Journalist writes about discovering she’d been surveilled by TikTok(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Journalist writes about discovering she’d been surveilled by TikTok
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/tiktok-spied-on-me-why/
330 comments
> relationship was all that different
It's not the relationships of the parties in control that worries me. It's the arrests and abductions of the people that concerns me.
Thankfully, posting banned ideas or government critical stuff in the US doesn't involve being arrested by the police and being held for months or years.
The CCP is a completely different beast, it has no issues jailing people for speaking the wrong things, forcing it's citizens into reeducation camps, welding them locked into buildings and much worse.
It's not the relationships of the parties in control that worries me. It's the arrests and abductions of the people that concerns me.
Thankfully, posting banned ideas or government critical stuff in the US doesn't involve being arrested by the police and being held for months or years.
The CCP is a completely different beast, it has no issues jailing people for speaking the wrong things, forcing it's citizens into reeducation camps, welding them locked into buildings and much worse.
The Black Panthers and victims of Mcarthism wiuld disagree. The current whistleblowers like Snowden also would disagree.
We're talking about millions of people (hundreds of millions over the last ~70 years) that have been sought out by the CCP for arrest and murder because of their non-violent views and ideals.
The problem is you’re judging based on different standards and ideals, but the violations are fundamentally the same. So China can imprison citizens, the US decided to make it harder to imprison citizens. We do arbitrary drone strikes on people we don’t like, on foreign sovereign territory. We have Guantanamo. The fact that we arbitrarily draw a line at “our own citizens” is frankly meaningless in the grand scale and not really a meaningful distinction in terms of human rights.
A best explanation by EFF here(https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/government-hasnt-justi...) is that it is not only for TikTok. A transparant system of regulating and even auditing what telemetry services can acquire is fundamentally and universally beneficial for whatever country the service is based in.
But it is not surprising that those laws are never passed so far. Google in their software realm is too strong to be combated as compared to their hardware realm with right to repair. The big names in hardware are replacable as they all buy stock solution (like fingerprint sensor), and those sensor manufacturers don't care about right to repair. But Instagram or Snapchat or WhatsApp or Tiktok or whatever are not that replacable and thus more addictive and better for the company. Google or Meta is definitely not giving up on these places, and considering their influence, the future ain't bright.
But it is not surprising that those laws are never passed so far. Google in their software realm is too strong to be combated as compared to their hardware realm with right to repair. The big names in hardware are replacable as they all buy stock solution (like fingerprint sensor), and those sensor manufacturers don't care about right to repair. But Instagram or Snapchat or WhatsApp or Tiktok or whatever are not that replacable and thus more addictive and better for the company. Google or Meta is definitely not giving up on these places, and considering their influence, the future ain't bright.
hundreds of millions people have been arrested and murdered because of "your reality", do you take into the consideration for the infrastructure to arrest and murder hundreds of millions people?
For these exact reasons, I'm more comfortable with Xi Jinping's cronies spying on my every movement than my own government. The Chinese only do that stuff to their own citizens and I'm a zero-value target to them. US authorities may feel like being petty one day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Michael_Spavor_....
China absolutely does not limit their abductions to their own citizens. If you're in China, you're fair game.
China absolutely does not limit their abductions to their own citizens. If you're in China, you're fair game.
I have no plans to visit China, thankfully.
Seriously. What happened to that whole philosophy that the founding fathers had about being wary of our own government and the tendency of governments to overreach to control its citizenry.
That entire sentiment seem to have disappeared especially in the last few years in favor of China-Russia-terrorism-whatever new bs hysteria.
That entire sentiment seem to have disappeared especially in the last few years in favor of China-Russia-terrorism-whatever new bs hysteria.
The red scare wasn't in the last few years.
That's too simplistic of a line of thinking.
They've:
"fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography" [0]
You mention only being concerned about US authorities, but have somehow failed to realize they can fabricate evidence and send it to US authorities in an attempt to reach you from across the pond.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-based-executive-us-tele...
They've:
"fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography" [0]
You mention only being concerned about US authorities, but have somehow failed to realize they can fabricate evidence and send it to US authorities in an attempt to reach you from across the pond.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-based-executive-us-tele...
You should do some more research about who China is willing to imprison for political purposes.
It is absolutely not limited to Chinese citizens.
It is absolutely not limited to Chinese citizens.
However, China has 1.4 billion people, they will do whatever to collect resources, including information and user stats which powers the recommendation system behind TikTok, which is ruining your next generation.
Have I mentioned that China and Russia are deep allied and are probably sharing intelligence? I don't think the US government is worse than Russia's.
Have I mentioned that China and Russia are deep allied and are probably sharing intelligence? I don't think the US government is worse than Russia's.
Macarthy was disgraced by 1954, and almost universally reviled for the lives he ruined with his slander. I think you can point to him as an example of what happens when demagogues go unopposed (even for a time) in the American system, but not as the normal or desired product of our political system.
And yet “In God We Trust” and the pledge of allegiance were adopted during that era.
And assange.
Were they apprehended via corporate spying? I wasn't aware of that.
> Thankfully, posting banned ideas or government critical stuff in the US doesn't involve being arrested by the police and being held for months or years.
Let me think of groups of people in the US and if they have been treated like this - C language programmers...we'll there is Julian Assange.
> no issues jailing people for speaking the wrong things, forcing it's citizens into reeducation camps, welding them locked into buildings
China has more than four times the US population, yet the US incarcerates more people than China does. In that context it does not sound like much of a knock "China locks up less than a quarter of the people the US does!" Well - yes.
Let me think of groups of people in the US and if they have been treated like this - C language programmers...we'll there is Julian Assange.
> no issues jailing people for speaking the wrong things, forcing it's citizens into reeducation camps, welding them locked into buildings
China has more than four times the US population, yet the US incarcerates more people than China does. In that context it does not sound like much of a knock "China locks up less than a quarter of the people the US does!" Well - yes.
You are completely dodging the other poster's central point.
The US locks up more people, but not for wrong-think. Instead our country does it for consuming the wrong plants at the wrong time, because our systems are still racist in various ways, and because we have somehow allowed prison to become a for-profit institution.
Those are different problems and they need to be addressed. The war on drugs must end, policing culture and policies must be corrected, the US prison system must be corrected. Other options for dealing more effectively with various social and mental health problems must be instituted.
And none of that is the same as what China is doing to their people, nor does it absolve China of the wrongs it has committed. And it doesn't take the edge off of it either. Going to China can still get you locked up for reasons you don't understand because you said the wrong thing one time and forgot you even said it.
That actually is a more risky situation for most people than making sure they are not buying or carrying around the wrong plants. That is what comments such as the one you are responding to are actually worried about. It's not a raw numbers game for the individual, it's a question of "how easy is it for me or people I know to go to jail for what should be trivial actions?"
The US locks up more people, but not for wrong-think. Instead our country does it for consuming the wrong plants at the wrong time, because our systems are still racist in various ways, and because we have somehow allowed prison to become a for-profit institution.
Those are different problems and they need to be addressed. The war on drugs must end, policing culture and policies must be corrected, the US prison system must be corrected. Other options for dealing more effectively with various social and mental health problems must be instituted.
And none of that is the same as what China is doing to their people, nor does it absolve China of the wrongs it has committed. And it doesn't take the edge off of it either. Going to China can still get you locked up for reasons you don't understand because you said the wrong thing one time and forgot you even said it.
That actually is a more risky situation for most people than making sure they are not buying or carrying around the wrong plants. That is what comments such as the one you are responding to are actually worried about. It's not a raw numbers game for the individual, it's a question of "how easy is it for me or people I know to go to jail for what should be trivial actions?"
> The US locks up more people, but not for wrong-think. Instead our country does it for consuming the wrong plants at the wrong time, because our systems are still racist in various ways, and because we have somehow allowed prison to become a for-profit institution.
That's just the casus belli for the arrest - the real motivation changes over time. Drug laws have been used to target and disrupt various groups from Latinos and African Americans to hippies and anti-war protestors. First it was about racism and Hearst's economic interests, then about policing wrong think, then it was about the tough on crime wave, and now it's largely about protecting several lucrative industries.
That's just the casus belli for the arrest - the real motivation changes over time. Drug laws have been used to target and disrupt various groups from Latinos and African Americans to hippies and anti-war protestors. First it was about racism and Hearst's economic interests, then about policing wrong think, then it was about the tough on crime wave, and now it's largely about protecting several lucrative industries.
I can go with the general feeling here, but to use that to put the US's behavior on par with China's, specifically with regard to each country's own citizens, that is definitely a point that would need some data to back it up. Data that is likely hard to get on both the US and China.
It seems that line of argument would get much deeper into how, how fairly, and on which groups, the various countries have tended to apply their laws.
For now I can fully grant that selective enforcement has and still does happen in the US. The legal system here definitely does leave that possibility open and prosecutors are elected officials, some of whom have provably gone after certain groups or individuals, hunting for a reason to put them in jail.
It seems that line of argument would get much deeper into how, how fairly, and on which groups, the various countries have tended to apply their laws.
For now I can fully grant that selective enforcement has and still does happen in the US. The legal system here definitely does leave that possibility open and prosecutors are elected officials, some of whom have provably gone after certain groups or individuals, hunting for a reason to put them in jail.
US politicians have literally said that their drug laws were motivated to attack ethnic and cultural/political groups.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Agreed, Nixon was a moron, basically everything his administration did was truly awful. The war on drugs must end, the people put in jail for having or consuming the wrong plants must be released, and the US government should make amends with those people. Anyone still alive who provably participated in that should go to jail for the rest of their lives, ideally occupying the same cells as the people they unjustly locked away.
The process of repairing the damage that was done should include large payouts for unjustly taking away years of those people's lives, if nothing else. I'm not exactly holding my breath on these points, but if we take seriously the idea that the world should become more fair and just over time, we're going to have to square with the wrongs that were committed in the name of unjust laws.
In the post you are responding to, what you see is me acknowledging that, in order to answer the specific questions: "Is the US just as bad as China on this?" or "Is what China does to it's citizens in order to suppress wrong-think being unfairly criticized in light of what the US does to it's citizens in order to suppress drug use and generally be racist about it?"; one would require good data on just how many citizens are sent to jail for what should be trivial acts of speaking their mind or consuming weird plants, and that data is unlikely to be available or good data if it exists since both countries have rather large incentives to make sure it doesn't.
Please also note that I fully granted Akiselev's point that selective enforcement happens in the US even now. There should be genuine outrage over this until it is changed. However, I understand why people can't even keep up with the sheer scale of the bullshit modern governments get up to.
The process of repairing the damage that was done should include large payouts for unjustly taking away years of those people's lives, if nothing else. I'm not exactly holding my breath on these points, but if we take seriously the idea that the world should become more fair and just over time, we're going to have to square with the wrongs that were committed in the name of unjust laws.
In the post you are responding to, what you see is me acknowledging that, in order to answer the specific questions: "Is the US just as bad as China on this?" or "Is what China does to it's citizens in order to suppress wrong-think being unfairly criticized in light of what the US does to it's citizens in order to suppress drug use and generally be racist about it?"; one would require good data on just how many citizens are sent to jail for what should be trivial acts of speaking their mind or consuming weird plants, and that data is unlikely to be available or good data if it exists since both countries have rather large incentives to make sure it doesn't.
Please also note that I fully granted Akiselev's point that selective enforcement happens in the US even now. There should be genuine outrage over this until it is changed. However, I understand why people can't even keep up with the sheer scale of the bullshit modern governments get up to.
Chinas drug laws are way harsher than US ones. Do their citizens not partake in drug use? It is actually a pretty interesting question, did the war on drugs work in China? They have harsh drug laws but do not have mass incarceration of drug users.
"Nowadays, the penalties for being caught with cannabis are severe. Offenders run the risk of receiving the death penalty for being in possession of just five kilograms or more. Additionally, strict sentences are imposed; anything from five years imprisonment to a life sentence."
"Nowadays, the penalties for being caught with cannabis are severe. Offenders run the risk of receiving the death penalty for being in possession of just five kilograms or more. Additionally, strict sentences are imposed; anything from five years imprisonment to a life sentence."
I don't agree with the death penalty or cannabis prohibition, but 'just five kilograms' is about a 27 year supply for someone who smokes a couple of joints every day. It's not an amount you could have casually, you're definitely in it as a business.
Good questions, for another time perhaps.
>how easy is it for me or people I know to go to jail for what should be trivial actions?
Yes and PRC wrong think 99% of time gets you an invite to the police station to "drink tea" and sign a paperwork not to do it again. Maybe occasionally a write self criticism letter. Consequences are about as trivial as it gets. It generally takes enormous repeat and public offenses that gains popular traction to get administratively punished let alone end up in jail for the simple reason that PRC doesn't have mass networks of for profit prison that incentive internment. It takes extraordinary bad luck (i.e. % of become a trending author in particularly sensitive times) and to get punished / arrested for wrong think on the same level as Americans carrying the wrong plant, which is statistically a much riskier situation due to how US racial prosecution and internment system is incentivized. Ask PRC citizen how many people they know has been formally punished, even mildly, for wrong think vs Americans who know someone jailed for drug offense and the numbers will be revealing. In both raw numbers and ease of getting fucked over "trivial" offenses, PRC wrong think is much less riskier than US drugs. Which is not to say PRC wrong think wouldn't stack up poorly compared to other "liberal" countries, rather US internment is just that messed up.
Yes and PRC wrong think 99% of time gets you an invite to the police station to "drink tea" and sign a paperwork not to do it again. Maybe occasionally a write self criticism letter. Consequences are about as trivial as it gets. It generally takes enormous repeat and public offenses that gains popular traction to get administratively punished let alone end up in jail for the simple reason that PRC doesn't have mass networks of for profit prison that incentive internment. It takes extraordinary bad luck (i.e. % of become a trending author in particularly sensitive times) and to get punished / arrested for wrong think on the same level as Americans carrying the wrong plant, which is statistically a much riskier situation due to how US racial prosecution and internment system is incentivized. Ask PRC citizen how many people they know has been formally punished, even mildly, for wrong think vs Americans who know someone jailed for drug offense and the numbers will be revealing. In both raw numbers and ease of getting fucked over "trivial" offenses, PRC wrong think is much less riskier than US drugs. Which is not to say PRC wrong think wouldn't stack up poorly compared to other "liberal" countries, rather US internment is just that messed up.
>wrong think 99% of time gets you an invite to the police station to "drink tea" and sign a paperwork not to do it again. Maybe occasionally a write self criticism letter.
That is good to know. And genuinely new information for me. Thank you for contributing it.
And the details you offer do help calibrate something of an answer to the question you are responding to. Thank you also for being a great participant in that conversation!
> Ask PRC citizen how many people they know has been formally punished, even mildly, for wrong think vs Americans who know someone jailed for drug offense and the numbers will be revealing.
We should definitely like to have real data on that for both countries. It seems difficult to find though. In the mean time I take your seemingly first hand experience as insightful. Thanks again!
That is good to know. And genuinely new information for me. Thank you for contributing it.
And the details you offer do help calibrate something of an answer to the question you are responding to. Thank you also for being a great participant in that conversation!
> Ask PRC citizen how many people they know has been formally punished, even mildly, for wrong think vs Americans who know someone jailed for drug offense and the numbers will be revealing.
We should definitely like to have real data on that for both countries. It seems difficult to find though. In the mean time I take your seemingly first hand experience as insightful. Thanks again!
>"we have somehow allowed prison to become a for-profit institution."
I personally do not see much difference. Holding person in prison for profit is a result of corporations buying government. It is as political as it gets. Those people in my view are just as bad scam of the Earth their political counterparts in China.
I personally do not see much difference. Holding person in prison for profit is a result of corporations buying government. It is as political as it gets. Those people in my view are just as bad scam of the Earth their political counterparts in China.
With you on that point for sure. It is just as important for the US to end it's for-profit prison system as it is for China to stop punishing people for thinking the wrong thing.
> The US locks up more people, but not for wrong-think. Instead our country does it for consuming the wrong plants at the wrong time, because our systems are still racist in various ways, and because we have somehow allowed prison to become a for-profit institution.
You completely ignored OP's example of Julian Assange, I guess?
You completely ignored OP's example of Julian Assange, I guess?
There's a wide gap of a difference between "publishing something that is simply critical of the government" and "publishing classified / state communications", including massive information dumps of unredacted diplomatic cables.
Put it this way, if you can name a country that would not react in the exact same manner to the actions that the US did to Assange's actions, please let me know. I certainly can't think of any.
Wikileaks became very close to Russia in the end, anyways, not exactly a bastion of freedom and IMHO destroying any credibility Assange had. If Assange was on the "other side" and the classified stuff was from Russia, he'd probably have been "Novichoked" for what he did.
Put it this way, if you can name a country that would not react in the exact same manner to the actions that the US did to Assange's actions, please let me know. I certainly can't think of any.
Wikileaks became very close to Russia in the end, anyways, not exactly a bastion of freedom and IMHO destroying any credibility Assange had. If Assange was on the "other side" and the classified stuff was from Russia, he'd probably have been "Novichoked" for what he did.
yunohn(1)
They are dodging the point because whataboutism is an effective tactic on HN.
That's fine. The corrective for it is to name the bad conversational behavior where you see it, don't get too bothered about it, and demonstrate the kind of conversations you wish to have instead.
It's not terribly taxing to just say, "that's not the kind of conversation we want to have here" and go on to continue engaging with any specific points being made. And that's doable even when you suspect the post you are responding to might just be trolling. If there is an identifiable point, engage with that if you will, gently and patiently correct or ignore the rest. Kind of similar to being patient with a rowdy kid. Trolls don't get much out of it if they can't get your goat.
The sub-thread below still managed to take on a few people who just wanted to virtue signal with argumentative sniping but others showed up with good points and information, that part was good to see.
It's not terribly taxing to just say, "that's not the kind of conversation we want to have here" and go on to continue engaging with any specific points being made. And that's doable even when you suspect the post you are responding to might just be trolling. If there is an identifiable point, engage with that if you will, gently and patiently correct or ignore the rest. Kind of similar to being patient with a rowdy kid. Trolls don't get much out of it if they can't get your goat.
The sub-thread below still managed to take on a few people who just wanted to virtue signal with argumentative sniping but others showed up with good points and information, that part was good to see.
> the US incarcerates more people than China does
Yes, but mostly because of race, not politics. (Not that that's any better, but the underlying dynamic really is different.)
Yes, but mostly because of race, not politics. (Not that that's any better, but the underlying dynamic really is different.)
Right the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a good primer for this concept.
https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEw...
Same with this wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St....
https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEw...
Same with this wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St....
> the underlying dynamic really is different
Is it? I believe every state, or its establishment, acts forcefully to protect against what they consider potential existential threats.
Given that the Western states and their establishment are atleast 2 centuries ahead of the curve of anyone else in terms of modern state apparatus, ideological basis (...), it is natural that we will observe distinct patterns of oppression and red lines. Most of the emerging powers are acutely sensitive to ideological challenges, challenges to the legitimacy of the establishment, precisely because they are the newly arrived and insecure in their position.
Someone mentioned Julian Assange. Why did US and UK come down so hard on this guy? Because he represents an existential threat: he represents dissident factions in their intelligence communities (5 eyes) and that layer of the system is central to their maintenance of power and they will -not- tolerate any challenges in that area.
So the equations defining the dynamic are identical. We just need to plug in the appropriate values for the equation's variables.
Is it? I believe every state, or its establishment, acts forcefully to protect against what they consider potential existential threats.
Given that the Western states and their establishment are atleast 2 centuries ahead of the curve of anyone else in terms of modern state apparatus, ideological basis (...), it is natural that we will observe distinct patterns of oppression and red lines. Most of the emerging powers are acutely sensitive to ideological challenges, challenges to the legitimacy of the establishment, precisely because they are the newly arrived and insecure in their position.
Someone mentioned Julian Assange. Why did US and UK come down so hard on this guy? Because he represents an existential threat: he represents dissident factions in their intelligence communities (5 eyes) and that layer of the system is central to their maintenance of power and they will -not- tolerate any challenges in that area.
So the equations defining the dynamic are identical. We just need to plug in the appropriate values for the equation's variables.
> Is it?
Yes.
> I believe every state, or its establishment, acts forcefully to protect against what they consider potential existential threats.
Of course. But just because they all have this one feature in common does not mean that they do not have additional features that distinguish them.
Yes.
> I believe every state, or its establishment, acts forcefully to protect against what they consider potential existential threats.
Of course. But just because they all have this one feature in common does not mean that they do not have additional features that distinguish them.
>>posting banned ideas or government critical stuff in the US doesn't involve being arrested by the police and being held for months or years.
I would not be so confident about that, at least until the US and other western countries wise up to the CCP's tactics, which may be starting. E.g., CCP is running overseas "police stations" to intimidate and harrass people oversead, and the US FBI finally just arrested two people doing so in New York City.
>>TikTok spied on me. Why?
Short answer, is that it, along with every other Chinese company, has no choice other than to bend to the will of the CCP. Plus, they have no ethical boundaries (other than crossing the CCP) in seeking absolute market position, and this journalist had done something to threaten that dominant position.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/17/1170571626/fbi-arrests-2-on-c...
I would not be so confident about that, at least until the US and other western countries wise up to the CCP's tactics, which may be starting. E.g., CCP is running overseas "police stations" to intimidate and harrass people oversead, and the US FBI finally just arrested two people doing so in New York City.
>>TikTok spied on me. Why?
Short answer, is that it, along with every other Chinese company, has no choice other than to bend to the will of the CCP. Plus, they have no ethical boundaries (other than crossing the CCP) in seeking absolute market position, and this journalist had done something to threaten that dominant position.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/17/1170571626/fbi-arrests-2-on-c...
> Thankfully, posting banned ideas or government critical stuff in the US doesn't involve being arrested by the police and being held for months or years.
regretfully, being poor and in certain parts of the USA is sufficient to get sucked up by the system. no ideology necessary, just getting caught and loaning money for bail is enough to get swallowed by this beast.
i suppose the CCP pays for these systems directly? whereas the American way has a distributed system of crony 'entrepreneurs' (shoddy lawyers, loan sharks, court bureaucrats and so on) all keeping this system of private jails and other 'services' and industries built around people 'breaking the law'
regretfully, being poor and in certain parts of the USA is sufficient to get sucked up by the system. no ideology necessary, just getting caught and loaning money for bail is enough to get swallowed by this beast.
i suppose the CCP pays for these systems directly? whereas the American way has a distributed system of crony 'entrepreneurs' (shoddy lawyers, loan sharks, court bureaucrats and so on) all keeping this system of private jails and other 'services' and industries built around people 'breaking the law'
While I don't think the US is on the same scale as the CCP, I also think you're being a little naive. Expressing the wrong ideas or misjudging the time/place to do so can absolutely land you behind bars.
I have very little to fear, on a personal level, from the CCP. They may or may not be collecting data on me, and I find that distasteful and somewhat scary, but they are not a direct threat to my personal liberty, safety or civil rights.
The NSA, CIA and the US intelligence-industrial complex, however, is a direct and credible threat to me. Perhaps not today, and hopefully not tomorrow, but as history has shown us, governments change, sometimes wildly so, in a short period of time while still holding the trappings and lip-service of their predecessors. If you dismiss the concerns about warrantless data collection, tracking, active suppression of free discourse and political targeting of people who ideologically threaten those in power (no matter the political background), well, you just haven't been paying attention.
The NSA, CIA and the US intelligence-industrial complex, however, is a direct and credible threat to me. Perhaps not today, and hopefully not tomorrow, but as history has shown us, governments change, sometimes wildly so, in a short period of time while still holding the trappings and lip-service of their predecessors. If you dismiss the concerns about warrantless data collection, tracking, active suppression of free discourse and political targeting of people who ideologically threaten those in power (no matter the political background), well, you just haven't been paying attention.
You don't have to be a citizen of the nation that does the spying for the data they collect on you to be harmful. Following your logic, nobody outside of the US or China has reasons to be concerned, which is not the case.
Governments—particularly those of the world's greatest superpowers—have influence outside of their borders, and can make your life hell, no matter where you currently live. They can restrict your freedom to travel, censor your public speech, and target you electronically in many ways. This can happen if you fall on their radar for whatever reason, including by mistake. Good luck getting off that list, and getting your life back after that.
If I'm rating which government I'm more afraid of, it would be the one that has a totalitarian control over its citizens, and no regard for human life. Otherwise, they're all equally harmful to my wellbeing.
Governments—particularly those of the world's greatest superpowers—have influence outside of their borders, and can make your life hell, no matter where you currently live. They can restrict your freedom to travel, censor your public speech, and target you electronically in many ways. This can happen if you fall on their radar for whatever reason, including by mistake. Good luck getting off that list, and getting your life back after that.
If I'm rating which government I'm more afraid of, it would be the one that has a totalitarian control over its citizens, and no regard for human life. Otherwise, they're all equally harmful to my wellbeing.
If you run a business, visit or know someone from China you will be targeted. If you try to publish an article against China and have a high profile your secrets will come out.
But if you are nobody why worry about the NSA, FBI, etc they have better people to target
But if you are nobody why worry about the NSA, FBI, etc they have better people to target
Black activists accused of sowing discord
https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2023/05/04/black-activists-ac...
> Just because you advocate programs that are not aligned with or approved by the U.S. government, siding with anti-racist, anti-colonial forces should not make you a target of U.S. cointelpro actions, raids on the homes of citizens, and humiliating arrests.
https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2023/05/04/black-activists-ac...
> Just because you advocate programs that are not aligned with or approved by the U.S. government, siding with anti-racist, anti-colonial forces should not make you a target of U.S. cointelpro actions, raids on the homes of citizens, and humiliating arrests.
Your example is about what exactly? Yes Russia intervenes and China does too, you expect it to not be acted upon?
By the way in China as of this month saying something that is against national interest is punishable under espionage law. If they want they can jail you for using VPN to access something outside of great firewall.
By the way in China as of this month saying something that is against national interest is punishable under espionage law. If they want they can jail you for using VPN to access something outside of great firewall.
> indicted on April 18 for allegedly working on behalf of the Russian government and Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) to conduct a “malign influence campaign” designed to “sow discord” and “advance Russian propaganda.”
Interesting slant, given developments like this[0].
[0] https://catholicherald.co.uk/fbi-spied-on-american-catholics...
[0] https://catholicherald.co.uk/fbi-spied-on-american-catholics...
[deleted]
> Thankfully, posting banned ideas or government critical stuff in the US doesn't involve being arrested by the police and being held for months or years.
Which parallel world are you living in ? I would like to migrate there to this utopian USA.
Which parallel world are you living in ? I would like to migrate there to this utopian USA.
People were cancelled for much less in US
jonhohle(1)
drevil-v2(3)
falcolas(6)
The implicit claim that, "actually the US and China are the same regarding human rights, balance of power, authoritarianism, etc." is by far the weakest argument in this domain.
The only thing I pointed out was that the two 'Great Powers' have a curiously similar obsession with spying on domestic civilian populations. You added the other issues for some reason.
It is true that authoritarian control freaks are my least favorite people, regardless of what government they're affiliated with - but I don't doubt that the American version, given free rein, would rush to introduce the methods used in China to control the population.
It is true that authoritarian control freaks are my least favorite people, regardless of what government they're affiliated with - but I don't doubt that the American version, given free rein, would rush to introduce the methods used in China to control the population.
Well, as a counterpoint to "America is the same" I would direct your attention to this handy map of how long the current national leader has been in power for each country - there are some pretty clear distinctions (https://preview.redd.it/gzqeeslcyez91.png?width=1024&auto=we...)
If China was politically and culturally organized like a western democracy this would be a worthwhile analysis.
China does continuity not plurality, because its government scopes out centuries, not decades.
And the Chinese understand this - they are broadly happier with their government than Americans are with theirs. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-sur...
How relevant is it that Xi Jinping has gained an additional mandate, if he's basically continuing a long-term policy which started in the early 80s with Deng Xiaoping, who was also the head of the party that's been in power since 1949?
China does continuity not plurality, because its government scopes out centuries, not decades.
And the Chinese understand this - they are broadly happier with their government than Americans are with theirs. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-sur...
How relevant is it that Xi Jinping has gained an additional mandate, if he's basically continuing a long-term policy which started in the early 80s with Deng Xiaoping, who was also the head of the party that's been in power since 1949?
It's not, because dialectically the article furthers the framing of TikTok and China as uniquely perverse which is wrong (cf. the abundance of examples posted elsewhere in this thread) and plays into American imperialist/hegemonic anxieties
Nobody cares what you think (except for parents and loved ones), they might care why you think it. Sneering at a claim isn't an argument.
I cared. In fairness even less care what you qualify as a counter-point
It's not about what I think, it's just simply untrue.
The difference is the US is a country with checks and balances of power.
In China when the CCP says jump however, there’s no recourse
In China when the CCP says jump however, there’s no recourse
> checks and balances of power
Only in theory, when it comes to National Security Letters.
If you can't prove the government spied on you specifically, you can't take them to court to get a check or balance.
Only in theory, when it comes to National Security Letters.
If you can't prove the government spied on you specifically, you can't take them to court to get a check or balance.
[deleted]
It's important to note that NSLs are an exception rather than a rule, and one over which a freely elected body (Congress) has oversight.
I'm not sure the same claim can be made about China.
I'm not sure the same claim can be made about China.
An exception used around 10,000 times per year as of 2005.
And congress hasn't done anything to reign them in.
And I'll freely admit that China is going to be worse, with less oversight. But not only is the comparison a fallacy, it's cold comfort for the rest of the world (not to mention many non-naturalized American citizens).
And congress hasn't done anything to reign them in.
And I'll freely admit that China is going to be worse, with less oversight. But not only is the comparison a fallacy, it's cold comfort for the rest of the world (not to mention many non-naturalized American citizens).
Were they all Americans? How many warrants were served for comparison?
You should look that up.
The NSA doesn't need an NSL to spy on non-Americans.
Is it really oversight when our elected leaders are afraid of the people they are supposed to oversee?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW7EHai-cRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW7EHai-cRM
In the Feds, you have 14 days to appeal your sentence. That is not fair access to a check. That time includes transfer from the court to a Federal Detention Center (lots of holding cell time with no access to a law library), transfer from a Federal Detention Center to your final place of incarceration via diesel therapy, etc. The USA used to allow unlimited time for appeals but that was clogging up the courts, so a happy balance between 0 and unlimited time to exercise your rights to access to the courts was agreed to, which the American Federal justice system determined to be 14 days (fun fact, they actually originally tried for a shorter appeal period than 14 days).
Edit: Sorry, 14 days for the defendant to appeal. The Feds team gets longer (because they have less resources than a locked up person I guess, some animals have more rights than others in American courts)
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-2-4000-time-appeal-or-petition...
Edit: Sorry, 14 days for the defendant to appeal. The Feds team gets longer (because they have less resources than a locked up person I guess, some animals have more rights than others in American courts)
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-2-4000-time-appeal-or-petition...
I think that kind of argument is really muddying the waters. Google/Amazon/Facebook[1] have absolutely not been "reading our emails over our shoulders" in any kind of human sense. And all those companies have extensive policies and enforcement structures designed deliberately to prevent the kind of abuse detailed here with TikTok.
And it's been decades, and they've really been quite good about it. There are abstract arguments about whether that kind of data centralization is a good or bad thing, and I think that's fine.
But that's extremely different from "this company actively spied on its enemies". And I think we need to treat with that distinction and not muddy it. Because if your point becomes "Facebook and Google and Amazon are bad too" it becomes isomorphic to "oh well, nothing can be done", because in practice society is OK with the existing giants.
We shouldn't be OK with active spying!
[1] Twitter is more of an open question right now, certainly the promiscuous release of the "Twitter Files" nonsense didn't tend to exhibit an institutional inclination toward privacy.
And it's been decades, and they've really been quite good about it. There are abstract arguments about whether that kind of data centralization is a good or bad thing, and I think that's fine.
But that's extremely different from "this company actively spied on its enemies". And I think we need to treat with that distinction and not muddy it. Because if your point becomes "Facebook and Google and Amazon are bad too" it becomes isomorphic to "oh well, nothing can be done", because in practice society is OK with the existing giants.
We shouldn't be OK with active spying!
[1] Twitter is more of an open question right now, certainly the promiscuous release of the "Twitter Files" nonsense didn't tend to exhibit an institutional inclination toward privacy.
Is this an attempt at being edgy? The relationships between the companies and their host governments is not the point, its the differences between those governments that matters. Just one example of the difference is the Chinese government has camps for ethnic groups it doesn't like.
What if I told you there is a higher percent of our African American population incarcerated than the percent China's Uighur population that is incarcerated?
Google can push back, US companies can do that, and do do that. That system isn't perfect but I'd rather go with apps from more free countries than those that are not free.
ByteDance has no choice.
ByteDance has no choice.
It's unclear to what extent such corporate pushback against the USG is genuine conflict as opposed to theater/PR cover. I don't think it's a safe assumption either way. The incentives to pretend industry has more independence than it does are there, and methods of such deception have been seen before.
I think it is unlikely we have a conspiracy so vast, across a ton of companies that they put up fake legal fights, have fake warrant canary notices ... and nobody ever leaks out that they're all fake.
It doesn't require a vast conspiracy, certainly not something more vast than the kind of conspiracy that Snowden alerted everyone to.
I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle... That there is genuine pushback but also theatrics to project independence.
I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle... That there is genuine pushback but also theatrics to project independence.
>It doesn't require a vast conspiracy
It would if we account for the fact that we haven't seen any reports of fake legal fights / warrant canaries and etc.
>I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle
I don't understand this phrase, wouldn't that just mean the bigger lie / conspiracy wins every argument? How do you weigh such things reliably?
It would if we account for the fact that we haven't seen any reports of fake legal fights / warrant canaries and etc.
>I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle
I don't understand this phrase, wouldn't that just mean the bigger lie / conspiracy wins every argument? How do you weigh such things reliably?
There doesn't need to be any conspiracy. If it's good for PR reasons to show they are fighting, companies will do it anyway without the need to coordinate.
So they are able to push back?
It would be highly surprising if the ByteDance-Beijing relationship was all that different from the Google/Verizon-Washington relationship (2013):
No, no it wouldn't.
No, no it wouldn't.
The hope of a free internet sits rotting in a prison somewhere in Britain.
I find it hard to interpret such whataboutism as sincere.
If you care about these perceived abuses by US tech companies, why wouldn't you applaud the outcry against TikTok? At the very least, it moves the needle in the right direction. It increases the awareness of industry practices and helps flesh out some constraints. Even if you're of the mindset that there's no practical difference between the US government and an authoritarian communist dictatorship that murdered millions of its compatriots for having the wrong political views, why defend their right to do the things you hate?
If you care about these perceived abuses by US tech companies, why wouldn't you applaud the outcry against TikTok? At the very least, it moves the needle in the right direction. It increases the awareness of industry practices and helps flesh out some constraints. Even if you're of the mindset that there's no practical difference between the US government and an authoritarian communist dictatorship that murdered millions of its compatriots for having the wrong political views, why defend their right to do the things you hate?
It's because the pot is calling the kettle black and then getting annoyed when it is called out on it. It's not that complicated, and it doesn't call into question the legitimacy of the criticism. It just says: "you've had shit under your own shoe this whole time and only now that I got some under mine are you complaining about the smell"
I think people find it insincere because pointing out that both parties in question have a problem doesn't change anything about the situation or the problems.
It is most often used as an attempt at a defense by calling out other guilty parties. Yes, we should like to live in a world where anyone calling out a problem or injustice only does so from a place of unimpeachable moral authority. But we do not live in such a world so we are still left with the need to address problems where and when we can get the social and political will to do so. Using finger pointing as a defense has the effect of making the problem seem insurmountable and therefore sapping the will to fix it.
The more genuine admission might be to simply say, "I admit I have shit on my shoe, and it does stink; however, if you are to hold me to account for that, then I demand you also be held to account".
With that approach people have a much harder time seeing the complaint as merely a self-defense by way of finger pointing and it's much more likely to be taken seriously.
This is where many people in the US are probably at on, say, the Trump indictment. Can't really say it shouldn't happen, he has almost certainly broken a long list of laws for his whole career. But that also shouldn't be the end of it, more like "Great start getting a corrupt and lawless politician in jail! Who's next on that list? When does their indictment begin?".
It is most often used as an attempt at a defense by calling out other guilty parties. Yes, we should like to live in a world where anyone calling out a problem or injustice only does so from a place of unimpeachable moral authority. But we do not live in such a world so we are still left with the need to address problems where and when we can get the social and political will to do so. Using finger pointing as a defense has the effect of making the problem seem insurmountable and therefore sapping the will to fix it.
The more genuine admission might be to simply say, "I admit I have shit on my shoe, and it does stink; however, if you are to hold me to account for that, then I demand you also be held to account".
With that approach people have a much harder time seeing the complaint as merely a self-defense by way of finger pointing and it's much more likely to be taken seriously.
This is where many people in the US are probably at on, say, the Trump indictment. Can't really say it shouldn't happen, he has almost certainly broken a long list of laws for his whole career. But that also shouldn't be the end of it, more like "Great start getting a corrupt and lawless politician in jail! Who's next on that list? When does their indictment begin?".
you're literally describing logical fallacies: tu quoque and whataboutism
in fact, "the pot calling the kettle black" is a textbook example of a tu quoque logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
in fact, "the pot calling the kettle black" is a textbook example of a tu quoque logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
"Whataboutism" is not a logical fallacy, in fact it is the opposite.
"We need to do X because A is bad because it does Y"
"But we also do Y, shouldn't we also do X for us?"
Logic says yes. "Whataboutism" was invented to kill basic logical inference, in the context of the bipolar Cold War era. Using that term to kill discussion and browbeat is anti-intellectualism, pure and simple.
"We need to do X because A is bad because it does Y"
"But we also do Y, shouldn't we also do X for us?"
Logic says yes. "Whataboutism" was invented to kill basic logical inference, in the context of the bipolar Cold War era. Using that term to kill discussion and browbeat is anti-intellectualism, pure and simple.
whataboutism is simply another word for tu quoque, which, as previously indicated, is a logical fallacy
indeed, the whataboutism itself is intended to kill discussion of the initial topic (in your example, A doing Y, not simply Y), hence why it's a logical fallacy, too
indeed, the whataboutism itself is intended to kill discussion of the initial topic (in your example, A doing Y, not simply Y), hence why it's a logical fallacy, too
There's a world of difference between saying "you're a hypocrite, stop talking" and adding (uncomfortable) context to a discussion.
you are absolutely, 100% right here, and whataboutism is the first one, not the second one
in this case, the goal was to stop people from talking about China's actions and instead deflect to someone else's actions
that might explain why Whataboutism, invented by russian propagandists, is explicitly described as a subtype of the tu quoque logical fallacy:
"From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument."[0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
in this case, the goal was to stop people from talking about China's actions and instead deflect to someone else's actions
that might explain why Whataboutism, invented by russian propagandists, is explicitly described as a subtype of the tu quoque logical fallacy:
"From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument."[0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
> the goal was to stop people from talking about China's actions
You made this up. Nowhere in this thread is it implied.
You made this up. Nowhere in this thread is it implied.
this is false.
as an example, look at whether, after the whataboutism, we're discussing the original topic (Tiktok & its actions) or something/someone else.
see? whataboutism deflection succeeded.
it should be clear now why whataboutism is indeed, as shown above, explicitly defined as a logical fallacy, despite the made-up claim that it isn't one.
as an example, look at whether, after the whataboutism, we're discussing the original topic (Tiktok & its actions) or something/someone else.
see? whataboutism deflection succeeded.
it should be clear now why whataboutism is indeed, as shown above, explicitly defined as a logical fallacy, despite the made-up claim that it isn't one.
[deleted]
You can always count on HN for whataboutism
It's good to have a broad overview of the subject, don't you think? Wouldn't you want to know whether or not the TikTok outrage is genuine, or perhaps engineered by other social media corporations worried about loss of market share? Maybe this is all about economics and 'national security concerns' are just the vehicle for expressing that concern (as market manipulation is a harder sell?).
P.S. Have you noticed that both Twitter and Youtube have adopted TikTok-type formats, in terms of Twitter video feeds and Youtube Shorts?
P.S. Have you noticed that both Twitter and Youtube have adopted TikTok-type formats, in terms of Twitter video feeds and Youtube Shorts?
Except it’s not a broad overview of the subject, it’s little factoids that equate bad behavior with other bad behavior, except there are many substantial difference which are neglected in the conversation.
It is a relevant question to wonder what prompted the concerns and bills… is it national security of is it economics? That’s not what’s being questioned, and even then there’s no good basis to know so it’s hard to go anywhere other than conspiracy theory.
I actually fully buy that both are plausible and likely, but I have no basis for the economics other than Meta’s lobbying. But the whataboutism always shifts away the conversation from the moment at hand by dismissing it all as something that meta/google do. We can at face value look at the risks of TikTok doing it and understand that they’re maybe legitimate national security concerns. By broadening, we end up just ignoring this completely.
I have noticed the copy cats. The concern from congress has been what can the CCP know via TikTok; not what can TikTok know as an independent entity. I personally do see the control of information and the knowledge of attention being a national security risk, which is unfortunate as I think they have the better product.
It is a relevant question to wonder what prompted the concerns and bills… is it national security of is it economics? That’s not what’s being questioned, and even then there’s no good basis to know so it’s hard to go anywhere other than conspiracy theory.
I actually fully buy that both are plausible and likely, but I have no basis for the economics other than Meta’s lobbying. But the whataboutism always shifts away the conversation from the moment at hand by dismissing it all as something that meta/google do. We can at face value look at the risks of TikTok doing it and understand that they’re maybe legitimate national security concerns. By broadening, we end up just ignoring this completely.
I have noticed the copy cats. The concern from congress has been what can the CCP know via TikTok; not what can TikTok know as an independent entity. I personally do see the control of information and the knowledge of attention being a national security risk, which is unfortunate as I think they have the better product.
What you call whataboutism is what many would call precedent, which is an essential concept in legal discussions. Crying whataboutism to shield your side only gets you so far.
> The Internet has been colonized by spies
That's definitely not you or your deflecting and derailing comment which rocketed to the top or the whatabout comrades who make it impossible to discuss this topic here.
That's definitely not you or your deflecting and derailing comment which rocketed to the top or the whatabout comrades who make it impossible to discuss this topic here.
This piece smells like ccp propaganda. @dang
It seems odd to me that short of the nuclear option (removing the app from stores), no one has suggested revocation of the device permissions that TikTok is shown to abuse. Following something like this, it feels entirely reasonable for Apple/Google to reply "Submit an update to your app that removes all use of location permissions within 30 days."
The reason is purely political.
U.S. could create privacy laws which were equal to every company but there is no will.
Comply with laws or get banned, applying every company.
U.S. could create privacy laws which were equal to every company but there is no will.
Comply with laws or get banned, applying every company.
Privacy laws implemented now would undermine the profitability of "structurally significant" US companies and restrict the flow of data from these private entities to government entities, and thus would likely be seen as a threat to national security.
Privacy laws are dead almost before they're even conceived.
It would also create a very large spike in unemployment. I can't imagine how many jobs would be lost if the tech industry could no longer spy on the internet.
I can dream though.
Privacy laws are dead almost before they're even conceived.
It would also create a very large spike in unemployment. I can't imagine how many jobs would be lost if the tech industry could no longer spy on the internet.
I can dream though.
agreed, look at the top comment thread, its full of political discussions about why its okay for one country to do something but not the other...
The real solution is that we should all have privacy. Encoded in law, with serious penalties. and that no country should be able to do what is described.
The real solution is that we should all have privacy. Encoded in law, with serious penalties. and that no country should be able to do what is described.
How long do you think such a sweeping privacy law would take to plan, write, and pass? Do you think they'd get it right? What might the fallout of such a law be?
It will take couple years, but many global companies have already faced that with Europe's GDPR legislation. Only problem with GDPR is, that fines seems to be too low.
Not banned, but sued out of existence (not a meaningless $100m fine). Breaking app store policy gets you banned; breaking US law gets you eliminated.
edit: for US companies, at least
edit: for US companies, at least
[deleted]
Because the whole advertising industry and thus the tech industry (and US govt surveillance) relies on the same features.
You need only watch one congressional hearing grilling Jack or Zuck or Sundar to know that you don't blame on malice, what you can blame on pure incompetence. Our geriatric leaders have little idea how the tech that dominates our lives function, let alone regulate them well.
I think journalists at this point would be wise to maintain separate devices for journalistic work / journalistic communication, personal life, and research.
That's a pain but I think inevitable:
>On a practical level, my old device was relegated to being a dummy phone only to be used for accessing TikTok for work.
Who knows what other apps on their other device are up to...
That's a pain but I think inevitable:
>On a practical level, my old device was relegated to being a dummy phone only to be used for accessing TikTok for work.
Who knows what other apps on their other device are up to...
> Who knows what other apps on their other device are up to...
Probably the same things. That data's worth a lot of money for advertisers, both corporate and political.
Probably the same things. That data's worth a lot of money for advertisers, both corporate and political.
I doubt it. This was a pretty specific case of targeting a specific individual.
I doubt all the other apps care.
I doubt all the other apps care.
Right, we've never heard any news of employees of other social media apps targeting exes, reporters, or celebrities.
/s
We totally have.
EDIT: I worked for Amazon in customer service back in the early naughts. They had an explicit alert set up for most celebrities that would basically get a CS rep fired if they went in and snooped. It was put in place because people went in and snooped.
20 years later, and more information about our lives is entrusted to these sites. It's absolutely happening at all of these companies. If it isn't happening, it's because of new policies and procedures resulting from prior incidents.
/s
We totally have.
EDIT: I worked for Amazon in customer service back in the early naughts. They had an explicit alert set up for most celebrities that would basically get a CS rep fired if they went in and snooped. It was put in place because people went in and snooped.
20 years later, and more information about our lives is entrusted to these sites. It's absolutely happening at all of these companies. If it isn't happening, it's because of new policies and procedures resulting from prior incidents.
I doubt all their other apps are doing that. That was what I was responding too.
Targeted spying on a specific journalist /= general data collection. There's an important difference.
Targeted spying on a specific journalist /= general data collection. There's an important difference.
If I were a TLA for any country of any magnitude (talking something larger than the Vatican) I’d have a number of agents working as CS reps for the various big companies. It’d be worth burning one to get info, and you’d likely not even need to burn if the target wasn’t on the short list of celebrities.
High rewards vs. risk, to be sure. And it's not as if CS reps are not in demand, so any "burned" asset could easily be re-used. It's not as if their reason for being fired would be communicated anywhere.
I think journalists at this point would be wise to maintain separate devices for journalistic work / journalistic communication, personal life, and research.
When I was a journalist back in the early part of this century, the company I worked for issued burner phones and laptops to anyone who left the country.
20 years later, it's probably become standard across the industry, and in more scenarios.
When I was a journalist back in the early part of this century, the company I worked for issued burner phones and laptops to anyone who left the country.
20 years later, it's probably become standard across the industry, and in more scenarios.
I think that's good advice for everyone. I tell new hires we own your phone when you add any of our accounts to it and recommend using work devices for anything work related if privacy means anything to them. Some listen, some listen later when they get wiped because they clicked a phishing email and IR has decided a purging fire is necessary.
How does adding Slack and Outlook for example makes a company own your phone?
It doesn’t literally, but many companies have policies that use of comopany accounts on devices is consent to physical inspection of the device, data on the device, and other things as determined necessary by the compnay for legal, security, compliance, or other reasons, making ownership a useful cautionary metaphor.
Used to be when leaving a company (voluntarily or not) if you had some company apps on your (personal) phone they could wipe the device.
I personally don't think people should put work apps on their personal phone ever.
I personally don't think people should put work apps on their personal phone ever.
I am finding it hard understanding how this can be done if you have work email and Slack apps installed on your phone.
Outlook and Slack typically require you to enroll in your company's MDM which gives administrators the ability to remote-wipe your phone. You can see this if you read the fine print when you sign in.
I guess if your iPhone is not signed in in 'work or school account' then a company can't remote-wipe your phone?
I think journalists at this point should seriously consider living in a different country than they report on, working as anonymously as possible, and utilizing a network of unnamed sources. Aggressive states aren't going to be deterred by your amateur opsec. Your best chance to keep working is not to be noticed as an individual.
We barely get adequate perspective when people live in the country, I can't imagine trying to read some reporter talk about what's going on in Arizona as they write from Argentina.
I think that would make it difficult to cultivate relationships and result in more problems.
Doesn’t seem necessary as far as “more free” countries go, but maybe necessary at some times.
Doesn’t seem necessary as far as “more free” countries go, but maybe necessary at some times.
When deepfakes become indistinguishable from reality, seeing events in person will be the only surefire way of verifying reality. The rest of the time you'll depend on trust chains, each link of which can be broken.
I'm surprised they don't do this already. It's pretty basic opsec.
>I'm surprised they don't do this already.
Maybe some true professionals but I'm doubtful most serious journalists really put much effort into it.
Here we have an example of a journalist who thankfully learned ... but didn't really know.
Maybe some true professionals but I'm doubtful most serious journalists really put much effort into it.
Here we have an example of a journalist who thankfully learned ... but didn't really know.
The real kernel is that the FT at least has someone on their cyber security team who was able to recommend and implement the change.
Journalists shouldn't have to be cyberopsec experts.
Journalists absolutely should have access to such expertise.
Journalists shouldn't have to be cyberopsec experts.
Journalists absolutely should have access to such expertise.
> Journalists shouldn't have to be cyberopsec experts.
I disagree. Especially if they are covering geopolitical or highly monetised industrial topics.
They are basically spies working for the public. Spycraft shouldn't be optional for them.
Sure, a journalist covering celeb fluff doesn't need it, but one covering China, Russia, big pharma etc are automatically a target. This article is an excellent example.
I disagree. Especially if they are covering geopolitical or highly monetised industrial topics.
They are basically spies working for the public. Spycraft shouldn't be optional for them.
Sure, a journalist covering celeb fluff doesn't need it, but one covering China, Russia, big pharma etc are automatically a target. This article is an excellent example.
> Journalists shouldn't have to be cyberopsec experts
They had better be at proficient in regular opsec if handling sensitive sources, and opsec includes cyber these days no?
They had better be at proficient in regular opsec if handling sensitive sources, and opsec includes cyber these days no?
If you hate tiktok, I get it —- I really do. But please just know that you’re missing out on something wonderful, unique, and delightful; in fact, delightful in ways remarkably similar to the feeling that https://news.ycombinator.com/highlights gives you.
There’s a commonality between HN and TikTok that I haven’t yet been able to put into words. They’re both “bookish”. You feel like you’re exploring. Often times I’ll swipe past 6 or 7 memes in about 3 seconds, when something incredible catches my attention. And it’s often incredible in exactly the same way as HN: you feel like you’ve unearthed some fascinating gemstone. (And much like HN, it’s designed for entertainment, so you can waste arbitrary amounts of time if you fall under its spell too long.)
I wrote a comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34573893 showcasing the three lists I was particularly proud of: educational, physics, and math. But I have dozens more. There’s guitar tutorials, handyman repairs, a collection of 18 videos teaching you how to tie all kinds of useful knots, art tutorials, cute animals, hardcore ML discussions, and everything in between. Someday I’ll showcase them properly. (Theoretically you can view them on my TikTok profile, but I doubt it’s presented well: https://www.tiktok.com/@theshawwn)
Just know that if you stomp TikTok out of existence, it’ll be a real loss. It’ll feel to me like you’d feel if someone burned down HN. And the calls for banning TikTok sound to me how you’d feel if Reddit was urging everybody to ban HN.
Now imagine that politicians are seriously considering whether to ban HN. That’s how it feels to read through the comments here about TikTok. The outrage is deserved and understandable, but it’ll be a real loss if it disappears.
If this comment coaxes you into trying out TikTok, one tip: use the “not interested” button ruthlessly. (Long press on a video.) The algorithm will dial you in after around 45 minutes, which isn’t so long. The first experience can feel jarring the same way that YouTube in incognito mode looks like a weird dystopian universe filled with people screaming at each other.
There’s a commonality between HN and TikTok that I haven’t yet been able to put into words. They’re both “bookish”. You feel like you’re exploring. Often times I’ll swipe past 6 or 7 memes in about 3 seconds, when something incredible catches my attention. And it’s often incredible in exactly the same way as HN: you feel like you’ve unearthed some fascinating gemstone. (And much like HN, it’s designed for entertainment, so you can waste arbitrary amounts of time if you fall under its spell too long.)
I wrote a comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34573893 showcasing the three lists I was particularly proud of: educational, physics, and math. But I have dozens more. There’s guitar tutorials, handyman repairs, a collection of 18 videos teaching you how to tie all kinds of useful knots, art tutorials, cute animals, hardcore ML discussions, and everything in between. Someday I’ll showcase them properly. (Theoretically you can view them on my TikTok profile, but I doubt it’s presented well: https://www.tiktok.com/@theshawwn)
Just know that if you stomp TikTok out of existence, it’ll be a real loss. It’ll feel to me like you’d feel if someone burned down HN. And the calls for banning TikTok sound to me how you’d feel if Reddit was urging everybody to ban HN.
Now imagine that politicians are seriously considering whether to ban HN. That’s how it feels to read through the comments here about TikTok. The outrage is deserved and understandable, but it’ll be a real loss if it disappears.
If this comment coaxes you into trying out TikTok, one tip: use the “not interested” button ruthlessly. (Long press on a video.) The algorithm will dial you in after around 45 minutes, which isn’t so long. The first experience can feel jarring the same way that YouTube in incognito mode looks like a weird dystopian universe filled with people screaming at each other.
I tried TikTok for a few hours.
It became clear really quickly that they have completely disrupted instagram and snap. The UX is much more communal and interactive than either of those, the algorithm lands you on your interests faster, and they have massively reduced the friction around becoming a content creator rather than just a consumer - so there's simply more STUFF there. The videos are more ephemeral and imperfect than what you usually see on IG, and there's a lot more joy in what's being captured. It really is a step change in the ability to build communities around shared interests.
Behind the scenes, it's a privacy nightmare and I understand the national security concerns that go with PRC tapping directly into the id of our electorate. I think PRC is much more skilled and subtle about online manipulation than Russia is. (I was working on media monitoring when social media became strangely fixated on trade deals for just long enough to get US involvement in TPP killed - a framework that was only significantly different from other trade deals in that it would sideline PRC. Once both candidates came out against it, popular concern over trade deal nuances disappeared and never returned)
But the hysteria is driven just as much by SV tech knowing that they've been lapped and finding common ground with congress for purely anti-competitive reasons, as it is by the government trying to thread the needle between free speech and ceding ground to adversary information ops.
It became clear really quickly that they have completely disrupted instagram and snap. The UX is much more communal and interactive than either of those, the algorithm lands you on your interests faster, and they have massively reduced the friction around becoming a content creator rather than just a consumer - so there's simply more STUFF there. The videos are more ephemeral and imperfect than what you usually see on IG, and there's a lot more joy in what's being captured. It really is a step change in the ability to build communities around shared interests.
Behind the scenes, it's a privacy nightmare and I understand the national security concerns that go with PRC tapping directly into the id of our electorate. I think PRC is much more skilled and subtle about online manipulation than Russia is. (I was working on media monitoring when social media became strangely fixated on trade deals for just long enough to get US involvement in TPP killed - a framework that was only significantly different from other trade deals in that it would sideline PRC. Once both candidates came out against it, popular concern over trade deal nuances disappeared and never returned)
But the hysteria is driven just as much by SV tech knowing that they've been lapped and finding common ground with congress for purely anti-competitive reasons, as it is by the government trying to thread the needle between free speech and ceding ground to adversary information ops.
> The videos are more ephemeral and imperfect than what you usually see on IG, and there's a lot more joy in what's being captured. It really is a step change in the ability to build communities around shared interests.
... so far. But with any technology it seems that, once the attention goes towards something, money and polish and 'Moloch' take over and the magic of amateurs and the joy of discovery are lessened. Perhaps TikTok will be different, however! It's not inevitable, but just a trend I've noticed.
... so far. But with any technology it seems that, once the attention goes towards something, money and polish and 'Moloch' take over and the magic of amateurs and the joy of discovery are lessened. Perhaps TikTok will be different, however! It's not inevitable, but just a trend I've noticed.
Definitely been a trend that professional content creation outperforms once the pros figure out how to game the algorithm. TikTok seems pretty resistant, both culturally and technologically. The shelf life of any one piece of content is so short that it might not be economical to invest too much in it. Instead you get a lot of fake amateur content, which is at least amusing.
To be fair TikTok has been in the mainstream for a couple of years (if not more), and still gives that feeling. A lot around that seems to be due to the algorithm doing a better job of sharing non-high profile accounts (seeding videos with a few hundred views, even if the account is new).
The polish/money/influencers are there, but seems to coexist/not take over better.
The polish/money/influencers are there, but seems to coexist/not take over better.
Even if you think HN and Tiktok are similar in content, your point here totally glosses over that one is a small community of people working on startups and is not monetized and does not employ a variety of psychological tools to keep you engaged (it actually has anti-engagement features!) and the other is an enormous, psychologically abusive, basically state-affiliated monetization machine that also collects a shit ton of data on a much larger group of people!
Like I get it, you like TikTok, but don't pretend that the quality of the content is the thing under discussion here. That is a really weird thing to do.
Like I get it, you like TikTok, but don't pretend that the quality of the content is the thing under discussion here. That is a really weird thing to do.
Hehe.
I was on HN when it was around 50 users total. That was day two, just after pg made it public. That was small, and yo8 felt like you knew everyone.
That feeling lasted for a couple years. But inevitably it went away. I didn’t mean the “hehe” against you, but rather a “I wish HN was small.” It was a magical era.
Believe it or not, you are precisely as hypnotized by HN as you feel I am about TikTok. They’re both wonderfully entertaining titans.
I was on HN when it was around 50 users total. That was day two, just after pg made it public. That was small, and yo8 felt like you knew everyone.
That feeling lasted for a couple years. But inevitably it went away. I didn’t mean the “hehe” against you, but rather a “I wish HN was small.” It was a magical era.
Believe it or not, you are precisely as hypnotized by HN as you feel I am about TikTok. They’re both wonderfully entertaining titans.
Again, extremely weird rhetoric. Even at its current size, Hackernews is orders of magnitude smaller and radically different economically, socially and politically. It is absolutely bizarre to compare the two in terms of content in the context of a discussion explicitly about TikTok's relationship with political and economic forces.
So what? What’s wrong with being a little weird, eh? All the best people are weirdos.
If the idea that there are similarities is so unbelievable to you, then so be it. It says a lot more about you than about the comparison.
Ah, there I go, letting the angry replies drag down my quality. Let’s see, what would pg say…
It may feel surprising that there could be similarities. But it’s not as unlikely as you might think. It does however require an open mind, and a willingness to set aside the anger.
If you’re determined to hate it, no words will change your mind.
If the idea that there are similarities is so unbelievable to you, then so be it. It says a lot more about you than about the comparison.
Ah, there I go, letting the angry replies drag down my quality. Let’s see, what would pg say…
It may feel surprising that there could be similarities. But it’s not as unlikely as you might think. It does however require an open mind, and a willingness to set aside the anger.
If you’re determined to hate it, no words will change your mind.
I hold no hatred for TikTok, but I don’t get your argument at all.
You’re comparing TikTok and HN in terms of entertainment value.
Parent comment is highlighting that there are more factors to consider if you want to seriously compare the two.
Wanting TikTok gone is not like wanting HN gone, unless you believe that the only thing that matters about TikTok is its entertainment value.
The entertainment value is what makes it a valuable strategic asset to the PRC. But judging it only on that entertainment value is the kind of logic that leads to acceptance of bills like the EARN IT act.
The underlying details matter, not just the entertainment value or supposed safety claims.
You’re comparing TikTok and HN in terms of entertainment value.
Parent comment is highlighting that there are more factors to consider if you want to seriously compare the two.
Wanting TikTok gone is not like wanting HN gone, unless you believe that the only thing that matters about TikTok is its entertainment value.
The entertainment value is what makes it a valuable strategic asset to the PRC. But judging it only on that entertainment value is the kind of logic that leads to acceptance of bills like the EARN IT act.
The underlying details matter, not just the entertainment value or supposed safety claims.
Entertainment value is the only thing that makes HN valuable to YC. Admitting that to yourself is important; I wasn’t able to set aside my feelings of “the community is gone” until realizing that it’s just a different kind of community. One that seeks a certain flavor of entertainment.
You keep coming back because HN makes you feel good. It’s both as simple and as complex as that.
EDIT: This topic is much more nuanced than my comment here. Entertainment doesn’t imply that it’s somehow a lesser endeavor. But if Dan stopped entertaining the community, it would fall apart. It’s a necessary step in order to get to the most gratifying aspects of HN, and it’s why incendiary topics are so tricky.
I think most people would agree that Reddit is less entertaining than HN. Entertainment doesn’t mean cheesy. I wouldn’t find most political discussions very entertaining, whereas someone explaining how they hunted down a subtle bug is one of the most entertaining types of comments.
The best commenters here “play for the audience” the same way street performers play for the crowd. It’s all about skill. And if it’s skill-based rather than something random, you’ll have to admit that there’s a target to aim for.
That target is “be entertaining.” It’s called intellectual gratification in the rules, but fundamentally, you come to HN instead of Reddit because you’re entertained here, not there.
It’s my job to write substantive comments here. And it’s one I do happily, because I get so much out of it in return. But I have to be keenly aware of whether you, the audience, are getting something out of it too. That’s the essence of being entertaining.
My point here was that TikTok is gratifying in addition to “entertaining,” in many of the same ways that HN is. This was shocking, since I was expecting something horrible when I tried it out. It’s quite the opposite; you just have to look past the horrors for the gems.
Think of it like being trapped on https://news.ycombinator.com/newest, except sometimes you get the front page, and occasionally you get /highlights. You’d think you were alternating between something apocalyptic, something great, and something astounding.
TikTok’s algorithm achieves that, somehow. I’ve curated almost 3,000 videos. Actually, I just checked: 4,644.
As an accomplished contributor to ML and a long time community member, trust me when I say that I wouldn’t do it unless there was something valuable there. I’d lose interest, just as you would in Reddit’s /r/politics.
You keep coming back because HN makes you feel good. It’s both as simple and as complex as that.
EDIT: This topic is much more nuanced than my comment here. Entertainment doesn’t imply that it’s somehow a lesser endeavor. But if Dan stopped entertaining the community, it would fall apart. It’s a necessary step in order to get to the most gratifying aspects of HN, and it’s why incendiary topics are so tricky.
I think most people would agree that Reddit is less entertaining than HN. Entertainment doesn’t mean cheesy. I wouldn’t find most political discussions very entertaining, whereas someone explaining how they hunted down a subtle bug is one of the most entertaining types of comments.
The best commenters here “play for the audience” the same way street performers play for the crowd. It’s all about skill. And if it’s skill-based rather than something random, you’ll have to admit that there’s a target to aim for.
That target is “be entertaining.” It’s called intellectual gratification in the rules, but fundamentally, you come to HN instead of Reddit because you’re entertained here, not there.
It’s my job to write substantive comments here. And it’s one I do happily, because I get so much out of it in return. But I have to be keenly aware of whether you, the audience, are getting something out of it too. That’s the essence of being entertaining.
My point here was that TikTok is gratifying in addition to “entertaining,” in many of the same ways that HN is. This was shocking, since I was expecting something horrible when I tried it out. It’s quite the opposite; you just have to look past the horrors for the gems.
Think of it like being trapped on https://news.ycombinator.com/newest, except sometimes you get the front page, and occasionally you get /highlights. You’d think you were alternating between something apocalyptic, something great, and something astounding.
TikTok’s algorithm achieves that, somehow. I’ve curated almost 3,000 videos. Actually, I just checked: 4,644.
As an accomplished contributor to ML and a long time community member, trust me when I say that I wouldn’t do it unless there was something valuable there. I’d lose interest, just as you would in Reddit’s /r/politics.
Again, you're focusing on entertainment and ignoring other factors. I never claimed HN is not entertaining.
Simply put: HN is not a national security threat, and TikTok is. This statement is compatible with acknowledging that both provide value (of the entertainment sort and otherwise).
But when evaluating the risk associated with each platform, one is clearly in a category that the other is not.
Guns can be very entertaining. Learning to shoot and honing one's skills can be an enjoyable and rewarding experience. People do it because it makes them feel good. It's as simple and as complex as that.
But if you were to evaluate the risks of using guns as entertainment, you could not conclude that guns are no different than guitars. Both can be used to satisfy deeply human desires to learn a skill and entertain oneself. But there is an appropriate difference in policy when it comes to the requirements imposed on a gun buyers vs. guitar shoppers.
I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, but you continue to ignore and sidestep the nuance that I and others have tried to reintroduce.
Let me ask you this: is there something that would have to happen for you to change your opinion about TikTok? If we learned tomorrow that it has actively been used to manipulate the mental health of teens and could be causally linked to suicides, does the overall entertainment value make that not matter?
Where's the line that you won't cross?
Simply put: HN is not a national security threat, and TikTok is. This statement is compatible with acknowledging that both provide value (of the entertainment sort and otherwise).
But when evaluating the risk associated with each platform, one is clearly in a category that the other is not.
Guns can be very entertaining. Learning to shoot and honing one's skills can be an enjoyable and rewarding experience. People do it because it makes them feel good. It's as simple and as complex as that.
But if you were to evaluate the risks of using guns as entertainment, you could not conclude that guns are no different than guitars. Both can be used to satisfy deeply human desires to learn a skill and entertain oneself. But there is an appropriate difference in policy when it comes to the requirements imposed on a gun buyers vs. guitar shoppers.
I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, but you continue to ignore and sidestep the nuance that I and others have tried to reintroduce.
Let me ask you this: is there something that would have to happen for you to change your opinion about TikTok? If we learned tomorrow that it has actively been used to manipulate the mental health of teens and could be causally linked to suicides, does the overall entertainment value make that not matter?
Where's the line that you won't cross?
I mean weird as a polite way of saying apparently disingenuous. Your comments seem designed to deflect and divert the discussion away from its most salient points and into an arena which discussion is pointless (anyone can like any content they like, after all, no one could possibly dispute your interest in TikTok or that other people might find it interesting too). I feel relatively confident in suggesting that the issues the article points out are rather more important or at least important enough to warrant actual discussion.
I'm not angry about anything, nor do I dispute your thesis that from a content point of view there may be similarities. I just raise the question of how that contributes to a genuinely useful discussion about the sociopolitical implications of the app.
I'm not angry about anything, nor do I dispute your thesis that from a content point of view there may be similarities. I just raise the question of how that contributes to a genuinely useful discussion about the sociopolitical implications of the app.
Ah, I see where we’re talking past one another. Yes, you’re right. My goal was to explicitly set aside the sociopolitical implications. Why?
Because there’s never any opportunity to talk about anything else on HN. One hundred percent of the time, it’s a big discussion about the political implications of TikTok. The only time it shows up here is when it’s done something newsworthy, and people are (rightly) upset or scared about it.
The missing context here is that top level comments aren’t required to be “on topic” in the sense you’re saying. Quite the opposite; as dang says, HN is consistently contrarian.
All I can say is that I’m never contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. That’d be lame, as well as boring. I’ve been a TikTok user for over three years now. This is simply a glimpse into that world — or at least, my poor attempt at giving one.
Because there’s never any opportunity to talk about anything else on HN. One hundred percent of the time, it’s a big discussion about the political implications of TikTok. The only time it shows up here is when it’s done something newsworthy, and people are (rightly) upset or scared about it.
The missing context here is that top level comments aren’t required to be “on topic” in the sense you’re saying. Quite the opposite; as dang says, HN is consistently contrarian.
All I can say is that I’m never contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. That’d be lame, as well as boring. I’ve been a TikTok user for over three years now. This is simply a glimpse into that world — or at least, my poor attempt at giving one.
> My goal was to explicitly set aside the sociopolitical implications. Why? … Because there’s never any opportunity to talk about anything else on HN. One hundred percent of the time, it’s a big discussion about the political implications of TikTok.
I’d argue that “setting aside” the implications is a form of wishful thinking.
Everything you pointed out can be pointed out without discarding the implications or implying that having a stance regarding the risks is somehow equivalent to wishing HN would be banned.
TikTok is primarily an interesting topic here because of those implications and because many folks are quite willing to pretend the problem doesn’t exist as long as they get their dopamine hit.
But it is completely compatible with this reality to point out that the content can be joyful to experience, while acknowledging that the context of that experience is a serious issue.
And if TikTok is banned, people won’t stop creating the kinds of content found there. It’ll just move to the next big thing.
I’d argue that “setting aside” the implications is a form of wishful thinking.
Everything you pointed out can be pointed out without discarding the implications or implying that having a stance regarding the risks is somehow equivalent to wishing HN would be banned.
TikTok is primarily an interesting topic here because of those implications and because many folks are quite willing to pretend the problem doesn’t exist as long as they get their dopamine hit.
But it is completely compatible with this reality to point out that the content can be joyful to experience, while acknowledging that the context of that experience is a serious issue.
And if TikTok is banned, people won’t stop creating the kinds of content found there. It’ll just move to the next big thing.
> Hackernews is orders of magnitude smaller and radically different economically, socially and politically.
This presupposes and operates as though TikTok isn't an enormous collection of tiny niches. Many parts of TikTok are exactly like tiny subreddits where everyone or most people know each other.
Equally, some places on TikTok have a whole lot of people, like the front page of Reddit.
HN is somewhere larger than small reddit and smaller than big reddit.
This presupposes and operates as though TikTok isn't an enormous collection of tiny niches. Many parts of TikTok are exactly like tiny subreddits where everyone or most people know each other.
Equally, some places on TikTok have a whole lot of people, like the front page of Reddit.
HN is somewhere larger than small reddit and smaller than big reddit.
Welcome original HN crue. What was life like back then? Were the discussions like compared to today?
We've all had that feeling where we start off in a smaller group and as the place gets more popular you lose that original feeling. Not sure if HN today is comparable to Tiktok for many reasons: because this site hasn't really changed technology wise, controlled by another government superpower.
We've all had that feeling where we start off in a smaller group and as the place gets more popular you lose that original feeling. Not sure if HN today is comparable to Tiktok for many reasons: because this site hasn't really changed technology wise, controlled by another government superpower.
I’ve wanted to write about this for years. Someday I’ll do it justice.
Let me edit this comment with one particular example. One moment…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1511104
That thread is one of the most vivid examples of the difference of then vs now. But looking back on it, the delta isn’t as large as one might think. I was going to write “Imagine Dan giving an answer like that to the community unprompted,” and then realized that he has, many times now. He’s done a tremendous job preserving the spirit that pg imbued into HN.
The thread is nostalgic for other reasons too. Aaron Swartz gave a candid answer that stuck with me, and turned out to be really prescient for my life.
Let me edit this comment with one particular example. One moment…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1511104
That thread is one of the most vivid examples of the difference of then vs now. But looking back on it, the delta isn’t as large as one might think. I was going to write “Imagine Dan giving an answer like that to the community unprompted,” and then realized that he has, many times now. He’s done a tremendous job preserving the spirit that pg imbued into HN.
The thread is nostalgic for other reasons too. Aaron Swartz gave a candid answer that stuck with me, and turned out to be really prescient for my life.
Sounds terrible, swiping through memes rapid fire until I find something that hooks me is textbook addictive behavior and I know it will lead me to have poor focus and anxiety in other parts of life.
The videos where you "learn" something are extra insidious because they convince you that it is a positive use of your time. The reality is you will forget 90% of it, it is formatted to be entertaining and not educational, and many are outright BS.
The videos where you "learn" something are extra insidious because they convince you that it is a positive use of your time. The reality is you will forget 90% of it, it is formatted to be entertaining and not educational, and many are outright BS.
And yet, you swipe through 30 HN stories a day. The insidious part is that you think it’s a positive use of your time, or that you learn anything. You’ll forget most of it, and ultimately it’s just entertainment.
If you’re quick to point out all the reasons I’m mistaken, well… take all of those reasons, put them in a paint bucket labeled “tiktok”, and give it a stir till you can’t see the difference. Because as a three year TikTok user, I can’t.
We’re all addicts. It’s a matter of choosing your addictions wisely, and not letting their downsides outweigh their merits. Discipline tends to be the cure, though that never works for me; the only way out is to find a fascinating problem to go work on.
Make no mistake: the average TikTok viewer is a lot closer to the average HN reader in terms of addictive behaviors than we’d care to admit. All of the reasons you keep coming back are addictions in disguise. And if this argument sounds out of place, there’s a way out: it’s fine to be addicted to learning new things.
If you’re quick to point out all the reasons I’m mistaken, well… take all of those reasons, put them in a paint bucket labeled “tiktok”, and give it a stir till you can’t see the difference. Because as a three year TikTok user, I can’t.
We’re all addicts. It’s a matter of choosing your addictions wisely, and not letting their downsides outweigh their merits. Discipline tends to be the cure, though that never works for me; the only way out is to find a fascinating problem to go work on.
Make no mistake: the average TikTok viewer is a lot closer to the average HN reader in terms of addictive behaviors than we’d care to admit. All of the reasons you keep coming back are addictions in disguise. And if this argument sounds out of place, there’s a way out: it’s fine to be addicted to learning new things.
I refuse to believe you can't tell the difference between TikTok and HN. Just take your argument all the way and say that reading a book is the same thing as using TikTok.
Hard Disagree.
Hard Disagree.
Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837751 upthread. I wanted to give you a solid reply to this, so I put a lot of effort into it. Perhaps it’s still insufficient, but it’s closer.
"you swipe through 30 HN stories a day"
I don't know who does that. I look at titles and decide which ones I want to look at. With tiktok, you don't know what's coming next, and normally it takes you at least one or two seconds to know if it's a video you want to watch. Also TikTok content is personalized and there is no end blah blah. It's designed to make you addicted.
By the way I have read a lot of interesting/helpful articles on HN, many of which are not easy read. Many people would agree with me. Also I have read a lot of articles with a critical eye and left critical comments (like this one), never did that on TikTok.
These are just some basic rebukes of your comment. I can go on and on. I think the difference between TikTok and HN is very clear. Not saying TikTok is better than HN, they are different products, but it's very disingenuous to draw parallels between them.
I don't know who does that. I look at titles and decide which ones I want to look at. With tiktok, you don't know what's coming next, and normally it takes you at least one or two seconds to know if it's a video you want to watch. Also TikTok content is personalized and there is no end blah blah. It's designed to make you addicted.
By the way I have read a lot of interesting/helpful articles on HN, many of which are not easy read. Many people would agree with me. Also I have read a lot of articles with a critical eye and left critical comments (like this one), never did that on TikTok.
These are just some basic rebukes of your comment. I can go on and on. I think the difference between TikTok and HN is very clear. Not saying TikTok is better than HN, they are different products, but it's very disingenuous to draw parallels between them.
> Not saying TikTok is better than HN
I'll say the opposite, and boldly. With HN, I can quickly scan 90 headlines where 50% of them are tech related and the other half, at least smart people find them interesting or something.
Imagine following a video for a recipe that you can't rewind...
I'll say the opposite, and boldly. With HN, I can quickly scan 90 headlines where 50% of them are tech related and the other half, at least smart people find them interesting or something.
Imagine following a video for a recipe that you can't rewind...
I don't hate tiktok. I don't hate it's business model or the product, per se. I just don't trust any company with strong ties to China and the CCP. When a company has those ties it changes from a question of whether you trust the company to whether you trust the CCP. And I most emphatically do not trust the CCP. The intentions and desires of the people running the company are irrelevant. The CCP has absolutely no problems violating those intentions or desires. There is no world where you can live in relationship to the CCP and not have your reputation permanently entangled with theirs.
If HN was controlled by the CCP I would have the exact same concerns and wouldn't be using the platform. The CCP doesn't care how useful, delightful, unique, or wonderful your product is. They only care about whether they can leverage it usefully in some way.
If HN was controlled by the CCP I would have the exact same concerns and wouldn't be using the platform. The CCP doesn't care how useful, delightful, unique, or wonderful your product is. They only care about whether they can leverage it usefully in some way.
I don't use TikTok but I don't know why this is being downvoted. It seems reasonable to hear from people in order to understand the reason an app is popular.
There is nothing downvote-worthy about this comment. I really appreciated reading this perspective, since pretty much all I ever hear are the reasons TikTok is bad.
There is nothing downvote-worthy about this comment. I really appreciated reading this perspective, since pretty much all I ever hear are the reasons TikTok is bad.
The framing was not great. "If you hate tik tok, just know that it has only wonderful qualities that are impossible to hate." You might as well be arguing that nobody should hate chocolate ice cream.
---
If you hate chocolate ice cream, I get you. Just know that chocolate ice cream is one of the most popular ice cream flavors in the world, and for good reason. It's creamy, delicious, and versatile. But why is chocolate ice cream so good?
Here are a few reasons:
- Chocolate is a natural mood enhancer. Chocolate contains a compound called phenylethylamine, which is a stimulant that can boost your mood and make you feel happy.
- Chocolate is a source of antioxidants. Antioxidants are substances that help protect your cells from damage. Dark chocolate is a particularly good source of antioxidants.
- Chocolate is a source of calcium. Calcium is an important mineral for strong bones and teeth.
- Chocolate is a source of protein. Protein is essential for building and repairing tissues.
- Chocolate is a source of fiber. Fiber is important for digestive health.
In addition to all of these health benefits, chocolate ice cream is simply delicious. It's the perfect treat to enjoy on a hot day or to satisfy a sweet tooth. So next time you're in the mood for something sweet, reach for a bowl of chocolate ice cream. You won't be disappointed.
So what are you waiting for? Go out and buy a tub of chocolate ice cream today!
---
If you hate chocolate ice cream, I get you. Just know that chocolate ice cream is one of the most popular ice cream flavors in the world, and for good reason. It's creamy, delicious, and versatile. But why is chocolate ice cream so good?
Here are a few reasons:
- Chocolate is a natural mood enhancer. Chocolate contains a compound called phenylethylamine, which is a stimulant that can boost your mood and make you feel happy.
- Chocolate is a source of antioxidants. Antioxidants are substances that help protect your cells from damage. Dark chocolate is a particularly good source of antioxidants.
- Chocolate is a source of calcium. Calcium is an important mineral for strong bones and teeth.
- Chocolate is a source of protein. Protein is essential for building and repairing tissues.
- Chocolate is a source of fiber. Fiber is important for digestive health.
In addition to all of these health benefits, chocolate ice cream is simply delicious. It's the perfect treat to enjoy on a hot day or to satisfy a sweet tooth. So next time you're in the mood for something sweet, reach for a bowl of chocolate ice cream. You won't be disappointed.
So what are you waiting for? Go out and buy a tub of chocolate ice cream today!
The fact that people feel TikTok is a bucket of chocolate ice cream was precisely why I spoke up. It’s a label that feels as out of place as calling HN a basket of Twinkies.
There’s a grain of truth to it. Both are addictive. HN does it so well that the psychological aspects are almost invisible, but they’re there. That karma counter in the upper right is suspiciously impossible to ignore.
Does that erase HN’s merits? I don’t think so.
There’s a grain of truth to it. Both are addictive. HN does it so well that the psychological aspects are almost invisible, but they’re there. That karma counter in the upper right is suspiciously impossible to ignore.
Does that erase HN’s merits? I don’t think so.
> Both are addictive.
If this is your takeaway then I picked the wrong metaphor. My intent was highlight that people have baseline preferences, but the post engages in arguing that their tastes are somehow _logically wrong_. I thought chocolate ice cream would be the least objectionable taste but I guess leave it to HN to find a way =)
If this is your takeaway then I picked the wrong metaphor. My intent was highlight that people have baseline preferences, but the post engages in arguing that their tastes are somehow _logically wrong_. I thought chocolate ice cream would be the least objectionable taste but I guess leave it to HN to find a way =)
It's being downvoted because it has no place in a discussion around TikTok surveilling journalists and people that give negative PR to the company. Extolling the virtues of TikTok in a thread like this is like saying 'Well, Nestle's chocolate is actually delicious don't you think?' in a discussion around Nestle using slave and child labour to create their chocolate products.
I was surprised too. But incendiary topics are often that way. All one can do is to try to be substantive and hope for the best.
Thank you for sticking up for me, but remember: our goal here is to write comments interesting to read. As much as I appreciate it, complaints about downvotes never do any good. They just stoke the fire.
Have a wonderful weekend, wherever you are. Cheers.
Thank you for sticking up for me, but remember: our goal here is to write comments interesting to read. As much as I appreciate it, complaints about downvotes never do any good. They just stoke the fire.
Have a wonderful weekend, wherever you are. Cheers.
It will only cost you the entirety of your online privacy, but you're telling us it's worth it?
Google and Apple already have a huge amount of info on me that is almost certainly being shared with the US government. What's the diff between that and TikTok sharing my info with China?
Fewer leaks are always better than more.
I understand what you're saying though. But I think the answer should be to work harder at blocking Google and Apple, rather than capitulating to <new thing>.
I understand what you're saying though. But I think the answer should be to work harder at blocking Google and Apple, rather than capitulating to <new thing>.
I’m good, thanks.
No. Comparing TikTok to HN is flatly wrong.
TikTok isn't actually going to be banned.
What is going to happen, is that even if a ban goes through, they will end up just selling the US/international app to a US company, then that company will be completely separated from bytedance.
This almost happened during the Trump administration.
And this would be a positive result. We get to keep TikTok, and all it's "benefits", while the national security concerns are solved because it would be US owned, and no longer beholden to a foreign adversary.
What is going to happen, is that even if a ban goes through, they will end up just selling the US/international app to a US company, then that company will be completely separated from bytedance.
This almost happened during the Trump administration.
And this would be a positive result. We get to keep TikTok, and all it's "benefits", while the national security concerns are solved because it would be US owned, and no longer beholden to a foreign adversary.
icepat(2)
Facebooks security teams did the same, as did Uber. Paypal went as far as sending critics dead animals
Interesting tidbit about Facebook's security team.
https://imgur.com/a/hcrv6We
https://imgur.com/a/hcrv6We
The article seems less about China tracking journalists and more ByteDance employees tracking critics. So like the eBay stalking scandal, except less severe.
... so just ban it already. this is getting tiring as we're in the 3rd or 4th year of this nonsense.
They don't want to ban it. They want to be pass an Orwellian surveillance bill and Tiktok is being used as a boogeyman.
In lieu, they'll take TikTok's subservience in giving them access to the data, as with all the other social media companies. It's the one reason I think my data is SAFER in TikTok than in Facebook. If the NSA had a backdoor into it like all the others, they wouldn't care.
Who is "they"?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/s686/cosponsors along with I assume intelligence organizations.
If you ban all spy apps, the app store would be empty. Heck, as soon as you see the first add in an app, you should know you have been spied on.
It wouldn't be empty, it would look like F-Droid, which has thousands of user-respecting apps.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/
I'd argue you just ban apps from countries who wouldn't allow such an app in their region. US social media apps are not allowed in China... seems fair to do the same just on that basis.
It's not that easy in the global world.
The owner of TikTok is ByteDance, an American company. Would you ban them?
Also, Apple produces in China, under the jurisdiction of the CCP. Would you also ban them?
Those two examples are obvious, but when you look at the typical international megacorp structure, it becomes quickly much more difficult.
The owner of TikTok is ByteDance, an American company. Would you ban them?
Also, Apple produces in China, under the jurisdiction of the CCP. Would you also ban them?
Those two examples are obvious, but when you look at the typical international megacorp structure, it becomes quickly much more difficult.
Because like Facebook, it can do that, just because.
It is no better than Facebook and is in fact worse. Given the history of what TikTok has done and also has admitted to violating the privacy of its users [0] [1] [2] [3] in leaks and recordings, it needs to be fined for repeated offenses in the billions of dollars just like Facebook was once fined at.
Billion dollar fines for repeated offenses is much better than a outright ban and the regulators are never tired of collecting money from multi-billion dollar companies.
[0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
[1] https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2021/dutch-dpa-tik...
[2] https://www.scmagazine.com/news/privacy/uk-tiktok-16m-fine-c...
[3] https://fortune.com/2022/12/22/tiktok-data-privacy-blunder-c...
It is no better than Facebook and is in fact worse. Given the history of what TikTok has done and also has admitted to violating the privacy of its users [0] [1] [2] [3] in leaks and recordings, it needs to be fined for repeated offenses in the billions of dollars just like Facebook was once fined at.
Billion dollar fines for repeated offenses is much better than a outright ban and the regulators are never tired of collecting money from multi-billion dollar companies.
[0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
[1] https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2021/dutch-dpa-tik...
[2] https://www.scmagazine.com/news/privacy/uk-tiktok-16m-fine-c...
[3] https://fortune.com/2022/12/22/tiktok-data-privacy-blunder-c...
Spying is collecting information for the government. TikTok works for the Chinese Communist Government.
It is collecting information but it's not specifically for a government. Facebook and Google also spy on their users. Should we ban them too?
To be even more explicit, Facebook and Google collect info which the US government can and does request from them. See: Transparency Reports from both.
Collecting data and complying with a warrant is not the same thing.
American companies work for the american government, knowingly or otherwise. It has back doors, front doors, and side windows into them.
Title is "TikTok spied on me. Why?", though it was originally posted this way, the replacement title isn't better
[deleted]
Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if advocates for the West could participate in Chinese forums, the way advocates for China flood into discussions like we see here.
A quick scan and most of the comments seem to be Chinese talking points in one form or another
A quick scan and most of the comments seem to be Chinese talking points in one form or another
These addictive apps need a warning from the Surgeon General. It's not censorship, just a warning label indicating the well-known and well-studied phenomena around threats to health and personal security.
Call me crazy, but I’d love to see Apple acquire ByteDance. They’re the only company that I feel the public trusts with privacy, have the same level of cachet, operate globally, and don’t have a social media arm.
What's the benefit over banning it?
Keeping TikTok around. It’s actually a very good platform, just needs major damage control on trust and privacy.
I was surprised that when you share a TikTok video on whatsapp/anywhere, it generates unique URL link that can be traces back to your account. This company definitely has "we need more data" culture.
Two things:
1. you can get around that by using the actual TikTok link on the
website, not the app
2. It's by design. People who know each other probably like similar
things, so it facilitates in the surprisingly effective, accurate
and narrow niches that people can find themselves in.Instagram, Twitter and probably a lot of other companies do the same. They need to be able to track links on dark socials
TikTok (and Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp (if they are really spying on our private WhatsApp conversations) knows I (my IP addresses/my device identifiers/my browser fingerprints) like memes.
I don't get the big deal?
They know my age and where I live, which is public information via sites indexed by Google for a large percentage of the population.
My phone knows where I go due to GPS + cell phone towers. This is published via a "location service" to every app asking for it (and given permission) on my phone.
Apple knows what I like because they run the operating system for both my phone and my laptop. Do they have some form of telemetry? Probably.
Google knows what I like because I use their browser and they run my Gmail/other services I use from them. Do they have some form of telemetry? Probably.
How is this a TikTok problem?
I don't get the big deal?
They know my age and where I live, which is public information via sites indexed by Google for a large percentage of the population.
My phone knows where I go due to GPS + cell phone towers. This is published via a "location service" to every app asking for it (and given permission) on my phone.
Apple knows what I like because they run the operating system for both my phone and my laptop. Do they have some form of telemetry? Probably.
Google knows what I like because I use their browser and they run my Gmail/other services I use from them. Do they have some form of telemetry? Probably.
How is this a TikTok problem?
Generally speaking: How is it not all those companies problems ... including TikTok?
Are you just trying to hand wave for TikTok here?
As for the article, the situation in the article is very specific to that person.
Are you just trying to hand wave for TikTok here?
As for the article, the situation in the article is very specific to that person.
> The story claimed ByteDance employees accessed two reporters’ data through their TikTok accounts. Personal information, including their physical locations, had been used as part of an attempt to find the writers’ sources, after a series of damaging stories about ByteDance
They got her location. What else?
They got her location. What else?
This is a TikTok problem because China gets access to the data, not the US.
There's some serious mental gymnastics and reality denial required to limit the issues to "TikTok".
Someone else won a race, so now they need to tilt the field.
There's some serious mental gymnastics and reality denial required to limit the issues to "TikTok".
Someone else won a race, so now they need to tilt the field.
This was a strange article. Why would a journalist at a major newspaper be so ignorant of appropriate cyber security and privacy practices and install a PRC app on their primary phone? Why would they assume that they _weren't_ being monitored? And why would the company, if they wanted to spy on her, use 'another iphone' rather than just pull the data from the backend? That was the weirdest part.
Because, they can...
I know tiktok is spying on me too, I'm pretty sure at this point they know I love cat memes.
It takes a spy to know a spy.
> "By the time ByteDance was founded in Beijing in 2012, Google had been reading our emails over our shoulders, Amazon had been watching us shop, and Twitter and Facebook had been mediating our messages to friends and foes for years. Indeed, Zhang Yiming, the millennial software engineer who set up ByteDance, modeled himself and aspects of his new company on Silicon Valley. Zhang, who briefly worked for Microsoft before going out on his own, was once fond of quoting Steve Jobs and Jack Welch."
It would be highly surprising if the ByteDance-Beijing relationship was all that different from the Google/Verizon-Washington relationship (2013):
https://www.corpwatch.org/article/verizon-and-google-helped-...
> "Technology companies willingly provided information to U.S. government agencies to help the Obama administration snoop on reporters from the Associated Press (AP) and Fox news in order to ostensibly crack down on leaks that pose a "threat" to national security."