomes widely adopted. What could replace
| Facebook, TikTok etc in Europe? Do we just shut down the
| internet because it's run by third parties who don't have our
| best interests at heart?
| deely3 wrote:
| Strange arguments. Why do we need to replace Facebook,
| TikTok? No need to shut down, just block malicious sites,
| thats all.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| > The US can probably replace TikTok with something
| "homegrown"
|
| You say that, yet Instagram, Twitter(1), YouTube who have all
| tried so far have all failed.
|
| (1): You're probably reading this and saying "What? not they
| haven't", well open a video on Twitter then swipe it up off
| the screen, you're now in TwitTok.
| sdsd wrote:
| >You say that, yet Instagram, Twitter(1), YouTube who have
| all tried so far have all failed.
|
| Youtube Shorts didn't fail, they're actually way better
| than TikTok and are doing well. Instagram Reels are
| basically a flop, but Shorts are freaking addictive. I
| tried using TikTok a while ago after all the praise on HN
| for its magical recommendation algorithm. After trying to
| get the algorithm to give me anything interesting for an
| hour, I gave up. Youtube Shorts on the other hand is like
| crack. It's way better than YT's "normal" recommendation
| algorithm.
|
| I recommend it if you haven't tried
| luckylion wrote:
| Sure, but that's with TikTok still around. Outlaw TikTok
| (essentially killing it), and there's no more stickyness
| keeping people from doing their dances on YT Shorts or
| whatever alternative would win.
| sylware wrote:
| linkedin database too pal.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Remember when the previous administration tried to do this and
| was called racist and stupid for it? What changed?
| karp773 wrote:
| The very fact that not a single western social network is
| permitted to operate in China is a sufficient reason to ban
| TikTok in America.
| max51 wrote:
| If you don't like the chinese government, why do you want yours
| to imitate them?!
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| In this thread: people who don't understand the value of free
| trade agreements.
|
| We should just open up everything and hope everyone plays
| fair!
| pessimizer wrote:
| "Free trade agreement" is a propaganda term for "trade
| agreement." It doesn't have a separate definition.
| not1ofU wrote:
| I've heard an apt anology; "its a reverse opium war"
| nateburke wrote:
| Remember when we tried?
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/world/asia/mark-zuckerber...
| est wrote:
| > not a single western social network
|
| You are wrong. Myspace works fine in China.
| samatman wrote:
| This is, rather, evidence (as though we needed it) that
| Myspace isn't a social network.
| est wrote:
| Explain Linkedin.com then? It also works 100% well in
| China.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| You can't commit corporate espionage against US companies
| without getting a job first.
| computerfriend wrote:
| It's shut down.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58911297
| est wrote:
| The abomination Linkedin.cn (force redirects, ads, bloat
| features) was shutdown but Linkedin.com is always
| accessible.
| computerfriend wrote:
| I don't believe this is correct.
| [deleted]
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| Tit for tat strategy in game theory:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
| uniqueuid wrote:
| That argument makes no sense, because we do not want to mirror
| other countries.
|
| Instead, there are substantial arguments about freedom of
| speech and accountability. Even though they are messy, they are
| what we need to apply here because they are a legally binding
| framework that we built over decades.
|
| By the way, I found Levitski and Ziblatt's book "How
| Democracies Die" [1] a pretty good treatment of these issues of
| balancing freedom of expression and democratic resilience.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Democracies_Die
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| How does freedom of speech or more specifically the first
| amendment apply to a foreign owned and operated platform? If
| you reframed it as something else would it be different in
| your mind? Say, you had a foreign news service that employed
| American citizens to read news that was perhaps even sourced
| in part from American reporters but they editorialized it so
| that it always favored their side and belittled the American
| side. Would it be unconstitutional to forbid this entity to
| operate within the US?
| gsk22 wrote:
| Sounds like you're describing RT America, which operated
| unimpeded until fiscal realities forced it to withdraw from
| the country. Was it a scummy network? Yes. Was it protected
| by 1A? Also yes.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| Ah 'fiscal realities' like 'unforeseen business
| interruption events' right? Gotta smooth things over when
| you can't just straight up seize assets.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57570044
| fhrow4484 wrote:
| > That argument makes no sense, because we do not want to
| mirror other countries.
|
| Tit-for-tat is literally how agreements around the world
| works.
|
| "Reciprocity treaty" if you want to make it fancy sounding,
| but it's just "tit-for-tat" for Taxes, Tariffs, Visitor visa
| & rules, etc.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I would make it as a free trade argument.
|
| Trade is a 2 way street, if our companies can not compete
| there, then their companies should not be able to compete
| here.
| angio wrote:
| American companies are allowed to operate in China, as long
| as they follow local regulation. If TikTok behaviour is
| concerning (it is, like google/facebook/etc are also
| concerning), then introduce regulations that protect users'
| privacy and only then ban TikTok.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| The local regulation is to parter with a Chinese company
| to operate the service. Giving that company a substantial
| percentage of revenue.
| p0pcult wrote:
| And the ability for government/regulatory oversight.
| mizzao wrote:
| And the ability to steal a substantial amount of your IP
| and start a copycat across the street.
| mountainb wrote:
| Not really... you are out in left field here. The fundamental
| rule of international trade regulation is reciprocity within
| classes of goods and services. It flies in the face of basic
| WTO principles to allow one partner to ban a whole host of
| services without reciprocal penalties. In practice, this sort
| of reciprocity gets broken all the time, but it doesn't make
| sense to say "we don't want to mirror other countries" when
| in trade policy, mirroring is a basic mandate of the WTO
| framework.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| Sorry but you're ignoring media regulation here, which is a
| completely domestic playbook and for the most part
| explicitly carved out of trade agreements.
|
| For protection of domestic civic society, culture and
| public opinion, trade agreements are irrelevant. That's how
| the french got to keep their quota for french-language
| music in broadcasting, for example.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| Oh so our current owners are concerned that they might lose
| control of the culture to some new foreign owners? If I believed
| that the US security state was there to protect the American
| people I might be more concerned, as it stands this is just a
| changing of the guard for who will be our technocratic
| authoritarian overlords, and I can't be plotzed to care.
| yur3i__ wrote:
| Thinking this change of "technocratic authoritarian overlords"
| is as much of a non-event as you seem to or that the Chinese
| level of control over the citzenry is equivalent to that of the
| USA is a crazy level of naivety that I can't even begin to
| unpack
| andrewclunn wrote:
| Oh the Chinese are far worse at oppressing their own people,
| but the US seems to do a much better job of abusing foreign
| nations. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
| squarefoot wrote:
| I can't imagine their reaction when they discover that so many IP
| cameras/NVR/DVR have been and still are being used as
| surveillance devices, and in some cases they have been hacked to
| either phone home (China?) video feeds, or as botnet hosts.
|
| https://hacked.camera/
|
| http://www.insecam.org/en/
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Or when they discover most of the technology equipment and
| chips they buy are made in China, including common networking
| equipment like routers that require cloud login to manage.
| p0pcult wrote:
| This is a very different threat vector. None of the examples
| you or the parent commenter have cited enable
| influence/propaganda/mis- or dis-info/psyops.
| bobcattz wrote:
| influence peoples mind and hack their brains
| lizardactivist wrote:
| But the US was happy to force TikTok to share all that juicy data
| for the last few years.
|
| They simply cannot accept that TikTok is the biggest wonder in
| the history of apps, and it's not _theirs_.
| par wrote:
| I agree with the feds on this, but will they actually do
| anything?
| hnrodey wrote:
| Trump: TikTok is a national security threat!
|
| America: XENOPHOBE!
|
| Biden: TikTok is a national security threat.
|
| America: SHUT IT DOWN!
| plgonzalezrx8 wrote:
| Call me whatever you want, but Trump had a LOT of things right.
| He was just massively inarticulate and his persona made it easy
| for people to disagree with him. But yeah, he tried to shut it
| down and the democrats just reverted everything just to say
| they reverted something trump did.
|
| This report is nothing new and it has been known for a long
| time.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-reverses-...
| wollsmoth wrote:
| I wasn't necessarily opposed to his call for that. But the
| whole idea of somehow segmenting the app in a way that would
| somehow make tiktok better for us seemed kinda impractical.
| Just ban it or don't. If we ban it someone will make a clone
| in the west, or IG reels will just take over.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Collective madness. Also, it's hysterical that there are
| literally bleach-drinking challenges on TikTok.
| rvz wrote:
| This is true. However:
|
| This investigation into TikTok happened before Trump wanted the
| ban. [0][1] But the media just brainwashed a narrative to
| people who don't research because it came from his mouth at the
| ridiculous height of 2020.
|
| Just look at the TikTok fanatics back then defending and being
| in denial here after Trump wanted it banned on the same
| national security grounds [2]. Two years later under Biden, NOW
| is the time they also want to ban it?
|
| Lots of people have just been manipulated by the media and the
| news again for political gain, as expected. I brought that up
| at the time and was immediately flagged.
|
| Perhaps it's because it was true, against the herd.
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tiktok-cfius-exclusive-
| id...
|
| [1] https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cotton-
| sch...
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24611558
|
| [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24612012
| hnrodey wrote:
| agree, on all counts
| bbzealot wrote:
| You're claiming that a relevant amount of Americans accused
| Trump of being Xenophobe due to his remarks on TikTok.
|
| Do you have any source to back that claim?
| hnrodey wrote:
| Your google works the same as mine.
| zthrowaway wrote:
| - https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/trump-tiktok-
| ban...
|
| - https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/7/23/21334871/tiktok-
| ban-...
|
| - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/08/10/banning-
| ti...
|
| - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/can-the-trump-
| admini...
|
| - https://www.wired.com/story/trump-tiktok-drama-security-
| dist...
|
| There's plenty more.
|
| Look at previous threads about Trump wanting to ban TikTok on
| hackernews and reddit.
|
| Source: Being online and/or watching TV for the past 4
| years...
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Only the Inquirer and Washington post pieces said Trump was
| going to ban TikTok because of racism/xenophobia; and those
| were both published in the editorial sections. Is that the
| best you got?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| God the whataboutism that pops up everytime tiktok is discussed
| is suffocating.
|
| Some people are just so desperately trying to divert attention
| away from it and others are trying to hijack the movement to make
| it into some kind of constitutional level privacy reform.
|
| Tiktok can die, everything will be fine, and then we can focus on
| our own issues here.
| allisdust wrote:
| I just don't understand how people can't see the threat. All
| you have to do is keep showing bad news videos about inflation,
| crime rate, illegal immigration to turn population against the
| government subtly mixed with normal videos. They can also
| pacify people by subtly mixing good news videos. And anyone who
| thinks people aren't so easily gamed don't understand people.
| This is like cnn and fox news on steroids. One continuous drip
| of emotions fed by a foreign adversary.
| deeblering4 wrote:
| TikTok as-is presents a massive attack surface for
| (d|m)information and worse. And the version available in the US
| is highly addictive with numerous bubble creating feedback loops.
| The amount of engagement and time spent on the app is incredible.
|
| The creators know this and provide an alternate version called
| Douyin used domestically which optimizes for educational content
| and has additional rules/safeguards
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58625934
|
| I don't want to harp on which country has which political motive,
| but it's pretty cut and dry to see that the service owners export
| something very different than what is presented domestically.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Compelling news story, but is there a less-tabloid source? In
| my cursory Googling, I haven't been able to find anything.
| Murdoch-owned media is pretty low in my
| trustworthiness/objectivity rankings.
| rasz wrote:
| Here you go https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/xl/tiktok-doesn_t-
| show-the-wa...
| bruckie wrote:
| Was the original edited? It currently points to BBC, which is
| not Murdoch-owned.
| p0pcult wrote:
| The original pointed to the NY Post.
| scottmcleod wrote:
| No kidding...
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| The Chinese government is hilariously bad at foreign propaganda.
| Seriously, just look at any of their official media channels. The
| US has a million times more experience in this business - it has
| Hollywood, it funds thousands of "non-governmental organizations"
| all over the world, it knows how to advertise.
|
| The people who are worried that 15-second videos on TikTok are
| somehow part of a long-term plan by the Chinese government to
| subtly change Americans' opinions are giving the Chinese
| government far too much credit.
| kube-system wrote:
| Or is it genius? If your content sucks, let others generate it,
| measure traction, then influence what voices you want heard.
|
| Now, it likely wasn't planned out this way, but the benefits to
| manipulation now are obvious.
| p0pcult wrote:
| A recent tiktok trend hitting my city and others seems to be
| calling in/airdropping/swatting/posting active shooter threats at
| local schools. So far, this has shut down my kid's school several
| times this year.
|
| TikTok gets to be the vector for this new scale of virality,
| America loses future economic competitiveness. Who is the winner
| in this scenario?
|
| https://www.spieltimes.com/news/what-is-tiktoks-active-shoot...
| https://www.thedailybeast.com/tiktok-shooting-challenge-seen...
| https://wpde.com/news/local/rcsd-at-blythewood-high-school-a...
| zug_zug wrote:
| What's the connection to China?
|
| Is there a belief that China was slower at removing these
| videos that an American firm would be? Because that's the
| substantive question.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Well, aside from:
|
| The opacity of the algorithm, plus the degree to which the
| content is auto-curated;
|
| the asymmetrical content optimization in exported and
| domestic versions;
|
| the time-limits imposed on domestic, but not international
| youth users;
|
| the government-business-CCP nexus in china, partial
| government ownership of TT, and the human rights record of
| the CCP;
|
| the refusal to allow western social media and news into
| China;
|
| I dunno, not much?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The Chinese government owns tiktok. The algorithm that
| decides what videos americans will consume is signed off on
| by the Chinese government.
|
| That is an enormous national security threat.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > The Chinese government owns tiktok
|
| Only figuratively in the hacker/gamer sense. TikTok is
| owned by ByteSense.
|
| The "TikTok can be used to spy on americans" is much like
| "Russians interfered in our elections". Both are true, both
| are legitimately very concerning, but both are also things
| that the USA has been doing for decades with minimal
| domestic outcry.
|
| So implicit in our attempts to reign in other countries
| behavior is that other countries should be attempting to
| reign in ours. If these are behaviors we think the world
| would be better off without, the best place to reign in
| that behavior is by starting with our own government.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| >Only figuratively in the hacker/gamer sense. TikTok is
| owned by ByteSense.
|
| No, in the very literal sense that Bytedance has a board
| of directors, and on that board is a CCP member who has
| the real final say on everything the company does. When
| you are a business in China, you defacto work for the
| government.
|
| China isn't America with a red flag, it's a fundamentally
| different system. Too many people think they know China
| because they understand America.
|
| If Biden wants instagram showing people pictures of
| ponies, it simply isn't going to happen. If Xi wants
| tiktok to show people ponies, the next day every kid in
| america will be looking at ponies.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > No, in the very literal sense that Bytedance has a
| board of directors, and on that board is a CCP member who
| has the real final say on everything the company does.
| When you are a business in China, you defacto work for
| the government.
|
| Would you say the same thing if they employed CIA and NSA
| people in executive positions, and had ex-generals and
| ex-spooks on the board?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| No. A CIA agent might have ulterior motives being on a
| board, but they are just another board member (I also
| doubt many board members are secretly CIA).
|
| Every company in China however answers directly to the
| part, and every board has a party member on it, who holds
| 100% of the voting power.
|
| There really isn't a comparison to be made.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > No, in the very literal sense that Bytedance has a
| board of directors,
|
| The board of directors of a company are not generally
| owners.
|
| > and on that board is a CCP member who has the real
| final say on everything the company does
|
| Which is why it's figuratively true in the "pwn" sense,
| but not literally true.
|
| Wording matters, and so does getting the facts right.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| No, it is literally true that every company has a party
| member they must answer too. Whether its a board member
| or a local party representative.
|
| There is no business autonomy with a court to settle
| differences. The party wants it, the party gets it. Full
| Stop.
|
| >The board of directors of a company are not generally
| owners.
|
| Like I said, China is not America. On Chinese Boards sits
| a party member who has absolute control. China doesn't
| care what function American boards typically serve.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > No, it is literally true that every company has a party
| member they must answer too. Whether its a board member
| or a local party representative.
|
| Which still doesn't make it literally true that: "The
| Chinese government owns tiktok", (unless, in addition to
| using "own" figuratively you are also using "literal" in
| the now common sense that actually means "figurative").
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| We're not talking about America. _Chinese companies are
| defacto arms of the chinese government. It 's a communist
| country. Any sense of private ownership is just a sense,
| it doesn't really exist._
|
| I don't know how many times we have to go in this circle
| until we get through that dense skull. If you think you
| understand Chinese business because you understand
| western business - you don't.
| p0pcult wrote:
| As has been stated voluminously elsewhere in this comment
| section, and better by others than my attempt here: we
| have a (quasi-?)democratic apparatus and constitutional
| framework that governs our country's use of this power.
|
| Does China or Russia allow for those kinds of tools for
| holding government accountable? Not as far as I can tell.
|
| Therein lies a massive difference in kind.
| LexGray wrote:
| The main connection I believe is exploiting xenophobia with
| he goal of internet gatekeeping. There are always those wary
| of outside influences destroying local culture.
|
| Still, even if they are the best at removing videos, they are
| also the best at breeding new issues which go viral before
| they are even recognized as a threat and siloing that content
| so only people vulnerable are exposed. A second possibility
| is that they may be creating a forum of disruptive content on
| purpose to keep people distracted with local issues.
| Additionally there are foreign agents, trolls acting from
| patriotic intent or even those who are paid, seeking to
| encourage problem activity or create anti-government
| movements.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Interesting point, but if the goal is a balkanized
| internet, and the means is exploiting xenophobia, doesn't
| that implicity prove that China is adept enough at using
| TikTok to stoke racial animus to justify the shutting down
| of TikTok?
| onetimeusename wrote:
| that's interesting. Reminds me of other social media sites
| where there used to be bomb threats and such. TikTok is clearly
| kind of the wild west of the internet right now. It still has
| human moderation which people deliberately game and so far the
| leadership has evaded public scrutiny.
|
| I have seen other destructive trends happen on TikTok too. I
| don't know if it is good the things people do to get more
| followers. The minimum age is 13. It seems like TikTok has a
| lot of unmoderated content, dangerous trends, and the path to
| gaining a lot of followers, seems morally grey too.
|
| I can see how TikTok can shape society. Look at how college
| athletes can earn money on it and promote themselves. Imagine
| if universities began to recruit athletes with higher TikTok
| earnings potential and then modify the sport to appeal to that
| market more. Yes, I am being vague deliberately. It's probably
| worth asking what effects TikTok has on people.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-18 23:02 UTC)