Study: TikTok Global Platform Anomalies Align with CCP Geostrategic Objectives [pdf](networkcontagion.us)
networkcontagion.us
Study: TikTok Global Platform Anomalies Align with CCP Geostrategic Objectives [pdf]
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf
245 comments
> Overall, this report just seems like fodder for the anti-TikTok crowd,
Can confirm, I do belong to that crowd and I did share it after reading it. An hour later, it dawned on me that this report is maybe kinda cool, but really isn't enough to draw any conclusions from and I should not have shared it.
Can confirm, I do belong to that crowd and I did share it after reading it. An hour later, it dawned on me that this report is maybe kinda cool, but really isn't enough to draw any conclusions from and I should not have shared it.
Totally. But it still makes front page of HN. It will get shared. Most will read just the title. Confirmation bias of echo chamber.
So much bs in western msm propoganda. Do yourself a favour in 2024. Open your eyes. Read widely. Apply logic. Don't believe everything that is force fed down your mouth.
So much bs in western msm propoganda. Do yourself a favour in 2024. Open your eyes. Read widely. Apply logic. Don't believe everything that is force fed down your mouth.
Sure because there isn't any Chinese propaganda specially on western media because they aren't they rival. Literally no evidence.
Please do yourself a favor in 2024. Open your eyes. Read widely. Apply logic. There is a geopolitical clash between various players and propaganda is one of the weapons. If you truly believe that there is a western propaganda but not the Chinese one or any other then you are just hypocrite, ignorant or bad actor.
Your comment seemed little bit offensive so sorry if I didn't get it's sentiment correctly. But ignoring this fact and using one phony study as a counter argument that it's all bs and propaganda does not exist is bizzare.
Please do yourself a favor in 2024. Open your eyes. Read widely. Apply logic. There is a geopolitical clash between various players and propaganda is one of the weapons. If you truly believe that there is a western propaganda but not the Chinese one or any other then you are just hypocrite, ignorant or bad actor.
Your comment seemed little bit offensive so sorry if I didn't get it's sentiment correctly. But ignoring this fact and using one phony study as a counter argument that it's all bs and propaganda does not exist is bizzare.
And that’s why it’s being posted as a white paper, not an academic paper. No peer review required!
> No explanation of how the hashtags were determined.
> Our presentation of data starts with Uyghurs and Tiananmen Square because those were two topics specifically called out at the March 2023 Congressional hearings, and TikTok’s CEO explicitly denied that in either case were posts on those topics suppressed or in any way demoted on the platform
> Our presentation of data starts with Uyghurs and Tiananmen Square because those were two topics specifically called out at the March 2023 Congressional hearings, and TikTok’s CEO explicitly denied that in either case were posts on those topics suppressed or in any way demoted on the platform
The Chinese-sensitive political hashtags are somewhat straightforward (they are topics that one would expect the state to be sensitive to), but there should still be a systematic procedure for choosing them to avoid biased sampling and post-hoc comparisons. The problem is more apparent with the controls: where do they come from? How were they chosen? Without this information there is no way to determine whether the categories are truly representative and whether the sensitive topics are really unique.
The fact that they are using Instagram as a control in the study is hilarious. The standards in these universities are laughable.
One does not necessarily follow from the other.
Reposting my comment from the previous discussion that didn't get quite so active: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736001
Their methodology (comparing hashtag counts) does not make sense for detecting whether content is systematically promoted and demoted to fit some agenda. I can make one video, have it artificially promoted to reach a million viewers, and that's a hashtag increment of 1. Or I can make ten videos that are all unfairly demoted and therefore barely get any views, and that's a hashtag increment of 10.
The discrepancy for Kashmir-related hashtags makes me think there are a lot of Pakistanis on TikTok who never use Instagram...
Their methodology (comparing hashtag counts) does not make sense for detecting whether content is systematically promoted and demoted to fit some agenda. I can make one video, have it artificially promoted to reach a million viewers, and that's a hashtag increment of 1. Or I can make ten videos that are all unfairly demoted and therefore barely get any views, and that's a hashtag increment of 10.
The discrepancy for Kashmir-related hashtags makes me think there are a lot of Pakistanis on TikTok who never use Instagram...
That's right, to a first degree, it just seems to be differences in user bases. There may well be nudging going on, but it's hard to discern and would require more complex econometric models.
Of course it's possible that users self-select: those who are pro-Tibet won't post on TikTok as they know that content won't work there.
Would be good to compare other western platforms: is there similar discrepancy between Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon? I'm sure there will be some discrepancies.
Of course it's possible that users self-select: those who are pro-Tibet won't post on TikTok as they know that content won't work there.
Would be good to compare other western platforms: is there similar discrepancy between Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon? I'm sure there will be some discrepancies.
> The discrepancy for Kashmir-related hashtags makes me think there are a lot of Pakistanis on TikTok who never use Instagram...
Also, India banned TikTok, so there's no Indian TikTok accounts pushing alternative viewpoints/hashtags. It's not hard to imagine how that might have led to the observed results, and it's a little odd that ctrl+F-ing "India" produced no result in that report.
Also, India banned TikTok, so there's no Indian TikTok accounts pushing alternative viewpoints/hashtags. It's not hard to imagine how that might have led to the observed results, and it's a little odd that ctrl+F-ing "India" produced no result in that report.
Article states:
> ... we replicated TikTok’s own methodology used in its November 13, 2023 letter.
So Tiktok's own methodology doesn't make sense? Goes on to say:
> NCRI analysts examined the volume of posts on TikTok by hashtag, using the platform’s own ads manager portal. We performed the same analysis using Instagram’s explore feature.
Are your 10 shitty videos aren't going to show up on the ad manager portal?
> ... we replicated TikTok’s own methodology used in its November 13, 2023 letter.
So Tiktok's own methodology doesn't make sense? Goes on to say:
> NCRI analysts examined the volume of posts on TikTok by hashtag, using the platform’s own ads manager portal. We performed the same analysis using Instagram’s explore feature.
Are your 10 shitty videos aren't going to show up on the ad manager portal?
The referenced letter by TikTok https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/the-truth-about-tiktok-has... contained this caveat:
> In addition, the number of videos associated with a hashtag, alone, do not provide sufficient context. For example, the hashtag #standwithIsrael may be associated with fewer videos than #freePalestine, but it has 68% more views per video in the US, which means more people are seeing the content. And, some hashtags are newer (e.g. #standwithIsrael) while others are more established (e.g. #freePalestine)–the vast majority (9 in 10) of videos tagged #standwithIsrael were posted in the last 30 days in the US. A difference in views and posts is expected.
I would assume that my 10 shitty videos (fyi they're actually very good, just unfairly withheld from viewers) would nonetheless show up in the "number of posts with this hashtag" provided by TikTok's ad manager portal, but I haven't tested this.
> In addition, the number of videos associated with a hashtag, alone, do not provide sufficient context. For example, the hashtag #standwithIsrael may be associated with fewer videos than #freePalestine, but it has 68% more views per video in the US, which means more people are seeing the content. And, some hashtags are newer (e.g. #standwithIsrael) while others are more established (e.g. #freePalestine)–the vast majority (9 in 10) of videos tagged #standwithIsrael were posted in the last 30 days in the US. A difference in views and posts is expected.
I would assume that my 10 shitty videos (fyi they're actually very good, just unfairly withheld from viewers) would nonetheless show up in the "number of posts with this hashtag" provided by TikTok's ad manager portal, but I haven't tested this.
Alternatively, Instagram is heavily amplifying the hashtags supposedly suppressed on TikTok, and suppressing the hashtags supposedly amplified on TikTok. You can literally turn the table and use the exact same report as “evidence” of Instagram pushing American geostrategic objectives. More realistically, it’s probably a product of both. We already know Palestine-related hashtags are heavily suppressed on Meta properties.
People are now testing twitter(x)..
You get instantly tagged and suppressed when you tweet "fck Israel".
But tweets like fck muslims, christians, etc don't get tagged.
So much for musk calling out other social media network for inhibiting freedom of speech for his camp.
So much for musk calling out other social media network for inhibiting freedom of speech for his camp.
I don’t know whether Twitter was suppressing anti-Israel content back when Musk was personally criticizing Israel. But after he went to meet with Netanyahu alongside Blinken (? I can’t recall) and made completely opposite remarks, this is fully expected.
Why are people still arguing like twitter has something to do with free speech. It’s the personal shitshow of a propaganda apparatus by a maniac with way to much power by means of aggressive marketing.
I’d like to see how pro Palestinian versus pro Israeli messaging occurs in traditional main stream news. I think I’ve been seeing pro Palestinian messaging being promoted much more from them and pro Israeli being demoted (more like omitted). This editorializion makes it hard to get a factual view about what’s going on.
The thing is, one side has seen a loss of life measuring around 20,000 in the past couple months and the other side less than 2,000. So this kind of flattening of "pro-Palestinian vs pro-Israeli" obscures the reality of the situation.
Concerns about "factual views" are orthogonal to which side is getting more press. It is likely (increasingly so, considering the number of times Israel has had to walk back serious claims like the alleged Hamas command center under al-Shifa hospital) that the facts do not support the Israeli narrative and that the level of presence of those claims in the current discourse have come to reflect the news media's skepticism of such claims.
Concerns about "factual views" are orthogonal to which side is getting more press. It is likely (increasingly so, considering the number of times Israel has had to walk back serious claims like the alleged Hamas command center under al-Shifa hospital) that the facts do not support the Israeli narrative and that the level of presence of those claims in the current discourse have come to reflect the news media's skepticism of such claims.
I don't disagree and believe Israel's response is a mistake that is going to backfire, but would like to point out this numbers game people play is not actually that strong argument at all. When the allies invaded Germany a LOT of innocent civilians were killed. It was flattened to destroy the Nazi regime.
You don't see moral outcry over the numbers of German civilians killed. Let's not forget: about 30k Palestinian civilians have been killed in the past 2 decades. During WW2 - a much shorter time period - about half a million (350-500 fucking thousand) civilian Germans were killed, mostly by bombs.
Why is that? Because how murders occur and what kind of evil you're dealing with matters. Not just numbers. I'm nonetheless sympathetic to the view that without the deaths in WW2 we would have seen more deaths because the Nazis were just that evil. Same goes for Hamas. So even if we are just talking numbers consider how many Palestinians (who mostly hate Hamas I might add) we would save long-term if Hamas were eradicated.
That's one thing. Other thing:
I'd pick being an oppressed Palestinian fearing for my life from bombs any day of the week than a hippy that is going about my ordinary day all of a sudden to have jihadists murder my whole family in front of me in my home with their own hands.
Both terrible, one is clearly worse and would continue to be worse even if it were Zionists doing it to Palestinians. This is why Netanyahu admiring a Zionist terrorist is so terrifying. It isn't how many Palestinians he killed, it is how he did it and what motivated him that makes Netanyahu appear so obviously morally monstrous because of his admiration.
You don't see moral outcry over the numbers of German civilians killed. Let's not forget: about 30k Palestinian civilians have been killed in the past 2 decades. During WW2 - a much shorter time period - about half a million (350-500 fucking thousand) civilian Germans were killed, mostly by bombs.
Why is that? Because how murders occur and what kind of evil you're dealing with matters. Not just numbers. I'm nonetheless sympathetic to the view that without the deaths in WW2 we would have seen more deaths because the Nazis were just that evil. Same goes for Hamas. So even if we are just talking numbers consider how many Palestinians (who mostly hate Hamas I might add) we would save long-term if Hamas were eradicated.
That's one thing. Other thing:
I'd pick being an oppressed Palestinian fearing for my life from bombs any day of the week than a hippy that is going about my ordinary day all of a sudden to have jihadists murder my whole family in front of me in my home with their own hands.
Both terrible, one is clearly worse and would continue to be worse even if it were Zionists doing it to Palestinians. This is why Netanyahu admiring a Zionist terrorist is so terrifying. It isn't how many Palestinians he killed, it is how he did it and what motivated him that makes Netanyahu appear so obviously morally monstrous because of his admiration.
who cares about casualty numbers when one side initiated it by killing civilians? Israel has license to kill every single one of them until the hostage taking, rockets and murders stop. Israel didn't initiate this. Palestine did. They did so knowing this would be Israel's response. This blood is on the hands of the Palestinian leadership's intentional strategy.
Don't want your people to die? Don't organize massacres of civilians. Real easy. If your government organizes such a massacre, I'm sorry but your life is forfeit. Maybe vote differently next time.
Casualty counts are irrelevant if we aren't looking at who the casualties are and who started what.
Don't want your people to die? Don't organize massacres of civilians. Real easy. If your government organizes such a massacre, I'm sorry but your life is forfeit. Maybe vote differently next time.
Casualty counts are irrelevant if we aren't looking at who the casualties are and who started what.
Your arguments imply that you also believe Palestinians have the right to retaliate against innocent civilians because of Israel's actions. IDF regularly takes hostages (calling them "criminals" doesn't change material realities), murders extrajudicially, etc. By your reasoning Hamas was acting in morally righteous ways. History didn't begin on October 7, 2023.
> History didn't begin on October 7, 2023.
That's right, it began in 642 CE ;)
That's right, it began in 642 CE ;)
>one side initiated it by killing civilians?
What an asinine argument. 5 minutes on Google and you would not even be able to tell which side you yourself are talking about. Started it? When? This time? Last time? 20 years ago? No matter which side you support, you have lost the argument when you cherry-pick the two minutes of history that you deem most important. The fact is one side kills a lot more innocent civilians than the other side, and it is the same side that have the best weaponry to actually avoid civilian casualties.
>Casualty counts are irrelevant if we aren't looking at who the casualties are and who started what.
You seem to point out that your own argument is completely irrelevant, as you do neither of those things. History didn't start a few months ago.
What an asinine argument. 5 minutes on Google and you would not even be able to tell which side you yourself are talking about. Started it? When? This time? Last time? 20 years ago? No matter which side you support, you have lost the argument when you cherry-pick the two minutes of history that you deem most important. The fact is one side kills a lot more innocent civilians than the other side, and it is the same side that have the best weaponry to actually avoid civilian casualties.
>Casualty counts are irrelevant if we aren't looking at who the casualties are and who started what.
You seem to point out that your own argument is completely irrelevant, as you do neither of those things. History didn't start a few months ago.
Odd to see a person just openly advocating genocide like that's a cool thing to do
There’s literally an article about that on front page a couple hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38745673
I'm a heavy TikTok user (entirely scrolling the For You page) and can't think of any Israel or Palestine related videos I've seen. If there's any CCP propaganda I see in my feed, it is in the form of efficient Chinese factory and farm worker montages.
The kind of content you describe is exactly the most insidious and effective "propaganda". Obviously, any given piece of content like that is not propaganda and probably wasn't produced for that purpose in the first place.
But what else do you call it when (if) TikTok makes it 5% more likely you see efficient factories and farm workers in China, and 5% more likely you see the tide pod challenge or whatever dumb self destructive behavior in the US? Such a thing is almost impossible to prove or disprove, yet it would be shocking if the CCP wasn't doing this, considering they do exactly this to their own population.
But what else do you call it when (if) TikTok makes it 5% more likely you see efficient factories and farm workers in China, and 5% more likely you see the tide pod challenge or whatever dumb self destructive behavior in the US? Such a thing is almost impossible to prove or disprove, yet it would be shocking if the CCP wasn't doing this, considering they do exactly this to their own population.
As a heavy user of tiktok, most of these claims are anecdotal, and people just see what they want to see. Liziqi[0] has 18M subscribers on YouTube and seems to be far more effective of "soft propoganada" than anything I've seen on TikTok.
Twitter and Instagram Reels is far worse at surfacing destructive trends, it seems like a misstep for the CCP to try and push TikTok in this way when our own homemade companies are more than capable of doing it themselves. Between TikTok and IG, only one of them has a "STEM" feed; and it's unclear why its the CCP trying to push more US kids into STEM.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/@cnliziqi/videos
Twitter and Instagram Reels is far worse at surfacing destructive trends, it seems like a misstep for the CCP to try and push TikTok in this way when our own homemade companies are more than capable of doing it themselves. Between TikTok and IG, only one of them has a "STEM" feed; and it's unclear why its the CCP trying to push more US kids into STEM.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/@cnliziqi/videos
> Between TikTok and IG, only one of them has a "STEM" feed; and it's unclear why its the CCP trying to push more US kids into STEM.
It's very simple: Chinese — including but not limited to the CCP — value education, especially in science and technology.
Things make a more sense if people stop looking for nefarious reasons behind everything and stop looking at China as some sort of world-devouring boogeyman.
I'm Chinese.
It's very simple: Chinese — including but not limited to the CCP — value education, especially in science and technology.
Things make a more sense if people stop looking for nefarious reasons behind everything and stop looking at China as some sort of world-devouring boogeyman.
I'm Chinese.
China rhetoric is very concerning. As the old saying goes, when people tell you who they are, believe them.
If you have not seen any video about such a prominent and important topic, then that speaks for itself. Keep the users in the happy zone, don't shake them awake from the illusion of a peaceful well functioning world of consumption.
Slogans sound fun, but realistically TikTok is just very good at giving you content you're interested in.
If they don't care for this kind of content, they simply won't see it. It's the same the other way around.
If they don't care for this kind of content, they simply won't see it. It's the same the other way around.
> realistically TikTok is just very good at giving you content you're interested in.
And nothing else? Show me the data.
The problem is that it feels like they just show users what they want, that there are no thumbs on the scale, but then they hide the scale! There is no transparency.
And nothing else? Show me the data.
The problem is that it feels like they just show users what they want, that there are no thumbs on the scale, but then they hide the scale! There is no transparency.
> that there are no thumbs on the scale, but then they hide the scale!
Thumbs are for boomers. Either you watch it, or you keep scrolling. Of course the scale is hidden, it only messes up the UX, basically like exposed wiring
> And nothing else? Show me the data.
Well then do your own research and see if it's any different from my empirical evidence. Why play a guessing game?
> There is no transparency.
There never is for a product.
Thumbs are for boomers. Either you watch it, or you keep scrolling. Of course the scale is hidden, it only messes up the UX, basically like exposed wiring
> And nothing else? Show me the data.
Well then do your own research and see if it's any different from my empirical evidence. Why play a guessing game?
> There is no transparency.
There never is for a product.
That reads an awful lot like a "Guilty until proven innocent because China" argument.
>There is no transparency.
Hey Google! What is Project Texas?
>There is no transparency.
Hey Google! What is Project Texas?
Not at all. The article is about TikTok but all algo feeds could use more transparency.
>then that speaks for itself
What is it saying, then? Are you saying TikTok is doing Good Stuff (aka propaganda) for the US government and other western governments? Because that sounds an awful lot like doing what those governments would want TikTok to do, and the opposite of what TikTok gets accused of doing.
What is it saying, then? Are you saying TikTok is doing Good Stuff (aka propaganda) for the US government and other western governments? Because that sounds an awful lot like doing what those governments would want TikTok to do, and the opposite of what TikTok gets accused of doing.
It's almost as if tiktok isn't a news site (at least not primarily).
> can't think of any Israel or Palestine related videos I've seen
That's probably one of the reasons why tiktok is being criticised so heavily; that's where they want everyone looking right now, anything that detracts from that is problematic.
The fact that almost all other social media outlets are wall to wall algorithmically pushed hysteria on this topic should perhaps give you a clue. Even here, where political threads are usually promptly removed, the topic is left open for people to pour in the most insanely inflammatory rhetoric you've ever seen. There are multiple posts in this thread alone openly advocating genocide.
That's probably one of the reasons why tiktok is being criticised so heavily; that's where they want everyone looking right now, anything that detracts from that is problematic.
The fact that almost all other social media outlets are wall to wall algorithmically pushed hysteria on this topic should perhaps give you a clue. Even here, where political threads are usually promptly removed, the topic is left open for people to pour in the most insanely inflammatory rhetoric you've ever seen. There are multiple posts in this thread alone openly advocating genocide.
Relevant:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine
Extremely relevant with each passing year:
https://youtu.be/hhMAt3BluAU?si=URc2oDbqWRptJm0s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine
Extremely relevant with each passing year:
https://youtu.be/hhMAt3BluAU?si=URc2oDbqWRptJm0s
If the overall concern is exposure to propaganda, why waste time blocking the holes it comes in through? Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to identify propaganda? I would think this would also help to keep the powers that be in this country in Check as well... I find it worrying that we can see how effective propaganda has been at polarizing our country but no one wants to address all propaganda, just the other side's version. If this were to become a basic core competency in our education system, I guess it would undermine advertising as well, but IMO that would be a plus...
The goal is to guard against wrongthink and ensure that people act and think like their politicians want them to act and think.
On the other hand, give them a framework to think for themselves, expose them to inconvenient perspectives, and this will endanger livelihood of so many powerful opportunistic people.
On the other hand, give them a framework to think for themselves, expose them to inconvenient perspectives, and this will endanger livelihood of so many powerful opportunistic people.
The propaganda is in controlling the dials/levers of what is seen which gives an artificial sense of prevalence. You can tell any story you want- make elderly people beating up young people trend more and people will think it's a common occurrence.
I think mandatory transparency into the algos is a start but that assumes nobody tampers behind the scenes which would be trivial w/ software.
I think mandatory transparency into the algos is a start but that assumes nobody tampers behind the scenes which would be trivial w/ software.
There's also the propaganda accusation as propaganda.
If TikTok skews young and they have a viewpoint that's different from entrenched power, we can just blame the Chinese.
If TikTok skews young and they have a viewpoint that's different from entrenched power, we can just blame the Chinese.
If they don't want the accusation they shouldn't commingle civilian enterprise with communist party goals.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/chinese-commun...
Edit: They have this and the thousand talents program and then complain that people don't trust them.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-chin...
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/chinese-commun...
Edit: They have this and the thousand talents program and then complain that people don't trust them.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-chin...
Meanwhile the US military gets direct access to American schools. Especially in Rural areas.
It’s propaganda all the way down. We now just have someone competing with us on it :)
It’s propaganda all the way down. We now just have someone competing with us on it :)
Should the military not be advertised as a career choice or should China be represented at US schools too?
>Should the military not be advertised as a career choice
I'm not from the US and to me it sounds completely batshit insane to have anything military in the school - career wise information or not. Never in my many years in the education system have I seen anything from the military. Why should I? It is not a recruiting ground (or is it?!). Private enterprise, the military, etc. have absolutely nothing to do in the school system.
I'm not from the US and to me it sounds completely batshit insane to have anything military in the school - career wise information or not. Never in my many years in the education system have I seen anything from the military. Why should I? It is not a recruiting ground (or is it?!). Private enterprise, the military, etc. have absolutely nothing to do in the school system.
And it’s not just that, also they’re up to shit like this:
https://theintercept.com/2023/04/16/georgia-army-national-gu...
https://theintercept.com/2023/04/16/georgia-army-national-gu...
So you think that some career information should be withheld?
I think it’s preferred that the “competition” aren’t the country’s geopolitical rivals who would love to see the country weaken if not destroyed.
>If they don't want the accusation they shouldn't commingle civilian enterprise with communist party goals.
I fail to see how this is worse than what most Western countries do on a daily basis. Who pays for schools (especially higher education) in the US? Do they not decide what goes and not goes in the schools? Do SpaceX employees chant "SpaceX SpaceX SpaceX" at every launch or is it "USA USA USA"? As a non-American the US party goals seems way more commingled with civilian enterprises than the Chinese. We are not any better - just different. The sad part is most that say otherwise have not even experienced both systems first-hand, but just go online and talk FUD. Some because they don't know better, some even though they do know better.
I fail to see how this is worse than what most Western countries do on a daily basis. Who pays for schools (especially higher education) in the US? Do they not decide what goes and not goes in the schools? Do SpaceX employees chant "SpaceX SpaceX SpaceX" at every launch or is it "USA USA USA"? As a non-American the US party goals seems way more commingled with civilian enterprises than the Chinese. We are not any better - just different. The sad part is most that say otherwise have not even experienced both systems first-hand, but just go online and talk FUD. Some because they don't know better, some even though they do know better.
I'm not worried about the Chinese, they'll be fine.
Just pointing out what a wonderful boogeyman they make if you want to discount the viewpoints of young Americans.
Any left-wing viewpoint that's common on TikTok could probably be spun as "aligning with CCP strategy" if we don't like it.
Just pointing out what a wonderful boogeyman they make if you want to discount the viewpoints of young Americans.
Any left-wing viewpoint that's common on TikTok could probably be spun as "aligning with CCP strategy" if we don't like it.
> Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to...
yeah, maybe we could create a state-controlled social media app to educate via subtle influ-
But seriously if someone has found a strong, repeatable, almost flashcard-like vector for transmitting information to millions, its going to beat your education plan. And even then, even highly educated people are not immune to propaganda.
yeah, maybe we could create a state-controlled social media app to educate via subtle influ-
But seriously if someone has found a strong, repeatable, almost flashcard-like vector for transmitting information to millions, its going to beat your education plan. And even then, even highly educated people are not immune to propaganda.
Or even introduce regulations about foreign influence on social media which should define how the platforms are run.
> Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to identify propaganda?
TikTok is currently running a commercial on Twitch (and I assume elsewhere) which shows people explaining what good they themselves are doing and it is "because of TikTok" with a final message that (possibly paraphrasing) says "TikTok Does Good".
The government would not only need to educate their citizens against the lies of capitalism, but their own lies, as well.
Imagine if 350 million people became resistant to the messaging of capitalism?
The world might actually be a better place!
TikTok is currently running a commercial on Twitch (and I assume elsewhere) which shows people explaining what good they themselves are doing and it is "because of TikTok" with a final message that (possibly paraphrasing) says "TikTok Does Good".
The government would not only need to educate their citizens against the lies of capitalism, but their own lies, as well.
Imagine if 350 million people became resistant to the messaging of capitalism?
The world might actually be a better place!
> Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to identify propaganda?
Sweet summer child
Sweet summer child
> Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to identify propaganda
That US ruling class would not last long (much like the Chinese and the Russian, etc). The US has been in near continuous war or financing continuous wars for over 70 years. You don’t have to look far to find a citizen who’s lost something dear. And somehow the pattern continues.
Watching some of the WW2 propaganda videos put out by the allies is very eye opening. Our elites have gotten very good at convincing us to fight to further their goals (which only loosely align with the commoners).
That US ruling class would not last long (much like the Chinese and the Russian, etc). The US has been in near continuous war or financing continuous wars for over 70 years. You don’t have to look far to find a citizen who’s lost something dear. And somehow the pattern continues.
Watching some of the WW2 propaganda videos put out by the allies is very eye opening. Our elites have gotten very good at convincing us to fight to further their goals (which only loosely align with the commoners).
How do they account for variation in demographics of the user bases and the potential that Instagram is also promoting/demoting certain types of content?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/
China has a separate app like TikTok and TikTok is not allowed inside China. I don’t see where in the PDF they address demographics but could you explain how you think that factors into this analysis? The numbers indicate they’re global like other massive social networks.
Also, is the issue with Instagram political in nature like TikTok and China? At first glance it looks like the distribution is controlled based on their publicly available content guidelines. Doesn’t that make it inherently different than non-public content manipulation?
China has a separate app like TikTok and TikTok is not allowed inside China. I don’t see where in the PDF they address demographics but could you explain how you think that factors into this analysis? The numbers indicate they’re global like other massive social networks.
Also, is the issue with Instagram political in nature like TikTok and China? At first glance it looks like the distribution is controlled based on their publicly available content guidelines. Doesn’t that make it inherently different than non-public content manipulation?
In the paper they use a ratio defined by comparing a hashtag's popularity on TikTok vs on Instagram. So it accounts for Instagram's biases since they're comparing to them. Not sure if that's what you're asking.
They’re using the difference between TikTok and Instagram to conclude (by implication at least) that TikTok has a bias. But the same data could just as easily imply Instagram has a bias, or both do. Or something else. Or nothing.
(Views are my own and unrelated to my employer)
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Tiktok has made it clear many times over that while they pretend to be in the clear and un affiliated with the ccp they are a direct arm of the ccp that uses tiktok as an arm to influence global politics.
Why this stuff has not been banned as a national security threat is beyond me.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Tiktok has made it clear many times over that while they pretend to be in the clear and un affiliated with the ccp they are a direct arm of the ccp that uses tiktok as an arm to influence global politics.
Why this stuff has not been banned as a national security threat is beyond me.
I hope it does not get banned. Even if they try to ban it, they have to then contend with all the people building their careers on it/consider it a essential part of their lives. Might be enough to motivate Millenials/Gen Z to cone out to the ballot box and remove anyone who was responsible. (This is probably why they havent banned it yet)
While I don't use TikTok, its been fascinating watching the US lose its marbles over the idea that there is an avenue for mass dissemination of ideas that they cannot control. It really became real when the Pro-Palestine content translated into mass protests all across the west. Israel really dug themselves into a hole and I sometimes wonder, if this trend continues, what are they going to do once the Boomers die and down the road we get a Gen-Z president?
Sure you have state sponsored channels like RT that try to provide alternative views but they dont have anywhere near the eyeballs TikTok gets and they can be easily discredited.
The last time the US had a major competitor was in the 80s. Finally someone has come along that is challenging the US on many levels, not just social media apps.
I had always wished Europe to get their act together and serve as a democratic counter balance to the US but these days they are not even in the conversation. But at least China is trying despite the fact that they are less than savory.
We will continue to have access to American social media apps pushing their nonsense and acting like they provide freedom while quietly suppressing content they don't like (ex. anti-Israel). Meta/Youtube/X platforms are not going away. I love the fact that the mass market has some choice now.
While I don't use TikTok, its been fascinating watching the US lose its marbles over the idea that there is an avenue for mass dissemination of ideas that they cannot control. It really became real when the Pro-Palestine content translated into mass protests all across the west. Israel really dug themselves into a hole and I sometimes wonder, if this trend continues, what are they going to do once the Boomers die and down the road we get a Gen-Z president?
Sure you have state sponsored channels like RT that try to provide alternative views but they dont have anywhere near the eyeballs TikTok gets and they can be easily discredited.
The last time the US had a major competitor was in the 80s. Finally someone has come along that is challenging the US on many levels, not just social media apps.
I had always wished Europe to get their act together and serve as a democratic counter balance to the US but these days they are not even in the conversation. But at least China is trying despite the fact that they are less than savory.
We will continue to have access to American social media apps pushing their nonsense and acting like they provide freedom while quietly suppressing content they don't like (ex. anti-Israel). Meta/Youtube/X platforms are not going away. I love the fact that the mass market has some choice now.
RT doesn't provide "alternative views". It's pure, unfiltered propaganda. Can you honestly navigate there, read something and then claim "yeah, just another viewpoint"?
Yes its nonsense but it does push the Russian point of view. You might think its absurd but they don't. Its just as absurd as the US pushing "weapons of mass destruction" down peoples throats and running with that nonsense for years. The point is that it is on a US owned platform that allows it to be suppressed, removed or outright dismissed.
Tiktok is not in that situation at all and that is a new paradigm we haven't had in a while.
Tiktok is not in that situation at all and that is a new paradigm we haven't had in a while.
It's wild to believe that if you just consume the worst information diarrhea from "both sides" that you'll have a nice holy unbiased universe-brain view. It's even more wild to see this fallacious nonsense here.
The point is that you have the option whereas before it didn't really exist in a mass market fashion.
I certainly wouldn't! But I would also add that many (most?) prominent US news outlets are just as bad.
Because if we’re willing to export propaganda and unwilling to receive any in return then we’re a nation of hypocrites.
> if we’re willing to export propaganda and unwilling to receive any in return then we’re a nation of hypocrites
To the degree war and competition are hypocritical, sure. All you’ve done is expanded the definition of hypocrisy to meaninglessness.
To the degree war and competition are hypocritical, sure. All you’ve done is expanded the definition of hypocrisy to meaninglessness.
There’s a culture war, not a real war with China. If we censor the CCP just like they censor us then we are just as authoritarian as them.
> There’s a culture war, not a real war with China
China’s a geopolitical adversary. We didn’t need to go to war with the Soviets for the Cold War to be real. (Also what on earth is a “culture war” in geopolitical terms?)
> If we censor the CCP just like they censor us then we are just as authoritarian as them
Only to someone with no sense of scale. Again, you can do that. But you expand the definition of authoritarianism to cover just about any human activity.
China’s a geopolitical adversary. We didn’t need to go to war with the Soviets for the Cold War to be real. (Also what on earth is a “culture war” in geopolitical terms?)
> If we censor the CCP just like they censor us then we are just as authoritarian as them
Only to someone with no sense of scale. Again, you can do that. But you expand the definition of authoritarianism to cover just about any human activity.
>Only to someone with no sense of scale. Again, you can do that. But you expand the definition of authoritarianism to cover just about any human activity.
So start referring to America as "softer authoritarians than China" instead of this charade you put up now. Then people would be less miffed by your hypocrisy.
Everything political that comes out of America is such self-serving slop that I don't understand how anyone above age 30 buys it. When mass-censorship and consensus manufacturing is enacted on mainstream social media (oh sorry, when the US does it it's just "the algorithm" and "alignment", not a mean evil dictatorship), when Americans are forbidden from having a chance to vote for their preferred president in Colorado, when you wage a proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian man, when you get Ukraine to ban all opposition political parties, when you bomb countries for decades in the Middle East, every time it's done in the name of democracy.
So start referring to America as "softer authoritarians than China" instead of this charade you put up now. Then people would be less miffed by your hypocrisy.
Everything political that comes out of America is such self-serving slop that I don't understand how anyone above age 30 buys it. When mass-censorship and consensus manufacturing is enacted on mainstream social media (oh sorry, when the US does it it's just "the algorithm" and "alignment", not a mean evil dictatorship), when Americans are forbidden from having a chance to vote for their preferred president in Colorado, when you wage a proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian man, when you get Ukraine to ban all opposition political parties, when you bomb countries for decades in the Middle East, every time it's done in the name of democracy.
Unfortunately a lot of 'special interests' are trying as hard as they can to turn that culture war into a genuine hot war - which I don't feel anyone has any real appetite or need for - and all/most of the media seem to be playing along.
It's a bit exhausting and frankly, pathetic, to watch people literally talking it into existence out of thin air.
It's a bit exhausting and frankly, pathetic, to watch people literally talking it into existence out of thin air.
That does not follow at all.
What a ridiculous take. Do you also want to be worked to death in a sweatshop because banning it would be too authoritarian?
No because I believe in workers rights… and freedom of speech. Civil rights are important democratic principles.
We should accept foreign propaganda due to… hypocrisy? What does that even mean?
Due to freedom of speech being a core value of democracy and censorship/information control being a core value of authoritarianism.
[deleted]
> Due to freedom of speech being a core value of democracy
Freedom of speech != freedom to operate a company or platform.
Freedom of speech != freedom to operate a company or platform.
Fair point. Banning a social media platform because of topics discussed though seems like a dangerous precedent to set. Seems like a free speech issue to me though.
I think most people are aware of the CCP influence on TikTok. I hope reports like these make people question if they’re being manipulated on the platform. People should always question the validity of the media they consume.
I think most people are aware of the CCP influence on TikTok. I hope reports like these make people question if they’re being manipulated on the platform. People should always question the validity of the media they consume.
This is nonsense. In war, is it hypocritical to bomb the enemy but not your own side? Of course not. Propaganda is a weapon, you deploy weapons against your enemies and you protect your own people from your enemy's weapons.
Foreign adversaries do not have free speech rights in the United States.
Foreign adversaries do not have free speech rights in the United States.
We aren't at war. Propaganda in peacetime and bombs at any time are so disanalogous it is comical.
You win a war of ideas by presenting better ideas, not by censoring bad ideas.
You win a war of ideas by presenting better ideas, not by censoring bad ideas.
why would that be hypocritical?
As a Chinese, I can use YouTube, X, and Instagram, but I can hardly use TikTok,it detect which country my SIM card belongs to. I often come across false content about China on Western social media, which significantly outweighs the real content. Of course, there is about 10% of real content that I cannot access on domestic social media platforms. Regarding China, Western media consists of nearly 80% false content and 20% real content, with the real content being mostly negative. The information about the West in China is similar, where the saying "all crows are black" applies.In the end, we live in a safe authoritarian country. Of course, I wish to live in a true democratic country, but does it exist? The United States? Hilarious.
I’m not sure why anyone finds this hard to believe. Do US media companies tend to align with US geostrategic objectives? Now consider that the link between the Chinese state and its companies is much firmer and more authoritarian than it is in the US.
Tiktok and their relationship with CCP is something anyone can see plainly. I mean, if the US government was installing implants (snowden leaks) at US tech companies, if you disagree with my first statement then you must believe China is an even more free society than the US.
The biggest tragedy in america right now, one that fuels the apathy and national self-destruction is the lack of gratitude and appreciation of just how precious and priceless the peace, stability and prosperity we have now (not decades ago but today) is. Americans just simply don't know the levels of poverty and desperation much of the world has seen, it is just impossible here. They don't know that just in the 70s and 80s China was having mass starvations. Their appreciation of their government's ability to lift them out of that and the century of humiliation they had before that is not small (unlike americans).
The world is not a nice place, the CCP is much worse than putin and their goal is not to coexist with the west.
And if tiktok ends up giving the CCP an advantage, whether in the 2024 elections or future cold/hot conflict with the PLA, I for one would lay significant blame on HNers who rallied against Biden's attempt to block tiktock because of b.s. slipperly slop fallacies. They already ban US social media there! This would have been reciprocal, it might have been one of the smallest things that could have been done to avoid possible chaos and carnage in the future. The government does have power to censor foreign companies's speech. Matter of fact, the first amendment does not apply to companies, it applies to people, and no one who uses tiktok would be prevented from using another platform to make the same speech!
This about tech companies and startups worried about "what if I am next".
Your opinions have consequences because people consider many of you on HN knowledgable or experts in tech.
The biggest tragedy in america right now, one that fuels the apathy and national self-destruction is the lack of gratitude and appreciation of just how precious and priceless the peace, stability and prosperity we have now (not decades ago but today) is. Americans just simply don't know the levels of poverty and desperation much of the world has seen, it is just impossible here. They don't know that just in the 70s and 80s China was having mass starvations. Their appreciation of their government's ability to lift them out of that and the century of humiliation they had before that is not small (unlike americans).
The world is not a nice place, the CCP is much worse than putin and their goal is not to coexist with the west.
And if tiktok ends up giving the CCP an advantage, whether in the 2024 elections or future cold/hot conflict with the PLA, I for one would lay significant blame on HNers who rallied against Biden's attempt to block tiktock because of b.s. slipperly slop fallacies. They already ban US social media there! This would have been reciprocal, it might have been one of the smallest things that could have been done to avoid possible chaos and carnage in the future. The government does have power to censor foreign companies's speech. Matter of fact, the first amendment does not apply to companies, it applies to people, and no one who uses tiktok would be prevented from using another platform to make the same speech!
This about tech companies and startups worried about "what if I am next".
Your opinions have consequences because people consider many of you on HN knowledgable or experts in tech.
>They don't know that just in the 70s and 80s China was having mass starvations. Their appreciation of their government's ability to lift them out of that and the century of humiliation they had before that is not small (unlike americans).
The mass starvations in the 70s and 80s were because of that same government; while Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong were rapidly developing, China was putting people in jail for trying to sell their goods and agricultural products on the private market. The GDP per capita of Taiwan is still three times higher than that of mainland China, which wouldn't be the case if China didn't have a government that made private enterprise illegal for a few decades.
The mass starvations in the 70s and 80s were because of that same government; while Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong were rapidly developing, China was putting people in jail for trying to sell their goods and agricultural products on the private market. The GDP per capita of Taiwan is still three times higher than that of mainland China, which wouldn't be the case if China didn't have a government that made private enterprise illegal for a few decades.
This isn't exactly correct, because of the differences between the countries. China and Taiwan are completely different with a different set of populations. Taiwan was colonized by Japan, and thus industrialized up until WW2 was over. Then it got an influx of the richer and more educated class from China after the '49 revolution. In addition to that Chiang Kaishek took most if not all of China's gold reserves and placed it in Taiwan, thus taking all of China's wealth that it had and allowing it to service a mere 20M+ population, rather than 500M people left in China who no longer had any reserves to trade with the world. Taiwan is much smaller in geography therefore infrastructure building requires less capital, and population was much higher educated from the get go, so it can't serve as a direct comparison.
Japan was already industrialized prior to WW2, and was basically complete in its industrialization by around WW1 if not earlier by a couple decades.
S. Korea could serve as a comparison, but there's a big difference in that it got massive influx of foreign investment from the US, with a major reason being that it serve as outpost against Communism spreading.
When the geopolitical situation started to change between US and China in the late 60s-early 70s, Mao sensed it and already started to have talks with the US as seen with Nixon + Kissinger, which later became the foundation that allowed the influx of foreign capital into the country. Prior to this, China was basically like NK today, with absolutely no outside support whatsoever, with an economy, infrastructure, etc., which includes even basic stuff like irrigation destroyed from civil war, WW2, etc. It was extremely capital deficient. People act like China prior to '49 was some wonderland, and that once the Communist came in, they destroyed everything and therefore there was mass starvation. Not really. China sucked prior to '49, and reading e.g. some statistics from American sinologists like e.g Jonathan Spence, you know that the basic peasant (which represented the large majority of China's population) daily diet consisted of almost no meat, and simply what they called gruel, every day of the year. A peasant normal diet would simply be e.g. sweet potatoes flour mixed with water everyday with maybe some vegetables.
Japan was already industrialized prior to WW2, and was basically complete in its industrialization by around WW1 if not earlier by a couple decades.
S. Korea could serve as a comparison, but there's a big difference in that it got massive influx of foreign investment from the US, with a major reason being that it serve as outpost against Communism spreading.
When the geopolitical situation started to change between US and China in the late 60s-early 70s, Mao sensed it and already started to have talks with the US as seen with Nixon + Kissinger, which later became the foundation that allowed the influx of foreign capital into the country. Prior to this, China was basically like NK today, with absolutely no outside support whatsoever, with an economy, infrastructure, etc., which includes even basic stuff like irrigation destroyed from civil war, WW2, etc. It was extremely capital deficient. People act like China prior to '49 was some wonderland, and that once the Communist came in, they destroyed everything and therefore there was mass starvation. Not really. China sucked prior to '49, and reading e.g. some statistics from American sinologists like e.g Jonathan Spence, you know that the basic peasant (which represented the large majority of China's population) daily diet consisted of almost no meat, and simply what they called gruel, every day of the year. A peasant normal diet would simply be e.g. sweet potatoes flour mixed with water everyday with maybe some vegetables.
>The biggest tragedy in america right now, one that fuels the apathy and national self-destruction is the lack of gratitude and appreciation of just how precious and priceless the peace, stability and prosperity we have now (not decades ago but today) is. Americans just simply don't know the levels of poverty and desperation much of the world has seen, it is just impossible here.
This sounds entirely ripped off from a Joe Rogan podcast. Sounds like you are in the WASP bubble. You likely haven't experienced living in the hood, having to be treated like a Muslim in the US, having to deal with MAGA people bitching about your existence as a Mexican migrant and many other scenarios. There is plenty to improve in the US and your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.
Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change. Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history. They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.
This sounds entirely ripped off from a Joe Rogan podcast. Sounds like you are in the WASP bubble. You likely haven't experienced living in the hood, having to be treated like a Muslim in the US, having to deal with MAGA people bitching about your existence as a Mexican migrant and many other scenarios. There is plenty to improve in the US and your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.
Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change. Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history. They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.
>This sounds entirely ripped off from a Joe Rogan podcast. Sounds like you are in the WASP bubble. You likely haven't experienced living in the hood, having to be treated like a Muslim in the US, having to deal with MAGA people bitching about your existence as a Mexican migrant and many other scenarios.
Yet African Americans are WAY better off than those in Africa, and Muslims and Mexicans migrate to the US for better conditions.There is plenty to improve in the US, sure, but it's a better place than the majority of the world, why on the world do you think people go there in the first place?
Hell the US is outstanding precisely when it comes to racism, do you have any idea of how racist people are in Asia? Africa? Even Europe?
Yet African Americans are WAY better off than those in Africa, and Muslims and Mexicans migrate to the US for better conditions.There is plenty to improve in the US, sure, but it's a better place than the majority of the world, why on the world do you think people go there in the first place?
Hell the US is outstanding precisely when it comes to racism, do you have any idea of how racist people are in Asia? Africa? Even Europe?
>There is plenty to improve in the US, sure, but it's a better place than the majority of the world, why on the world do you think people go there in the first place?
Its a desirable place to go to place BECAUSE of prior generations rebelling against the status quo.
When the Civil Rights Act was being debated, there was a push by the south to "not go too fast". The argument by the south in 1965 was that African Americans should be grateful that we have "separate but equal" and "look how far we have come from slavery"?
[1]:https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/integration-moved-fast-m...
We are experiencing the same nonsense today. Frankly I don't think we would have as many immigrants as we do if it weren't for all of these achievements that immigrants can take advantage of on day 1.
As a child of immigrants I see a common tendency of immigrants in my communities to not rock the boat. In fact Trump has stated that he will consider deporting any immigrants who express support for Palestine. They effectively have this sword of Damocles hanging over them their entire lives. Now you could argue that since they are 'citizens' they have the full suite of rights as anyone else. They only have those rights until someone decides to test the limits and then they don't anymore.
The children of immigrants born in the country have a very different outlook. They don't have the same mentality to not want to rock the boat. They are the ones who push major reform.
Its a desirable place to go to place BECAUSE of prior generations rebelling against the status quo.
When the Civil Rights Act was being debated, there was a push by the south to "not go too fast". The argument by the south in 1965 was that African Americans should be grateful that we have "separate but equal" and "look how far we have come from slavery"?
[1]:https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/integration-moved-fast-m...
We are experiencing the same nonsense today. Frankly I don't think we would have as many immigrants as we do if it weren't for all of these achievements that immigrants can take advantage of on day 1.
As a child of immigrants I see a common tendency of immigrants in my communities to not rock the boat. In fact Trump has stated that he will consider deporting any immigrants who express support for Palestine. They effectively have this sword of Damocles hanging over them their entire lives. Now you could argue that since they are 'citizens' they have the full suite of rights as anyone else. They only have those rights until someone decides to test the limits and then they don't anymore.
The children of immigrants born in the country have a very different outlook. They don't have the same mentality to not want to rock the boat. They are the ones who push major reform.
> You likely haven't experienced living in the hood
My poorest (growing up, as in not concerned about no food, but actually no food and sometimes no housing) friends who travel internationally come back grateful for where they are.
> your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights
100% agree. That said, there is middle ground between bootlicking gratitude and cynicism that borders on complacency.
My poorest (growing up, as in not concerned about no food, but actually no food and sometimes no housing) friends who travel internationally come back grateful for where they are.
> your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights
100% agree. That said, there is middle ground between bootlicking gratitude and cynicism that borders on complacency.
We shouldn't reduce or avoid removing any of the struggles you've brought up - those are real and we need to remove them.
With that being said, most of what OP said is true: Americans are in a good position because of many factors - national security being an important one. I interpret OP's comment not as a call to rest on the US's good position, but to fight for it and improve it. We can both hold that the US has major issues that need to be fixed, while saying we need to fight against countries that would work to destabilize the US.
If we don't fight for the struggles you've mentioned (and other ones!), the US won't improve. But, if we don't also recognize our worldwide position and work to prevent countries from destabilizing it, everything will get worse for everyone.
> Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change.
I disagree, we can be recognize some aspects of a country and be thankful (fighting to keep the good we have) while still improving on others.
I hope it is clear I'm speaking in good faith
Your interpretation of my comment is spot on. I am concerned there won't be an america to improve upon. Once america is desrabilized you can't stabilize again. A world of russian, chinese and middle eastern dominance with a destabilized US is not good either for the civil rights concerns/improvements the person you replied to brought up.
A world with an America unchallenged by anything is also dangerous. Thats how we get a 20 year war with countless innocent lives destroyed, entire regions destabilized and a host of other terrible situations. The country is just that: a country, a collection of humans with human flaws. America at its best was when it was trying to prove the effectiveness of its system over others day in and day out because it was being challenged. Thats how we got a lot of the freedoms and benefits that we have now.
Agreed - the rebuttal comment you got had the example of "having to deal with MAGA people bitching about your existence as a Mexican migrant". Russia has been is conducting influence campaigns to stir up these very problems! NatSec is important for these social issues too.
The best way to neutralize those influence campaigns is to solve the underlying problems that cause the campaign to take root.
Isn't Joe Rogan italian? How can someone be in a WASP bubble when they listen to Joe Rogan?
You are right, maybe we need a new term to describe upper middle class white American detached from the rest of the problems occurring in the country. Frankly, he should know better having started his early years in Newark, NJ and occasionally being on welfare.
I don't listen to joe rogan or any personality. You don't know a single thing about me, I know and have seen much more than you think that I won't voluntarily share on a public forum.
> There is plenty to improve in the US
What part of anything I said disagrees with that? You sir/madam are a prime example of the people I am talking about.
> would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.
And you would have made sure those things would be the least of anyone's concerns as the japanese enslave half of america and the nazis genocide the crap out of all those people you listed. And if it so happens that none of that happens, if you got your way none of those things would happen because america would be too poor and miserable. Or perhaps you don't realize that the civil rights changes of the 60s were a result of post world war prosperity and peace (yes, despite vietnam). Do you think americans in the great depression would even tolerate the civil rights discussion? Do you think they'd share jobs with minorities and women or allow cheaper immigrants from other countries as they are starving?
Or so you think current civil rights can't be taken away? Do you undersrand that the civil part implies civilization? Hungry desparate people, cooking their own children for food out of despair (almost always happens in desperate prolonged famine) do not care about civilization.
> Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change
Yes it is, the good kind. This wonderful country allowed all the change you mentioned in the 60s without a single civil war, out of the kindness and compassion of a people who can afford it. A century earlier, millions who love their country died for the concept that all people are born equal.
> Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history.
No, it was the rebels in america both in the 1860s, 1960s (US military escorting kids to school because states rebelled against civil rights) and 2021(jan 6) who love their race/tribe more han their country who opposed and failed against all things you hold precious there. Rebellion is always disgusting and treasonous. You must not have heard the speeches of MLK who very much liked America just not all the things horribly wrong with it. He understood that the civil rights movement must work within the system and through civil disobedience and democratic means enact change. Loving your country and appreciating it does not mean you love the politicians or even the government in its current state. It is because you people don't get any if this that you merely pay lip service to progress and all you end up doing is alienating people and dividing up your country and increasing the number of people who share your hatred for their country except they want to do the opposite of you.
> They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.
What they are called and what they said and did are different things.
Hating your country until you see change is not how democracy works.
Perhaps you should learn from immigrants who come to america seeking a better life despite their financial situation and like them find your way to a better life if you think there is one to be found.
Your problem is that of perspective. It's usually people who volunteered for a long time in poor countries or military service members who similarly been to those countries that seem to have the perspective I tried to share. A homeless, jobless person in the hood in america has a better quality of life and opportunities than an educated doctor in sub-saharan africa. Forget that, pick a single poor country randomly and and try finding a place where a poor uneducated black gay woman can be treated as a human being to begin with right along find jobs (good ones), be able to actually buy goods with money, be safe and be treated with a semblance of fairness in the work place. That rules out most of asia and easern europe. Maybe south africa (if considered poor),maybe some south american countries but that rules out the jobs and opportunities being good (perhaps brazil? But even then their black people are having an even harder time than american counterparts).
I have many comments about all the things that need changing in america far beyond what you listed. But every single one is because I think this amazing country is worth working on and improving not because I don't like america. And funnily, people have the opposite response to me thinking perhaps I should find another home. Perhaps it is our perspective that is different not what we believe needs changing.
> There is plenty to improve in the US
What part of anything I said disagrees with that? You sir/madam are a prime example of the people I am talking about.
> would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.
And you would have made sure those things would be the least of anyone's concerns as the japanese enslave half of america and the nazis genocide the crap out of all those people you listed. And if it so happens that none of that happens, if you got your way none of those things would happen because america would be too poor and miserable. Or perhaps you don't realize that the civil rights changes of the 60s were a result of post world war prosperity and peace (yes, despite vietnam). Do you think americans in the great depression would even tolerate the civil rights discussion? Do you think they'd share jobs with minorities and women or allow cheaper immigrants from other countries as they are starving?
Or so you think current civil rights can't be taken away? Do you undersrand that the civil part implies civilization? Hungry desparate people, cooking their own children for food out of despair (almost always happens in desperate prolonged famine) do not care about civilization.
> Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change
Yes it is, the good kind. This wonderful country allowed all the change you mentioned in the 60s without a single civil war, out of the kindness and compassion of a people who can afford it. A century earlier, millions who love their country died for the concept that all people are born equal.
> Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history.
No, it was the rebels in america both in the 1860s, 1960s (US military escorting kids to school because states rebelled against civil rights) and 2021(jan 6) who love their race/tribe more han their country who opposed and failed against all things you hold precious there. Rebellion is always disgusting and treasonous. You must not have heard the speeches of MLK who very much liked America just not all the things horribly wrong with it. He understood that the civil rights movement must work within the system and through civil disobedience and democratic means enact change. Loving your country and appreciating it does not mean you love the politicians or even the government in its current state. It is because you people don't get any if this that you merely pay lip service to progress and all you end up doing is alienating people and dividing up your country and increasing the number of people who share your hatred for their country except they want to do the opposite of you.
> They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.
What they are called and what they said and did are different things.
Hating your country until you see change is not how democracy works.
Perhaps you should learn from immigrants who come to america seeking a better life despite their financial situation and like them find your way to a better life if you think there is one to be found.
Your problem is that of perspective. It's usually people who volunteered for a long time in poor countries or military service members who similarly been to those countries that seem to have the perspective I tried to share. A homeless, jobless person in the hood in america has a better quality of life and opportunities than an educated doctor in sub-saharan africa. Forget that, pick a single poor country randomly and and try finding a place where a poor uneducated black gay woman can be treated as a human being to begin with right along find jobs (good ones), be able to actually buy goods with money, be safe and be treated with a semblance of fairness in the work place. That rules out most of asia and easern europe. Maybe south africa (if considered poor),maybe some south american countries but that rules out the jobs and opportunities being good (perhaps brazil? But even then their black people are having an even harder time than american counterparts).
I have many comments about all the things that need changing in america far beyond what you listed. But every single one is because I think this amazing country is worth working on and improving not because I don't like america. And funnily, people have the opposite response to me thinking perhaps I should find another home. Perhaps it is our perspective that is different not what we believe needs changing.
[flagged]
[flagged]
>You mean non-violent? Because there has never been a succesful yet violent civil rights movement.
No I mean violent. Those violent groups helped make MLK palatable. This is documented history. Its unclear what the trend would have been had groups like the Black Panthers(for example) not existing but it is super clear that they helped drag the leadership of the country to push forward some continued compromise because otherwise the pressure would have kept increasing and these groups were starting to affect capital. Has it accomplished everything? No. But as each one of these groups falls, another one eventually crops. up. BLM was a bust because of leadership and how they were systematically discredited before they even got going. But will it end at BLM? Of course not! It will never end until there is actual reform.
I need to stop right here: You clearly have not studied the history of the civil rights movement in the US and how violent along with non-violent struggle was a key component in getting to where we are today. The rest of your post is just strawmen because there is no cohesive argument.
No I mean violent. Those violent groups helped make MLK palatable. This is documented history. Its unclear what the trend would have been had groups like the Black Panthers(for example) not existing but it is super clear that they helped drag the leadership of the country to push forward some continued compromise because otherwise the pressure would have kept increasing and these groups were starting to affect capital. Has it accomplished everything? No. But as each one of these groups falls, another one eventually crops. up. BLM was a bust because of leadership and how they were systematically discredited before they even got going. But will it end at BLM? Of course not! It will never end until there is actual reform.
I need to stop right here: You clearly have not studied the history of the civil rights movement in the US and how violent along with non-violent struggle was a key component in getting to where we are today. The rest of your post is just strawmen because there is no cohesive argument.
If CCP really was "worse than Putin", they would have invaded Taiwan a long time ago already, and killed a couple of hundred thousand people in the process, as Putin is perfectly content to do in Ukraine. But they haven't, which shows that its leadership has at least some competence.
My country shares 1300km of border with Russia, and I would choose China over Russia as a neighbour any day. China might be an oppressive dictatorship, but its still more civilized than Russia, which frankly has never left the Middle Ages in terms of mentality. Apart from perhaps North Korea, there is no worse neighbor in the world than imperialist Russia.
My country shares 1300km of border with Russia, and I would choose China over Russia as a neighbour any day. China might be an oppressive dictatorship, but its still more civilized than Russia, which frankly has never left the Middle Ages in terms of mentality. Apart from perhaps North Korea, there is no worse neighbor in the world than imperialist Russia.
Look up the 100 year marathon and mao's plan. Russians are not patient or long term strategizing like CCP. They know they have the population and capability and a head-on conflict in the short term undermined their long term goals. If they have their way, they would win many wars without a single shot being fired. Look at how mighty american companies grovel at the CCPs feet, that's how they fight. Russia tries this also by implementing puppet regimes but their approach is too bold and aggressive and requires too much tongue-in-cheek from regular people. Look at how efficiently China subdued hong kong vs Russia's attempts with ukraine prior to zelensky (his predecessor was a russian puppet).
> CCP is much worse than putin and their goal is not to coexist with the west
The CCP has honestly been fine. (See: Jintao and Xiaoping.)
The problem is Xi. He is a dictator. He repeatedly makes decisions that benefit him in the short term and the expense of China’s long-term prospects. This is very different from his predecessors, and requires treating China differently than we did when they had political competition and the capacity for reflection.
The CCP has honestly been fine. (See: Jintao and Xiaoping.)
The problem is Xi. He is a dictator. He repeatedly makes decisions that benefit him in the short term and the expense of China’s long-term prospects. This is very different from his predecessors, and requires treating China differently than we did when they had political competition and the capacity for reflection.
beeboobaa(1)
The best solution to TikTok would seem to be for the responsible parties, such as Google and Apple, to add a warning message to apps believed to be controlled by governments. The same way Google already does with YouTube channels.
And for journalists and the government to investigate suspected ties and announce their findings loudly, so that people can make an informed choice.
But actually banning the app, even though it would be a good thing for users, seems like a fraught choice for a free country.
And for journalists and the government to investigate suspected ties and announce their findings loudly, so that people can make an informed choice.
But actually banning the app, even though it would be a good thing for users, seems like a fraught choice for a free country.
>The same way Google already does with YouTube channels.
In theory this sounds nice, but in practice it has a very pro-western bias.
For example:
Under BBC videos, the warning is "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
Under NPR videos, the warning is "NPR is an American public broadcast service."
Under CGTN videos, the warning is "CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the Chinese government."
The BBC and NPR are also "funded in whole in part by the [UK/US] government", yet it comes with a much nicer warning.
In theory this sounds nice, but in practice it has a very pro-western bias.
For example:
Under BBC videos, the warning is "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
Under NPR videos, the warning is "NPR is an American public broadcast service."
Under CGTN videos, the warning is "CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the Chinese government."
The BBC and NPR are also "funded in whole in part by the [UK/US] government", yet it comes with a much nicer warning.
This doesn't work very well when the entity adding the warning is heavily biased.
I've worked with NCRI before. I worked on a paper about DAOs, blockchain, memecoins and market manipulation. While it may not be intended to pass peer review, they do bring to light novel concepts and trends and do so in an intellectually honest way... fwiw.
Apple, google global platform anomalies align with us geostrategic objectives.
I do not know why this is news. Every single large company in every country has strong ties to the govt and works in sync with it. It's not a big secret.
I do not know why this is news. Every single large company in every country has strong ties to the govt and works in sync with it. It's not a big secret.
Sure it may not be a big secret, but I would say that any substantive report about any systematic platform anomalies that align with any geostrategic objectives are relevant posts for HN, be it a platform in the US, China, or any other country.
Refusal to discuss any of these because it is something everyone ostensibly knows... Now that is suspicious.
Refusal to discuss any of these because it is something everyone ostensibly knows... Now that is suspicious.
And Telegram align with Russians. Don't use these Faangish platform period for personal communications. Once there is a user based they will be bought by huge geopolitical influences.
Use Matrix, Masterdon, email, phone for communication and only see these platform as publishing platforms to target these specific geopolitical camps.
Use Matrix, Masterdon, email, phone for communication and only see these platform as publishing platforms to target these specific geopolitical camps.
Is this deliberate or the geopolitical equivalent of shipping the org chart?
Sufficiently advanced gathering places for unpopular opinions are indistinguishable from government propaganda outlets.
That's called social engineering, the US also abuses its position as leader to spread their propaganda all around the world
Let us not forget about Facebook / Myanmar
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
The west calls it "pursuit of profit", i call it intentional social engineering, since we all know most of the social media apps have for "content moderation" team former CIA agents, and part of their existence is due to CIA/NSA research grants/programs, and the US has clear interests in that region, for that one specific case
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
This is why it is important for parents to properly educate their children when it comes to social media, i would personally prohibit them all
But let's be honest, TikTok is the least harmful of them all, Twitter and Facebook comes to mind first when it comes to political propaganda, as well as disturbing content
Wanting it banned without expecting all the other ones to follow is disingenuous, to say the least, or it is perhaps "propaganda" ;)
Let us not forget about Facebook / Myanmar
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
The west calls it "pursuit of profit", i call it intentional social engineering, since we all know most of the social media apps have for "content moderation" team former CIA agents, and part of their existence is due to CIA/NSA research grants/programs, and the US has clear interests in that region, for that one specific case
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
This is why it is important for parents to properly educate their children when it comes to social media, i would personally prohibit them all
But let's be honest, TikTok is the least harmful of them all, Twitter and Facebook comes to mind first when it comes to political propaganda, as well as disturbing content
Wanting it banned without expecting all the other ones to follow is disingenuous, to say the least, or it is perhaps "propaganda" ;)
This lab generally puts out mediocre work. Are they self posting here?
Give up control of what you are consuming at your own peril.
How this is different from Meta's "reduction" of pro-Palestinian posts exposure and preventing it from spreading too far?
Does Meta's (or other similar actors') actions align with potential countries' geopolitical objectives?
Can we look both of them objectively and say both are bad (I think so), or is there us vs. them mentality?
Does Meta's (or other similar actors') actions align with potential countries' geopolitical objectives?
Can we look both of them objectively and say both are bad (I think so), or is there us vs. them mentality?
Of course they do, however an important distinction here is that Meta is banned in China and TikTok is not banned here. Both are bad, but Chinese netizens aren’t exposed to one of the two.
China is quite good about filtering out which propaganda interests they want their citizens exposed to, and of course are more active in influencing operations globally as well.
We can argue if that model of propaganda and control is good or not, but regardless they are smart enough to know that they don’t want to open up their youth to US propaganda machines but are happy to have us open ourselves to their propaganda. It’s asymmetrical, and that causes a lot of consternation. It’s also risky.
China is quite good about filtering out which propaganda interests they want their citizens exposed to, and of course are more active in influencing operations globally as well.
We can argue if that model of propaganda and control is good or not, but regardless they are smart enough to know that they don’t want to open up their youth to US propaganda machines but are happy to have us open ourselves to their propaganda. It’s asymmetrical, and that causes a lot of consternation. It’s also risky.
Meta is banned because China is a dictatorship, not because bans are good.
"Dictatorships are bad" is not the game-over argument that it once was, maybe 20 years ago.
The Chinese aren't just competing against the US for control of some islands and sea lanes here and there, they are putting their political system -- which is de facto a dictatorship selected periodically by a small ruling clique -- as an alternative model to democracy. One that can compete with and defeat democracy, in fact.
And to be blunt, it's not clear to me that they are losing. We in the US have put ourselves at a disadvantage w/r/t China over and over again, relying ostensibly on the magical power of democracy to always win the day. As far as I can tell, it's straight-up magical thinking.
If we do not take China seriously as a threat to democracy, not just internally to Asia but as an aspirational model of society and the basis for legitimate government, I think we risk losing.
Why we would allow a propaganda outlet of what is effectively an enemy state to operate in the US, and why we would allow technology transfers and other advantageous trade arrangements, is mind boggling to me. Sure, the 'marketplace of ideas' sounds great on paper, but not when the other people don't believe in the same things. That sort of treatment -- access to the US market, both economically and that of ideas -- should be reserved for polities that at least have signed-on to the basic concepts that the US is built on.
The Chinese aren't just competing against the US for control of some islands and sea lanes here and there, they are putting their political system -- which is de facto a dictatorship selected periodically by a small ruling clique -- as an alternative model to democracy. One that can compete with and defeat democracy, in fact.
And to be blunt, it's not clear to me that they are losing. We in the US have put ourselves at a disadvantage w/r/t China over and over again, relying ostensibly on the magical power of democracy to always win the day. As far as I can tell, it's straight-up magical thinking.
If we do not take China seriously as a threat to democracy, not just internally to Asia but as an aspirational model of society and the basis for legitimate government, I think we risk losing.
Why we would allow a propaganda outlet of what is effectively an enemy state to operate in the US, and why we would allow technology transfers and other advantageous trade arrangements, is mind boggling to me. Sure, the 'marketplace of ideas' sounds great on paper, but not when the other people don't believe in the same things. That sort of treatment -- access to the US market, both economically and that of ideas -- should be reserved for polities that at least have signed-on to the basic concepts that the US is built on.
I didn't say "dictatorships are bad". Also, there's quite some area between allowing a propaganda outlet and banning it completely.
Then again, by the same token, why should the EU allow Meta to operate on its territory?
Then again, by the same token, why should the EU allow Meta to operate on its territory?
[deleted]
You're already seeing the EU investigate X/Twitter for not modulating the messaging of their users according to their (the EU's) dictates.
Back during the early Cold War, some Americans were concerned that the Soviet model would out compete democracy and free market capitalism. They might beat us without even fighting. Later we found out that it was all a facade. Their purported successes were all lies and failures. The entire society was rotten to the core and eventually the internal contradictions ripped it apart.
China is not to be taken lightly. They are a legitimate threat and strategic competitor. But they also face enormous problems due to unfavorable geography, lack of key natural resources, corruption, malinvestment, and demographic collapse. These problems are not getting better, and I won't be surprised if there's a violent civil war in 30 years (as has happened many times over millennia of Chinese history).
China is not to be taken lightly. They are a legitimate threat and strategic competitor. But they also face enormous problems due to unfavorable geography, lack of key natural resources, corruption, malinvestment, and demographic collapse. These problems are not getting better, and I won't be surprised if there's a violent civil war in 30 years (as has happened many times over millennia of Chinese history).
"China is not to be taken lightly."
Yet that's exactly what you're doing.
"But they also face enormous problems due to unfavorable geography, lack of key natural resources, corruption, malinvestment, and demographic collapse."
None of these things are true. Stop consuming intellectual droppings from the likes of Peter Zeihan.
China has a monopoly on rare earths and more importantly, processing technologies, which are the key resources for a technological society. It's rapidly transitioning its grid and transportation systems to run on renewable power. Over the next decade it will do in hydrogen what it did in solar and wind. That will give it total self sufficiency in critical inputs like ammonia and synthetic fuels.
Corruption was an issue before Xi's anti-corruption drive. Corruption was wonderful when it served American interests, when the CIA was paying out the bribes. Now that the CIA networks have been torn up and the corrupt officials put behind bars and executed, the US cries that China is "increasingly authoritarian." Well, the louder the US cries, the more I know China is on the right path.
Malinvestment? That's rich coming from an OnlyFans economy like America. You people can't even make enough artillery shells to send to Ukraine. You're being outbuilt by an order of magnitude by Russia, a country you mock as having an economy the size of Texas. Your GDP is entirely hot air and all you make is noise.
As for demography, that's the last thin reed you have to hang all your ill wishes toward China on. Unfortunately for you, that's changing for the better. The Chinese government has shifted from an anti-natal/neutral policy to a pro-natal one and will introduce a raft of policies to boost birth rates. Before you even think that that never works, it does work. It worked in Hungary and it will work far better in China, where the Chinese government can pull many more levers than the Hungarian government can.
Incidentally, the biggest block to Chinese people marrying and having children is the high cost of housing. Guess what the deflating housing bubble is going to do for that.
"These problems are not getting better, and I won't be surprised if there's a violent civil war in 30 years"
I've just demonstrated that they either don't exist or they are getting much better. If you want to look for violent civil wars, look to the US. You won't have to wait 30 years.
"as has happened many times over millennia of Chinese history"
China has millennia of history. Let's see the US make it to 300 years.
Yet that's exactly what you're doing.
"But they also face enormous problems due to unfavorable geography, lack of key natural resources, corruption, malinvestment, and demographic collapse."
None of these things are true. Stop consuming intellectual droppings from the likes of Peter Zeihan.
China has a monopoly on rare earths and more importantly, processing technologies, which are the key resources for a technological society. It's rapidly transitioning its grid and transportation systems to run on renewable power. Over the next decade it will do in hydrogen what it did in solar and wind. That will give it total self sufficiency in critical inputs like ammonia and synthetic fuels.
Corruption was an issue before Xi's anti-corruption drive. Corruption was wonderful when it served American interests, when the CIA was paying out the bribes. Now that the CIA networks have been torn up and the corrupt officials put behind bars and executed, the US cries that China is "increasingly authoritarian." Well, the louder the US cries, the more I know China is on the right path.
Malinvestment? That's rich coming from an OnlyFans economy like America. You people can't even make enough artillery shells to send to Ukraine. You're being outbuilt by an order of magnitude by Russia, a country you mock as having an economy the size of Texas. Your GDP is entirely hot air and all you make is noise.
As for demography, that's the last thin reed you have to hang all your ill wishes toward China on. Unfortunately for you, that's changing for the better. The Chinese government has shifted from an anti-natal/neutral policy to a pro-natal one and will introduce a raft of policies to boost birth rates. Before you even think that that never works, it does work. It worked in Hungary and it will work far better in China, where the Chinese government can pull many more levers than the Hungarian government can.
Incidentally, the biggest block to Chinese people marrying and having children is the high cost of housing. Guess what the deflating housing bubble is going to do for that.
"These problems are not getting better, and I won't be surprised if there's a violent civil war in 30 years"
I've just demonstrated that they either don't exist or they are getting much better. If you want to look for violent civil wars, look to the US. You won't have to wait 30 years.
"as has happened many times over millennia of Chinese history"
China has millennia of history. Let's see the US make it to 300 years.
[deleted]
I believe your analysis conflates economic systems with political ones. The U.S. doesn’t have an entirely free market capitalism system (see: farm subsidies which fed into supermarket propaganda) and China doesn’t have an entirely planned economy.
As far as political systems go, the collapse of China seems to always be around the corner. But in reality, the U.S. seems to be much closer to civil war. No faction stormed the Capitol in Beijing when Xi was appointed. And even if our political system is not overthrown, it may die the death of 1000 cuts. How much can you honestly say Congress represents the People’s vs lobbyists (professional bribery) and PAC interests?
As far as political systems go, the collapse of China seems to always be around the corner. But in reality, the U.S. seems to be much closer to civil war. No faction stormed the Capitol in Beijing when Xi was appointed. And even if our political system is not overthrown, it may die the death of 1000 cuts. How much can you honestly say Congress represents the People’s vs lobbyists (professional bribery) and PAC interests?
Context is very important here. Xi was appointed not elected by people. He got almost three thousand votes and one against. There is no election so it can't create friction. Like in eastern European nations where there was one party system and elections were virtually non existent. Friction there is not generated by politicians but usually from poverty or similar systematic issue. As long as Chinese population would perceive themself as improving and even rich system is safe. Democracies works very differently.
I mean, then why did we spend so much money and kill so many people destabilizing half the world?
If the model was so rotten to begin with, that is.
How many people did the west directly and indirectly kill in the 20th century?
If the model was so rotten to begin with, that is.
How many people did the west directly and indirectly kill in the 20th century?
For the same reason we still do: it’s incredibly profitable for the people who make weapons.
> One that can compete with and defeat democracy, in fact.
If it's better then why shouldn't it win? Frankly the lines are blurred. So called liberty is not so clearly championed by the west any longer, and on top of that robber barons and corporations are running rampant through our societies and governments. There's no apparent upside for ordinary people to a Western victory any longer, or at least it's not clear cut.
After all if we're going to be ruled by elites, and be under a system which can compete with capitalist "democracy," might as well be ruled by elites who are ideologically aligned with the people's well-being.
If it's better then why shouldn't it win? Frankly the lines are blurred. So called liberty is not so clearly championed by the west any longer, and on top of that robber barons and corporations are running rampant through our societies and governments. There's no apparent upside for ordinary people to a Western victory any longer, or at least it's not clear cut.
After all if we're going to be ruled by elites, and be under a system which can compete with capitalist "democracy," might as well be ruled by elites who are ideologically aligned with the people's well-being.
Better in what? This is really shallow relativization of someone mad at current system.
It is not better in any values valued in "western civilization".
Better for whom is the key question, I think. They're quite eager to do something about Taiwan which showed how much better China could be doing.
> they are putting their political system -- which is de facto a dictatorship selected periodically by a small ruling clique -- as an alternative model to democracy.
Oh please. Just because you people in the west are stuck in the 20th century and have an unyielding urge to reformat other nations and instill a political system you're familiar with, doesn't mean anyone else cares for this kind of idiocy. Stop projecting.
You're just like USSR with its obsession with "global revolution" and counterproductive dichotomies. And just like it happened with USSR, everyone else is getting pretty pissed with all that zealous crap that doesn't amount to anything but guised political opportunism IRL.
It's not like your specific approach to governance looks any less shitty to other cultures. Grow up, embrace diversity, learn to play nice with others - yours is the last civilization that needs to take a long hard look at itself. Either naturally, or through some major political crisis, or, worst case scenario, everyone else will just gang up on you like Saudis, China, US, WEU and many others did on USSR, if god forbid all that global (outside NATO and its few aspirants) distaste for bullshit "holier than thou" attitude reaches a boiling point.
Srsly, grow up. Traveling and meeting new people is extremely helpful in that regard.
Oh please. Just because you people in the west are stuck in the 20th century and have an unyielding urge to reformat other nations and instill a political system you're familiar with, doesn't mean anyone else cares for this kind of idiocy. Stop projecting.
You're just like USSR with its obsession with "global revolution" and counterproductive dichotomies. And just like it happened with USSR, everyone else is getting pretty pissed with all that zealous crap that doesn't amount to anything but guised political opportunism IRL.
It's not like your specific approach to governance looks any less shitty to other cultures. Grow up, embrace diversity, learn to play nice with others - yours is the last civilization that needs to take a long hard look at itself. Either naturally, or through some major political crisis, or, worst case scenario, everyone else will just gang up on you like Saudis, China, US, WEU and many others did on USSR, if god forbid all that global (outside NATO and its few aspirants) distaste for bullshit "holier than thou" attitude reaches a boiling point.
Srsly, grow up. Traveling and meeting new people is extremely helpful in that regard.
What’s really funny is that the democracy Americans keep touting as some amazing system is currently stripping away rights from:
Queer folk
Women
Pro-Palestinian people
Maybe it’s time to question if your democracy is at a point to be exported to the rest of the world (?)
Queer folk
Women
Pro-Palestinian people
Maybe it’s time to question if your democracy is at a point to be exported to the rest of the world (?)
Which rights exactly?
Are you serious? lol
Maybe let’s start with the basic one that’s abortion?
Maybe let’s start with the basic one that’s abortion?
This is a map of countries in which abortion is legal:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Ab...
This is a map of democratic countries:
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18737.jpeg
You might notice a resemblance. Want to do gay rights next?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Ab...
This is a map of democratic countries:
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18737.jpeg
You might notice a resemblance. Want to do gay rights next?
Your maps appear to support the premise put forward by aaomidi.
The USofA is labelled there as not very democratic, grouped as with "Flawed Democracies" and the premise put forward was that US Democracy was stripping rights (eg: abortion) and perhaps wasn't a great example of a good democracy.
The USofA is labelled there as not very democratic, grouped as with "Flawed Democracies" and the premise put forward was that US Democracy was stripping rights (eg: abortion) and perhaps wasn't a great example of a good democracy.
> You might notice a resemblance.
Only if you really-really squint and look only at americas, while ignoring most of Eurasia and huge chunk of Africa where most of the world's population happens to live.
I hardly see much of a global correlation here.
Only if you really-really squint and look only at americas, while ignoring most of Eurasia and huge chunk of Africa where most of the world's population happens to live.
I hardly see much of a global correlation here.
Try another? The abortion issue is clearly used by either side to drive division, they don't want to fix it. So it's less a stripping and more of a peasants stuck in the middle kind of thing.
Can you name one non-democracy that isn’t doing exactly those same things?
I never said non democracies are good. I just said our democracy isn’t mature enough.
I dunno, the whole point of a government based on natural rights theory is the government isn’t the giver of rights, so it can’t strip people of rights. If you’re thinking of privileges granted by a group of doctrinaires, that’s more like an ecclesiastical polity.
Ok, then what was the point you were actually trying to make while listing minority groups with high specificity?
Let’s start from a point of common understanding: I agree that it is a bad thing to oppress minority groups.
Let’s start from a point of common understanding: I agree that it is a bad thing to oppress minority groups.
> "Dictatorships are bad" is not the game-over argument that it once was, maybe 20 years ago.
Yes, it is. By god, something needs to be done about the absolute stupidity that is making its way through American universities. This is tragic.
Yes, it is. By god, something needs to be done about the absolute stupidity that is making its way through American universities. This is tragic.
It is indeed not the game over argument any more, measured by the people. Both sides of the political spectrum in America have been ever more strongly advocating for authoritarian enforcement of their political goals and both sides have increasing admiration for foreign dictatorships and terrorists.
The extremes are closing in on the excluded middle which doesn’t have much of a voice at all as nonextremist views are attacked as supporting the other sides.
They are not always doing this in the same ways and in the same places, but there is a definite trend.
I’m not making excuses for one side by saying the other side is doing it, both threaten the republic and world peace.
The extremes are closing in on the excluded middle which doesn’t have much of a voice at all as nonextremist views are attacked as supporting the other sides.
They are not always doing this in the same ways and in the same places, but there is a definite trend.
I’m not making excuses for one side by saying the other side is doing it, both threaten the republic and world peace.
People that don't understand math appreciate dictatorships because they can imagine themselves in
power.
This.
TikTok is not available in China, there is a different version under a different name with different content rules.
[deleted]
> TikTok is not banned here
False. It has already been banned in multiple jurisdictions, companies, and many government agencies.
False. It has already been banned in multiple jurisdictions, companies, and many government agencies.
So "slightly banned" then. ;)
> Of course they do, however an important distinction here is that Meta is banned in China
Meta isn't banned in China. They just haven't developed a product that complies with Chinese law (in large part because US lawmakers warned them not to do this---so more like an export ban than an import ban).
Meta isn't banned in China. They just haven't developed a product that complies with Chinese law (in large part because US lawmakers warned them not to do this---so more like an export ban than an import ban).
> They just haven't developed a product that complies with Chinese law
Strictly speaking then, Meta is banned in China for not complying with Chinese law.
Strictly speaking then, Meta is banned in China for not complying with Chinese law.
A ban implies there is some order that explicitly targets Meta. It's like saying Europe has a ban on American chicken imports, when the reality is that they have no problem with it so long as their laws and regulations are followed.
[deleted]
Which Chinese law?
It's worse than that, the content we get in the west is drastically different to the one they get in China.
It's not about exposing the west to chinese propaganda (sure, they'll promote the CCP view of any global topic, but that's often the same as our governments) it's about brainwashing western kids so they grow up to be useless and not a threat.
Would you rather your youths learnt how to cook or do stupid 10s dances? Guess which content gets displayed in China vs the West.
Not to mention the instances of mental illness spreading through tik tok via emulation (eg DID)
It's not about exposing the west to chinese propaganda (sure, they'll promote the CCP view of any global topic, but that's often the same as our governments) it's about brainwashing western kids so they grow up to be useless and not a threat.
Would you rather your youths learnt how to cook or do stupid 10s dances? Guess which content gets displayed in China vs the West.
Not to mention the instances of mental illness spreading through tik tok via emulation (eg DID)
Maybe, but isn’t part of the problem contextual? Multiple US corporations have manipulated their content based on sensitivities that are promoted from specifically the CCP and not based on moral outlook of their population. It seems to me that’s a clear indicator of over bearing authoritarian control. Baring any value statements about political systems, isn’t there a political problem with a foreign entity controlling the content of another; particularly when an adversarial relationship exists?
> Baring any value statements about political systems, isn’t there a political problem with a foreign entity controlling the content of another
No, in fact, many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post. El Pais has far more integrity than either of those and it’s owned by a Spanish media conglomerate.
No, in fact, many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post. El Pais has far more integrity than either of those and it’s owned by a Spanish media conglomerate.
> many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post
Yes and no. They report with different biases. It’s interesting to read. But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.
Yes and no. They report with different biases. It’s interesting to read. But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.
> But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.
I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms.
I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms.
> would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms
I wouldn’t. Most plainly, because they’re read (and responded to) by policymakers.
I wouldn’t. Most plainly, because they’re read (and responded to) by policymakers.
That’s more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient) than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity.
> more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient)
What are you basing this on? From the people I know in federal and state government, this is totally backwards.
> than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity
Sure, whatever. The point is is there signal in the noise. And for those publications, there is. In part because they create the signal.
That said, they’re written for decision makers and the civically and commercially engaged. For casual readers, a less-frequent and more-entertaining format is probably a better fit.
What are you basing this on? From the people I know in federal and state government, this is totally backwards.
> than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity
Sure, whatever. The point is is there signal in the noise. And for those publications, there is. In part because they create the signal.
That said, they’re written for decision makers and the civically and commercially engaged. For casual readers, a less-frequent and more-entertaining format is probably a better fit.
I'd love to see some head-to-head comparisons of articles in El Pais that you think are more honest than the New York Times (and I fully accept that the NY Times is the "mouthpiece of the establishment".
Pick pretty much anything in the run up to the Iraq invasion. From what I remember, it was a nadir of US journalism. Generally speaking, any time there is military US intervention somewhere, American publications toe the line in embarrassing ways.
Do you have links to actual articles about current events?
If you read the Times, you'll notice that for the first week the mostly print the establishment view (america war good) but then after that, they start publishing the more critical articles.
If you read the Times, you'll notice that for the first week the mostly print the establishment view (america war good) but then after that, they start publishing the more critical articles.
Later countering the propaganda they uncritically (some might argue, intentionally) spread in the first place does not argue in their favor.
I'm still waiting to see some links to head-to-head articles posted contemporaneously so I can compare.
Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda (which is mainly meant to capture the hearts and minds of the young and naive) to understand the underlying reality.
Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda (which is mainly meant to capture the hearts and minds of the young and naive) to understand the underlying reality.
> Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda
The parent already cited the Iraq War coverage, in which they incited the country to violence with known lies, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. If this isn’t enough to swear you off their coverage, I honestly don’t know what else would.
But to your point, the NY Times has millions of readers and this is a very small subsection of their audience. Which do you think is a more important function of journalism: lying to the masses in a way that is understood to be propaganda by your so-called “experts” or telling the majority of people the truth in the first place?
The parent already cited the Iraq War coverage, in which they incited the country to violence with known lies, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. If this isn’t enough to swear you off their coverage, I honestly don’t know what else would.
But to your point, the NY Times has millions of readers and this is a very small subsection of their audience. Which do you think is a more important function of journalism: lying to the masses in a way that is understood to be propaganda by your so-called “experts” or telling the majority of people the truth in the first place?
Good point, so when it’s a non-adversarial country then different reporting has the potential to be more honest reporting.
> isn’t there a political problem with a foreign entity controlling the content of another
We restrict foreign ownership of media properties to 25 percent (without review) [1]. Expanding that rule to social media would make sense.
Beijing requires TikTok run itself differently within China, after all [2]. That’s the difference in care that matters. (Facebook’s lack of care in Myanmar comes to mind as analogous [3].)
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/14...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/tech/tiktok-douyin-bytedance-...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
We restrict foreign ownership of media properties to 25 percent (without review) [1]. Expanding that rule to social media would make sense.
Beijing requires TikTok run itself differently within China, after all [2]. That’s the difference in care that matters. (Facebook’s lack of care in Myanmar comes to mind as analogous [3].)
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/14...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/tech/tiktok-douyin-bytedance-...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
Expanding the foreign ownership rule to include social media platform companies (and, frankly, any strategically-important technology company in general) seems like a no-brainer.
Other countries should logically do the same. If Burma/Myanmar doesn't like what Facebook is doing there, they have demonstrated the capability to shut it down on multiple occasions. Setting aside that their government is a basically-illegitimate military junta, if I was them, I sure as fuck wouldn't let a US tech company operate within my country without a significant local presence that I could exert influence on.
Other countries should logically do the same. If Burma/Myanmar doesn't like what Facebook is doing there, they have demonstrated the capability to shut it down on multiple occasions. Setting aside that their government is a basically-illegitimate military junta, if I was them, I sure as fuck wouldn't let a US tech company operate within my country without a significant local presence that I could exert influence on.
Both are bad but there is a qualitative difference between the badness of USA's global objectives and China's global objectives, and the means by which they work towards these objectives. The equivalence people draw between western powers and China is really puzzling to me. And no, I'm not American and I am no fan of American foreign policy.
The United States has a history going back a full century of directly and indirectly forcing extremely violent changes in government when foreign governments are insufficiently deferential to American political/economic interests. Kissinger's state department alone aided and abetted multiple genocides and the deaths of over a million civilians.
Not only has the PRC never done this, they take the public stance that they have absolutely no interest in this, and publicly espouse the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The only obvious Chinese global objective is a world where they exist as a non-ideological economic partner willing to profit from trade without strings attached, like America's enforced austerity and privatization "reforms".
Not only has the PRC never done this, they take the public stance that they have absolutely no interest in this, and publicly espouse the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The only obvious Chinese global objective is a world where they exist as a non-ideological economic partner willing to profit from trade without strings attached, like America's enforced austerity and privatization "reforms".
> How this is different from Meta's "reduction" of pro-Palestinian posts exposure and preventing it from spreading too far?
Presumably because Palestine is one salient issue, being moderated at a time of extreme engagement, while the linked article asserts a pattern of such moderation across the site.
It's the difference between "This subreddit doesn't allow political discussion" and "conservative topics are banned on Reddit".
Presumably because Palestine is one salient issue, being moderated at a time of extreme engagement, while the linked article asserts a pattern of such moderation across the site.
It's the difference between "This subreddit doesn't allow political discussion" and "conservative topics are banned on Reddit".
Speaking as an American, yes, it is most definitely "us vs. them".
China is a geopolitical enemy ruled by a communist dictatorship that wants to diminish America's power, standing, and influence in the world to advance their own. American power and the mere threat of bringing it to bear on our adversaries is what enabled the past three decades of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, and China is actively working to undermine and diminish it in favor of their own.
Asking for some kind of balance or symmetry here is like saying it's unfair that fighter jets drop bombs on the enemy and not their own side. Yes, that's the whole point. We win, they lose.
China is a geopolitical enemy ruled by a communist dictatorship that wants to diminish America's power, standing, and influence in the world to advance their own. American power and the mere threat of bringing it to bear on our adversaries is what enabled the past three decades of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, and China is actively working to undermine and diminish it in favor of their own.
Asking for some kind of balance or symmetry here is like saying it's unfair that fighter jets drop bombs on the enemy and not their own side. Yes, that's the whole point. We win, they lose.
Ah yes - peace in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia, Rwanda... Much peace, such prosperity.
I wouldn't choose China over the US any day of the week, but over the last 3 decades they've objectively been more pacifist and prosperous than most US client states. Please tone down the jingo.
I wouldn't choose China over the US any day of the week, but over the last 3 decades they've objectively been more pacifist and prosperous than most US client states. Please tone down the jingo.
I’m not so sure that China is “pacifist and prosperous” compared to the US. What I am sure of is that you just have not heard of many cases where they haven’t been, because it’s China.
There’s no question that the average person in any random country has more to worry about from the United States than China. Whether the U.S. or China is a nicer country to live in is a different question.
"China is a geopolitical enemy ruled by a communist dictatorship that wants to diminish America's power, standing, and influence in the world to advance their own. American power and the mere threat of bringing it to bear on our adversaries is what enabled the past three decades of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, and China is actively working to undermine and diminish it in favor of their own."
Exactly. Godspeed to China and I hope it stomps the US into the dirt.
"Asking for some kind of balance or symmetry here is like saying it's unfair that fighter jets drop bombs on the enemy and not their own side. Yes, that's the whole point. We win, they lose."
Except it's the other way around. China wins and you lose. Again and again and again.
Exactly. Godspeed to China and I hope it stomps the US into the dirt.
"Asking for some kind of balance or symmetry here is like saying it's unfair that fighter jets drop bombs on the enemy and not their own side. Yes, that's the whole point. We win, they lose."
Except it's the other way around. China wins and you lose. Again and again and again.
“A boot stomping on a human face, forever.”
[deleted]
Meta is run by billionaires acting in their own self interest and it’s obvious when often in conflict with the USA government. TikTok parent company is accountable to the government of China.
This is a naive reductionism.
Also, the fact that Meta employs lots of spooks is commonly perceived as "Meta is accountable to the US government", which is no less reductionist.
Also, the fact that Meta employs lots of spooks is commonly perceived as "Meta is accountable to the US government", which is no less reductionist.
It’s not naive at all. Corporate dynamics are widely different in China. In China there is no strong separation between corporations and government.
Corporate dynamics is different across any culture.
> In China there is no strong separation between corporations and government.
Is there even a country where that's actually a thing? It's definitely the opposite of "strong separation" in the US, just look at the lobbying institution.
> In China there is no strong separation between corporations and government.
Is there even a country where that's actually a thing? It's definitely the opposite of "strong separation" in the US, just look at the lobbying institution.
[deleted]
They’re both bad but foreign propaganda is worse.
See also, whataboutism.
EDIT: Nvm, misread the Appendix. They’re dampening pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine and anti-Trump content.
> Can we look both of them objectively and say both are bad (I think so), or is there us vs. them mentality?
Yes. That doesn’t preclude classifying how they are bad, both commonly and uniquely.
> Can we look both of them objectively and say both are bad (I think so), or is there us vs. them mentality?
Yes. That doesn’t preclude classifying how they are bad, both commonly and uniquely.
I think you misread it, the linked study shows that HamasIsIsis is also a suppressed tag. They are suppressing pro-Israel content and promoting pro-Palestine content.
You’re right. Thank you.
It was a honest question. I have no TikTok account, and not opening Facebook app more than a year now. I just share some photography I do on Instagram, but it doesn't cross post to Facebook either.
So, I just wanted to ask and learn.
So, I just wanted to ask and learn.
I also have neither. I’m just citing the paper. Reading it might be a good start.
It's sitting on my printer's output tray, however I have more pressing matters now. I'll go through it tomorrow.
> however I have more pressing matters now
This is rude. You’re implicitly valuing everyone else’s time less than yours. (Not bad. Just rude.)
This is rude. You’re implicitly valuing everyone else’s time less than yours. (Not bad. Just rude.)
Nope. I didn't say I did not open/skimmed it. I looked into it, got a couple of questions and asked it, and you answered it, and I thanked you in a long form.
If I didn't value your time or anyone else's, I can write short/snarky answers and/or leave you hanging.
Lastly, insinuating that someone didn't read the article is also rude, and against the guidelines, too.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Have a nice day, and a nice year.
If I didn't value your time or anyone else's, I can write short/snarky answers and/or leave you hanging.
Lastly, insinuating that someone didn't read the article is also rude, and against the guidelines, too.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Have a nice day, and a nice year.
kortilla(2)
It’s not.
This nonsense was created as fodder for incompetent and dishonest politicians.
You’ll now hear the least competent ones exclaim things like “a rutgers study says China bad, China spy, China control of social media not same as US government control of social media ugg ugg fire fire”.
This nonsense was created as fodder for incompetent and dishonest politicians.
You’ll now hear the least competent ones exclaim things like “a rutgers study says China bad, China spy, China control of social media not same as US government control of social media ugg ugg fire fire”.
fjoiefj(1)
CrzyLngPwd(1)
Racing0461(1)
Smallest surprise of the year. And year is ending.
It is very clear you jumped in already biased and completely ignored all the great comments already here telling how awful a "study" this actually is.
Sure. It was a joke. I'm convinced that this is clash of powers from all sides using all tools to dominate over other. I just happened to be born at one of them which determines your side. But I do believe that western country treat their inhabitants better than for example Chinese one.
Sure, some of them do. The US? Maybe, depending on what it is you want to do and how rich you are. Scandinavian countries, yes.
* Most notable is that the baseline for determining whether a hashtag has been boosted or deboosted on TikTok comes from Instagram---hardly an unbiased source of ground truth, especially in light of the recent allegations that Meta deboosts pro-Palestinian content and other controversial political content.
* Worse is that there's no statistical analysis showing that generic political hashtags are significantly different from China-sensitive political hashtags between TikTok and Instagram. There is large variance within categories, and even some of the generic political hashtags show a bigger difference between platforms than the China-sensitive political hashtags. Statistics would help determine whether a real difference exists beyond sampling error, but none are to be found in this report.
* No explanation of how the hashtags were determined. They were apparently chosen a priori by the authors, but no criteria for inclusion or exclusion are mentioned.
* Other small details like discrepencies between Fig 2. and Fig 3. in describing TikTok as having half the hashtags as Instagram and Instagram has having double the hashtags as TikTok.
Overall, this report just seems like fodder for the anti-TikTok crowd, not a dispassionate inquiry into how TikTok trends relfect CCP narrative building.