TikTok divestment law upheld by federal appeals court(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
TikTok divestment law upheld by federal appeals court
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/06/tiktok-divestment-law-upheld-by-federal-appeals-court.html
525 comments
It also speaks books worth of implications that the TikTok CEO would never straight up state to Congress that they would not promote CCP material or disinformation strategies if they were told to do so (not like they have a choice either, its literally a CCP law)
I don’t agree with that analysis. The modern Supreme Court loves to wade into high-profile First Amendment issues, all the more when it’s actually a relatively novel application. They’ll take this case either to be argued at the end of this term or next term, and it will be subject to their analysis and whatever Trump decides to do with his discretion.
Agreed. This would be the perfect vehicle for a very broad ruling that the government can ban media in the name of national security, the precedent of which could be used in an ad hoc manner.
Oooof I don’t think it will, but that bogey man is always in the back of the mind after SCOTUS essentially made the office of the President a 4 year kingship where you are immune to all but the most heinous crimes as president as long as you can cross the I’s and dot the T’s of “official business”
This is a bipartisan issue. One of the three judges is an Obama appointee. If this case goes to the SC (big if), expect it to swing the exact same way.
Trump also has no ability to upend this: he lacks the authority by law.
Trump also has no ability to upend this: he lacks the authority by law.
He can make sure that they aren’t prosecuted for the next 4 years since he is essentially the “sheriff and DA” that brings this stuff to court. He has made it clear that the DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc will be his personal police force and not independent. This is a yuge part of his Project 2025 plan
The court must not have looked very hard.
"Let us be very clear: TikTok does not remove content based on sensitivities related to China. We have never been asked by the Chinese government to remove any content and we would not do so if asked. Period. Our US moderation team, which is led out of California, reviews content for adherence to our US policies – just like other US companies in our space. We are not influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese government; TikTok does not operate in China, nor do we have any intention of doing so in the future."
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/statement-on-tiktoks-conte...
"58. Have members of the Chinese Communist Party, or other members of the Chinese government, asked ByteDance or TikTok employees to heat content?
TikTok does not heat content in the U.S. at the request of any government, including the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok may promote or "heat" specific content (including, e.g., promoting the video of an artist who will be hosting a concert on TikTok Live) in line with company content policies to support the inclusion of diverse and high-quality content on the platform. A content operations team will review heating requests submitted by a limited number of cross-functional partners with access to the heating request, and the Content Operations team will either approve or reject the request based on their assessment of whether it follows the platform's best practices in support of content diversity and quality (including, e.g., being engaging and meaningful and focusing on timely/relevant content) and business objectives. An audit function, that is in the process of being refined, will regularly review the heating request process to ensure internal compliance with company policies. Even if the request is approved, increasing visibility or video views ("VV") is not guaranteed as the recommendation system will not heat low quality content (e.g, reposted or irrelevant content). Heating impacts less than 1% of VV in the US."
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230323/115519/HHRG...
"Let us be very clear: TikTok does not remove content based on sensitivities related to China. We have never been asked by the Chinese government to remove any content and we would not do so if asked. Period. Our US moderation team, which is led out of California, reviews content for adherence to our US policies – just like other US companies in our space. We are not influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese government; TikTok does not operate in China, nor do we have any intention of doing so in the future."
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/statement-on-tiktoks-conte...
"58. Have members of the Chinese Communist Party, or other members of the Chinese government, asked ByteDance or TikTok employees to heat content?
TikTok does not heat content in the U.S. at the request of any government, including the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok may promote or "heat" specific content (including, e.g., promoting the video of an artist who will be hosting a concert on TikTok Live) in line with company content policies to support the inclusion of diverse and high-quality content on the platform. A content operations team will review heating requests submitted by a limited number of cross-functional partners with access to the heating request, and the Content Operations team will either approve or reject the request based on their assessment of whether it follows the platform's best practices in support of content diversity and quality (including, e.g., being engaging and meaningful and focusing on timely/relevant content) and business objectives. An audit function, that is in the process of being refined, will regularly review the heating request process to ensure internal compliance with company policies. Even if the request is approved, increasing visibility or video views ("VV") is not guaranteed as the recommendation system will not heat low quality content (e.g, reposted or irrelevant content). Heating impacts less than 1% of VV in the US."
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230323/115519/HHRG...
The court must not have looked very hard.
The court isn't an investigative body, they take the evidence submitted. Perhaps TikTok was more careful to be truthful in court submissions than press releases.
The court isn't an investigative body, they take the evidence submitted. Perhaps TikTok was more careful to be truthful in court submissions than press releases.
Especially since what they said in the press doesn't even matter.
The models come from China.
You don't need to ask the US team to silence and amplify certain topics when your models do it for you.
If you know this is happening, you tell the US gov it isn't happening, and they find out it is - you're in for a bad time.
I'm not sure it's physically possible for a CEO to bury their head in the sand deep enough to plead ignorance in this situation.
The models come from China.
You don't need to ask the US team to silence and amplify certain topics when your models do it for you.
If you know this is happening, you tell the US gov it isn't happening, and they find out it is - you're in for a bad time.
I'm not sure it's physically possible for a CEO to bury their head in the sand deep enough to plead ignorance in this situation.
Would this really work? Hardcoded models? When you want to influence a certain topic in a new way, on recent events - this means a new model needs to be created and adjusted all the time. I assume they rather use a complex traditional algorithm that can be tweaked - and if it is in use in US - it can be verified. If it is run through china, then things are clear as well. Do we have technical insights how it works?
You can simply use specific training examples that teach the model what you please. Eg. a set of examples which lead ranking/retreival/filtering models. The models are already online training and weights likely updated every ~1 hour ( or even less).
It’d be easy to go from a set of “moderators” who find examples and use it to query related content and use it as negative training samples. Just a guess.
It’d be easy to go from a set of “moderators” who find examples and use it to query related content and use it as negative training samples. Just a guess.
Yeah I'm pretty flabbergasted that the commenter who posted this press language thinks it's a disproof of the issue rather than a transparently carefully worded statement that you could drive a truck of algorithmic manipulation through.
I mean, it's a lie by omission - which fundamentally needs familiarity (and oftentimes intermediate+ knowledge on a matter) to spot and scrutinize. The people who write these press releases are led by smart people that often talk to smart lawyers - it's easy to get lost in the sneaky language sauce.
I think those kind of answers might be exactly what the court is talking about. You don’t have to “remove” something to influence its reach.
They’re denying stuff that doesn’t matter while leaving plenty of room for the kind of behavior that does.
To the question that you quoted: asked a question in the past tense, they responded in the present. Asked whether individual people had made requests, they answered whether they currently act on government requests.
It reads as such a non-denial denial.
They’re denying stuff that doesn’t matter while leaving plenty of room for the kind of behavior that does.
To the question that you quoted: asked a question in the past tense, they responded in the present. Asked whether individual people had made requests, they answered whether they currently act on government requests.
It reads as such a non-denial denial.
Things can be manipulated without being removed. This sort of word substitution is the type of misdirection "never squarely denies" could be referencing. They're asked about manipulation and they reply about removal. Removal is merely one type of manipulation. For example something like permanently hiding content while keeping it in the database isn't a removal.
"We are not influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese government."
It is laughable to suggest that the basis for this ruling is anything less than fear and paranoia about Chinese government softpower. Nothing they could have said, and no fact they could bring to bear, would change the outcome of the court, which has been predetermined, for better or worse, by the current American political climate.
It is laughable to suggest that the basis for this ruling is anything less than fear and paranoia about Chinese government softpower. Nothing they could have said, and no fact they could bring to bear, would change the outcome of the court, which has been predetermined, for better or worse, by the current American political climate.
Search tiananmen on any app and then on TikTok.
It is ridiculous that China can block all these sites but the US can't block TikTok
Facebook (and Messenger)
Instagram
Pinterest
Twitter
Blogger
Tumblr
Tinder
Blogspot
New York Times
The Financial Times
The Economist
The Wall Street Journal
Bloomberg
Google News
Wikipedia
YouTube
Netflix
Vimeo
Google Search
Bing
Yahoo
DuckDuckGo
Messenger (and Facebook)
WeChat
SnapChat
Telegram
SignalI'm no fan of TikTok but this is a really shitty argument.
China can do it because China doesn't have the First Amendment, which is, you know, sort of the whole point...
China can do it because China doesn't have the First Amendment, which is, you know, sort of the whole point...
But in practice, that means the only global social network—one that is accessible in both the US and in China—is one that agrees to Chinese censorship laws. IMO, this is a massive backfire to the purpose of freedom of speech.
Isn't there a totally separate TikTok for China?
>TikTok, whose mainland Chinese and Hong Kong[3] counterpart is Douyin,[a][4] is a short-form video hosting service (...)
>While TikTok and Douyin share a similar user interface, the platforms operate separately.[28][4][29] Douyin includes an in-video search feature that can search by people's faces for more videos of them, along with other features such as buying, booking hotels, and making geo-tagged reviews.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok
So I think even TikTok (app for non-China markets) isn't available in China.
>TikTok, whose mainland Chinese and Hong Kong[3] counterpart is Douyin,[a][4] is a short-form video hosting service (...)
>While TikTok and Douyin share a similar user interface, the platforms operate separately.[28][4][29] Douyin includes an in-video search feature that can search by people's faces for more videos of them, along with other features such as buying, booking hotels, and making geo-tagged reviews.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok
So I think even TikTok (app for non-China markets) isn't available in China.
paradox of intolerance rears it's head up again.
Yes? That’s how it works. Because as soon as you act like the enemy, you’re no different from them.
An America without TikTok is still vastly more free than China. Our constitution is not a suicide pact.
Yep, liberalism is hard. More breaking news at 10.
Do Americans really have a 1st amendment anymore?
If social media sites had identity proofing (e.g. IAL2) and you can definitely say who is saying what - then you can talk
A) About “Americans”
B) Freedom of Speech
If TikTok bans a post from user846859347 which American’s freedom of speech are we talking about. 98.65% of shit on TT is bot-generated propaganda and removing it isn’t violating anyone’s freedom of speech
A) About “Americans”
B) Freedom of Speech
If TikTok bans a post from user846859347 which American’s freedom of speech are we talking about. 98.65% of shit on TT is bot-generated propaganda and removing it isn’t violating anyone’s freedom of speech
Yes, which is why you hear them unabashedly complaining about their government nonstop.
Compared to China? Absolutely. Ask Gedhun Choekyi Nyima
Plenty of countries don't have the First Amendment that are still liberal democracies that adhere to more or less free trade principles. The PRC does it because they are totalitarian State subject to the control of the Communist Party of China and their censorship regime does not stop at the border:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_censorship_abroad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_censorship_abroad
[deleted]
That's a hell of a lot of milieu control. Seems they are just trying to prevent an understanding and ultimately a blending of cultures and are effectively controlling language and therefore the people's world view.
... yes...
maxglute(2)
Oh no, fear and paranoia about a dictatorial regime with extrajudicial police stations in the US to hunt down family members of domestic political dissidents putting media in front of our children's eyes 24/7 while walking around our streets with space age sensor arrays! Oh no! So unjustifiably fearful!
Who could possibly take issue with such a technology!
Who could possibly take issue with such a technology!
Search tiananmen on any app and then on TikTok. Regardless of their testimony, it doesn't take much to show that it isn't 100% of the truth.
I just did though - got lots of results about the massacre. Not sure what you’re alluding to.
If a court of appeals says a party to a case "has not denied" something they are speaking specifically about the record of the trial being presented to them.
Not sure why are you getting down voted to express an informative take.
It feels like I'm on Reddit and not in a place that should be more intellectually active and open.
It feels like I'm on Reddit and not in a place that should be more intellectually active and open.
Public comments not made in court are worthless as a defense. They didn't make those same remarks in court where they could be forced to answer questions about their meaning and where the speaker could be sent to prison for knowingly lying about them.
The hypothetical risks of a Chinese owned TikTok seem a smaller concern than the Chinese having hacked into and still having access(!) to US telecom networks:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/03/chinese-hack-global...
The risks are not hypothetical - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/romania-pres....
TikTok was used to push an unknown, unlikable character to almost win the presidential elections in Romania, who shares a lot of border with both Ukraine, the Black Sea and Danube.
TikTok was used to push an unknown, unlikable character to almost win the presidential elections in Romania, who shares a lot of border with both Ukraine, the Black Sea and Danube.
Was it used by China, by the candidate, or by romainians? The national security arguments about speech on tiktok always avoid this question.
See also: is China suddenly a center of human rights activism, or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli treatment of civilians?
See also: is China suddenly a center of human rights activism, or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli treatment of civilians?
"or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli treatment of civilians?"
Nobody in the open knows, that is the problem.
But also russian millitary bloggers are outraged by the IDF. Simply because it is war in the information sphere, not that they care about the people there. Just like China don't give a damn about them - but they can and do use it to weaken the self declared western moral leadership.
Nobody in the open knows, that is the problem.
But also russian millitary bloggers are outraged by the IDF. Simply because it is war in the information sphere, not that they care about the people there. Just like China don't give a damn about them - but they can and do use it to weaken the self declared western moral leadership.
Is there really any question that Americans have reacted negatively to Israeli war tactics? I think there is also a comment from an actual Romanian somewhere in this threat observing that their fellow citizens are legitimately frustrated with the two major parties.
Notice the extreme generational divide in how Americans react to Israeli war tactics? I feel this is caused by younger people consuming vastly more social media in general and TikTok specifically.
I live in a senior home converted to apartment buildings, and all the senior people (who still live in the building even after the conversion) have been shocked throughout this war, as if a person they knew flipped 180 and turned out to be nothing like you thought they were.
The newer apartment renters (20s-40s typical young urban dwellers) are not surprised by anything they see on the news regarding the conflict. I think they had ways to see what the older generations had just been blind to since before this latest flare up happened.
The newer apartment renters (20s-40s typical young urban dwellers) are not surprised by anything they see on the news regarding the conflict. I think they had ways to see what the older generations had just been blind to since before this latest flare up happened.
I'd argue this is because social media is ironically enough, manipulated less than traditional mass media.
Despite brigading from any side, anyone can get anything trending on social media, including videos of the aftermath of israeli air strikes, meanwhile nothing but filtered news headlines make it out of editors.
A fun exercise is comparing how big news websites frame headlines when Palestinians die (passive voice) and Ukrainian / israelis are killed.
Despite brigading from any side, anyone can get anything trending on social media, including videos of the aftermath of israeli air strikes, meanwhile nothing but filtered news headlines make it out of editors.
A fun exercise is comparing how big news websites frame headlines when Palestinians die (passive voice) and Ukrainian / israelis are killed.
It's not any less manipulated - there are just more parties doing psychological operations and not just established players. In the case of TikTok, China gets to pick and choose which operations are free to run, and likely picks the ones that are more destabilizing to the US.
Public opinion isn't destabilising in the US, instead it forms the basis of our system of government.
There are multiple historical examples of public opinion being shaped by propaganda.
If one newspaper can convince the United States to support the Spanish-American War because one of her own warships blew up due to poor maintenance, It's not a stretch to believe a sufficiently well-funded state operation with relatively unfettered control over an entire media application could run a similar opinion shaping operation.
Public opinion is the cornerstone of the US system, but the public can be misinformed at scale.
If one newspaper can convince the United States to support the Spanish-American War because one of her own warships blew up due to poor maintenance, It's not a stretch to believe a sufficiently well-funded state operation with relatively unfettered control over an entire media application could run a similar opinion shaping operation.
Public opinion is the cornerstone of the US system, but the public can be misinformed at scale.
> There are multiple historical examples of public opinion being shaped by propaganda.
Correct. But (until relatively recently) the proposed solution to deception and propaganda was dismantling them with facts and reason. "Free and open discussion in the public square is critical to a well-functioning society." is one of the foundational principles of our country.
This notion that adults should be protected by deception and propaganda by censorship, rather than frank and open conversation is a distressing resurgence of authoritarianism.
As always, when looking at the machines of control that politicians are assembling, ask what can be done with it by someone who is dedicated not to the protection of their citizens, but rather the suppression or destruction of a section of the citizenry they disfavor. If someone who hates can legally do more harm with the machinery than someone who cares can do good, either ensure that it is built differently, or that it is not built at all.
Correct. But (until relatively recently) the proposed solution to deception and propaganda was dismantling them with facts and reason. "Free and open discussion in the public square is critical to a well-functioning society." is one of the foundational principles of our country.
This notion that adults should be protected by deception and propaganda by censorship, rather than frank and open conversation is a distressing resurgence of authoritarianism.
As always, when looking at the machines of control that politicians are assembling, ask what can be done with it by someone who is dedicated not to the protection of their citizens, but rather the suppression or destruction of a section of the citizenry they disfavor. If someone who hates can legally do more harm with the machinery than someone who cares can do good, either ensure that it is built differently, or that it is not built at all.
Unfortunately, by that reasoning we probably shouldn't have let the Internet get so big and omnidirectional.
"Is there really any question that Americans have reacted negatively to Israeli war tactics?"
No, but is there a question that china still might try to influence and leverage it?
No, but is there a question that china still might try to influence and leverage it?
The international marketplace of ideas may pose some risk of allowing the American system of government to fufill its potential as a representative democracy, but the officials in Washington face no hazard greater than that. :-)
"The international marketplace of ideas "
Market place implies transparent exchange of ideas. But if the TikTok algorithm is political biased, it is not a honest exchange of ideas anymore. (same goes for X's or FB, or whatever). But personally I am cool with not using those services.
Market place implies transparent exchange of ideas. But if the TikTok algorithm is political biased, it is not a honest exchange of ideas anymore. (same goes for X's or FB, or whatever). But personally I am cool with not using those services.
A newspaper's editorial columns aren't the marketplace of ideas, the sum of all newspapers is. If TikTok were as editorially controlled as a newspaper, it would still represent one venue in the marketplace.
In essence, the government wants to ban foreign news sources. TikTok may have been less editorialized than Al Jazeera, but it had wider reach.
In essence, the government wants to ban foreign news sources. TikTok may have been less editorialized than Al Jazeera, but it had wider reach.
For some people TikTok contains all the newspapers.
For others, there is only one newspaper they think is worth reading.
Indeed. But newspapers do not work by hooking up their audience via individually targeted algorithms that make their users addictive.
This argument is weak. Editorials are marked as such. The board makeup is known. Tiktok is a platform wherein its impossible to know which content is organically popular and what is being artificially weighted, we have no insight into who is doing the weighting, and which pieces of content are controlled by state media.
In short, you have no idea whether it is more or less editorialized than other news outlets, and that's the central issue here.
In short, you have no idea whether it is more or less editorialized than other news outlets, and that's the central issue here.
Even if TikTok were 100% editorialized - like the most biased newspapers - it would be an affront to the principles of a free society to ban it for failing to encourage people to support the general line. That's on top of the fact that it hasn't even been demonstrated to be editorialized.
I do agree in general.
It is a sign of weakness for a free society.
Ideally in my oppinion, intelligence services would proof the manipulation - and show it to the public. Who then decide on their own to be sceptical of TikTok content.
I am against a direct government intervention.
But it is still a very different situation in terms of impact compared to a single local newspaper.
It is a sign of weakness for a free society.
Ideally in my oppinion, intelligence services would proof the manipulation - and show it to the public. Who then decide on their own to be sceptical of TikTok content.
I am against a direct government intervention.
But it is still a very different situation in terms of impact compared to a single local newspaper.
I’m not convinced they would have reacted this way otherwise.
A lot of folks have been empowered to say “end the war in Gaza”. A lot of those folks don’t quite know what to say to “should we allow Hamas to seize control of Palestine”?
A lot of folks have been empowered to say “end the war in Gaza”. A lot of those folks don’t quite know what to say to “should we allow Hamas to seize control of Palestine”?
Hamas already has control of Gaza, and if there's any chance of it seizing control of the West Bank, bombing Gaza will not prevent it from doing so.
Bombing people indiscriminately tends to cause them to oppose you and support the people who are most credibly able to stop you - regardless of anything you do. So it was inevitable that support for Israel would plummet and for Hamas would rise, once people learned about the situation.
TikTok only had a hand in this to the extent that it helped Western citizens bypass Western soft censorship and learn about the situation sooner.
Notice that if TikTok was spreading a false or one-sided view of the situation, Israeli and Western government could have effectively countered it by providing an even more complete information with even more evidence, but they did not. This in itself is weak evidence that there isn't a more complete view to provide.
Bombing people indiscriminately tends to cause them to oppose you and support the people who are most credibly able to stop you - regardless of anything you do. So it was inevitable that support for Israel would plummet and for Hamas would rise, once people learned about the situation.
TikTok only had a hand in this to the extent that it helped Western citizens bypass Western soft censorship and learn about the situation sooner.
Notice that if TikTok was spreading a false or one-sided view of the situation, Israeli and Western government could have effectively countered it by providing an even more complete information with even more evidence, but they did not. This in itself is weak evidence that there isn't a more complete view to provide.
But most Americans didn't want Hamas to rule Palestine ever from the beginning. It's not as if they went mask off last year only. The entire root of the conflict is that all of Palestine basically is not sovereign. Us deciding who rules Palestine just makes that issue worse.
And yet 93% of Hamas’ funding comes from Iran.
I don’t believe we should determine who rules Palestine. But I also don’t believe we should allow a hostile state to just bankroll effective seizure of Palestine and the military intimidation of Israel.
It’s frankly insanity to tell Israel to be chill while a hostile nation, which is posturing a potential nuclear attack, is actively funding a large and growing base of terrorist operations next door.
Palestine is a proxy battleground of many foreign actors. Reducing it to a conflict that is just Israel vs. Palestine is bullshit
I don’t believe we should determine who rules Palestine. But I also don’t believe we should allow a hostile state to just bankroll effective seizure of Palestine and the military intimidation of Israel.
It’s frankly insanity to tell Israel to be chill while a hostile nation, which is posturing a potential nuclear attack, is actively funding a large and growing base of terrorist operations next door.
Palestine is a proxy battleground of many foreign actors. Reducing it to a conflict that is just Israel vs. Palestine is bullshit
So, if we don't determine who rules Palestine, how do we remove the currently in power party and also any future parties if they happen to be insufficiently homegrown to our standards (the funding aspect)?
The entire conflict is that Israel believes their safety necessitates that Palestine not be sovereign because they believe a sovereign Palestine will try to take back the land it lost whether in Israel itself or the various illegal encroachments over the years. Palestine on the other hand is not going to accept Israeli sovereignty over it. And thus the conflict. However many or few foreign actors are involved doesn't change the root of the conflict.
The entire conflict is that Israel believes their safety necessitates that Palestine not be sovereign because they believe a sovereign Palestine will try to take back the land it lost whether in Israel itself or the various illegal encroachments over the years. Palestine on the other hand is not going to accept Israeli sovereignty over it. And thus the conflict. However many or few foreign actors are involved doesn't change the root of the conflict.
They believe that because Iran is in fact funding military conflict.
It is messy geopolitics. There are dire consequences to sitting back and doing nothing. It’s a prisoners dilemma with large moral negative externalities to playing.
It is messy geopolitics. There are dire consequences to sitting back and doing nothing. It’s a prisoners dilemma with large moral negative externalities to playing.
The best opinion is the one formed with the most information. If learning something new about the facts of the case changes someone's reaction to it, it is probably for the better.
If this were not the case, democracies would work best when the public was not taught to read. :-) Can we really argue that the public is too stupid to be trusted with the ability to communicate? If that is the idea we should admit, at least, that what is being considered inverts every principle of the free world.
If this were not the case, democracies would work best when the public was not taught to read. :-) Can we really argue that the public is too stupid to be trusted with the ability to communicate? If that is the idea we should admit, at least, that what is being considered inverts every principle of the free world.
The best opinion is formed from complete information. More information is strictly harmful if it’s driven by one-sided bad faith distribution networks.
Having a foreign government control the narratives that reach mass audiences is not at all the same as trusting the public with the ability to communicate.
Having a foreign government control the narratives that reach mass audiences is not at all the same as trusting the public with the ability to communicate.
Maybe it would help if we distilled the abstract ideas ("foreign influence on the narrative ") to the specific event (current administration wanted to hide the human cost of Israeli tactics / the existence of a spoiler candidate).
I think you missed some important details salient to understanding the conflict in Gaza.
Imagine how you would feel if the administration was more Saudi-aligned and wanted to shut down HN because you were doing too good a job of sharing those details! I support all the truth getting out.
Ok great. Could you share the _whole truth_ then please? Could you discuss rocket attacks from Hezbollah? Massive tunnel networks and arms networks? Funding, military training, and arms coordination from Iran? The geopolitical implications of a weak Israel? The complicated connections with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
You’re just spouting one cherry picked narrative of an incredibly messy situation.
You’re just spouting one cherry picked narrative of an incredibly messy situation.
Like the fact it's been continuously invaded and mass-murdered by Israel since Israel began? They call it "mowing the lawn". You mow the lawn periodically so the grass doesn't get too tall.
[deleted]
>Was it used by China, by the candidate, or by romainians?
I think the allegation, implied rather than stated in this case, is that it is not predominantly any of those, but that it is predominantly the Russian state.
Which would serve as an example that it's able to be mobilized, even weaponized, at the behest of state actors. China would not necessarily be culpable under this interpretation of this particular example, but it illustrates that they could exercise that same mechanism.
I think the allegation, implied rather than stated in this case, is that it is not predominantly any of those, but that it is predominantly the Russian state.
Which would serve as an example that it's able to be mobilized, even weaponized, at the behest of state actors. China would not necessarily be culpable under this interpretation of this particular example, but it illustrates that they could exercise that same mechanism.
I don't have an answer to this, but why if the algorithm can manipulate people, regardless of who directed it, why are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the platforms? I'm not much of a social media user but a lot of the argument here is the algorithm can feed propoganda that people will succumb to.
Why is it ok then for Youtube to feed violence and awful behavior to people (probably to lots of kids) in the US if it's able to influence people? Is the thought that Meta and Google (both without ethics or morals) are just trying to get us to buy shit we don't need, but Tiktok is trying to get us to agree (or not agree) with their stance on x?
Why is it ok then for Youtube to feed violence and awful behavior to people (probably to lots of kids) in the US if it's able to influence people? Is the thought that Meta and Google (both without ethics or morals) are just trying to get us to buy shit we don't need, but Tiktok is trying to get us to agree (or not agree) with their stance on x?
> why are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the platforms?
What's the alternative? Even HN has "algorithmic content" the algorithm is based on voting and time.
What's the alternative? Even HN has "algorithmic content" the algorithm is based on voting and time.
Tangent: There's a study that I can't access, but the abstract claims that during the 2020 election, chronological feeds exposed Facebook users to more "untrustworthy content", without necessarily having an effect on people's political knowledge or polarization [1]:
> We investigated the effects of Facebook’s and Instagram’s feed algorithms during the 2020 US election. We assigned a sample of consenting users to reverse-chronologically-ordered feeds instead of the default algorithms. Moving users out of algorithmic feeds substantially decreased the time they spent on the platforms and their activity. The chronological feed also affected exposure to content: The amount of political and untrustworthy content they saw increased on both platforms, the amount of content classified as uncivil or containing slur words they saw decreased on Facebook, and the amount of content from moderate friends and sources with ideologically mixed audiences they saw increased on Facebook. Despite these substantial changes in users’ on-platform experience, the chronological feed did not significantly alter levels of issue polarization, affective polarization, political knowledge, or other key attitudes during the 3-month study period.
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp9364
> We investigated the effects of Facebook’s and Instagram’s feed algorithms during the 2020 US election. We assigned a sample of consenting users to reverse-chronologically-ordered feeds instead of the default algorithms. Moving users out of algorithmic feeds substantially decreased the time they spent on the platforms and their activity. The chronological feed also affected exposure to content: The amount of political and untrustworthy content they saw increased on both platforms, the amount of content classified as uncivil or containing slur words they saw decreased on Facebook, and the amount of content from moderate friends and sources with ideologically mixed audiences they saw increased on Facebook. Despite these substantial changes in users’ on-platform experience, the chronological feed did not significantly alter levels of issue polarization, affective polarization, political knowledge, or other key attitudes during the 3-month study period.
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp9364
Regulation forcing the unbundling of client software from content hosting. Then people can choose different client software depending on which algorithms they'd like to sort things by.
While still algorithmic, a strictly chronological timeline is not really manipulatable, at least not in the same way
Spamming is the trivial way to manipulate chronological feeds. It is so bad that they need active moderation or ranking to prevent a board from going into a state of absolute uselessness.
I haven't used Facebook in 15 years, but I don't recall spam being a problem. I saw my friend's posts and replies by people who are friends with my friend.
That model may not work with all social media, but as far as I remember it worked for Facebook.
That model may not work with all social media, but as far as I remember it worked for Facebook.
Friends' posts are a tiny fraction of what you see on FB nowadays.
Because influence being illegal means "speech which causes an impact" is illegal. You don't want a law that outlaws propaganda because whomever decides what is propaganda has massive power.
There isn't such a thing as a non-manipulatible feed. Even a chronological feed can be manipulated by spam, so it is a bit like asking why is it okay for tools to be made of mass when it means they can be used to bludgeon someone to death.
There isn't such a thing as a non-manipulatible feed. Even a chronological feed can be manipulated by spam, so it is a bit like asking why is it okay for tools to be made of mass when it means they can be used to bludgeon someone to death.
>why are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the platforms?
I don't think we are okay, but I don't think there's an across the board equivalent. We prioritize the egregious examples while simultaneously searching for a systematic redress that's less heavy handed.
I don't think Facebook marketing Blue Apron to its users is the same kind of issue as undermining democracy in Romania.
I don't think we are okay, but I don't think there's an across the board equivalent. We prioritize the egregious examples while simultaneously searching for a systematic redress that's less heavy handed.
I don't think Facebook marketing Blue Apron to its users is the same kind of issue as undermining democracy in Romania.
At best this comment implies there's actual an actual smoking gun related to what functionally are nation-state capability and operations to influence populations external to their own, specifically related to TikTok/ByteDance. If you have an AP government level understanding of how China and the USA work, then you can probably understand that this is an intersection of: government laws, great power competition, and wealth seeking behaviors. When you control the algorithm, everyone downstream of it is at the mercy of the power structures and incentives of your top level leadership [0]. Consider the following:
1.) How Chinese companies interact with the CCP: they are 100% subservient with a CCP party member who can pull the CEO in at anytime and assign them tasks related to studying Xi thought and other party material, as well as demand the company do anything for the state.
2.) What great power competition looks like including economic warfare (tariffs, massive state subsidies to protect national defense, influence operations for allies, securing raw materials, reducing reliance on rivals, etc).
3.) How espionage in general works in support of political aims, and especially how each nation uses it to further their goals. For China, it's always been about vacuuming up as much data as possible, and then later on finding use cases for it. The disruption side of their practices are successful if they make chaos in an adversary that forces them to spend time on dealing with that instead of confronting them. Each nation acts in their own interest and are absolutely ruthless here in a way the average person rarely can comprehend.
4.) The free pass given to China related to tech and social media industries. American Social Media is banned in China[1]. Why do you think that is? There are many reports/cases of American intel/military use cases of social media to influence outcomes worldwide[2]. China wasn't going to allow this. But we are supposed to allow them access to us? We know this is the case because we would do the same in their position[3]. There's a reason it's banned in India[4].
5.) We know China influences the Douyin algorithm[5] locally to promote behaviors the government perceives as healthy or important to state interests. This often manifests in pushing more STEM related content and suppressing the ragebait content that flourishes in other nations[6].
Even if the leadership of Bytedance were 100% on board with not pushing CCP interests to the USA and world, there's no mechanism of protection or redress from them. The CCP can, and will, disappear high profile people at will with no repercussion, and replace you with someone who will listen. Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social media in their country.
In your case for "Americans upset over Israeli treatment of civilians". Assuming that the American outrage is 100% organic on it's own: It is in the best interest of China to amplify that outrage and make it seem stronger than it is for a variety of reasons:
A. This will have knock on effects for policy makers and their aides who are hyper-tuned in because if their constituents want something, voting for that is how B. Anything that disrupts American foreign policy and allies is an asset at weakening the grip the dollar has on international markets C. Israel is an extremely talented producer of technical people. If the relationship between the USA and Israel sours, then suddenly a pathway opens for China to get access to the incredible tech that Israel develops for various US programs. (This is also ignoring their incredibly advanced spyware capabilities in their private sector, which is morally repugnant, but it does exist).
[0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07663 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20160410083943/http://www.reddit... (look at the most addicted cities) [3] - https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-... [4] - https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-bytedance-ban-china-india-... [5] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY [6] - https://networkcontagion.us/reports/the-ccps-digital-charm-o... [7] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/25/the-growing-li...
1.) How Chinese companies interact with the CCP: they are 100% subservient with a CCP party member who can pull the CEO in at anytime and assign them tasks related to studying Xi thought and other party material, as well as demand the company do anything for the state.
2.) What great power competition looks like including economic warfare (tariffs, massive state subsidies to protect national defense, influence operations for allies, securing raw materials, reducing reliance on rivals, etc).
3.) How espionage in general works in support of political aims, and especially how each nation uses it to further their goals. For China, it's always been about vacuuming up as much data as possible, and then later on finding use cases for it. The disruption side of their practices are successful if they make chaos in an adversary that forces them to spend time on dealing with that instead of confronting them. Each nation acts in their own interest and are absolutely ruthless here in a way the average person rarely can comprehend.
4.) The free pass given to China related to tech and social media industries. American Social Media is banned in China[1]. Why do you think that is? There are many reports/cases of American intel/military use cases of social media to influence outcomes worldwide[2]. China wasn't going to allow this. But we are supposed to allow them access to us? We know this is the case because we would do the same in their position[3]. There's a reason it's banned in India[4].
5.) We know China influences the Douyin algorithm[5] locally to promote behaviors the government perceives as healthy or important to state interests. This often manifests in pushing more STEM related content and suppressing the ragebait content that flourishes in other nations[6].
Even if the leadership of Bytedance were 100% on board with not pushing CCP interests to the USA and world, there's no mechanism of protection or redress from them. The CCP can, and will, disappear high profile people at will with no repercussion, and replace you with someone who will listen. Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social media in their country.
In your case for "Americans upset over Israeli treatment of civilians". Assuming that the American outrage is 100% organic on it's own: It is in the best interest of China to amplify that outrage and make it seem stronger than it is for a variety of reasons:
A. This will have knock on effects for policy makers and their aides who are hyper-tuned in because if their constituents want something, voting for that is how B. Anything that disrupts American foreign policy and allies is an asset at weakening the grip the dollar has on international markets C. Israel is an extremely talented producer of technical people. If the relationship between the USA and Israel sours, then suddenly a pathway opens for China to get access to the incredible tech that Israel develops for various US programs. (This is also ignoring their incredibly advanced spyware capabilities in their private sector, which is morally repugnant, but it does exist).
[0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07663 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20160410083943/http://www.reddit... (look at the most addicted cities) [3] - https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-... [4] - https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-bytedance-ban-china-india-... [5] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY [6] - https://networkcontagion.us/reports/the-ccps-digital-charm-o... [7] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/25/the-growing-li...
This is an extremely well formed comment, and thanks for all the sources backing it up.
> Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social media in their country.
Extremely regulating social media isn't going to decrease the gormlessness of the population. In fact it'll probably make it worse. We can try to tamp down manipulative content all we want but it's a losing battle. What we need instead is to educate our masses. The problem is we won't, because our regulators want to be able to manipulate us. They just don't want other countries to be able to.
> Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social media in their country.
Extremely regulating social media isn't going to decrease the gormlessness of the population. In fact it'll probably make it worse. We can try to tamp down manipulative content all we want but it's a losing battle. What we need instead is to educate our masses. The problem is we won't, because our regulators want to be able to manipulate us. They just don't want other countries to be able to.
I still can't believe we're supposed to imagine the current or next president as the chief protectors of our minds, of all things. :-) How can anyone desire that much paternalism from our government? Not only are we responsible for it, not the other way around, it is kind of terrible!
If we are working on the basis of "it could have happened, therefore it did," Americans could have had a legitimate reaction to the war footage, and Romanians could have been frustrated with both major parties and voted for a spoiler candidate, therefore they did. :-)
I'm probably responding to you being intentionally obtuse but:
Assuming that's true, TikTok, at the behest of the CCP, can (and will) amplify the reach of that outrage to an outsized impact. If the outrage is 5% of TikTok users in the given nation, and that 5% is thrown into the FYP of 50% of the users in that nation, that's an impact that any power that be dreams to have.
Assuming that's true, TikTok, at the behest of the CCP, can (and will) amplify the reach of that outrage to an outsized impact. If the outrage is 5% of TikTok users in the given nation, and that 5% is thrown into the FYP of 50% of the users in that nation, that's an impact that any power that be dreams to have.
> It is in the best interest of China to amplify that outrage and make it seem stronger than it is for a variety of reasons:
I'm just not comfortable with a widely used platform for Americans to speak to other Americans being taken away because it might skew one way politically or another, no matter what evil country is advantaged by that. Even if it were heavily edited by enemy of USA Xi himself, I am uncomfortable with that. We are not a country that bans things because it's too dangerous for people to know them.
The government doesn't get to decide what's good for us to learn and say and hear. We do. That's the entire idea of free speech. And this tramples on it significantly
I'm just not comfortable with a widely used platform for Americans to speak to other Americans being taken away because it might skew one way politically or another, no matter what evil country is advantaged by that. Even if it were heavily edited by enemy of USA Xi himself, I am uncomfortable with that. We are not a country that bans things because it's too dangerous for people to know them.
The government doesn't get to decide what's good for us to learn and say and hear. We do. That's the entire idea of free speech. And this tramples on it significantly
The question isn't if our government gets to do that, it's if another government gets to do that for us. our government is for the people by the people. this other government isn't like that for their people. and we want to put them in charge?
What? Our government is only by the people if the people have the power to consume whatever information they want to.
The other government doesn't become in charge because they put out stuff on social media Americans want to watch. Americans are in charge no matter what they think or who they are influenced by. That's the whole idea of democracy
The other government doesn't become in charge because they put out stuff on social media Americans want to watch. Americans are in charge no matter what they think or who they are influenced by. That's the whole idea of democracy
> Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social media in their country.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions like this one.
Muzzle social media and make sure everyone gets their news from the "approved" mainstream media platforms which we all know never lie and have never pushed one narrative only instead of providing facts.
I am sure this will end well.
Next step, we should all leave our TVs on 24/7 just so we don't miss a single word from our beloved leaders. Maybe install some cameras in every home while we are it, you know to save the children/defeat terrorism/save the planet (take your pick)...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions like this one.
Muzzle social media and make sure everyone gets their news from the "approved" mainstream media platforms which we all know never lie and have never pushed one narrative only instead of providing facts.
I am sure this will end well.
Next step, we should all leave our TVs on 24/7 just so we don't miss a single word from our beloved leaders. Maybe install some cameras in every home while we are it, you know to save the children/defeat terrorism/save the planet (take your pick)...
To me, the story was never about even about the hypothetical "they could pull some strings and somehow get every 17-year-old in the US swearing fealty to Chairman Xi." If nothing else, do you really want to focus your political infleunce campaign on demographics known for being low-political-activity and with relatively low disposable income the best choice?
It was about the fact that a firm which is foreign and unsympathetic captured lightning in a bottle: they became the cool platform for a new generation. Why bother trying to figure out why the platform that Mom uses to share AI-generated Trump spam with Aunt Bertha is no longer drawing the 14-year-olds when you can just rattle some sabres in Congress and get them to shut the competition down for you?
If we're so terrified that TikTok can blast a candidate into office, we should be equally concerned that Rumble or Twitter could too. If your media is that powerful, it's dangerous wherever the nominal mailing address of the firm is. Taking potshots at single firms or specific ownership strategies just means the next one will take a slightly different form and dispense slightly different hazards.
The only way to actually regain control is to boost media literacy. TikTok can be part of a balanced media diet, but are we teaching kids "Compare what the BBC and Tass say, and the truth is probably in the middle?"
It was about the fact that a firm which is foreign and unsympathetic captured lightning in a bottle: they became the cool platform for a new generation. Why bother trying to figure out why the platform that Mom uses to share AI-generated Trump spam with Aunt Bertha is no longer drawing the 14-year-olds when you can just rattle some sabres in Congress and get them to shut the competition down for you?
If we're so terrified that TikTok can blast a candidate into office, we should be equally concerned that Rumble or Twitter could too. If your media is that powerful, it's dangerous wherever the nominal mailing address of the firm is. Taking potshots at single firms or specific ownership strategies just means the next one will take a slightly different form and dispense slightly different hazards.
The only way to actually regain control is to boost media literacy. TikTok can be part of a balanced media diet, but are we teaching kids "Compare what the BBC and Tass say, and the truth is probably in the middle?"
>If we're so terrified that TikTok can blast a candidate into office, we should be equally concerned that Rumble or Twitter could too
I'm seeing a lot of attempts to render Tiktok as interchangeable to any number of other examples in order to pose a dilemma about logical equivalences. I just don't think these withstand factual scrutiny. Rumble is not at the scale or engagement of Tiktok and Twitter does not have ties to a major competitive state actor.
You can see how it's meaningfully differentiated if you want to. If you don't want to, you attempt to restate the terms on which the comparison happens to make it look for fuzzy, so everything looks the same.
I'm seeing a lot of attempts to render Tiktok as interchangeable to any number of other examples in order to pose a dilemma about logical equivalences. I just don't think these withstand factual scrutiny. Rumble is not at the scale or engagement of Tiktok and Twitter does not have ties to a major competitive state actor.
You can see how it's meaningfully differentiated if you want to. If you don't want to, you attempt to restate the terms on which the comparison happens to make it look for fuzzy, so everything looks the same.
To be blunt, "the richest man in the world" is equally as dangerous as a "competitive state actor".
He has direct motive to influence the operations of the American state, the resources to amplify his messages, and has control of a platform that's mainstreamed in a way that gives it a broader reach than TikTok ever had.
Saying he's an American entity is barely meaningful. When you're that rich, you can probably pull in five new passports given 48 hours notice, so the one you carry at any given point is largely a flag of convenience.
Blaming China is a cheat code for the current political climate. See the Huawei fiasco: No level of audits, disclosures, or actual technical evidence about security would satisfy-- It Is Foreign So It Is Evil. So I'm sure that the hype against TikTok was fanned in part by their competitors who saw an opportunity.
He has direct motive to influence the operations of the American state, the resources to amplify his messages, and has control of a platform that's mainstreamed in a way that gives it a broader reach than TikTok ever had.
Saying he's an American entity is barely meaningful. When you're that rich, you can probably pull in five new passports given 48 hours notice, so the one you carry at any given point is largely a flag of convenience.
Blaming China is a cheat code for the current political climate. See the Huawei fiasco: No level of audits, disclosures, or actual technical evidence about security would satisfy-- It Is Foreign So It Is Evil. So I'm sure that the hype against TikTok was fanned in part by their competitors who saw an opportunity.
Twitter is run by the world’s richest man who is backed by Saudi wealth.
That is one fucking tie if you ask me.
That is one fucking tie if you ask me.
> See also: is China suddenly a center of human rights activism,
China is, when it serves their primary interest of deflecting criticism from the operation of their very extensive totalitarian/authoritarian system. IIRC, they put out "human rights" reports all the time to that end that do stuff like criticize American prison conditions.
> or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli treatment of civilians?
It's worth noting that TikTok could (and probably would) be used by the PRC in very subtle ways, that would be missed in a distinction of "is it Chinese people speaking or is it Americans." I think the influence mechanism would almost certainly consist of giving artificial boosts to American voices that unwittingly serve PRC goals, e.g. anti-war activists if China invades Taiwan. They could even strongly condemn China as a warmonger, but their elevation would still serve Chinese goals if they spread the message that the US should stay out.
And given that the PRC has access to all the TikTok data (I believe no claims the could not access it), they can probably very effectively figure out exactly the voices to elevate that would do their job effectively.
China is, when it serves their primary interest of deflecting criticism from the operation of their very extensive totalitarian/authoritarian system. IIRC, they put out "human rights" reports all the time to that end that do stuff like criticize American prison conditions.
> or was it Americans who got upset about Israeli treatment of civilians?
It's worth noting that TikTok could (and probably would) be used by the PRC in very subtle ways, that would be missed in a distinction of "is it Chinese people speaking or is it Americans." I think the influence mechanism would almost certainly consist of giving artificial boosts to American voices that unwittingly serve PRC goals, e.g. anti-war activists if China invades Taiwan. They could even strongly condemn China as a warmonger, but their elevation would still serve Chinese goals if they spread the message that the US should stay out.
And given that the PRC has access to all the TikTok data (I believe no claims the could not access it), they can probably very effectively figure out exactly the voices to elevate that would do their job effectively.
I know that's the conspiracy theory, but shouldn't we be asking for evidence?
I think we should take it as a given that countries try to influence the citizens of other countries using social media. We know for a fact that there are state-run influence campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. That evidence has been well-researched for many years now. And I'm not just talking about China, Russia, etc.; I expect US intelligence agencies also use social media to influence our adversaries.
It's absolutely absurd to think that the Chinese government doesn't use TikTok to influence non-Chinese users. They'd be incredibly foolish not to do so. And the difference here (as compared to other nations, including the US) is that that Chinese government gets to legally, deeply meddle in the affairs of Chinese companies as a matter of course. Running influence campaigns on a platform owned by a company out of the Chinese government's reach is a bit more work; they get to do it essentially "for free" on TikTok, plus, as a bonus, they'd have access to data they wouldn't get from a foreign-owned platform.
I think any country should have the right to protect its citizens from influence campaigns led by other countries. Whether or not that protection can and will be effective, and whether or not it's a smokescreen for other purposes (e.g. protecting Meta's market share), is another matter, of course. And certainly some kinds of protection -- such as a US TikTok ban -- will be wildly unpopular with a lot of people who love using it.
It's absolutely absurd to think that the Chinese government doesn't use TikTok to influence non-Chinese users. They'd be incredibly foolish not to do so. And the difference here (as compared to other nations, including the US) is that that Chinese government gets to legally, deeply meddle in the affairs of Chinese companies as a matter of course. Running influence campaigns on a platform owned by a company out of the Chinese government's reach is a bit more work; they get to do it essentially "for free" on TikTok, plus, as a bonus, they'd have access to data they wouldn't get from a foreign-owned platform.
I think any country should have the right to protect its citizens from influence campaigns led by other countries. Whether or not that protection can and will be effective, and whether or not it's a smokescreen for other purposes (e.g. protecting Meta's market share), is another matter, of course. And certainly some kinds of protection -- such as a US TikTok ban -- will be wildly unpopular with a lot of people who love using it.
Normally I'd be cautious about a witch hunt, but I think the point here is that there isn't much ability to ask for evidence, which is exactly why it's been able to progress through court so quickly.
The funny thing about that analogy is that it is also very difficult to prove that somebody isn't a witch. :-)
Aside, Congress is not a courtroom. The legality of the law is on trial, not its motivation or the basis in fact of its public justification.
Aside, Congress is not a courtroom. The legality of the law is on trial, not its motivation or the basis in fact of its public justification.
Really late to responding (oof, I don't use HN much), but really nicely phrased point, haha. And I do agree on congress not being a courtroom -- my assumption would always be that their motivations are just corporate lobbying or distracting the public from more pressing social issues.
However, returning to your witty witch-hunt comment, I don't think it's 1:1.
Consider that by that line of reasoning it's very difficult to prove that intelligence agencies ever do anything at all. All they have to do is say "no we didn't, and we don't have to allow anyone to have a close look".
In fact, if we simply relied on governments and faceless corporations to always tell us the truth, we'd probably manage to be even worse off than now! Haha.
There exists a difference between investigating or rejecting that with uncertain sources (esp. large and secretive institutions) and specifically accusing. Or between a witch hunt and demanding that (for example) food manufacturers should have to disclose their secret ingredients and some processes to the government to make it harder to put poison or addictive drugs in there without telling anyone.
However, returning to your witty witch-hunt comment, I don't think it's 1:1.
Consider that by that line of reasoning it's very difficult to prove that intelligence agencies ever do anything at all. All they have to do is say "no we didn't, and we don't have to allow anyone to have a close look".
In fact, if we simply relied on governments and faceless corporations to always tell us the truth, we'd probably manage to be even worse off than now! Haha.
There exists a difference between investigating or rejecting that with uncertain sources (esp. large and secretive institutions) and specifically accusing. Or between a witch hunt and demanding that (for example) food manufacturers should have to disclose their secret ingredients and some processes to the government to make it harder to put poison or addictive drugs in there without telling anyone.
IMO the bigger issue isn't propaganda posts on tiktok created by the CCP but the more subtle influence the recommendation algorithm can have on what gets eyeballs. There have been several studies that showed that content the CCP doesn't like is a lot less prominent than on other, comparable platforms. Here is the first study I could find again while googling: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-...
If you're "conspiracy theory"-ometer is asking you for evidence for the proposition that "countries do not simply lie back and fervently hope for things to go their way but take concrete actions to advance their interests", your meter is tuned waaaaaaaay too sensitively. Whether that's a conspiracy is up to your definition, but that it's a theory that somehow needs substantiation is absurd. It's a plain and obvious fact of the world. Organizations of any size in general do not generally just sort of sit back and hope things go their way, but take action. "People take actions to advance their own goals" is not a "conspiracy theory".
The irony is that people with this overly sensitive "conspiracy theory"-ometer largely have it from the amount of influence campaigns ran on them.
[deleted]
We already know foreign countries attempt to influence American elections using American-owned social media. So why would it be a "conspiracy theory" for them to use foreign-owned social media for similar purposes? I would think it's probably even easier.
> I know that's the conspiracy theory, but shouldn't we be asking for evidence?
No. This is about using reason to anticipate and prevent problems, not dumbly waiting around until the actualized problem stares you in the face and it's too late to do anything about it.
But if you want evidence, all that is needed is the evidence that China and the US are adversaries.
No. This is about using reason to anticipate and prevent problems, not dumbly waiting around until the actualized problem stares you in the face and it's too late to do anything about it.
But if you want evidence, all that is needed is the evidence that China and the US are adversaries.
That's a farcically absurd statement given the context. Following this logic, Japan and the US being adversaries is the only justification you need for Japanese internment camps.
Equating a ban on Chinese-owned tiktok in the US to putting US citizens of Japanese descent into internment camps is a bit much.
That's not sufficient evidence.
> That's not sufficient evidence.
Then your standards of evidence are too high, and least for making decisions in this area. It's like you're working in computer security, but you demand evidence a vulnerable system was actually hacked and used maliciously before you're willing to take action to patch it and clear out the infiltration. It's foolish. Patch the damn system.
Then your standards of evidence are too high, and least for making decisions in this area. It's like you're working in computer security, but you demand evidence a vulnerable system was actually hacked and used maliciously before you're willing to take action to patch it and clear out the infiltration. It's foolish. Patch the damn system.
[deleted]
If your observations would be the same whether your conspiracy theory is true or not, then the simplest explanation is that the conspiracy theory is not true.
A theory that can explain everything explains nothing.
A theory that can explain everything explains nothing.
The allegation [0] is that a Russian influence campaign used TikTok as at least one of its platforms, to major effect. The subtext is that TikTok was at the very least complicit, in that, at a minimum, it tolerated what I believe Facebook calls “coordinated inauthentic behavior.”
If you think of TikTok as an instrument of the Chinese state, this could look consistent with the phenomenon Anne Applebaum has been talking about lately: a pattern of loose alliances-of-convenience between autocratic nations in service of specific disruptive missions [1]. A less spooky reading might be that Chinese norms don’t align with American ones as far as proactively stopping this kind of thing—that they just don’t care about this kind of Russian caper on the other side of the world. They sure do think carefully about their domestic information environment, though; and they’re probably the best in the world at policing mass thinking when they feel like it.
Where are the lines between mere negligence, complicity, and active participation? That seems a little more delicate than a couple news cycles’ work. The Europeans have asked TikTok to preserve records to find out.
I suspect the light and fire seems to be around whether a nation wants any tool like this to just be lying around, ready to disrupt the nation’s politics at a moment’s notice. Social media may be new in the scheme of things, but in the years since the UN studied Facebook’s genocides [2], governments have at least tried to get a handle on the kinds of monitoring and moderation tools and tactics that can help counter this kind of campaign (some with more deference than others to authentic speech).
As far as I’ve heard, the allegation had never been that Chinese government villains cackled and rubbed their hands together and said “today we take Romania!” Rather, it’s that the tools are powerful enough that we don’t want to leave them lying around unchecked—especially since, at least from the perspective of American and European policy professionals, Chinese thinking doesn’t really recognize a distinction between commercial and national security interests.
Others may have better sourcing than I do for this specific instance, but I think it’s fair to point to Western thinking about China’s Military-Civil Fusion policy [3] to think about dual-use idea-disseminating technologies like TikTok.
[0] https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-russia-election-interference...
[1] e.g., https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-r... and https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/russia-chi...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... , https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/myanmar-ffm/reportoft... , https://iimm.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Hate-Speech-R... [PDF, large]
[3] https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/12/chinas-military-civil-f...
If you think of TikTok as an instrument of the Chinese state, this could look consistent with the phenomenon Anne Applebaum has been talking about lately: a pattern of loose alliances-of-convenience between autocratic nations in service of specific disruptive missions [1]. A less spooky reading might be that Chinese norms don’t align with American ones as far as proactively stopping this kind of thing—that they just don’t care about this kind of Russian caper on the other side of the world. They sure do think carefully about their domestic information environment, though; and they’re probably the best in the world at policing mass thinking when they feel like it.
Where are the lines between mere negligence, complicity, and active participation? That seems a little more delicate than a couple news cycles’ work. The Europeans have asked TikTok to preserve records to find out.
I suspect the light and fire seems to be around whether a nation wants any tool like this to just be lying around, ready to disrupt the nation’s politics at a moment’s notice. Social media may be new in the scheme of things, but in the years since the UN studied Facebook’s genocides [2], governments have at least tried to get a handle on the kinds of monitoring and moderation tools and tactics that can help counter this kind of campaign (some with more deference than others to authentic speech).
As far as I’ve heard, the allegation had never been that Chinese government villains cackled and rubbed their hands together and said “today we take Romania!” Rather, it’s that the tools are powerful enough that we don’t want to leave them lying around unchecked—especially since, at least from the perspective of American and European policy professionals, Chinese thinking doesn’t really recognize a distinction between commercial and national security interests.
Others may have better sourcing than I do for this specific instance, but I think it’s fair to point to Western thinking about China’s Military-Civil Fusion policy [3] to think about dual-use idea-disseminating technologies like TikTok.
[0] https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-russia-election-interference...
[1] e.g., https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-r... and https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/russia-chi...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... , https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/myanmar-ffm/reportoft... , https://iimm.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Hate-Speech-R... [PDF, large]
[3] https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/12/chinas-military-civil-f...
[deleted]
> to push an unknown, unlikable character to almost win
How does it work? You simply give some money to TikTok and the whole country runs to vote for an unknown, unlikable candidate? It must have superpowers.
How does it work? You simply give some money to TikTok and the whole country runs to vote for an unknown, unlikable candidate? It must have superpowers.
The allegations and current trial (and what looks like an upcoming European Commission investigation) seem to show that someone purchased illegal electoral ads (i.e. they were not declared as such, and financed though unclear means, by unclear parties).
TikTok was required to comply with electoral law and check/enforce all this stuff but did not respond until after the elections, and apparently did not enforce these electoral laws, while pocketing all the illegal ad money.
TikTok was required to comply with electoral law and check/enforce all this stuff but did not respond until after the elections, and apparently did not enforce these electoral laws, while pocketing all the illegal ad money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect#cite_note...
... the same power as all media is sufficient
... the same power as all media is sufficient
I don't believe those claims at all.
1) it's a very well known fact that 70% or so of the electorate can't be moved from their positions, even if their party said they were gonna harm them people will still not vote the other ones, thus any real advertisement or anything is gonna only impact a few % of people
2) extremism is on the rise everywhere in the world, from Germany to US, from South Africa to South America. Narratives have made centrist governments, especially those coming from larger coalitions made weak (often for good reasons)
3) we have had multiple scientists (stats, sociologists) look at these allegations of interference and no single data seems to demonstrate that political discourse on TikTok is any different than other media platforms. In fact, if anything, it seems way less controversial than other US based ones.
4) The average European finds supporting Ukraine not only a lost cause nowadays, but gives part of the blame to the west
1) it's a very well known fact that 70% or so of the electorate can't be moved from their positions, even if their party said they were gonna harm them people will still not vote the other ones, thus any real advertisement or anything is gonna only impact a few % of people
2) extremism is on the rise everywhere in the world, from Germany to US, from South Africa to South America. Narratives have made centrist governments, especially those coming from larger coalitions made weak (often for good reasons)
3) we have had multiple scientists (stats, sociologists) look at these allegations of interference and no single data seems to demonstrate that political discourse on TikTok is any different than other media platforms. In fact, if anything, it seems way less controversial than other US based ones.
4) The average European finds supporting Ukraine not only a lost cause nowadays, but gives part of the blame to the west
The average European finds supporting Ukraine not only a lost cause nowadays,
So what's an "average European"? You and your friends?
A recent poll from Germany, for example, found solid (>60 percent) support for both sanctions against Russia, and military support for Ukraine:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1312216/umfra...
They would also prefer a diplomatic solution, but that doesn't mean they think "Ukraine is a lost cause".
So what's an "average European"? You and your friends?
A recent poll from Germany, for example, found solid (>60 percent) support for both sanctions against Russia, and military support for Ukraine:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1312216/umfra...
They would also prefer a diplomatic solution, but that doesn't mean they think "Ukraine is a lost cause".
> More than half of Romanians believe that Ukraine should be pressured to negotiate peace with Russia, while less than 20% think that Ukraine should continue to receive military support, according to a survey conducted in several European countries by YouGov and Datapraxis.
In Italy, where I live only 55% of the polled people support sending money to Ukraine, and only 33% support sending weapons.
The only Europeans I know that are very pro helping Ukraine, like where it's an exception to be sceptical are Poles.
https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/due-anni-di-guerr...
https://www.romania-insider.com/romanians-ukraine-negotiate-...
The average European believes that Ukraine cannot win the war (meaning getting back their 1991 territories), but that's also a reality and the opinion shared by analysts, and is honestly tired of it.
This war is extremely expensive on Europe and with no realistic prospects of Ukraine going anywhere it's hard to be a die hard supporter for Zelenskis official line.
In any case what happened in Romania is a tragedy.
A court canceling a democratic election because one candidate allegedly got financial support from Russia (something that many parties currently ruling in Europe like Italy did too by the way) is a very disturbing fact.
This should've been handled, if true, weeks ago. Not after the candidate got so many votes.
In Italy, where I live only 55% of the polled people support sending money to Ukraine, and only 33% support sending weapons.
The only Europeans I know that are very pro helping Ukraine, like where it's an exception to be sceptical are Poles.
https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/due-anni-di-guerr...
https://www.romania-insider.com/romanians-ukraine-negotiate-...
The average European believes that Ukraine cannot win the war (meaning getting back their 1991 territories), but that's also a reality and the opinion shared by analysts, and is honestly tired of it.
This war is extremely expensive on Europe and with no realistic prospects of Ukraine going anywhere it's hard to be a die hard supporter for Zelenskis official line.
In any case what happened in Romania is a tragedy.
A court canceling a democratic election because one candidate allegedly got financial support from Russia (something that many parties currently ruling in Europe like Italy did too by the way) is a very disturbing fact.
This should've been handled, if true, weeks ago. Not after the candidate got so many votes.
Hmm - we can't go on dissecting polls each day, but here's one (dating from January) which measure sentiment across 10 countries and along several key questions:
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/how-strong-is-public-support-for-ukrai...
If the poll were taken today, the percentages would probably shift a bit on some of these questions. But what's more interesting is the spread across the 10 countries.
Notice that Italy and Hungary tend to sit more on the "doomer/skeptic" side (in accord with the poll you offered in regard to Italy's sentiment), while countries like the UK, Finalnd and the Baltics are more on the "there's still hope" side. And Germany seems to fight right in the middle.
Which suggests that no, the average European does not simply think Ukraine is a lost cause.
The average European believes that Ukraine cannot win the war (meaning getting back their 1991 territories), but that's also a reality and the opinion shared by analysts, and is honestly tired of it. ... It's hard to be a die hard supporter for Zelenskis official line.
Well that's obviously no longer Zelenskyy's position, right?
Also, you're setting up a false dichotomy here -- either the (now basically collapsed) "die-hard" position, or the "Ukraine is lost cause" position.
My observations indicate that the median sentiment falls somewhere between these extremes.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/how-strong-is-public-support-for-ukrai...
If the poll were taken today, the percentages would probably shift a bit on some of these questions. But what's more interesting is the spread across the 10 countries.
Notice that Italy and Hungary tend to sit more on the "doomer/skeptic" side (in accord with the poll you offered in regard to Italy's sentiment), while countries like the UK, Finalnd and the Baltics are more on the "there's still hope" side. And Germany seems to fight right in the middle.
Which suggests that no, the average European does not simply think Ukraine is a lost cause.
The average European believes that Ukraine cannot win the war (meaning getting back their 1991 territories), but that's also a reality and the opinion shared by analysts, and is honestly tired of it. ... It's hard to be a die hard supporter for Zelenskis official line.
Well that's obviously no longer Zelenskyy's position, right?
Also, you're setting up a false dichotomy here -- either the (now basically collapsed) "die-hard" position, or the "Ukraine is lost cause" position.
My observations indicate that the median sentiment falls somewhere between these extremes.
OT why is your comment history all about politics and mostly Russia?
It's odd for a startup/tech oriented board.
It's odd for a startup/tech oriented board.
OT why is your comment history all about politics and mostly Russia?
It's not "all about politics". You could have said "Why is it mostly about ...?" and the question would have had an entirely different ring to it. But the wording you chose was weird and distracting, so I don't think I'll be able invest much time in answering.
Other than to say: I respond mostly to muddled thinking and misinformation (and in some cases outright disinformation). Which not coincidentally seems to bubble forth continuously from posts referencing that country (and a certain other one). Which also tend to appear in bursts, as we have seen. So the intent is to keep the conversation at least borderline reality-centered. And hence, per the site guidelines, more "interesting".
(Not that your post is in this category. I just think you're probably mistaken).
In that sense the interest isn't even all that "political" as such. It's more psychological and cognitive.
It's odd for a startup/tech oriented board.
It's not specifically startup/tech-oriented. Check the guidelines again.
I have an interest in tech also, but am also rather burned out on it.
The more powerful it gets, the more boring it gets, somehow.
It's not "all about politics". You could have said "Why is it mostly about ...?" and the question would have had an entirely different ring to it. But the wording you chose was weird and distracting, so I don't think I'll be able invest much time in answering.
Other than to say: I respond mostly to muddled thinking and misinformation (and in some cases outright disinformation). Which not coincidentally seems to bubble forth continuously from posts referencing that country (and a certain other one). Which also tend to appear in bursts, as we have seen. So the intent is to keep the conversation at least borderline reality-centered. And hence, per the site guidelines, more "interesting".
(Not that your post is in this category. I just think you're probably mistaken).
In that sense the interest isn't even all that "political" as such. It's more psychological and cognitive.
It's odd for a startup/tech oriented board.
It's not specifically startup/tech-oriented. Check the guidelines again.
I have an interest in tech also, but am also rather burned out on it.
The more powerful it gets, the more boring it gets, somehow.
People using new forms of media to break political status quos is a tale as old as time. This is a classic crackdown on democracy by a flailing elite, complete with the usual scapegoats.
The Romanian candidate doesn't believe in covid, because " you can't see it"!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3a9oSuydBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3a9oSuydBs
AFAIK Romania is still a democracy. So maybe don't blame on something/someone else when the establishment doesn't take care of the people.
Same with Trump. I don't agree with many of his policies but hey, did the establishment take care of the people?
Same with Trump. I don't agree with many of his policies but hey, did the establishment take care of the people?
That's strange, I don't see anywhere where they're mentioning anything about questioning the legitimacy of democracy in any country from their post. Want to quote directly what statement you think you're replying to here? Or do you think your statement isn't a goalpost shift?
> TikTok was used to push an unknown, unlikable character to almost win the presidential elections in Romania
I interpreted it as questioning the democratic process. I could be wrong.
I interpreted it as questioning the democratic process. I could be wrong.
The alternatives to TikTok are American companies led by Trumpists. Europe is surrounded by barbarians.
TikTok is why Trump won his 2nd term. TikTok did not moderate away his content or moderate away pro Trump content like the other socials and Reddit. TikTok's viewership is massive and pro trump content was getting millions of views and likes and positive comments. Reddit will moderate that content away. TikTok has diminished Reddit's influence on politics.
Not sure that we can use Reddit as a good example, Reddit's "Popular" page was full of anti-Trump mockery while praising Biden no matter what initially and then they switched to praising Kamala, this example is not healthy if you was looking for unbiased information about candidates.
That's my point. Reddit is completely skewed against Trump, conservatives, the right, whereas TikTok allows this content and it thrives. TikTok was one of the few extremely mainstream platforms where pro trump content was allowed and flourished. I think for this reason Trump will fight the ban
TikTok, while allowing whatever content people post, can easily be trained to show you what you want to see. People that were fed whatever insane gibberish pro-Trump content are mostly the ones that wanted to see that content.
When election campaigns "got going" I started first see pro-Left content for about 2 days off and on. Disliked the F out of it... as I was doing that the algorithm was proly thinking "ohhh the right-winger, here's some awesome pro-right content..." took 2 days (off and on) to dislike that shit... From like August onward I maybe saw 2-3 political videos weekly if that...
Social media companies do not give a shit what you watch/read as long as you read/watch as long as possible. So you will get whatever (on TikTok or otherwise) you actually want to see there :)
When election campaigns "got going" I started first see pro-Left content for about 2 days off and on. Disliked the F out of it... as I was doing that the algorithm was proly thinking "ohhh the right-winger, here's some awesome pro-right content..." took 2 days (off and on) to dislike that shit... From like August onward I maybe saw 2-3 political videos weekly if that...
Social media companies do not give a shit what you watch/read as long as you read/watch as long as possible. So you will get whatever (on TikTok or otherwise) you actually want to see there :)
I'm pretty sure "Trump won because TikTok" is way too simplistic to be anywhere near the truth.
don't you know that tiktok controls democracies now?
look at romania!
china is hacking the elections now!
look at romania!
china is hacking the elections now!
This is the lazy explanation peddled by the elites who can't be bothered to look outside their own little bubble.
The far right is rising => everybody is racist. The cost of living is rising too quickly and people are complaining => you are too stupid to see that the economy is doing extremely well and if that doesnt make sense to you then you must be Chinese or Russian puppet.
it's so easy a toddler could do it.
The far right is rising => everybody is racist. The cost of living is rising too quickly and people are complaining => you are too stupid to see that the economy is doing extremely well and if that doesnt make sense to you then you must be Chinese or Russian puppet.
it's so easy a toddler could do it.
All of my TikTok feed was how poorly his turnout was, how silly his rallies were, and how dangerous it would be to elect him. Had I not also had my head outside my phone, I would have been flabbergasted by his win.
So is that promoting Trump? Or is it double reversi and trying to make people more confident to not need to vote, while also telling them to go vote? It gets confusing.
So is that promoting Trump? Or is it double reversi and trying to make people more confident to not need to vote, while also telling them to go vote? It gets confusing.
TikTok gives you what you want to see. The blue hysteria is because they can't control it the way they did with Facebook.
In summary: China is a threat to the West (also to Africa, but they are still in denial). But you can't get rid of hacking through a bit of legislature, so fixing telcos is another process.
I keep hearing people crow about how Africa is going to get re-colonized by China, but I just don't see it. For instance, in the last 50 years, America and her allies have:
-Overthrown Gaddafi and destabilized Libya in the process, leading to million of small arms washing into the Sahel. Jihadists groups have killed hundreds of thousands with those weapons, further destabilizing the region.
-Funded and backed murderous dictators like Hissene Habre who tortured, killed, and raped roughly 40k innocent Chadians.
-Other dictators that have held unto power with implicit/explicit American support include Mobutu, Amin, Barre, etc., and I'm not going to go into the atrocities they've committed.
-Continue to meddle in African countries, including their implicit support for the overthrow of popularly-elected governments like Egypt's Muhammad Morsi, and Congo's Lumumba, after which the country fell apart .
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. No matter how much you scaremonger about China, all they do is transfer technology, build infrastructure, and assist with explicit approval of local governments.
Do they have evil intent in the long-run? Who knows?
But, given their track record so far (of going heads down and building stuff) and the West's history of plain maliciousness, it'd be stupid to suggest anyone shouldn't partner with China.
-Overthrown Gaddafi and destabilized Libya in the process, leading to million of small arms washing into the Sahel. Jihadists groups have killed hundreds of thousands with those weapons, further destabilizing the region.
-Funded and backed murderous dictators like Hissene Habre who tortured, killed, and raped roughly 40k innocent Chadians.
-Other dictators that have held unto power with implicit/explicit American support include Mobutu, Amin, Barre, etc., and I'm not going to go into the atrocities they've committed.
-Continue to meddle in African countries, including their implicit support for the overthrow of popularly-elected governments like Egypt's Muhammad Morsi, and Congo's Lumumba, after which the country fell apart .
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. No matter how much you scaremonger about China, all they do is transfer technology, build infrastructure, and assist with explicit approval of local governments.
Do they have evil intent in the long-run? Who knows?
But, given their track record so far (of going heads down and building stuff) and the West's history of plain maliciousness, it'd be stupid to suggest anyone shouldn't partner with China.
I'm not denying the West has been quite bad to the Africans, but China isn't any better. They're in it for themselves. They get corrupt regimes to take loans (from China) for work (produced by China), deliver shoddy and useless results, let the local elite get their bribes, and then hold the country ransom over those loans, and demand payment e.g. in natural resources and political influence. All funded by the West's dependence on Aliexpress.
> I'm not denying the West has been quite bad to the Africans, but China isn't any better.
If the western countries want to clean up their acts and offer something better than what China is doing, I am sure the doors of the African governments are open.
The problem is that the West has abandoned Africa, destabilized the region and then complains that Africa is looking for new partners.
What is the West doing to make amends? What are they offering? If those questions cannot be answered then it's no wonder that China is making gains in Africa.
> They're in it for themselves.
As opposed to the West who does things out of the goodwill of it's heart, I am sure. Do we live in the same world?
If the western countries want to clean up their acts and offer something better than what China is doing, I am sure the doors of the African governments are open.
The problem is that the West has abandoned Africa, destabilized the region and then complains that Africa is looking for new partners.
What is the West doing to make amends? What are they offering? If those questions cannot be answered then it's no wonder that China is making gains in Africa.
> They're in it for themselves.
As opposed to the West who does things out of the goodwill of it's heart, I am sure. Do we live in the same world?
All of that self-dealing is still in the context of development projects, rather than military and paramilitary interference.
Would you rather have imperfect, corrupt development projects or the CIA fucking your shit up and definitely not building any dams?
Would you rather have imperfect, corrupt development projects or the CIA fucking your shit up and definitely not building any dams?
What happens if you stop following the contracts? I bet military stuff.
Judging by their actions vs the west’s actions, China is far better. Be serious.
Shoddy and useless according to who? I take it you haven't been to any of these African countries, where a Chinese-built dam generates the electricity millions use, or where a handful of bridges open up vast stretches of the country for trade.
Speaking of loans, most of Africa (and the developing world's) loans originate from Western lenders. They never cared about the borrower's ability to pay back or the fact that a huge chunk of the capital would be stolen. They'd simply demand payment anyway.
So, how is China responsible for loaning money on the same terms? In which specific cases has China demanded payment or strong-armed governments into making concessions for loans? Just one example, please. And don't mention the Hambantota port since you'll lose any credibility left.
If any African country lets their leaders steal dev. capital, it's not China's fault, and it's not different from what has happened with Western loans. In fact, with Western loans, there's an understanding that it will not get to the people, but is seen as a payoff for the puppet leaders to stay loyal.
China builds usable infrastructure that can be used for decades, and you can't argue against infrastructure.
Speaking of loans, most of Africa (and the developing world's) loans originate from Western lenders. They never cared about the borrower's ability to pay back or the fact that a huge chunk of the capital would be stolen. They'd simply demand payment anyway.
So, how is China responsible for loaning money on the same terms? In which specific cases has China demanded payment or strong-armed governments into making concessions for loans? Just one example, please. And don't mention the Hambantota port since you'll lose any credibility left.
If any African country lets their leaders steal dev. capital, it's not China's fault, and it's not different from what has happened with Western loans. In fact, with Western loans, there's an understanding that it will not get to the people, but is seen as a payoff for the puppet leaders to stay loyal.
China builds usable infrastructure that can be used for decades, and you can't argue against infrastructure.
I’ve been to Ethiopia and seen Chinese highway projects that were obviously unusable (caving in) before they were even open to traffic.
Ethiopia spans over 1 million KM2 and has over 144,000 Km of roads. How much of the country did you cover to determine this is a general trend? I can walk into large swathes of America or Europe and pick out badly damaged roads. So...
We drove from Addis to Arba Minch and back, which is about 900km total. We also drove from Gondar to Bahir Dar and… lots of other driving.
But the main point is what you ignored. Have you ever seen miles of brand new highways falling apart before a single vehicle has driven on them? Spread over hundreds of kilometers, not a one-off mistake.
Furthermore, the only reason I know it was a Chinese-built road is because our guide was explaining the differences (pro and con) between the Chinese (cheap, fall apart, but built quickly) vs Ethiopian (decent quality, but incredibly slow progress and never completed) road projects.
But the main point is what you ignored. Have you ever seen miles of brand new highways falling apart before a single vehicle has driven on them? Spread over hundreds of kilometers, not a one-off mistake.
Furthermore, the only reason I know it was a Chinese-built road is because our guide was explaining the differences (pro and con) between the Chinese (cheap, fall apart, but built quickly) vs Ethiopian (decent quality, but incredibly slow progress and never completed) road projects.
[deleted]
China's not "going down and building," they are bribing officials to take on massive loans that must be spent on Chinese contracts. The West does this with the IMF (minus the bribery?).
Maybe let the people who live in these countries decide that? Whatever your opinion, Chinese companies leave these forsaken countries with lots of infrastructure. In many cases, if they can't pay, it's forgiven. So, what's your problem?
People who live in a lot of African countries don't play much of a role in deciding what their governments do. That's the issue I take with anything involving bribery.
>People who live in a lot of African countries don't play much of a role in deciding what their governments do.
Holy fuck, are you saying this as someone who lives in the UNITED STATES? Incredible
Holy fuck, are you saying this as someone who lives in the UNITED STATES? Incredible
Most infrastructure spending in the US happens at a local level. Cities don't build ports or railroads here but a big stadium or roadworks project would show up on the ballot.
Any time you hear an assumed Westerner talking about China's rising presence in Africa, it reminds me of an abuser whose love has left him for good. The speech is riddled with "he won't love you like I do", "He doesn't really love you", "He's actually worse than me".
More that the west has a better understanding of exploitation (from experience) and is generally against it now.
China still has to learn these lessons, and it will in time. It will need to shake its authoritarian ways first, because lessons can never learned this way. Authoritarianism repeats the same mistakes over and over by reenforcement of dogma.
It’s not jealousy, it’s a warning of lessons learned.
China still has to learn these lessons, and it will in time. It will need to shake its authoritarian ways first, because lessons can never learned this way. Authoritarianism repeats the same mistakes over and over by reenforcement of dogma.
It’s not jealousy, it’s a warning of lessons learned.
> More that the west has a better understanding of exploitation (from experience) and is generally against it now.
You must no be aware of the CFA francs that is used in some parts of Africa and de facto controlled by France. Control that in turn has been proven to actually channel money out of Africa towards France. I guess the end of exploitation memo must not have reached Paris.
The West doesn't like that China is going to Africa because it creates competition for them. Before France et al could just call the shots and the African continent was simply supposed to shut up and take it.
Now China is there and is trying to offer something better potentially. The West doesn't want to up it's offers so the complaining starts and with it comes the moralizing.
As if the West has any lessons to give to someone else regarding anything moral.
> It’s not jealousy, it’s a warning of lessons learned.
Maybe the West should just let these people live and choose for themselves instead of whining about unfair the competition is.
You must no be aware of the CFA francs that is used in some parts of Africa and de facto controlled by France. Control that in turn has been proven to actually channel money out of Africa towards France. I guess the end of exploitation memo must not have reached Paris.
The West doesn't like that China is going to Africa because it creates competition for them. Before France et al could just call the shots and the African continent was simply supposed to shut up and take it.
Now China is there and is trying to offer something better potentially. The West doesn't want to up it's offers so the complaining starts and with it comes the moralizing.
As if the West has any lessons to give to someone else regarding anything moral.
> It’s not jealousy, it’s a warning of lessons learned.
Maybe the West should just let these people live and choose for themselves instead of whining about unfair the competition is.
I keep hearing people crow about how Africa is going to get re-colonized by China, but I just don't see it.
It already happened[0] through massive predatory loans that Africans were never realistically going to be able to pay back. Of course, you could also frame those loans as China believing in Africa and investing heavily in stalwart people who had long been exploited by other countries. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
It already happened[0] through massive predatory loans that Africans were never realistically going to be able to pay back. Of course, you could also frame those loans as China believing in Africa and investing heavily in stalwart people who had long been exploited by other countries. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
So China has learned how the US did it using the IMF and World Bank.
Loans with strings attached to ensure ongoing dependence.
Loans with strings attached to ensure ongoing dependence.
Your source is literally stating the opposite:
>This policy has been alleged by the U.S. Government to be a form of debt-trap diplomacy; however, the term itself has come under scrutiny as analysts and researchers have pointed out that there is no evidence to prove that China is deliberately aiming to do debt-trap diplomacy.
>Research from Deborah Brautigam, an international political economy professor at Johns Hopkins University, and Meg Rithmire, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, have disputed the allegations of debt-trap diplomacy by China and pointed out that "Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota".
>Academic Jeremy Garlick concludes that there is no reason to believe the BRI framework is worse for developing countries' debt than Western lending frameworks.
>This policy has been alleged by the U.S. Government to be a form of debt-trap diplomacy; however, the term itself has come under scrutiny as analysts and researchers have pointed out that there is no evidence to prove that China is deliberately aiming to do debt-trap diplomacy.
>Research from Deborah Brautigam, an international political economy professor at Johns Hopkins University, and Meg Rithmire, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, have disputed the allegations of debt-trap diplomacy by China and pointed out that "Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota".
>Academic Jeremy Garlick concludes that there is no reason to believe the BRI framework is worse for developing countries' debt than Western lending frameworks.
> massive predatory loans
Were they forced to use them?
Were they forced to use them?
Just because we were wrong does not automatically make our enemies right. Both sides can be equally wrong in some or all of their actions. As for the rest of it, determining intent depends on the evaluator and whether or not it's their job to assume the worst intent.
I don't assume China is right because the West was wrong; there's verifiable proof that China is better for developing countries, judging by their infrastructural footprint.
>I keep hearing people crow about how Africa is going to get re-colonized by China, but I just don't see it. For instance, in the last 50 years, America and her allies have
China financially and politically backed Pol Pot who murdered more than 1 million Cambodian civilians plus Vietnamese civilians on the border with Cambodia.
China kept quiet when Putin invaded Ukraine because they get oil, gas and minerals from Russia.
They all sin, not just US, UK or whatever great power from the West.
China financially and politically backed Pol Pot who murdered more than 1 million Cambodian civilians plus Vietnamese civilians on the border with Cambodia.
China kept quiet when Putin invaded Ukraine because they get oil, gas and minerals from Russia.
They all sin, not just US, UK or whatever great power from the West.
Now do the same, but for West's alternative...Russia.
Umm... the few developing countries where Russia has a presence has been at the explicit demand of the local authorities. The same way Americans say certain questions should be left to the state, I think national governments should be left to choose who they work with.
And now fully sponsoring Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Idlib, since Ukraine isn't doing well - best to get the Russians to look elsewhere!
> you can't get rid of hacking through a bit of legislature
We can make it harder. Switch our telecoms to E2E by default.
We’ve shown the current set-up can be exploited by adversaries. It’s not a huge leap given the prevalence of encrypted messaging apps. And you can market it as a finger to the deep state on one side and a limit on the executive to the other.
We can make it harder. Switch our telecoms to E2E by default.
We’ve shown the current set-up can be exploited by adversaries. It’s not a huge leap given the prevalence of encrypted messaging apps. And you can market it as a finger to the deep state on one side and a limit on the executive to the other.
E2E doesn't fix the government mandated backdoors, which were implicated in this attack. Check out the last line of this article:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/politics/us-telecom-providers...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/politics/us-telecom-providers...
> E2E doesn't fix the government mandated backdoors, which were implicated in this attack
Of course it does. It removes them. This problem can be solved with a bit of legislation.
Of course it does. It removes them. This problem can be solved with a bit of legislation.
[deleted]
We should just make the three letter agencies go dark then, and hopefully jobless too
> just make the three letter agencies go dark then, and hopefully jobless too
Good. Red teaming. This is exactly what I’d say, too, if I wanted to tank a federal E2E bill. It splits the national security bloc by unnecessarily vilifying the IC, the one group that doesn’t traditionally bother with the lawful part of lawful intercept.
Good. Red teaming. This is exactly what I’d say, too, if I wanted to tank a federal E2E bill. It splits the national security bloc by unnecessarily vilifying the IC, the one group that doesn’t traditionally bother with the lawful part of lawful intercept.
You can have more than 1 risk at a time, and address each in different manners and at different times, and even at the same time.
Jokes on China! Americans don't talk on the phone anymore.
(Also this week I had to share my credit card number over the phone to book an airline ticket and the next day I got a nice assortment of fraud charges despite using tap to pay/Apple Pay everywhere else)
(Also this week I had to share my credit card number over the phone to book an airline ticket and the next day I got a nice assortment of fraud charges despite using tap to pay/Apple Pay everywhere else)
Both seem problematic to me.
this is a false dichotomy. They are both problematic, and both deserve careful governmental responses.
Both are also much smaller than what the US government does to you on a daily basis. However, all of them are bad.
It's possible for 2 different things to be a significant risk at the same time.
Different kinds of risks.
Can address both IMO.
Whataboutism... Many bad things may be happening at once. Should we just ignore one because another exists?
It’s because this TikTok matter is not at all about Chinese ownership, which is really rather irrelevant since it is technically an American company based in CA and abides by American laws.
The China China China histrionics is disingenuous and dishonesty by dishonest and fraudulent people who are concerned with the loss of control of censorship and thought policing. They want total control over thoughts and speech in America and TikTok is a major problem for them, a red-pill so to say, and they want everyone taking that blue pill because their whole tyrannical and fraudulent power structure relies on regularly taking the regime’s blue pills.
It’s why there is so much frantic flailing about this issue and the same people who not only never cared about “protecting the children” from violence, gore, and sexuality including explicit pornography, are all the sudden so concerned with children once they may learn something about the world that makes them realize the dishonest, lying, narcissistic, histrionic, psychopathic dirt bags that control all of the west; have been telling them lies and abusing them and plundering their future for their own kind.
The China China China histrionics is disingenuous and dishonesty by dishonest and fraudulent people who are concerned with the loss of control of censorship and thought policing. They want total control over thoughts and speech in America and TikTok is a major problem for them, a red-pill so to say, and they want everyone taking that blue pill because their whole tyrannical and fraudulent power structure relies on regularly taking the regime’s blue pills.
It’s why there is so much frantic flailing about this issue and the same people who not only never cared about “protecting the children” from violence, gore, and sexuality including explicit pornography, are all the sudden so concerned with children once they may learn something about the world that makes them realize the dishonest, lying, narcissistic, histrionic, psychopathic dirt bags that control all of the west; have been telling them lies and abusing them and plundering their future for their own kind.
its too bad that Congress can only pass one law at a time then /s
Discussions about Tiktok are always dominated by the focus on privacy which is a joke.
The real problem is the algorithmic control this gives China to influence the populations of Western countries. But Meta was found to outsource content moderation to a Canadian company that outsourced Instagram content moderation to Iran.
This is not about privacy. These platforms have become the new media. Getting your news from profit-seeking American and Chinese companies is not ideal in the long run.
The real problem is the algorithmic control this gives China to influence the populations of Western countries. But Meta was found to outsource content moderation to a Canadian company that outsourced Instagram content moderation to Iran.
This is not about privacy. These platforms have become the new media. Getting your news from profit-seeking American and Chinese companies is not ideal in the long run.
> the algorithmic control this gives China to influence the populations of Western countries
The first amendment allows us to choose whatever we want to influence us. If Americans want to sit in front of Chinese controlled social media and gorge on it, that's our right. I don't agree the government can take it away. The idea that they should control what influenced us is very anti democratic.
The first amendment allows us to choose whatever we want to influence us. If Americans want to sit in front of Chinese controlled social media and gorge on it, that's our right. I don't agree the government can take it away. The idea that they should control what influenced us is very anti democratic.
At the very least there should be legislature to disclose the parties involved in decision making around algorithms and content moderation
Sure, but I am extremely against the government banning any type of media, social or otherwise.
Ok but like if this true and operative, why aren't they mobilizing their algorithmic control right at this moment when it seems like they would need it the most?
Just seems like pretty incomplete control if they can still let themselves get to this point.
Just seems like pretty incomplete control if they can still let themselves get to this point.
Even if they aren’t doing it, it’s just a crazy risk to run. Imagine if the biggest American newspapers were owned by Russia during the Cold War. America just wouldn’t have allowed it.
And unlike that metaphor, TikTok offers basically 0 value over replacement compared to other media. Maybe it’s even worse than other media since it’s more addictive.
And unlike that metaphor, TikTok offers basically 0 value over replacement compared to other media. Maybe it’s even worse than other media since it’s more addictive.
We had attempts to block importation of Pravda in the cold war including a deliberate chilling effect which required you to opt in. The courts rightfully struck it down. Knowing what the world is saying is important to being an informed citizen. You shouldn't believe it all uncritically of course, just like with domestic media.
It depends on how you define "value", I guess. TikTok has become the dominant platform for this sort of thing in the US. Clearly it has value for lots of people. It doesn't really matter from an optics perspective if TikTok achieved dominance through addictive engagement practices.
Somewhat of a similar argument to say that heroin clearly has value, because people are willing to pay for it.
Its not the tiktok users taking the risks, its our government and to me it looks like they are wilding out.
I think actually very importantly to your implicit point: that is not a metaphor, its an analogy.
But either way, if my state is banning things based on their "value", on what might be "dangerous" to my thought, well, I might as well move to China! Because its the same thing there, but at least I know I can get cheap rent.
But either way, if my state is banning things based on their "value", on what might be "dangerous" to my thought, well, I might as well move to China! Because its the same thing there, but at least I know I can get cheap rent.
> Ok but like if this true and operative, why aren't they mobilizing their algorithmic control right at this moment when it seems like they would need it the most?
Just seems like pretty incomplete control if they can still let themselves get to this point
They did try: https://gizmodo.com/tiktok-activates-army-of-u-s-tweens-to-s...
"TikTok sent a push notification to United States users on Thursday morning asking them to call their local representative to “Stop a TikTok shutdown.” The app refers to a bipartisan bill gaining momentum in Congress this week which could ban TikTok altogether."
They did try: https://gizmodo.com/tiktok-activates-army-of-u-s-tweens-to-s...
"TikTok sent a push notification to United States users on Thursday morning asking them to call their local representative to “Stop a TikTok shutdown.” The app refers to a bipartisan bill gaining momentum in Congress this week which could ban TikTok altogether."
A push notification bypasses the recommendation algorithm entirely.
They are.
Do you see the dissonance in this response, or no?
Algorithmic control doesn't mean mind control - it works best when attention isn't directly drawn to it. It's also hard to "algorithmic control" your way out of a lawsuit when public opinion doesn't change the outcome.
And if you're talking about public opinion, just look down this thread - most people are against this action, not for it.
And if you're talking about public opinion, just look down this thread - most people are against this action, not for it.
This makes sense but I guess I thought public opinion would make a difference here because USA is a democracy and everything. That's at least from my understanding what is supposed to distinguish the USA from China.
Its way better than American propaganda, it just looks like normal people doing interesting things. Im gonna miss it but do I really deserve to be so well entertained?
bbqfog(1)
The real problem is people scared of tHE aLGOrItHm
Surprisingly, the court (2/3) thinks the law both requires strict scrutiny and satisfies it.
Strict Scrutiny has two tests: 1. Compelling Government Interest 2. Narrowly Tailored (least restrictive means)
Note the court does not say foreign actors don't have First Amendment rights.
Strict Scrutiny has two tests: 1. Compelling Government Interest 2. Narrowly Tailored (least restrictive means)
Note the court does not say foreign actors don't have First Amendment rights.
The Court did not say that the law is subject to strict scrutiny. The majority holds that they need not decide whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies because the law satisfies the more stringent test.
The concurrence by Judge Srinivasan would instead hold that the law is subject to only intermediate scrutiny and uphold the law on that basis.
Why do it this way? It takes away a potential avenue of appeal for TikTok. They can’t ask the Supreme Court to hold that the law is subject to strict scrutiny, because that issue wouldn’t help them overturn this ruling.
If you had forced the rest of the panel to choose, I think they would have landed on intermediate scrutiny.
The concurrence by Judge Srinivasan would instead hold that the law is subject to only intermediate scrutiny and uphold the law on that basis.
Why do it this way? It takes away a potential avenue of appeal for TikTok. They can’t ask the Supreme Court to hold that the law is subject to strict scrutiny, because that issue wouldn’t help them overturn this ruling.
If you had forced the rest of the panel to choose, I think they would have landed on intermediate scrutiny.
I'd guess that at least one of the panel members thought strict scrutiny applies. Otherwise I think they would have ruled both that intermediate scrutiny applies, and that even if it doesn't the law passes strict scrutiny.
The only thing the Court says on the matter is:
>There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively decide that question because we conclude the Act “passes muster even under the more demanding standard.”
It's possible that either Judge Ginsburg or Judge Rao think the strict scrutiny should apply, but if forced to put money on it I would say they both land on intermediate scrutiny.
>There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively decide that question because we conclude the Act “passes muster even under the more demanding standard.”
It's possible that either Judge Ginsburg or Judge Rao think the strict scrutiny should apply, but if forced to put money on it I would say they both land on intermediate scrutiny.
Eh, all of pages 28, 29, 30, and 31 are dedicated to the question, they just choose not to come to a definite answer. It's not like they didn't think about it.
Not to say that you couldn't be right, them both landing on intermediate scrutiny is just not how I read the tea leaves.
Not to say that you couldn't be right, them both landing on intermediate scrutiny is just not how I read the tea leaves.
> Note the court does not say foreign actors don't have First Amendment rights.
Is there a precedence on foreign actors (either inside or outside the US) having First Amendment rights?
Is there a precedence on foreign actors (either inside or outside the US) having First Amendment rights?
The first amendment doesn't carve out an exception for non-citizens, so you should be asking if there's precedence on foreigners inside the US NOT having First Amendment rights.
Outside of the US your question is moot, as the US constitution is only binding in the US.
Outside of the US your question is moot, as the US constitution is only binding in the US.
This ban has always felt so silly. If it's privacy and data harvesting as a concern, don't a million apps do that? If it's anti-China sentiment, why TikTok and not a million other things? If it's about protecting elections and propaganda, why not X and Meta and YouTube?
It's so weirdly targeted to me. Why TikTok only?
It's so weirdly targeted to me. Why TikTok only?
> If it's about protecting elections and propaganda, why not X and Meta and YouTube?
Because the government is not threatened by X, Meta, or YouTube. In many ways, it exists in their pocket. There's not a lot of looming dissonance between what those parties are interested in seeing happen and what the modern federal government (as run by either party) is pursuing, and at this point, those each provide far more value as an allied propaganda arm than as a hostile propaganda risk.
But China and the US have directly competing interests in many places around the world, and the radical changes that both countries have undergone in the last 80 years have set the stage of a fresh contest of power. Obviously, both parties would like to navigate that contest in the best position possible. Allowing your anticipated opponent access to unmediated, private communications with hundreds of millions of citizens in an already vulnerable democracy is not a great position to be in during that contest.
Because the government is not threatened by X, Meta, or YouTube. In many ways, it exists in their pocket. There's not a lot of looming dissonance between what those parties are interested in seeing happen and what the modern federal government (as run by either party) is pursuing, and at this point, those each provide far more value as an allied propaganda arm than as a hostile propaganda risk.
But China and the US have directly competing interests in many places around the world, and the radical changes that both countries have undergone in the last 80 years have set the stage of a fresh contest of power. Obviously, both parties would like to navigate that contest in the best position possible. Allowing your anticipated opponent access to unmediated, private communications with hundreds of millions of citizens in an already vulnerable democracy is not a great position to be in during that contest.
It’s very simple, the entire young generation lives on TT. It’s where they get all of their information. It’s owned by a foreign adversary. We already have laws against foreign owned media for radio and TV, why would this be any different given this is TV in 2024?
I’ve used both reels and TT. I’ve only ever gotten lots of pro-China content on TT.
I’ve used both reels and TT. I’ve only ever gotten lots of pro-China content on TT.
So, you agree that most countries should ban US social media, as most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV and radio?
most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV and radio?
Better check on that. I know of a few countries that have no problem with foreign-owned radio stations. I assume that applies to television stations, too.
When the Iron Curtain came down, radio companies from around the world started buying up signals in eastern Europe.
Better check on that. I know of a few countries that have no problem with foreign-owned radio stations. I assume that applies to television stations, too.
When the Iron Curtain came down, radio companies from around the world started buying up signals in eastern Europe.
Yeah, I was thinking more in Europe and some countries in Latin America, which I know more. Not in Eastern Europe, where after the end of Soviet Union, a shock treatment were applied, creating a free market without any restrictions.
You would be surprised perhaps, but a lot of countries actually ban US social media.
Yeah, it is true for some definition of "a lot", but still is a minority, a number of countries much smaller than what should be according with that opinion. Nonetheless, it is funny how before US had the urge to do the same to control which parties should be allowed to mass spread messages within its borders, the common sense and default ideology was that those bannings in the Internet were a proof on how evil and dictatorial these countries were, in contrast to how free were the USA. But unsurprisingly, perceptions and ideologies always change with time, always based on how convenient and useful they are for the powerful.
You cannot be dogmatic and unrealistic. When adversaries are systematically abusing your own systems to influence your society repeatedly, you need to take action. This is far less action than say China is, which not only doesn’t allow TikTok as is on their own population, but has banned all us social media for years and years.
Ok, another metric to look at is population access. If you combine population of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Myanmar, etc it’s more than 2 billion people without access to American social media platforms.
I tried TikTok and never saw much political content at all. The algorithm gave me little dances and bad cooking. I finally got it to ditch the bad cooking and show me some interesting pseudo 70s horror AI videos. But then things kept repeating and I bailed.
How did you manage to get Chinese propaganda?
How did you manage to get Chinese propaganda?
I've used TikTok extensively for the last three years and never found any pro-China content at all.
Speak for yourself, I dont have any 'foreign adversaries,' really that sounds like cheap talking points and nothing to do with my interests as an american.
[deleted]
Data harvesting is a-ok. Propaganda by Americans to Americans is protected by the first amendment. But a foreign state harvesting data and applying influence is more straight forward.
Look at the proposed solution: Just sell TikTok to someone else who isn't China.
Look at the proposed solution: Just sell TikTok to someone else who isn't China.
Because the AIPAC lobby explicitly called TikTok out for exposing young Americans to footage of the Gaza genocide (causing support for Israel among US youth to reach and all-time low), and pushed for the ban. The US politicians who initially pushed it had received hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from AIPAC.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/tiktok-accusatio...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/tiktok-accusatio...
Its a straight line, openly conceived.
because tiktok was doing FB stuff better and FB got scared and lobbied. I think that about sums it up.
X, Meta, and YouTube are not indirectly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. The end.
So... nationalism? We like our surveillance state and demonize their surveillance state?
Yes? And it's not so much about the surveillance in the first place as opposed to the algorithmic manipulation of content to shift narratives and spread propaganda. Whether or not one believes the US based companies do similarly is beside the point, precisely because they're US based, whereas TikTok is the product of the US's primary economic and ideological adversary
[deleted]
oh, but give a chance for rebuttal: I find the US propaganda simplistic and violent. I much prefer this Chinese propaganda, as an american consumer.
I think it's just a mater of time before TikTok starts seeing bans (or threats of bans) all over in the west.
Countries are starting to view it as a _serious_ national threat, due to the disinformation risk.
Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago they annulled the first election round, after a coordinated Russian campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to influence voters.
Not that platforms like Facebook, Snap, etc. are much better, but this comes down to having some control.
Countries are starting to view it as a _serious_ national threat, due to the disinformation risk.
Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago they annulled the first election round, after a coordinated Russian campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to influence voters.
Not that platforms like Facebook, Snap, etc. are much better, but this comes down to having some control.
Even if the app got banned abruptly today, the damage has already been done in the sense that it leaked a lot of training data and PII data to China
> the damage has already been done in the sense that it leaked a lot of training data and PII data to China
That's not nearly the damage that people are organizing against. It's hard to imagine China really gains much simply be holding some trove of old details about some subset of US consumers, no matter how large. Vanishingly few users are individually interesting from halfway around the world, and the aggregate data grows stale quickly.
The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a) advance their global political agenda by dynamically manipulating what people see and how its presented to them in a way that almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept ostensibly private messaging between select users. From the national security perspective of a foreign government, both of these are huge vulnerabilities in a hot or even mildly warm conflict with China as most of the globe seems to be anticipating.
And the fact that pushing back against these strategic threats raises ideological conflicts with Western celebration of free speech and free trade -- making it hard for the government to do anything about the threats and stoking internal conflict when they try -- is gravy on top of it.
That's not nearly the damage that people are organizing against. It's hard to imagine China really gains much simply be holding some trove of old details about some subset of US consumers, no matter how large. Vanishingly few users are individually interesting from halfway around the world, and the aggregate data grows stale quickly.
The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a) advance their global political agenda by dynamically manipulating what people see and how its presented to them in a way that almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept ostensibly private messaging between select users. From the national security perspective of a foreign government, both of these are huge vulnerabilities in a hot or even mildly warm conflict with China as most of the globe seems to be anticipating.
And the fact that pushing back against these strategic threats raises ideological conflicts with Western celebration of free speech and free trade -- making it hard for the government to do anything about the threats and stoking internal conflict when they try -- is gravy on top of it.
> The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a) advance their global political agenda by dynamically manipulating what people see and how its presented to them in a way that almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept ostensibly private messaging between select users.
It's interesting that these are only actionable threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here].
That is, there's been lots of lip service paid about misinformation and privacy violations on/by U.S. companies. But it feels like the only meaningful action is being taken when it's some hypothetical foreign adversary. The further away they are, the more insidious.
I've always felt the most tangible threat is in my backyard, instead of on the other side of the planet.
It's interesting that these are only actionable threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here].
That is, there's been lots of lip service paid about misinformation and privacy violations on/by U.S. companies. But it feels like the only meaningful action is being taken when it's some hypothetical foreign adversary. The further away they are, the more insidious.
I've always felt the most tangible threat is in my backyard, instead of on the other side of the planet.
To citizens and cultural health, yes, the large domestic companies are a much greater threat. There are also many more impediments (by way of law, sentiment, and corruption) to doing anything about it.
But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Taking measures that prepare for that, under the lax purview of international law and diplomacy, is simply easier to do.
But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Taking measures that prepare for that, under the lax purview of international law and diplomacy, is simply easier to do.
> But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful.
Do you have more sources/readings on this? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the first rationale I've heard that doesn't boil down to vague innuendos about manipulation and national security that are equally applicable to US companies.
Do you have more sources/readings on this? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the first rationale I've heard that doesn't boil down to vague innuendos about manipulation and national security that are equally applicable to US companies.
Which part sounds unfamiliar to you?
Modern history through the Cold War sees diplomacy through the lens of "great powers" exercising some "sphere of influence" over vassals, subjects, and partners.
Through the 19th and 20th century, up to WWII, the US worked to define its sphere of influence as all of the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) and as much of Pacific rim as they could claw away from declining/decolonizing European powers.
After WWII, as the only great power able to proceed at full stride and with no recovery to muster, they were able to cement the Pacific projection through new relationships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc
But the landscape changed over the subsequent 80 years, with China's independent modernization and industrialization setting it up as the modern "great power" was due to inherit its legacy from pre-modern history.
And so we arrive at today, where China feels increasingly ready to challenge stale European and US influence over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South East more generally. The US inevitably needs to respond to those challenges. That's the brewing, long-anticipated, and seemingly inevitable conflict that becomes increasingly hot as the US is stretched thin by internal conflict and Russias's parallel challenges to it in Europe.
In this global conflict, TikTok's continued success is a huge benefit to China and huge vulnerability to the US.
Meanwhile, domestic social media companies actually play the opposite strategic role, giving the US a channel to project its voice into foreign constituencies to influence both allies and enemies. Which we can assume is why China already bans them there.
Modern history through the Cold War sees diplomacy through the lens of "great powers" exercising some "sphere of influence" over vassals, subjects, and partners.
Through the 19th and 20th century, up to WWII, the US worked to define its sphere of influence as all of the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) and as much of Pacific rim as they could claw away from declining/decolonizing European powers.
After WWII, as the only great power able to proceed at full stride and with no recovery to muster, they were able to cement the Pacific projection through new relationships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc
But the landscape changed over the subsequent 80 years, with China's independent modernization and industrialization setting it up as the modern "great power" was due to inherit its legacy from pre-modern history.
And so we arrive at today, where China feels increasingly ready to challenge stale European and US influence over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South East more generally. The US inevitably needs to respond to those challenges. That's the brewing, long-anticipated, and seemingly inevitable conflict that becomes increasingly hot as the US is stretched thin by internal conflict and Russias's parallel challenges to it in Europe.
In this global conflict, TikTok's continued success is a huge benefit to China and huge vulnerability to the US.
Meanwhile, domestic social media companies actually play the opposite strategic role, giving the US a channel to project its voice into foreign constituencies to influence both allies and enemies. Which we can assume is why China already bans them there.
Not the person you're replying to, and I also don't have sources, but to me this is the logical conclusion to deeper thought beyond these vague innuendoes about manipulation and national security.
And isolationist, hands-off US would be great for China (and Russia, etc.). China has been increasing their influence on the global stage for quite some time now, and would love to surpass the US in its global influence. Helping to get leaders elected (like Trump) who want to pull back and focus inward could easily be a part of that strategy. (To be fair, I don't think China got Trump re-elected; I think Democrat blindness toward actual domestic issues got Trump re-elected.)
> "... that are equally applicable to US companies.*
I don't really agree that's the case. From the US government's perspective, the dominant social media platforms being owned by US companies is a big win. Certainly those companies sometimes act in ways that piss off the US government, but the trade off is worth it.
And isolationist, hands-off US would be great for China (and Russia, etc.). China has been increasing their influence on the global stage for quite some time now, and would love to surpass the US in its global influence. Helping to get leaders elected (like Trump) who want to pull back and focus inward could easily be a part of that strategy. (To be fair, I don't think China got Trump re-elected; I think Democrat blindness toward actual domestic issues got Trump re-elected.)
> "... that are equally applicable to US companies.*
I don't really agree that's the case. From the US government's perspective, the dominant social media platforms being owned by US companies is a big win. Certainly those companies sometimes act in ways that piss off the US government, but the trade off is worth it.
> It's interesting that these are only actionable threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here].
Well, duh. I know my government and what it can do and tends to do, for the most part. I know what restrictions are placed on it, and that when they circumvent those restrictions, it usually comes to light, even if it takes a while. I know that news outlets here can criticize the government and not have their journalists arrested. US (and other Western) intelligence agencies presumably run influence campaigns on social media to influence foreign citizens. While I may not agree with that practice, it's not high on my list of things I'm going to be worried up about.
[Insert foreign boogeyman] also presumably runs influence campaigns on social media that target the citizens of my country. When they run those campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Twitter, Bluesky, etc., it is safe to assume that the people running those companies (well, perhaps with the exception of Musk) don't like that, and will try (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to shut them down.
If China wants to run influence campaigns on TikTok against US citizens, TikTok will actively help them do it. If they're not already doing this, their intelligence agencies are asleep at the wheel.
Well, duh. I know my government and what it can do and tends to do, for the most part. I know what restrictions are placed on it, and that when they circumvent those restrictions, it usually comes to light, even if it takes a while. I know that news outlets here can criticize the government and not have their journalists arrested. US (and other Western) intelligence agencies presumably run influence campaigns on social media to influence foreign citizens. While I may not agree with that practice, it's not high on my list of things I'm going to be worried up about.
[Insert foreign boogeyman] also presumably runs influence campaigns on social media that target the citizens of my country. When they run those campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Twitter, Bluesky, etc., it is safe to assume that the people running those companies (well, perhaps with the exception of Musk) don't like that, and will try (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to shut them down.
If China wants to run influence campaigns on TikTok against US citizens, TikTok will actively help them do it. If they're not already doing this, their intelligence agencies are asleep at the wheel.
I'm not too concerned about that part of the damage. The big threat is that China can tell TikTok to promote particular views and political thought to American users. If TikTok is banned, that threat goes away. Sure, they've already gathered data to use in running influence campaigns on other platforms, but the US-run platforms at least try here and there to stamp out bot accounts and state-run account rings. (Well, I assume Musk is ok with them on Twitter now.)
I think that's fine and great. We should ban TikTok if that's what we decide
but what about Instagram and X?
but what about Instagram and X?
I've never understood this part of it. There's a disinformation problem on all of these platforms, so why not just kill all of them? The only argument I've seen is basically that it's better for the West to be the ones manipulating people in the West vs. having people in the East manipulating people in the West. And that just doesn't feel like a good argument.
People in the culture that they live in have a vested interest in it.
This is only relevant if people are manipulating others for the betterment of the culture, and that feels overly optimistic IMO. If everyone is just manipulating for selfish reasons, they'll happily destroy their own country.
As the politicians of the US have shown time and time again /s
Why wouldn’t that be a good argument? You might as well ask why the US president is required to be a natural born citizen.
As much as there are legitimate reasons to go after TikTok, I can't help but feel it's not a coincidence that it gets singled out for legislation because it's the only one owned by China.
And yes, that ownership is problematic but I would argue that the others including those you've listed here are equally problematic for the safety of users.
So to answer your question: they should be too, but they likely won't, because the force behind this isn't a desire to protect users from disinformation, the desire is to protect western companies from scary Asian competition. Same reason behind us constantly propping up Detroit. Protecting people from disinformation is just an excuse.
And yes, that ownership is problematic but I would argue that the others including those you've listed here are equally problematic for the safety of users.
So to answer your question: they should be too, but they likely won't, because the force behind this isn't a desire to protect users from disinformation, the desire is to protect western companies from scary Asian competition. Same reason behind us constantly propping up Detroit. Protecting people from disinformation is just an excuse.
> I can't help but feel it's not a coincidence that it gets singled out for legislation because it's the only one owned by China.
Of course it's not a coincidence. It's not even a hidden, implicit unspoken motive, it's openly explained as the reason behind the concern! TFA explains this clearly, numerous times.
Of course it's not a coincidence. It's not even a hidden, implicit unspoken motive, it's openly explained as the reason behind the concern! TFA explains this clearly, numerous times.
TikTok isn’t getting banned. PRC control of TikTok is getting banned. TikTok can survive by selling to a company outside of the US.
You'd have to ask Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk about their agenda for America, and for Americans.
> due to the disinformation risk.
If this were really the problem, TikTok wouldn't be singled-out. This is american frustration with the sympathy to Palestine: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...
If this were really the problem, TikTok wouldn't be singled-out. This is american frustration with the sympathy to Palestine: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...
Will I still be allowed to use Douyin? Can we all just sign up there instead?
https://www.douyin.com/
https://www.douyin.com/
>due to the disinformation risk.
>Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago they annulled the first election round, after a coordinated Russian campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to influence voters.
What you've described so far isn't disinformation but something more like illegal campaigning. This and disinformation both happen on platforms owned by the countries they're effecting (Facebook in 2016 with Trump). US shareholders benefiting doesn't really stop it.
What you've described so far isn't disinformation but something more like illegal campaigning. This and disinformation both happen on platforms owned by the countries they're effecting (Facebook in 2016 with Trump). US shareholders benefiting doesn't really stop it.
> Countries are starting to view it as a _serious_ national threat, due to the disinformation risk.
You mean disinformation that the West does not control. If i want to hear disinformation, I don't need TikTok. I can just watch the public TV channels that are just parroting whatever the government says.
> Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago they annulled the first election round, after a coordinated Russian campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to influence voters.
Yes, these people are so brain dead that a few videos on TikTok changed their minds. It absolutely not because the governments of the EU have stopped listening to their people. No, it's the Chinese and the Russians.
You mean disinformation that the West does not control. If i want to hear disinformation, I don't need TikTok. I can just watch the public TV channels that are just parroting whatever the government says.
> Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago they annulled the first election round, after a coordinated Russian campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to influence voters.
Yes, these people are so brain dead that a few videos on TikTok changed their minds. It absolutely not because the governments of the EU have stopped listening to their people. No, it's the Chinese and the Russians.
>>I think it's just a mater of time before TikTok starts seeing bans (or threats of bans) all over in the west.
Countries are starting to view it as a _serious_ national threat, due to the disinformation risk.
Aah I see the ruling elite in the West can't actually handle freedom of speech. The court really should unseal the classified part where they accuse TikTok of towing Chinese/PRC line. Then lets have a referendum to decide its fate or at least Congress to pass a law banning it.
Aah I see the ruling elite in the West can't actually handle freedom of speech. The court really should unseal the classified part where they accuse TikTok of towing Chinese/PRC line. Then lets have a referendum to decide its fate or at least Congress to pass a law banning it.
> or at least Congress to pass a law banning it.
They did that already.
They did that already.
russli1993(1)
mixed feelings about this. Tiktok was highly addictive and destructive to the brains of young teenagers, but at the same time it was one of the few media platforms that allowed criticism of Israel to go viral. Instagram is similarly addictive and destructive. There are charts showing the rise of depression in female teens that coincides directly with the rise of Instagram. But Instagram also actively censors criticism of Israel. The government wants to redirect young people towards these enclosed pastures to better herd them.
I’m not picking a side here on the conflict.
Do you actually believe the criticism of Israel was just random and “viral”? I find it hard to believe sitting on that platform is anything ‘random’.
Do you actually believe the criticism of Israel was just random and “viral”? I find it hard to believe sitting on that platform is anything ‘random’.
I never said anything about it being random. I think many people share the opinion of the content authors, and thus 'like and share' the content, causing it to go viral. You should understand that normal people are deeply sympathetic to the Gazan civilians because they see the images coming out of Gaza, images of children whose limbs have been blown off by 2000 lb bombs dropped on apartment buildings, and are horrified by the violence being done to the innocent.
> allowed criticism of Israel to go viral
Typically the things that get deplatformed are not well-reasoned criticism so much as emotional outbursts full of barely coherent rhetoric anyway... (this comment should not be interpreted as taking a position on the issue).
Typically the things that get deplatformed are not well-reasoned criticism so much as emotional outbursts full of barely coherent rhetoric anyway... (this comment should not be interpreted as taking a position on the issue).
No. It's not criticism but more about able to broadcast directly what is going on in gaza. Western media were not showing that at the beginning or they were only showing what Israel allowed them to.
Politicians were not happy that tiktok had those raw footage. It's not criticism but trying to hide reality.
Politicians were not happy that tiktok had those raw footage. It's not criticism but trying to hide reality.
With Israel coverage, companies have had leaked moderation guidelines to remove practically anything critical of Israel.
Even if that were true - is that a valid excuse for censorship? Certainly not. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Period. It doesn't mean freedom of speech that you personally agree with or that passes some arbitrary bar of rhetorical quality.
[deleted]
At the same time it was one of the few media platforms that allowed criticism of Israel to go viral.
Actually, it has been the 76 years of increasingly brutal occupation with no end in sight, along with all the compltely ludicrous propaganda the State of Israel (and its right-wing support base abroad) continually transmits about itself this state of affairs, with the weird expectation that the world should actually believe it for some reason -- which has allowed criticism of Israel to go viral.
Actually, it has been the 76 years of increasingly brutal occupation with no end in sight, along with all the compltely ludicrous propaganda the State of Israel (and its right-wing support base abroad) continually transmits about itself this state of affairs, with the weird expectation that the world should actually believe it for some reason -- which has allowed criticism of Israel to go viral.
> But Instagram also actively censors criticism of Israel
I have friends working for nonprofits in this space, and I can assure you the 25 stories a day they blast out are not being censored
I have friends working for nonprofits in this space, and I can assure you the 25 stories a day they blast out are not being censored
I think the fear of foreign influences poisoning our democracies through social media is a very legitimate one. But then, why limit the debate to PCR-owned TikTok? Arguably, Twitter/X was way more instrumental in the election of Donald Trump, a man who has repeatedly praised Xi Jinping [1], Putin [2] and other despots.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/jul/21/trump-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-praises-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/jul/21/trump-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-praises-...
Legally it turns out it is perfectly fine if propaganda and disinformation machines are run by domestic billionaires.
We aren't used to draconian internet control in the west yet, in China and Russia the population is. Everyone who's anyone just uses a VPN and uses western internet when they like. China banned western social media for the exact same reason that the US wanted to, they were just ready to do it earlier.
[deleted]
This is "only" from an appeals court. I expect TikTok will take it to the Supreme Court and they may well reach different conclusions there.
I honestly would be surprised if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, there does not seem to be a huge amount of controversy here from a legal standpoint.
It sounds like the Appeals Court basically punted it to the SC (all emphases my own):
"Under intermediate scrutiny, the Act complies with the First Amendment “if it advances important governmental inter- ests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner II), 520 U.S. 180, 189 (1997) (citing United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968)). Under strict scrutiny, the Act violates the First Amendment unless the Government can “prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015)
"We think it clear that some level of heightened scrutiny is required. The question whether intermediate or strict scrutiny applies is difficult because the TikTok-specific provisions are facially content neutral, yet the Government justifies the Act in substantial part by reference to a foreign adversary’s ability to manipulate content seen by Americans. No Supreme Court case directly addresses whether such a justification renders a law content based, thereby triggering strict scrutiny. There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively decide that question because we con- clude the Act “passes muster even under the more demanding standard.”"
"Under intermediate scrutiny, the Act complies with the First Amendment “if it advances important governmental inter- ests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner II), 520 U.S. 180, 189 (1997) (citing United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968)). Under strict scrutiny, the Act violates the First Amendment unless the Government can “prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015)
"We think it clear that some level of heightened scrutiny is required. The question whether intermediate or strict scrutiny applies is difficult because the TikTok-specific provisions are facially content neutral, yet the Government justifies the Act in substantial part by reference to a foreign adversary’s ability to manipulate content seen by Americans. No Supreme Court case directly addresses whether such a justification renders a law content based, thereby triggering strict scrutiny. There are reasonable bases to conclude that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate even under these circumstances. We need not, however, definitively decide that question because we con- clude the Act “passes muster even under the more demanding standard.”"
I'm not sure how you read that from this. The last sentence suggests that the appeals court believes there's no need to decide if strict or intermediate scrutiny applies, because they believe the government's justification satisfies strict scrutiny.
They do believe that intermediate scrutiny could be appropriate. Sure TikTok can (and presumably will appeal), but to SCOTUS, they will only take up the case if they believe in the possibility that the appeals court erred on two things: that 1) strict scrutiny is required, and 2) the facts of the case don't pass muster when strict scrutiny is applied. That feels like a pretty high bar for a potential TikTok appeal to clear.
Honestly I think TikTok's best hope is Trump. Either he somehow convinces Congress to repeal the ban law, or he instructs his DoJ to not enforce it.
They do believe that intermediate scrutiny could be appropriate. Sure TikTok can (and presumably will appeal), but to SCOTUS, they will only take up the case if they believe in the possibility that the appeals court erred on two things: that 1) strict scrutiny is required, and 2) the facts of the case don't pass muster when strict scrutiny is applied. That feels like a pretty high bar for a potential TikTok appeal to clear.
Honestly I think TikTok's best hope is Trump. Either he somehow convinces Congress to repeal the ban law, or he instructs his DoJ to not enforce it.
My reading (IANAL) is that if intermediate scrutiny were to apply, the bill holds. If strict scrutiny were to apply, the bill doesn't hold. There isn't enough SC precedent to decide which scrutiny should apply. (thus implying that the SC needs to make that determination).
Then they concluding by saying "anyway, it doesn't really matter" but that seems weak to me.
Then they concluding by saying "anyway, it doesn't really matter" but that seems weak to me.
This law has pretty big free speech implications which seems potentially controversial on the legal front IMO
Does the Supreme Court still make decisions based on legal principles or is it just a thin veneer for their political opinions? Genuinely asking because I’m not so sure these days.
Is it wishful thinking there was a time those were ever separate?
The selection, nomination, and confirmation processes have certainly become significantly more ideologically-driven over time, so I would expect that to have an impact on the composition of the court and the way they make decisions.
The latter, but it's always been the latter. But usually they've been better at using the former to hide the latter. Recently, there's been a much thinner veneer of "legal principles".
Could you give some examples of recent SCOTUS opinions that you think have a worse veneer of legal principles than the average veneer from previously?
In general, I find the concept of originalism to meet this criteria. Especially as originalist justices are turning to tradition over originalism. The bend from "the words as originally written" to "our traditions" is a fundamentally conservative (lowercase c) one.
In cases like Vidal v. Elster, United States v. Rahimi, and Samia v. United States I think you'll see the justices straining to understand how how square originalism against the modern world, and having to turn to another justification, traditionalism, which feels more like a "I believe this to be true, due to my political lenses" than perhaps some originalist justices in the past.
That said, I personally find originalism to be pretty conservative already (lowercase c again), and kind of silly, but the recent justice appointments are dialling it up more and more.
In cases like Vidal v. Elster, United States v. Rahimi, and Samia v. United States I think you'll see the justices straining to understand how how square originalism against the modern world, and having to turn to another justification, traditionalism, which feels more like a "I believe this to be true, due to my political lenses" than perhaps some originalist justices in the past.
That said, I personally find originalism to be pretty conservative already (lowercase c again), and kind of silly, but the recent justice appointments are dialling it up more and more.
Lol, that's what conservatives think about Sotomayor and Jackson, and looking at their comments during oral arguments as well as their opinions, I think they have a point. (Kagan is generally a more rigorous thinker.) Actually most cases argued before the Supreme Court still have a unanimous or almost unanimous outcome, or are denied cert (which would often indicate a unanimous opinion were it to be ruled upon). It's only in the more controversial cases where you're more likely to read the more blatantly political arguments.
The process seems to be whoever takes them on the most luxurious vacation decides the verdict.
Has that changed, or are the political opinions they're delivering just not aligned with your belief system?
Cannot happen fast enough. The barn door has been left wide open. If we cannot take social engineering and data security seriously - and we do not - then we're not serious about our continued survival as a country. Sound overly dramatic? Erosion of a common national identity, more than any other factor, has heralded the fall of nations throughout history. On the data security side, a failure to maintain a stable & secure transactional system is almost an equal threat given US dependency on finance, lending & commerce as a key pillar of overall stability.
Doing 3 things at once, so above is best I can do in trying to describe an underreported and poorly appreciated threat to our nation.
Doing 3 things at once, so above is best I can do in trying to describe an underreported and poorly appreciated threat to our nation.
Good luck getting past the advertising lobby, and all that it supports, including the mostly free internet.
The TikTok ban appears to have made it past the ads lobby.
Yes, but it also has nothing to do with the security of personal data.
I am always curious how many people who are in favor of this have actually used tictok.
I have found it very helpful for finding voices pretty far to the left. I also have found it very helpful for finding voices among marginalized communities, specifically indigenous folks, black women, anarchists, and queer folks- especially making fairly rational, well informed critiques of the US. And especially as that relates to things like Palestine or the Democrats failures in marketing Harri.
I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
However, the TT algo surfaces these things quite quickly and satisfactorally for me.
I can see how that really is a threat to US powers. I have a pretty good understanding of the various US oppressive actions against subversives, including the all-out war to demonize folks starting with anarchists/trade unionists/communists in the late 1800s to the use of COINTELPRO against folks like the black panthers, AIM, and the anti-war movement.
So from my standpoint, as someone who has gotten legitiamte "free-speech" value from the app, this move seems like just another step in a long history of US repression of political dissent.
If you start from the assumption that everyone who has different politics than you has been brainwashed or manipulated into that differing position, then sure TT seems like a great tool to do that. But if you think that it really takes immense amounts of capital and effort to get people to "form" opinions, you might take the position that the effort could only be done by folks who, say, have control of the "history" curriculum in Texas public schools ot, for instance, the power to have their press releases uncritically published by the New York Times.
Anyhow.
It will be interesting to see the US set up its own version of the Great Firewall, I guess.
I have found it very helpful for finding voices pretty far to the left. I also have found it very helpful for finding voices among marginalized communities, specifically indigenous folks, black women, anarchists, and queer folks- especially making fairly rational, well informed critiques of the US. And especially as that relates to things like Palestine or the Democrats failures in marketing Harri.
I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
However, the TT algo surfaces these things quite quickly and satisfactorally for me.
I can see how that really is a threat to US powers. I have a pretty good understanding of the various US oppressive actions against subversives, including the all-out war to demonize folks starting with anarchists/trade unionists/communists in the late 1800s to the use of COINTELPRO against folks like the black panthers, AIM, and the anti-war movement.
So from my standpoint, as someone who has gotten legitiamte "free-speech" value from the app, this move seems like just another step in a long history of US repression of political dissent.
If you start from the assumption that everyone who has different politics than you has been brainwashed or manipulated into that differing position, then sure TT seems like a great tool to do that. But if you think that it really takes immense amounts of capital and effort to get people to "form" opinions, you might take the position that the effort could only be done by folks who, say, have control of the "history" curriculum in Texas public schools ot, for instance, the power to have their press releases uncritically published by the New York Times.
Anyhow.
It will be interesting to see the US set up its own version of the Great Firewall, I guess.
[deleted]
where's the super-up-vote button? I have learned a lot and been exposed to perspectives that I would not have otherwise via tiktok. I have learned new things. I have literally changed how I do everyday tasks such as tying laces, using knifes, cooking, knots, etc.
TikTok is a bastion of and important tool for free speech.
Take recent news: the media is towing the line and crying over the murdered CEO. Social media is celebrating a Robin Hood character. One of these is a calculated expression from those in power. The other is an organic response that echoes public opinion.
TikTok is a bastion of and important tool for free speech.
Take recent news: the media is towing the line and crying over the murdered CEO. Social media is celebrating a Robin Hood character. One of these is a calculated expression from those in power. The other is an organic response that echoes public opinion.
Free == By China's Command (cylon voice)
It appears the decision is related to China's control over the platform, shaping massively the opinion of groups, rather more importantly than the fact one can freely post ALT videos from their Ring cam of the assassin biking down the street.
It appears the decision is related to China's control over the platform, shaping massively the opinion of groups, rather more importantly than the fact one can freely post ALT videos from their Ring cam of the assassin biking down the street.
Maybe all of the people downvoting could try and make a coherent argument against this post instead. Although it's pretty hard to argue against objective facts.
The US can ban TikTok all they want, but the worms aren't going back into the can.
The US can ban TikTok all they want, but the worms aren't going back into the can.
As the grandparent comment points out:
> I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
The law doesn't ban the discussion of any particular topics, it bans social media platforms that are subject to the laws and control of adversarial governments. Specifically, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who are already prohibited from participating in sensitive parts of the US economy.
If social media exists to collect vast amounts of information about its users--and it does--then it's reasonable for the government to be concerned about whether that information can fall into the hands of an adversary.
If social media exists to manipulate its users into believing and doing things that benefit the platform--and it does--then likewise the government has good reason to be concerned about how an adversary might use that.
Framing the law as a ban on particular viewpoints is misguided at best, misinformation at worst. And, as you and the GP comment both point out, it wouldn't work since other platforms and venues are still wide open.
The can of worms being left open is a feature not a bug. It's one reason why the law can survive a strict scrutiny review.
> I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
The law doesn't ban the discussion of any particular topics, it bans social media platforms that are subject to the laws and control of adversarial governments. Specifically, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who are already prohibited from participating in sensitive parts of the US economy.
If social media exists to collect vast amounts of information about its users--and it does--then it's reasonable for the government to be concerned about whether that information can fall into the hands of an adversary.
If social media exists to manipulate its users into believing and doing things that benefit the platform--and it does--then likewise the government has good reason to be concerned about how an adversary might use that.
Framing the law as a ban on particular viewpoints is misguided at best, misinformation at worst. And, as you and the GP comment both point out, it wouldn't work since other platforms and venues are still wide open.
The can of worms being left open is a feature not a bug. It's one reason why the law can survive a strict scrutiny review.
That's a fair analysis, but I'd argue that you are being too charitable to the US government. I think they simultaneously have legitimate security concerns, but also wish to regain control over some of their narratives w/ respect to foreign policy. But really that's just a matter of opinion.
https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...
https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...
This argument suggests that the Chinese government is already using Tiktok to control the narrative on US foreign policy, doesn't it?
The issue I have with this is that it treats the US government as one entity that has a singular view. I don't think the US government works like that, instead it has contradictory views within itself and especially over time as the party in power changes. For example, the two political parties that passed this bill have wildly differing views on foreign policy. Thus how can you say its to regain control over narratives, if thy don't even agree on which narrative to promote?
Tiktok ban is a farce because FAANG companies don't like that a Chinese company is doing what they do better and taking their market share. If they actually cared about the privacy and misinformation risk they would pass privacy laws that affect all social media companies.
This was not about privacy. This is about CCP using disinformation to sway populations in a democratic country.
The ruling actually spends quite a bit of time talking about the privacy justification as well.
Yeah, but it's still a distraction from the real issue.
The excuse of misinformation is also fud. Facebook help Trump get elected in 2016 through the whole Cambridge Analytica fiasco. Facebook paid a paltry fine and the executives from Cambridge Analytica formed another company named Emerdata. There would be no need to take action specifically against Tiktok if legislation was the stick given to all companies but lobbyist don't want to crack down domestically.
It's not about misinformation either. It's about control over the algorithm that chooses what people see.
> Facebook help Trump get elected in 2016 through the whole Cambridge Analytica fiasco
This comment is FUD though. Did FB do it intentionally?
This comment is FUD though. Did FB do it intentionally?
Yeah! We like our organized disinformation campaigns to be made in the USA instead.
It's frankly an embarrassing look for the US if we go through with this on these grounds because we're basically saying we can't weather targeted disinformation and propaganda while simultaneously deploying them in our own house.
You can't make people in the US believe anything. We had the full force of US government pulling every lever they had access to get people to get vaccinated and wear a mask and it still didn't work. Even when (arguably) they had the truth on their side. There's no way we're admitting China outclassed us.
It's frankly an embarrassing look for the US if we go through with this on these grounds because we're basically saying we can't weather targeted disinformation and propaganda while simultaneously deploying them in our own house.
You can't make people in the US believe anything. We had the full force of US government pulling every lever they had access to get people to get vaccinated and wear a mask and it still didn't work. Even when (arguably) they had the truth on their side. There's no way we're admitting China outclassed us.
> We had the full force of US government pulling every lever they had access to get people to get vaccinated and wear a mask and it still didn't work.
Well, did they try a disinformation campaign on TikTok?
Well, did they try a disinformation campaign on TikTok?
Disinformation is bad from any source, but it is much worse if it comes from a foreign adversary govt.
Also, the US acts against misinformation from with US too.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-s...
Honestly, I never understood arguments like this. What next?
1. Why should only the US govt tax Americans, we should also let CCP tax Americans.
2. Why should only the US govt police Americans, we should also let CCP police Americans.
> You can't make people in the US believe anything. We had the full force of US government pulling every lever they had access to get people to get vaccinated and wear a mask and it still didn't work. Even when (arguably) they had the truth on their side. There's no way we're admitting China outclassed us.
You are conflating many things.
CCP doesn't have to sway the average American. It only has to sway fringe groups at critical moments/places. That is much more easy.
Also, the US acts against misinformation from with US too.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-s...
Honestly, I never understood arguments like this. What next?
1. Why should only the US govt tax Americans, we should also let CCP tax Americans.
2. Why should only the US govt police Americans, we should also let CCP police Americans.
> You can't make people in the US believe anything. We had the full force of US government pulling every lever they had access to get people to get vaccinated and wear a mask and it still didn't work. Even when (arguably) they had the truth on their side. There's no way we're admitting China outclassed us.
You are conflating many things.
CCP doesn't have to sway the average American. It only has to sway fringe groups at critical moments/places. That is much more easy.
> Honestly, I never understood arguments like this. What next?
> 1. Why should only the US govt tax Americans, we should also let CCP tax Americans.
Well. Much to the frustration of authoritarians everywhere, we have the first amendment to the US Constitution. We also have a lot of precedent saying that Constitutional protections don't only extend to US citizens.
Tiktok, Ltd is a company operating in the US, with a solid, real US presence. Either the conduct of the company violates local, state, or federal law and the company should be prosecuted accordingly, or it doesn't and they should be left alone.
The actual argument being made is not "We should let the CCP police Americans." but rather "Multinational companies with a real US presence have the same free speech protections as any strictly-domestic US-based company. Why is TikTok, Ltd being treated differently?".
> 1. Why should only the US govt tax Americans, we should also let CCP tax Americans.
Well. Much to the frustration of authoritarians everywhere, we have the first amendment to the US Constitution. We also have a lot of precedent saying that Constitutional protections don't only extend to US citizens.
Tiktok, Ltd is a company operating in the US, with a solid, real US presence. Either the conduct of the company violates local, state, or federal law and the company should be prosecuted accordingly, or it doesn't and they should be left alone.
The actual argument being made is not "We should let the CCP police Americans." but rather "Multinational companies with a real US presence have the same free speech protections as any strictly-domestic US-based company. Why is TikTok, Ltd being treated differently?".
> Tiktok, Ltd is a company operating in the US, with a solid, real US presence. Either the conduct of the company violates local, state, or federal law and the company should be prosecuted accordingly, or it doesn't and they should be left alone.
This is not violating the first amendment rights of TikTok.
This is just asking Bytedance/CCP to divest from TikTok.
Last I heard, CCP is not subject to US laws (maybe CCP thinks otherwise?). Bytedance is a Chinese entity and US first amendment and equivalent don't apply to it.
Bytedance - CCP link
> In 2014, ByteDance established an internal Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee.[51] The company's vice president, Zhang Fuping, serves as the company's CCP Committee Secretary.[52][53] According to a report submitted to the Australian Parliament, Zhang Fuping stated that ByteDance should "transmit the correct political direction, public opinion guidance and value orientation into every business and product line."[54][55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance
If CCP wants American first amendment protections for itself, it should also be subject to all other US laws then.
This is not violating the first amendment rights of TikTok.
This is just asking Bytedance/CCP to divest from TikTok.
Last I heard, CCP is not subject to US laws (maybe CCP thinks otherwise?). Bytedance is a Chinese entity and US first amendment and equivalent don't apply to it.
Bytedance - CCP link
> In 2014, ByteDance established an internal Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee.[51] The company's vice president, Zhang Fuping, serves as the company's CCP Committee Secretary.[52][53] According to a report submitted to the Australian Parliament, Zhang Fuping stated that ByteDance should "transmit the correct political direction, public opinion guidance and value orientation into every business and product line."[54][55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance
If CCP wants American first amendment protections for itself, it should also be subject to all other US laws then.
In addition to what dragonwriter said about the Chinese government being subject to and having the protection of US laws under specific situations:
> This is not violating the first amendment rights of TikTok. This is just asking Bytedance/CCP to divest from TikTok.
As an aside; did you know that foreign companies can own or otherwise have a controlling interest in US defense contractors that do Top Secret / SCI work for the DoD and other US military customers? It's true!
Anyway. China is currently subject to a very limited trade embargo. It is otherwise a country that has "permanent normal trade relations" with the US.
Please cite previous Federal precedent that permits FedGov to force countries that we have PNTR with to relinquish their controlling interest in US companies that provide data transfer services [0], or provide publishing services, or operate a newspaper, television or radio station. Make sure to link to actual, official communications, rather than some blogger writing about how the world SHOULD be.
> If CCP wants American first amendment protections for itself, it should also be subject to all other US laws then.
You're conflating the Chinese government and TikTok.
[0] Huawei provides hardware for companies providing data transfer services; the distinction is important.
> This is not violating the first amendment rights of TikTok. This is just asking Bytedance/CCP to divest from TikTok.
As an aside; did you know that foreign companies can own or otherwise have a controlling interest in US defense contractors that do Top Secret / SCI work for the DoD and other US military customers? It's true!
Anyway. China is currently subject to a very limited trade embargo. It is otherwise a country that has "permanent normal trade relations" with the US.
Please cite previous Federal precedent that permits FedGov to force countries that we have PNTR with to relinquish their controlling interest in US companies that provide data transfer services [0], or provide publishing services, or operate a newspaper, television or radio station. Make sure to link to actual, official communications, rather than some blogger writing about how the world SHOULD be.
> If CCP wants American first amendment protections for itself, it should also be subject to all other US laws then.
You're conflating the Chinese government and TikTok.
[0] Huawei provides hardware for companies providing data transfer services; the distinction is important.
> CCP is not subject to US laws
The Communist Party of China is, in fact, subject to those US laws with extraterritorial application (with the limitations and exceptions the US has chosen to include in those laws), or when it acts within US territory. For instance, see the litigation over Missouri’s claims against the the People’s Republic of China, Communist Party of China, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, People’s Government of the Hubei Province, People’s Government of Wuhan City, Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences under US law over COVID-19 related actions. [0][1]
> Bytedance is a Chinese entity and US first amendment and equivalent don’t apply to it.
The First Amendment is applicable based on the US government being the actor, not based on who is acted against.
[0] https://tlblog.org/missouris-covid-suit-against-china-revive...
[1] https://lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2224... [PDF]
The Communist Party of China is, in fact, subject to those US laws with extraterritorial application (with the limitations and exceptions the US has chosen to include in those laws), or when it acts within US territory. For instance, see the litigation over Missouri’s claims against the the People’s Republic of China, Communist Party of China, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, People’s Government of the Hubei Province, People’s Government of Wuhan City, Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences under US law over COVID-19 related actions. [0][1]
> Bytedance is a Chinese entity and US first amendment and equivalent don’t apply to it.
The First Amendment is applicable based on the US government being the actor, not based on who is acted against.
[0] https://tlblog.org/missouris-covid-suit-against-china-revive...
[1] https://lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2224... [PDF]
When you make strawmen like "Lets let the CCP tax Americans" I can't take you seriously.
1. Yeah, that's not my argument. My main argument is that there is a false equivalence drawn between US and CCP govts. That's not what a straw man.
2. Apparently, you take the original argument US and CCP are equivalent seriously. If so, I can't your argument seriously and it needs to mocked with equivalences like what I was going for. That was the argument I was responding to.
2. Apparently, you take the original argument US and CCP are equivalent seriously. If so, I can't your argument seriously and it needs to mocked with equivalences like what I was going for. That was the argument I was responding to.
To accept the strawman rebuttal I have to be able to figure out what differentiates your actual position from the strawman, which I can't. You implicitly claim that the Chinese government should be able to do to US citizens everything that the US government can do to US citizens. To which two counter-examples were provided.
[deleted]
It's a global company right? What if they just don't respond. How does it get banned.
1. Apps stores remove them.
2. Any transactions paying the creators are banned. Any Tiktok shopping stuff banned.
3. ISPs?
App Stores maybe.
But US doesn't have a national Fire Wall like China.
So on one hand we don't have the ability to block content/internet like China, but we seem to want to be more like China and be able to?
But US doesn't have a national Fire Wall like China.
So on one hand we don't have the ability to block content/internet like China, but we seem to want to be more like China and be able to?
Creators start begging for patreon support, tiktok operates at its own expense as a webapp, users set up vpn in case it gets banned at isp. Domestic alternatives continue to suck and fail to attract users. Nothing new under the sun.
> users set up vpn
You'll lose most audience to a competitor that doesn't require VPN at this step.
You'll lose most audience to a competitor that doesn't require VPN at this step.
Not with tiktok, and “we have tiktok at home” doesn’t work on teens. I have a <10yo niece, guess what I find on my grandmas tablet every time she visits? Right, a new vpn app. We are in Russia, and no one watches rutube. Even my grandma said it’s useless crap with no content and turns her personal ovpn profile on and off to visit differently banned services. Everyone is still on youtube, both viewers and creators. It’s only hard for a week, then you get used to it and it gets normalized in the society. You US just have to live through your first real-sized ban, then that rule stops working. Bans are snakeoil, except for North Korean style.
You actually do have a chance iff someone manages to catch the essence of tiktok and implement it at home without screwing everything up, so better do not.
You actually do have a chance iff someone manages to catch the essence of tiktok and implement it at home without screwing everything up, so better do not.
Another point to consider here is that VPNs usually have a pretty low monthly data limit and kids won't bother paying for a VPN to access something they can also access through Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts.
A third thing to consider is the network effect. If (hypothetically) in Russia, every other teen uses VPN to post on an otherwise unavailable platform, there's enough content made by Russians there to get fellow Russians interested. OTOH, if in the US, the majority of the kids stop going there, there will be less relatable content that kids would be interested in. Those that exited the platform would publish their stuff elsewhere, and that's where everyone would eventually end up going.
A third thing to consider is the network effect. If (hypothetically) in Russia, every other teen uses VPN to post on an otherwise unavailable platform, there's enough content made by Russians there to get fellow Russians interested. OTOH, if in the US, the majority of the kids stop going there, there will be less relatable content that kids would be interested in. Those that exited the platform would publish their stuff elsewhere, and that's where everyone would eventually end up going.
VPN use is only about 1/3rd globally and only about 1/4th in the Americas.
Sure, TikTok could mount a massive campaign to get people off of its (in the future) banned in the app stores app and onto the web and then get them to install VPNs, but in the end they'd easily lose 80-90% of their users.
Is TikTok with 10-20% of its users in the US still a problem? Maybe, but not nearly the problem TikTok is with 100% of its users.
Sure, TikTok could mount a massive campaign to get people off of its (in the future) banned in the app stores app and onto the web and then get them to install VPNs, but in the end they'd easily lose 80-90% of their users.
Is TikTok with 10-20% of its users in the US still a problem? Maybe, but not nearly the problem TikTok is with 100% of its users.
Network effects of TT are stronger than anything that's ever come before it. Come to think of it, there any publicly tradable VPN companies?
> What if they just don't respond. How does it get banned.
We had a very recent example of how that can work here in Brazil. Like the USA, we have hundreds of independent ISPs, and no national firewall. Twitter tried the "just don't respond", and got banned for over a month (the ban was lifted once Twitter gave up and cooperated with the courts).
We had a very recent example of how that can work here in Brazil. Like the USA, we have hundreds of independent ISPs, and no national firewall. Twitter tried the "just don't respond", and got banned for over a month (the ban was lifted once Twitter gave up and cooperated with the courts).
"the law would require app store companies, like Apple and Google, and internet hosting providers to stop supporting TikTok, effectively banning the app."
I've not used TikTok but from what I've seen most of what it does seems like it could be done well purely on the web, except maybe video creation but shooting a video in an app and uploading to the web doesn't seem like it would be too onerous.
So what happens if they do make a pure web version, and host that on servers outside the US?
So what happens if they do make a pure web version, and host that on servers outside the US?
I'm pretty sure this is a big enough mote to let insta and youtube kill it.
Blocking? You can't outsmart politicians using technology.
That’s not effective at all, as the practice shows in all censorships where internet access is still available.
Maybe not effective as a full ban but once it got ejected from all the app stores, how much trouble is the average person going to take to keep accessing it rather than switching to some other source to get their short video fix?
Imprisonment. Eventually, executives will want to spend their wealth in a First World country.
the quality of dialog on this site plummets to reddit levels when talking about TikTok.
TikTok was stopped because it was eating FB's lunch. That's it. There is not a single argument that applies to TikTok that doesn't apply to FB or some other company
TikTok was stopped because it was eating FB's lunch. That's it. There is not a single argument that applies to TikTok that doesn't apply to FB or some other company
Your analysis is low quality as it focuses too narrowly and ignores the wider geopolitical tensions between the US and China.
See:
- CHIPs act
- Ban of sale of many nvidia GPUs to China
- Ban of export of ASML euv tech
- Huawei ban
- Chinese EV tariffs (ban?)
- whole host of tariffs
- China south sea tensions
- Chinese support of Russia who is a threat to NATO allies (and invaded a sovereign country) - Ban of most US tech companies in China
- Chinas mutual aid treaty with North Korea
See:
- CHIPs act
- Ban of sale of many nvidia GPUs to China
- Ban of export of ASML euv tech
- Huawei ban
- Chinese EV tariffs (ban?)
- whole host of tariffs
- China south sea tensions
- Chinese support of Russia who is a threat to NATO allies (and invaded a sovereign country) - Ban of most US tech companies in China
- Chinas mutual aid treaty with North Korea
It seems like the primary argument is that it is owned by China. I don’t see how applies to FB or other companies.
Heckin' wholesome news: Eglin Air Force Base revealed as the most HN addicted city!
I don't like this. TikTok is certainly a national security threat and it should absolutely be heavily restricted via sweeping privacy regulation that applies to all US tech companies, however the government has failed to implement privacy regulation while allowing TikTok's unfettered growth. Consequently, it has allowed the platform to become the place for free speech and exchange of ideas by the country's youth, and hence this cold turkey removal is a direct assault on their freedom.
This decision could set a dangerous president, pulling us towards a future of authoritarianism where only government approved communication channels are permitted.
This decision could set a dangerous president, pulling us towards a future of authoritarianism where only government approved communication channels are permitted.
U.S. courts are not "the government." They are a part of the government. It's not the court's job to "implement privacy regulation." That's the legislative branch's job.
The U.S. government is designed this way on purpose -- so that no one part of the government is more powerful than the other.
I assume you're not an American, because this is generally taught in elementary school.
The U.S. government is designed this way on purpose -- so that no one part of the government is more powerful than the other.
I assume you're not an American, because this is generally taught in elementary school.
The job of the court is not to decide if this law is the best possible solution.
When strict scrutiny is involved, (which it is, because there are many US users of TikTok using their First Amendment rights) it IS the court's job to decide whether the law is the "least restrictive means" [1] of solving the problem that the legislators claim to be solving.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
If SCOTUS takes it up, it will almost certainly overturn the ruling.
too funny. SCOTUS will do whatever the ruling political party tells it to do. funny people still think SCOTUS is anything more that that these days…
Related: DC Circuit Says the TikTok Ban Is Censorship, But Upholds It Anyway–TikTok v. Garland https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/12/dc-circuit-say...
>> the Government acknowledges that it lacks specific intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States
> (Note 1: the court then shifts the burden back on TikTok: “TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.”)
...
>> At bottom, the Government lacks confidence that it has sufficient visibility and resources to monitor TikTok’s promised measures, nor does it have “the requisite trust” that “ByteDance and TTUSDS would comply in good faith.” The court can neither fault nor second guess the Government on these crucial points…
>> The Government “need not wait for a risk to materialize” before acting; its national security decisions often must be “based on informed judgment.” Here the Government has drawn reasonable inferences based upon the evidence it has
> The court can’t second-guess possibly pretextual arguments? The government has “drawn reasonable inferences” about conjectural risks? Those words don’t sound like the rigorous judicial review we expect from strict scrutiny.
...
> Third, the majority repeatedly indicates that the ban won’t necessarily change the content available on TikTok, given that the PRC hasn’t yet engaged in its conjectural influence operation. But which way does this cut? As mentioned above, changing the ownership will change the editorial policies and practices, so inevitably the content would change from the forced divestment. More importantly, doesn’t this raise serious questions about the ban’s efficacy if it doesn’t actually change the content? In other words, if the content stays the same, then means-fit analysis seems potentially undermined.
> (Yes, I would also argue the contrary position–that if the speech were to change, that would be reason to strike down the ban. From my perspective, legislatively picking and choosing owners of speech venues is always constitutionally problematic, regardless of the effects on editorial content).
>> the Government acknowledges that it lacks specific intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States
> (Note 1: the court then shifts the burden back on TikTok: “TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.”)
...
>> At bottom, the Government lacks confidence that it has sufficient visibility and resources to monitor TikTok’s promised measures, nor does it have “the requisite trust” that “ByteDance and TTUSDS would comply in good faith.” The court can neither fault nor second guess the Government on these crucial points…
>> The Government “need not wait for a risk to materialize” before acting; its national security decisions often must be “based on informed judgment.” Here the Government has drawn reasonable inferences based upon the evidence it has
> The court can’t second-guess possibly pretextual arguments? The government has “drawn reasonable inferences” about conjectural risks? Those words don’t sound like the rigorous judicial review we expect from strict scrutiny.
...
> Third, the majority repeatedly indicates that the ban won’t necessarily change the content available on TikTok, given that the PRC hasn’t yet engaged in its conjectural influence operation. But which way does this cut? As mentioned above, changing the ownership will change the editorial policies and practices, so inevitably the content would change from the forced divestment. More importantly, doesn’t this raise serious questions about the ban’s efficacy if it doesn’t actually change the content? In other words, if the content stays the same, then means-fit analysis seems potentially undermined.
> (Yes, I would also argue the contrary position–that if the speech were to change, that would be reason to strike down the ban. From my perspective, legislatively picking and choosing owners of speech venues is always constitutionally problematic, regardless of the effects on editorial content).
maybe they can work out a deal, where they give control of the US phone networks back and then get to keep running tick tok
After arguing with a few tiktokers about the murder of the UHC ceo, I’m ok with the ban now. Something is not right.
TicToc stay in your bloc
Related: DC Circuit Upholds TikTok Ban In Alarming Ruling, Claiming It Actually Enhances Free Speech https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/06/dc-circuit-upholds-tikto...
> There is a fair bit of hand-waving, in which they note that the government presented no actual evidence of China doing anything nefarious with TikTok, but because government officials said “but they could!” that was enough. This sets an extremely low and dangerous bar. Mere speculation about what a foreign government might hypothetically do in the future should not be enough to override the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.
> In many ways, this is a continuation of the way the courts often view Fourth Amendment cases, where if the government just yells “national security” loud enough, courts will ignore the plain text of the Fourth Amendment.
...
> The court’s reasoning here is Orwellian. It claims that banning TikTok, and the speech of millions of Americans on the platform, somehow enhances free speech. This is a complete inversion of First Amendment values. The First Amendment protects against government censorship and control of private speech, it doesn’t justify such censorship in the name of preventing foreign influence. The court is essentially arguing that violating the First Amendment is necessary to save it, which is absurd.
...
> The ruling also rejects the idea that this was a Bill of Attainder, by saying that while it does “target” TikTok directly, its remedy is not a “punishment” and therefore that prohibition doesn’t apply. But banning TikTok from operating in the US unless it is sold certainly seems like a punishment. The court’s analysis on this point is not persuasive.
> The court also claims that this bill is, in fact, the least restrictive means of achieving this outcome, rejecting ByteDance’s long-negotiated alternative of having all the data stored in the US on Oracle hardware, and giving Oracle the ability to audit the code. This plan was originally cooked up deliberately under the first Trump administration to support Trump donor Larry Ellison.
> There is a fair bit of hand-waving, in which they note that the government presented no actual evidence of China doing anything nefarious with TikTok, but because government officials said “but they could!” that was enough. This sets an extremely low and dangerous bar. Mere speculation about what a foreign government might hypothetically do in the future should not be enough to override the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.
> In many ways, this is a continuation of the way the courts often view Fourth Amendment cases, where if the government just yells “national security” loud enough, courts will ignore the plain text of the Fourth Amendment.
...
> The court’s reasoning here is Orwellian. It claims that banning TikTok, and the speech of millions of Americans on the platform, somehow enhances free speech. This is a complete inversion of First Amendment values. The First Amendment protects against government censorship and control of private speech, it doesn’t justify such censorship in the name of preventing foreign influence. The court is essentially arguing that violating the First Amendment is necessary to save it, which is absurd.
...
> The ruling also rejects the idea that this was a Bill of Attainder, by saying that while it does “target” TikTok directly, its remedy is not a “punishment” and therefore that prohibition doesn’t apply. But banning TikTok from operating in the US unless it is sold certainly seems like a punishment. The court’s analysis on this point is not persuasive.
> The court also claims that this bill is, in fact, the least restrictive means of achieving this outcome, rejecting ByteDance’s long-negotiated alternative of having all the data stored in the US on Oracle hardware, and giving Oracle the ability to audit the code. This plan was originally cooked up deliberately under the first Trump administration to support Trump donor Larry Ellison.
Does this matter without meaningful US privacy laws? Can't China just buy metrics and ads to get the same access?
Headline should have been: “Sell or Die: TikTok set to be banned in the US after losing appeal”
[deleted]
Trump explicitly promised to stop the TikTok ban so it'll be interesting to see if he follows through.
Right after they finally repeal Obamacare, one presumes.
He promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of being elected. Not being sworn-in, but 24 hours of being elected.
We see how well that promise worked out.
We see how well that promise worked out.
WSJ earlier this year reported that a Trump donor is an investor in TikTok and has been pushing to save TikTok from a ban: https://www.wsj.com/business/how-tiktoks-trump-whisperer-cha...
No he didn't. The most he said is that he would "SAVE TIKTOK" (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1130812582422...), which can mean anything you want. If you think the ban should be repealed, then that's what he meant. If you think the ban should be upheld and TikTok should be taken over by an American company, then that's what he meant. As usual, he has also made every other possible contradictory statement on this issue.
"When I wanted to disable TIKTOK 3 years ago [...] I was right": https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1099896988452...
"A national ban on TikTok is long overdue": https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/18212
"Trump was RIGHT on TikTok": https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1100753484322...
"FACEBOOK IS A GREAT THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, AND IT WILL ONLY GET BIGGER AND STRONGER IF TIKTOK IS TAKEN OUT. DO THEM BOTH?": https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1120957020572...
And of course, his own executive order to ban TikTok: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
"When I wanted to disable TIKTOK 3 years ago [...] I was right": https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1099896988452...
"A national ban on TikTok is long overdue": https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/18212
"Trump was RIGHT on TikTok": https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1100753484322...
"FACEBOOK IS A GREAT THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, AND IT WILL ONLY GET BIGGER AND STRONGER IF TIKTOK IS TAKEN OUT. DO THEM BOTH?": https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1120957020572...
And of course, his own executive order to ban TikTok: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
He will absolutely 100% save TikTok. Expect to see him work closely with Xi and Putin against their common enemies during his term.
Here's another fun prediction: China will give him (personally, not the US) a huge sum of money and he will withdraw all support from Taiwan allowing China to take them over. TBD whether there's shooting involved.
I'm open to friendly bets!
Here's another fun prediction: China will give him (personally, not the US) a huge sum of money and he will withdraw all support from Taiwan allowing China to take them over. TBD whether there's shooting involved.
I'm open to friendly bets!
Excellent news. And all social media should be blocked until you are 16+
That should be regulated by parents. If the government does it it means needing a digital id
Not that the government would ever do this, but it is technically feasible for them to distribute anonymous digital IDs that verify age without allowing the user to be tracked or identified.
Technically feasible? yes.
But why would the intelligence/military blob do things this way?
Haven't they proved over and over that they will use any opportunity to spy on as much people as possible?
Haven't they proved over and over that they will use any opportunity to spy on as much people as possible?
Once the government is issuing digital IDs to grant access to speech you can split that hair however you want I think it's a pretty uncomfortable idea for a lot of people.
Social networks in general should be nation-specific, to ensure that only domestic enemies of the people and similar bad actors can take advantage of them.
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country, or harvest data from it invites nothing but trouble.
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country, or harvest data from it invites nothing but trouble.
It’s sad that people think this way. As a young child growing up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able to access the “speech” of people around the world via internet forums was a revelation.
Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?
Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?
I think there is an aspect of foreign interference that Americans might be particularly blind to.
Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X, Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We definitely influence and interfere in their domestic affairs whether anyone likes it or not.
If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social media should be legally barred from crossing borders regardless if that even makes internet sense.
Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X, Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We definitely influence and interfere in their domestic affairs whether anyone likes it or not.
If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social media should be legally barred from crossing borders regardless if that even makes internet sense.
So essentially you are advocating for the Great Firewall of China. Would you ban VPNs as well?
If foreign interference in domestic politics is a concern, you absolutely do not want foreign-owned communication channels operating within you. They have every reason to manipulate discourse within them towards specific foreign ends in defiance to domestic interests.
TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere towards American ends.
This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls, which with the way you posited it might as well be a strawman.
TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere towards American ends.
This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls, which with the way you posited it might as well be a strawman.
All free countries control and censor broadcast media, but most don't do it for unicast communication.
The person you replied to is clearly being sarcastic.
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country is protected by the First Amendment. It's exactly why every American can consume 24/7 PressTV if they choose to
IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.
You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity).
It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
It is very much construed “within the US”, excluding the border enforcement zone
The are FCC rules concerning foreign ownership of broadcast channels, which could be considered an exception to this.
What's written and what's enforced often don't align.
Obligatory IANAL.
The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
> The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.
No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.
If you read the links I cited, you would have known that SCOTUS ruled that the full authority of the Constitution only applies as far as incorporated US territories and only to US nationals and citizens (colloquially "Americans").
Unincorporated territories and anything beyond that (ie: foreign countries) does not (and cannot, both legally and practically in the case of foreign countries) enjoy US Constitutional protections.
You are certainly welcome to your opinions, of course, but where legality is concerned the courts clearly say otherwise.
Obligatory IANAL.
Unincorporated territories and anything beyond that (ie: foreign countries) does not (and cannot, both legally and practically in the case of foreign countries) enjoy US Constitutional protections.
You are certainly welcome to your opinions, of course, but where legality is concerned the courts clearly say otherwise.
Obligatory IANAL.
The first section you cited [1] interprets "People of the United States" to mean "nationals and citizens". I don't stop being a citizen when I leave US borders. I previously read the first section but neglected to read the second section, and I have decided to mentally autocorrect "People of the United States" to "United States citizens and nationals who are within US borders".
Now I agree with you almost completely, but I have a nitpick.
The US Constitution protects me from the US government. The second section you cited about losing constitutional rights (such as the right to a jury trial) when leaving US borders suggests to me that formally all of the Constitution's protections go away but informally some protections remain. Consider this excerpt from the second section you cited [2]:
> The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.
Legally, why does it matter that the defendant got a "basically fair" trial? To me, it means that defendant still has a right to a "basically fair" trial. So where does that right come from? I think that it comes from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: mostly diminished, but not completely eliminated, for US citizens outside of US borders.
Suppose that I go on vacation to Mexico and send a letter to the White House with the message "Joe Biden can suck an egg. hn_acker, from Mexico". Upon receiving it, Joe Biden signs an executive order declaring that "If hn_acker sends an insult to me from outside of the borders of the United States then hn_acker will be an enemy of the state". Then I send another letter with the same message I sent before. I return to US soil and Joe Biden orders the military to shoot me. The military refuses the order and documents having done so. During any point of my hypothetical scenario, did Joe Biden violate any of my constitutional rights? I think that the answer is yes, Joe Biden as the head of the military violated my First Amendment right to free expression by retaliating to my second letter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
Now I agree with you almost completely, but I have a nitpick.
The US Constitution protects me from the US government. The second section you cited about losing constitutional rights (such as the right to a jury trial) when leaving US borders suggests to me that formally all of the Constitution's protections go away but informally some protections remain. Consider this excerpt from the second section you cited [2]:
> The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.
Legally, why does it matter that the defendant got a "basically fair" trial? To me, it means that defendant still has a right to a "basically fair" trial. So where does that right come from? I think that it comes from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: mostly diminished, but not completely eliminated, for US citizens outside of US borders.
Suppose that I go on vacation to Mexico and send a letter to the White House with the message "Joe Biden can suck an egg. hn_acker, from Mexico". Upon receiving it, Joe Biden signs an executive order declaring that "If hn_acker sends an insult to me from outside of the borders of the United States then hn_acker will be an enemy of the state". Then I send another letter with the same message I sent before. I return to US soil and Joe Biden orders the military to shoot me. The military refuses the order and documents having done so. During any point of my hypothetical scenario, did Joe Biden violate any of my constitutional rights? I think that the answer is yes, Joe Biden as the head of the military violated my First Amendment right to free expression by retaliating to my second letter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it.
Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient.
> The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”).
> Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.
> The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”).
> Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.
Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed.
Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.
If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.
If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
> why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country?
Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population.
Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax.
What does that government do?
They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country.
Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.
Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country?
Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population.
Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax.
What does that government do?
They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country.
Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
Funny how the decline of American hegemony over social media coincides with Americans arguing social media should be nation-specific.
TLDR: The ban is set to take effect on January 19, 2025. It can be postponed once for a duration of 90 days by a presidential act. This appeals court upheld the law.
Is it a coincidence that the deadline expires the day before Trump takes office?
The deadline was established long before the election.
Sure, but we've known for decades when inauguration day was going to be.
Yes, I think it's a coincidence. The language of the law specifies the ban will go into effect 270 days after the law's passage. I don't think any one law maker can perfectly predict how long it will take for a law to make it through the House, Senate, and Presidential signature. This law was introduced on March 5, 2024 and signed by Biden on April 24, 2024.
Thanks! That's the context I was looking for -- whether the date was written into the law or an accident of where N days after event X landed.
It was very deliberate.
oldgregg(1)
russli1993(4)
Trump said he won’t ban it.
Trump says lots of things. What he will do depends on which advisor/donor gets in his ear, and when.
He won’t ban it he’s saving it as a chip for bargains
The ban takes effect on Jan 19, 2025. Given that Trump will not take office until the next day, he won't have the power to stop it. I suppose he could try to reverse it once he's in, though.
Unfortunately for our collective sanity, Trump's promises have the predictive power of /dev/random. He was all aboard the original train to ban TikTok, so he'll just as easily flip-flop back and forth based on whatever his cadre of puppeteers whisper into his ear today. And also the bill already passed and was signed into law in April: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
Given that Zuckerberg is now trying to get in the Trump swamp, and Meta was behind some of the initial lobbying to ban Tiktok. It'll be some funny back and forth.
It would be funny if all the people and institutions with power in the country weren't tripping over each other to kiss the ring.
Is there any evidence that Meta directly lobbied for the ban?
Meta spent a record $7.6 million on lobbying the federal government in the first quarter of 2024, which is the same time Congress was advancing legislation that could ban TikTok. Although Meta's disclosure doesn't explicitly mention the TikTok ban, it does mention lobbying on topics like cybersecurity, data security, and platform integrity, which are all relevant to the concerns surrounding TikTok. So...yeah.
https://readsludge.com/2024/04/23/meta-shatters-lobbying-rec...
https://readsludge.com/2024/04/23/meta-shatters-lobbying-rec...
So no evidence. Got it.
Ironically, for anti-ban folks Meta is by default assumed guilty despite evidence unlike TikTok which is given the benefit of doubt despite evidence [1,2,3].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index....
[2] https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-...
[3] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-probes-tiktok-after-surprise-win-in...
Ironically, for anti-ban folks Meta is by default assumed guilty despite evidence unlike TikTok which is given the benefit of doubt despite evidence [1,2,3].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index....
[2] https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-...
[3] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-probes-tiktok-after-surprise-win-in...
I never signed up for instagram, snapchat, or threads, but I am a tiktok user. If tiktok is banned, it might very well be the last social media app of its kind that I ever use.
That sounds like a good thing
US laws are US laws, and PRC laws are thiers. US constitution is for US companies, not for China.
China's gonna block our media, we can do so to them.
Full stop.
Downvote away.
Chinese companies have no rights in the US. So, take your bag of tricks and spyware and scurry off to Beijing.
Chinese companies have no rights in the US. So, take your bag of tricks and spyware and scurry off to Beijing.
Any intervention from the government on our choice of media is unconstitutional … hope this is a self evident truth.
The FCC is allowed to issue radio broadcasting licenses that prevent pirate radio stations, thereby "intervening" on my choice of media.
Learn some law.
Learn some law.
They specifically only have that because of limits of the commons though.
[deleted]
I get where your heart is at, but this is decisively not true.
That's either a silly throw-away comment, or you're not a serious person.
Who are you? Courts think otherwise.
>Notably, TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.
The Court held that the law could satisfy strict scrutiny (regardless of whether or not it applies), which requires that the Government prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and less restrictive alternatives would not accomplish the Government's goals. That's a high, high bar, and most laws subject to it are found wanting.
I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to want to hear this case. The most interesting legal question for them to decide was whether the law is subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny, but that is off the table now that the D.C. Circuit says it doesn't matter because the law could satisfy either standard.
Direct link to the opinion: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...