Tell Congress: Stop the TikTok Ban. Instead, Protect Our Data No Matter Who(act.eff.org)
act.eff.org
Tell Congress: Stop the TikTok Ban. Instead, Protect Our Data No Matter Who
https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-tiktok-ban
199 comments
It's not even just how they promote/mute political topics. Watch Tik Tok videos in China and it's all young people helping the elderly, learning job skills, and doing other socially virtuous things. Watch Tik Tok videos outside of China and it's all videos of kids stealing cars, eating Tide pods, and pranking people in Home Depot.
You can blame the first amendment for that. The first amendment doesn't apply to China, so the Chinese government tells Douyin what content is undesirable and it gets filtered/censored. Is that what you want to happen in the US? Or did you think Douyin was intentionally leaving money on the table due to patriotic fervor?
I'm just speculating, but my guess is it serves both purposes. Filling US youth with destructive stuff is also excellent for engagement. Two birds one stone
Is it the United States' policy to fill middle-eastern youth with lascivious/wanton content, or do social media thirst-trap pictures just have excellent engagement?
In both cases, the operators don't have to actively boost that content, and it also is profitable, so they won't voluntarily remove it until forced to do so (by the government or public).
In both cases, the operators don't have to actively boost that content, and it also is profitable, so they won't voluntarily remove it until forced to do so (by the government or public).
One could also appeal to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other such sites here. These sites are absolutely filled with 'less than socially valuable' content. Yet when degenerate content also shows up on TikTok it's somehow because of some convoluted Chinese conspiracy. And this conspiracy is presented with absolutely no evidence of merit, instead relying primarily on appeals to prejudice and bias - 'Come on man, don't be stupid - it's China!' The same sort of logic that could be used to make essentially any claim, regardless of its basis in reality.
as Chinese, it is no political, no drug, less gang style music, less sexual video, but not all as you say
I hear this a lot but I'm pretty sure China has mindless social media apps like we do. I think it's called Douyin or something, if you go to https://www.douyin.com/discover you'll even see the tiktok logo. I'm pretty sure you can only watch people help the elderly cross the street so many times before you start looking for something more entertaining.
For example do an internet search for Chinese people live streaming under a bridge. I'm pretty sure these people are not all demonstrating job skills.
For example do an internet search for Chinese people live streaming under a bridge. I'm pretty sure these people are not all demonstrating job skills.
Douyin is TikTok but for China. Operated by the same company but with different servers (https://www.bytedance.com/en/products). And i am pretty sure they are effectively telling bytedance to get rid of things that would corrupt the youth (in the governments opinion).
Like they banned effeminate man on TV: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effemina...
Like they banned effeminate man on TV: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effemina...
Douyin _is_ the Chinese TikTok.
>Douyin vs TikTok also differs in terms of popular content. The most popular on Douyin is definitely educational content, with videos helping to improve skills and grow personally, while on Tik Tok the most popular is narrating videos, which is a great opportunity for artists, singers, and music producers.
https://marketingtochina.com/differences-between-tiktok-and-...
>Douyin vs TikTok also differs in terms of popular content. The most popular on Douyin is definitely educational content, with videos helping to improve skills and grow personally, while on Tik Tok the most popular is narrating videos, which is a great opportunity for artists, singers, and music producers.
https://marketingtochina.com/differences-between-tiktok-and-...
Douyin is Tik Tok in China. And no they don't, authoritarian governments have quite a bit of leeway in shutting those sorts of things down. While it can be bypassed, the average person isn't going to do it (or get away with it).
You're missing the point. It's not about what content users in a country are uploading to the platform or wanting to consume on the platform, it's which content the algorithm promotes/mutes in a given country based on the wishes of the Chinese government.
If you go to https://www.douyin.com/discover it looks like the same mindless entertainment we see but Chinese people. Maybe they're trying to promote more virtuous content but I'm not seeing it on Chinese TikTok's front page. I scrolled through a few pages and I didn't see anything that would be similar to helping the elderly or job skills. It's certainly not "all" virtuous content like originally claimed.
Are you viewing this from China? The obvious answer seems to be they're just running different filters and scoring based on the location of the device.
No. Are you? Can you screenshot it for me?
No. I don't know whether or not the difference in content is real. All I'm saying that if it were, it would obviously be done by geolocation, and in that case you would still see west-targeted content when visiting Douyin or TikTok; this invalidates the counterpoint I responded to.
This would be an interesting test, although I don't think even a VPN exit node in China is good enough unless your device also feeds bogus GPS coords that show you are in China. I used to do with the Xposed all the time (because apps have no business knowing where I am) but now that Android is so hostile toward root and power users, I don't know how doable it is anymore (though I'd love to hear if someone does).
Your "obvious" claim seems more like a strong assumption, that you know the not only the behavior but the mechanism of douyin based on... Obviousness?
I agree GP should have been a lot more humble in their claim and is not acknowledging the level to which they are speculating, but aside from the untactful approach, location does seem an important point especially for a company as data hungry and adept at mining/using that data as bytedance.
Except that the Douyin operates only in China, you even need a Chinese phone number to register in the page. The Douyin do not aim for consumers outside China. Therefore, why would a website care to create a customized "discover" page for different countries when it have users only from a single country?
Frankly, nowadays it seems like we're just reviving McCarthyism when we talk about China.
Frankly, nowadays it seems like we're just reviving McCarthyism when we talk about China.
"Among adults, those ages 18 to 29 are most likely to say they regularly get news on TikTok. About a third of Americans in this age group (32%) say they regularly get news there"
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/15/more-amer...
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/15/more-amer...
This is extremely concerning that perception of current affairs is fed to people using social media.
Why should social media not be a source of news and current affairs?
Not sure if this is sarcasm but the main stream media are basically propaganda. MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, WASH POST, NYT et al.
AIPAC wants Tiktok shut down because it doesn't censor content on Gaza.
AIPAC wants Tiktok shut down because it doesn't censor content on Gaza.
> main stream media are basically propaganda
I'm not from US, rarely I have even watched anything from these (MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, WASH POST, NYT) in my life. Blank statement like 'main stream media are basically propaganda' seems wild to me. There are also other 'mainstream media' from US... are those propaganda as well? Like AP? There is bias, sure, but how can you say propaganda?
I read 'main stream media' - not just in English language and content there is not that bad - usually there is delay - which is good, because not everything what is posted is accurate.
I'm not from US, rarely I have even watched anything from these (MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, WASH POST, NYT) in my life. Blank statement like 'main stream media are basically propaganda' seems wild to me. There are also other 'mainstream media' from US... are those propaganda as well? Like AP? There is bias, sure, but how can you say propaganda?
I read 'main stream media' - not just in English language and content there is not that bad - usually there is delay - which is good, because not everything what is posted is accurate.
Read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Then you'll realize where my "wild" statements are coming from.
Chomsky is an apogolet on Dictaturship. Not at all any credible authority.
Ah, so ad hominem.
Valid reply to "appeal to authority", no?
Noam Chomsky criticizes the US press in the book for being a mouth piece for government propaganda. e.g. Judith Miller, New York Times on the WMDs in Iraq. etc etc.
Why does his views on Dictatorship make his critique of the press invalid? Isn't that like saying every criticism of Israel by a non-Jewish person is anti-semitic, no?
Why does his views on Dictatorship make his critique of the press invalid? Isn't that like saying every criticism of Israel by a non-Jewish person is anti-semitic, no?
Operation Mockingbird
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Yeah pretty "wild" I know, but true.
Yeah pretty "wild" I know, but true.
True? This is a conspiracy theory.
Because Wikipedia says so? or you have a credible source, explanation?
That whitepaper compares the counts of posts in a set of (arbitrarily chosen) hashtags to Instagram. All it proves is that the ratio of posts between these hashtags is different between TikTok and Instagram.
Their findings are unrelated to whether content is promoted or muted, they only look at post count. They don't even determine that it isn't Instagram that is biased (as they only compare the ratios), and these differences can pretty easily be attributed to different userbases.
They never explain how they chose hashtags that are compared, which could potentially be biased.
This isn't to say that TikTok isn't doing these things. This PDF just doesn't prove anything, and its claims are overstated.
See the discussion from this whitepaper was posted to HN at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38754653
Their findings are unrelated to whether content is promoted or muted, they only look at post count. They don't even determine that it isn't Instagram that is biased (as they only compare the ratios), and these differences can pretty easily be attributed to different userbases.
They never explain how they chose hashtags that are compared, which could potentially be biased.
This isn't to say that TikTok isn't doing these things. This PDF just doesn't prove anything, and its claims are overstated.
See the discussion from this whitepaper was posted to HN at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38754653
I think you're somewhat missing the idea here. It's _not_ saying that China-sensitive topics are less popular on TikTok than Insta. It's saying that the difference between TikTok and Insta is _hugely greater_ for China hot-button issues than it is for other topics.
It doesn't really matter how the hash tags are chosen; the fact that this is uniformly true, by a lot, for all the obvious hash tags you might pick is damning evidence.
It doesn't really matter how the hash tags are chosen; the fact that this is uniformly true, by a lot, for all the obvious hash tags you might pick is damning evidence.
So China sells its point so well that all the numerous tools and huge amounts of money that the United States also has to propagate its point of view and guarantee its own soft power has difficulty competing with a single Chinese tool, and this within its own territory? Or perhaps the problem is that they don't want a Chinese social network to have access and control over people's data, but neither they want to pass laws to protect people privacy like what EFF proposes because the American government also do not want to forfeit the access and control over people's data?
A) china doesn't let American companies operate freely in China.
B) The united states doesn't _do_ state owned media in the United States. Even PBS and NPR are independent.
B) The united states doesn't _do_ state owned media in the United States. Even PBS and NPR are independent.
A) China never claimed that it operates under a free market. Neither bully other countries if they do not behave as they dictate that a free market should be.
B) Does not matter: it is not owning media that USA spreads its propaganda and soft power.
B) Does not matter: it is not owning media that USA spreads its propaganda and soft power.
I agree that PBS and NPR aren't state-owned, but there surely needs to be a third option between state-owned and independent when they get funding from that source. Economic incentives can be some of the most powerful incentives and need to be clearly acknowledged.
>B) The united states doesn't _do_ state owned media in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
“ Its targeted and primary audience is non-American.”
Please people stop posting that "study" or at least read it before you take any conclusions from it. Good god it's terrible science.
Like even if it's not obvious to you how using Instagram as a "reference" for hashtags is not a good baseline it still doesn't mean anything in terms of how the content is spread because how are you going to detect algorithmic boosting and suppression by counting user generated content? A million posts with #cheesetastesbad could get less actual views than ten posts with #pro-cheese. And this is before accounting for vastly different tagging culture between social networks and different users entirely.
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/the-truth-about-tiktok-has...
> Blunt comparisons of hashtags is severely flawed and misrepresentative of the activity on TikTok.
> It’s critical to understand that hashtags on the platform are created and added to videos by content creators, not TikTok. Millions of people in regions such as the Middle East and South East Asia account for a significant proportion of views on hashtags. Therefore, there’s more content with #freepalestine and #standwithpalestine and more overall views. It is easy to cherry pick hashtags to support a false narrative about the platform.
TikTok could be completely totally bold-faced evil and this study still wouldn't be good evidence of it.
Like even if it's not obvious to you how using Instagram as a "reference" for hashtags is not a good baseline it still doesn't mean anything in terms of how the content is spread because how are you going to detect algorithmic boosting and suppression by counting user generated content? A million posts with #cheesetastesbad could get less actual views than ten posts with #pro-cheese. And this is before accounting for vastly different tagging culture between social networks and different users entirely.
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/the-truth-about-tiktok-has...
> Blunt comparisons of hashtags is severely flawed and misrepresentative of the activity on TikTok.
> It’s critical to understand that hashtags on the platform are created and added to videos by content creators, not TikTok. Millions of people in regions such as the Middle East and South East Asia account for a significant proportion of views on hashtags. Therefore, there’s more content with #freepalestine and #standwithpalestine and more overall views. It is easy to cherry pick hashtags to support a false narrative about the platform.
TikTok could be completely totally bold-faced evil and this study still wouldn't be good evidence of it.
IIRC, they did not even bother to align the dates when comparing hashtags, i.e. this includes many instagram posts from before TikTok existed.
[deleted]
Fundamentally, users should not use closed propertiary blackbox communication platforms I guess. But that is not the critique.
The report is quite bad. There is no sensitivity analysis at all. Their methodology does not track bias but user base. I would discard it as a lobbyist hit piece.
The report is quite bad. There is no sensitivity analysis at all. Their methodology does not track bias but user base. I would discard it as a lobbyist hit piece.
Another way of going about it would be to require transparent algorithms.
Any mass media platform could be problematic regardless of who owns it.
Any mass media platform could be problematic regardless of who owns it.
Policy makers have clearly spoken: If China wants US citizen data, they should buy it from data brokers like everyone else!
I'm glad this is the top comment. I see this misconception in every conversation about this issue.
Has this report been peer-reviewed or published in a reputable journal? Otherwise I would just dismiss it as more pro-regime propaganda from another American think tank.
Are you saying anything anti-china is pro-us-regime?
No, it doesn't look like they said that.
Or it shows US platforms like instagram is thoroughly infiltrated by US propaganda. Or antiPRC people aren't likely on TikTok in the first place. Or how US misinformation networks can't be weaponized on TikTok in the same way as western owned platforms staffed by US ex intelligence. Both in it's abillity to inject narrative or control narrative of others. For all we know, TikTok is the baseline of global sentimentality and Instagram is anomolie of US influence operations. Is TikTok aligned to PRC interests, or neutral but only seeingly aligned because TikTok is simply not specifically aligned to US interests like other US platforms. Ultimately it's the latter that's the problem for US ability to shape narrative.
Point blank - why not allow Facebook, Google, and WhatsApp operate in China without governmental interference?
If ByteDance can operate their platform in the US, then Meta and Alphabet should as well.
If ByteDance can operate their platform in the US, then Meta and Alphabet should as well.
Straight up - because domestic players operate with government interferance. Which comes with onerous moderation overheads and compliance costs. Why should western platforms have competitive advantage of... not?
Like this is simple as hell. Why should western platforms not follow onerous PRC compliance that PRC companies have to follow?
Bytedance operates with respect to US law. If US wants reciprical PRC arrangement, like US platforms operate in PRC, they can legislate to force Bytedance to have local proxy like Oracle, or divest. The former fell apart. TikTok move to silo US data out of PRC... but still accused of retaining access. As if Microsoft in PRC is completely siloed. Regardless, until then, Bytedance is going to abuse the full extent of US law, including 1st amendment challenges. Then it's on Bytedance to comply or withdrawl. They'll likely do the latter and PRC retaliation will be calibrated on whether TikTok is just gone from US or world via app store bans.
Like this is simple as hell. Why should western platforms not follow onerous PRC compliance that PRC companies have to follow?
Bytedance operates with respect to US law. If US wants reciprical PRC arrangement, like US platforms operate in PRC, they can legislate to force Bytedance to have local proxy like Oracle, or divest. The former fell apart. TikTok move to silo US data out of PRC... but still accused of retaining access. As if Microsoft in PRC is completely siloed. Regardless, until then, Bytedance is going to abuse the full extent of US law, including 1st amendment challenges. Then it's on Bytedance to comply or withdrawl. They'll likely do the latter and PRC retaliation will be calibrated on whether TikTok is just gone from US or world via app store bans.
Fair enough! Sorry for being a bit snippy - there have been some weird takes on both sides of this, so I have a bit of a short fuse.
> Microsoft in PRC is completely siloed
MS China (or at least Azure and all their Enterprise SaaS offerings) are a reskin around Tencent Cloud and Tencent's Enterprise SaaS offerings.
Most American Enterprise SaaS Vendors won't sell their product directly in China as Chinese IP Law around Software Patents is a bit unfriendly to foreign offerings.
It has lead to the development is a pretty cool domestic Enterprise SaaS market in China though, and has had a positive downstream impact such as with KubeAdmiral.
IMO, a western Open Core startup would have an easier time targeting the Chinese market as you can create two different enterprise SKUs - one for China and one for the rest - and not have to worry about IP Law hassles.
> Microsoft in PRC is completely siloed
MS China (or at least Azure and all their Enterprise SaaS offerings) are a reskin around Tencent Cloud and Tencent's Enterprise SaaS offerings.
Most American Enterprise SaaS Vendors won't sell their product directly in China as Chinese IP Law around Software Patents is a bit unfriendly to foreign offerings.
It has lead to the development is a pretty cool domestic Enterprise SaaS market in China though, and has had a positive downstream impact such as with KubeAdmiral.
IMO, a western Open Core startup would have an easier time targeting the Chinese market as you can create two different enterprise SKUs - one for China and one for the rest - and not have to worry about IP Law hassles.
It's honestly incredibly lucky for us that the Chinese propagandists couldn't resist pulling the bias trigger over issues that don't really matter. Talk about keeping your powder dry.
They could easily have pretended TikTok was a neutral actor until they needed to sway US opinion over Taiwan (or something bigger). Instead they made the control obvious on a dozen issues and are going to get cut off way earlier.
They could easily have pretended TikTok was a neutral actor until they needed to sway US opinion over Taiwan (or something bigger). Instead they made the control obvious on a dozen issues and are going to get cut off way earlier.
Having travelled across Asia, TikTok has definetly played a major role in helping build Chinese soft power.
Vietnam for example is fairly anti-China due to memories of the Sino-Vietnamese War, the PRC's support of the Khmer Rouge (edit: spelling), and the South China Sea dispute, but in my experience views among the younger generation have started to trend towards a Chinese view of the world because of TikTok.
South Korea and Japan still have massive soft power in the region, yet products like TikTok are definetly undermining it.
Vietnam for example is fairly anti-China due to memories of the Sino-Vietnamese War, the PRC's support of the Khmer Rouge (edit: spelling), and the South China Sea dispute, but in my experience views among the younger generation have started to trend towards a Chinese view of the world because of TikTok.
South Korea and Japan still have massive soft power in the region, yet products like TikTok are definetly undermining it.
It's also been a huge part of why Gen Z skews extremely anti-Israel, IMO. There is a _massive_ anecdotal gap between TikTok users and people of the same age who avoid it in my experience.
(not to say that criticism of Israel's handling of the war isn't valid, of course)
(not to say that criticism of Israel's handling of the war isn't valid, of course)
Do you think that Hamas (or supporting countries) has successfully been using psyops/propoganda?
Anti-Israel skew is not being driven by government interests. Well, except for multiple hamfisted footguns by Israel (where their influence has backfired causing harm to Israel).
Anti-Israel skew is not being driven by government interests. Well, except for multiple hamfisted footguns by Israel (where their influence has backfired causing harm to Israel).
I think it's other actors (China, Russia) who are driving discord in the rest of the world, including stoking the fires in the middle east.
For once I disagree with the EFF. This is a national sovereignty issue masquerading as a freedom issue.
As a European that has been dealing with what US social media companies have been doing, I am enjoying how the US is loosing their absolute mind when an external company does the same they do to us.
As a Mexican, I find this actions from the US to try to maintain the "Pax Americana" Imperialism quite interesting. People in US centric forums like HN, Reddit, Slashdot, etc just cannot understand or see it, and it's OK; it is their country and their ideals. They are allowed to unequivocally take their country side.
But for uninterested 3rd parties, it's quite entertaining the bitchslap games that China and the US play with these sort of policies (Google ban, tiktok ban, etc).
But for uninterested 3rd parties, it's quite entertaining the bitchslap games that China and the US play with these sort of policies (Google ban, tiktok ban, etc).
[deleted]
[deleted]
I suspect the issue is much more petty than some grand ideological drive. Very recently Biden made a TikTok account and his team tried their best to create some sort of platform appropriate undoubtedly focus tested messaging. It went about as well as anybody would expect. [1] Now a few weeks later, the platform's getting banned.
We sure do always come up with great and grand sounding reasons for everything though, at least to an American ear. It's only once your cynicism hits ridiculous levels that everything starts to suddenly make so much more sense.
[1] - https://www.wired.com/story/joe-biden-tiktok-campaign-commen...
We sure do always come up with great and grand sounding reasons for everything though, at least to an American ear. It's only once your cynicism hits ridiculous levels that everything starts to suddenly make so much more sense.
[1] - https://www.wired.com/story/joe-biden-tiktok-campaign-commen...
The difference is that if a European social media company wanted to operate in the US, it's welcome to. With China it's a different story - they can operate in our market but we can't operate in theirs.
You absolutely can operate in the Chinese market. There are Chinese regulations, and companies like Meta are unwilling to abide by them because the data they're harvesting is the only product.
Can you clarify what it is that the US social media companies are doing to Europe?
For example are you saying that they are showing content to European youth to sow discord or something like that, or are you only talking about the data collection/mining?
For example are you saying that they are showing content to European youth to sow discord or something like that, or are you only talking about the data collection/mining?
The exact same thing the US is worried about with tiktok.
Data collection and the ability for the government to gain access to this data without a warent.
Also lack of transparency regarding the algorithms which are built to cause maximum reaction / interaction which leads to radicalism.
Facebook was famously implicated in the genocide against the Rohingya ethnic minority in Myanmar.
Data collection and the ability for the government to gain access to this data without a warent.
Also lack of transparency regarding the algorithms which are built to cause maximum reaction / interaction which leads to radicalism.
Facebook was famously implicated in the genocide against the Rohingya ethnic minority in Myanmar.
If TikTok were a Canadian, British, French, German, Korean, Japanese, or Taiwanese company, the US government wouldn't have intervened in the first place.
>does the same they do to us
So you're saying that the US ought to be on your country's equivalent of the US government's "foreign adversaries" list <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_adversar...>, which includes China, that the proposed bill specifically targets? That's fine. I guess you won't have any objections to the US leaving NATO since you wouldn't want your country/continent to be in a military alliance with such a country.
>does the same they do to us
So you're saying that the US ought to be on your country's equivalent of the US government's "foreign adversaries" list <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_adversar...>, which includes China, that the proposed bill specifically targets? That's fine. I guess you won't have any objections to the US leaving NATO since you wouldn't want your country/continent to be in a military alliance with such a country.
Feel free to start your own platform.
VK has been the primary platform in the CIS for over a decade now at this point.
And even Signal was started in the US.
VK has been the primary platform in the CIS for over a decade now at this point.
And even Signal was started in the US.
Perhaps the EU might consider defending the sovereignty of its constituent states? That might even put a dent in Euroskepticism.
I will never understand your particular brand of whataboutism.
I will never understand your particular brand of whataboutism.
The people calling out "whataboutism" are the same people that constantly complain about other people's shit stinking when their own shit stinks just as bad.
In what way does TikTok operating challenge U.S. sovereignty? This is 2003 all over again.
Just try imagining how, if you were the Chinese government, you might use Tik-Tok to influence and undermine American support for militarily defending Taiwan. This isn't hard it's obviously a powerful tool. Just how powerful remains to be seen.
I agree that the US has maybe a short-term self-interest in banning TikTok if the Chinese started to do this. But it violates the first amendment and the rights of US citizens to access speech from the rest of the world. That is very bad in the long run. The US didn't ban Mein Kampf during World War II.
In fact, I think the biggest threat to the US is the suspension of the first amendment because of the age old boogeyman of national security. Propaganda has always existed. The way to respond to bad speech is more speech. Banning it makes it forbidden and thus captivating, don't you know about the Streisand Effect?
If the transmission of media is a threat to national sovereignty, if the fate of the country can be undermined with memes, then we have already lost. The US should disconnect itself from the global internet.
In fact, I think the biggest threat to the US is the suspension of the first amendment because of the age old boogeyman of national security. Propaganda has always existed. The way to respond to bad speech is more speech. Banning it makes it forbidden and thus captivating, don't you know about the Streisand Effect?
If the transmission of media is a threat to national sovereignty, if the fate of the country can be undermined with memes, then we have already lost. The US should disconnect itself from the global internet.
I can't see why depriving a foreign corporation of access to the US market is a free speech issue.
Using a freedom of information argument for Americans is a stronger position, but that isn't guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
This is going further than I want to go from a civil rights perspective, but there is at least some precedent. Corporate sanctions and bans have been used very effectively, as Huawei experienced not so long ago.
Using a freedom of information argument for Americans is a stronger position, but that isn't guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
This is going further than I want to go from a civil rights perspective, but there is at least some precedent. Corporate sanctions and bans have been used very effectively, as Huawei experienced not so long ago.
I'm not a fan of corporate personhood, but so long as it remains a thing - it's relevant. Corporations have the same rights as individuals in the US. And any entity legally within the country, foreign or native, has 1st Amendment protections. And this company is clearly being targeted by the government for what they are saying, promoting, or allowing to be said - all of which would fall under 1st Amendment protections. If this passes, there's a real chance this will end up being yet another 9-0 'no this obviously is not constitutional you clowns' ruling in the Supreme Court.
I just don't think the government should be in the business of deciding on behalf of its citizens what media sources they are allowed to read. On that path lies danger.
The US had a censorship operation in WW2, the Nazis or the Empire of Japan didn't get to operate radio stations in the US during the war, and in the cold war the USSR didn't get TV and radio stations in the US either.
In what conflict was giving an adversary a full attack surface for propanda etc. deemed the right approach?
In what conflict was giving an adversary a full attack surface for propanda etc. deemed the right approach?
This is like the government telling Radio Shack and RCA that all shortwave radios sold must be programmed to tune out the frequencies of Japanese or USSR stations. Or that it is illegal to tune a shortwave radio to a Japanese station.
The US had more a massive propaganda effort of their own during WWII, but yes we literally rounded up every person of Japanese descent and put them in camps, which should never happen again. Yes, there was a lot of really terrible censorship later in the Cold War like McCarthyism, which is the danger I am worried about. The public became so xenophobic that you could kill an actor's career in Hollywood by telling an agent that they had a copy of The Communist Manifesto. Simply having copies of books written by authors from the wrong country automatically made you "unamerican" and a traitor.
This is the path I fear we are going down again. The government is saying it knows best about what media we cannot be trusted to consume.
The US had more a massive propaganda effort of their own during WWII, but yes we literally rounded up every person of Japanese descent and put them in camps, which should never happen again. Yes, there was a lot of really terrible censorship later in the Cold War like McCarthyism, which is the danger I am worried about. The public became so xenophobic that you could kill an actor's career in Hollywood by telling an agent that they had a copy of The Communist Manifesto. Simply having copies of books written by authors from the wrong country automatically made you "unamerican" and a traitor.
This is the path I fear we are going down again. The government is saying it knows best about what media we cannot be trusted to consume.
The same way Radio y Televisión Martí challenges Cuban sovereignty which is why the Cubans jam the transmissions.
edit: Decedent western rock and roll also challenged the ideological purity of the Soviet Union so record imports were banned for a very long time.
edit: Decedent western rock and roll also challenged the ideological purity of the Soviet Union so record imports were banned for a very long time.
It's an information distribution platform with direct ties to the Chinese government lol.
In principle I agree with you, in practice it seems the only reason TikTok legislation is passing the House is because Israel thinks everyone on TikTok hates them (reality - most people in the US disagree with genocide).
TikTok's change in ownership has been discussed for years.
The current action occured when TikTok pushed users to call Congressional Members through anti-patterns within the app [0]
Not everything is about Israel-Palestine smh.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
The current action occured when TikTok pushed users to call Congressional Members through anti-patterns within the app [0]
Not everything is about Israel-Palestine smh.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
The TikTok ban issue dates back to at least 2020.
I vividly recall because I owned a ton of Fastly stock which cratered when the former administration was trying to ban TikTok, leading ByteDance to move away from Fastly as their CDN.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bytedance-pulls-most-tiktok-t...
I vividly recall because I owned a ton of Fastly stock which cratered when the former administration was trying to ban TikTok, leading ByteDance to move away from Fastly as their CDN.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bytedance-pulls-most-tiktok-t...
Yep.
There are a lot of low effort commenters on HN now. If you take a look at most of the commenters talking about Israel or Palestine on this thread, their creation date appears to be around 2020-2022.
There are a lot of low effort commenters on HN now. If you take a look at most of the commenters talking about Israel or Palestine on this thread, their creation date appears to be around 2020-2022.
unfortunately this particular commenter seems to have joined in 2011. not saying you're wrong about low effort commenters.
>reality - most people in the US disagree with genocide
I'd like to see some sources for a majority of Americans even agreeing that it's a genocide in the first place.
I'd like to see some sources for a majority of Americans even agreeing that it's a genocide in the first place.
To be fair, most of the world (and not only most of Americans) want both sides to lose. Israel is just an invader nation that used power and money to take ownership of land that belonged to another group of people, less than 80 years ago. And now, 3 generations later, the former owners of this land have so much anger and resentment towards the acts of violence and tyranny they suffered on the hands of those invaders, that they themselves became a group of despicable psychopaths. Gen Z simply has new avenues to get informed and to form their own opinion than the legacy media of the 20th century, and now it's hard to impose a narrative that dismisses how much blame does Israel deserves on this subject.
You might be right, but...
If TikTok is a national sovereignty issue for the US, should a lot of other countries similarly be banning US tech companies?
(Since even GDPR only scratches the surface of the power they're handing over.)
If TikTok is a national sovereignty issue for the US, should a lot of other countries similarly be banning US tech companies?
(Since even GDPR only scratches the surface of the power they're handing over.)
> should a lot of other countries similarly be banning US tech companies
China already does for reasons similar to those that are in this bill.
China already does for reasons similar to those that are in this bill.
Yes, if those countries believe US companies are using their platforms as a weapon against them or pose some other national threat.
Western countries are too dependent of the US and it is politically easier to ban China. As a result, the best approach would be set equal restrictions for data collection and privacy, including clear rules how algorithms can behave (or maybe drop them totally), to combat promoting specific content or censoring specific content.
Good philosophy in theory, but it seems you would need the equivalent of United Nations to have some sort of globally enforced policies like that.
Maybe technology is getting to a point where that needs to happen.
Maybe technology is getting to a point where that needs to happen.
Sure if they want to. And then they have trade issues with the US, which is what that becomes: an economic conflict (which can easily become a military conflict).
The US economy is drastically larger than the EU economy at this point (soon to be double the size), we control the global reserve currency, and provide a very large military shield across the EU (currently keeping Russia from attacking numerous smaller European nations). The US can do a lot more damage to Europe than the other way around, if it's conflict that Europe seeks with the US (whether economic or military). The same is true with US allies in Asia (particularly Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia).
All the US has to do is look the other way and Russia and China will get to work destroying the status quo, which includes ripping apart Europe and Asia. The US can feed Asia to China anytime it wants to, that includes Australia + New Zealand; it obviously doesn't want to do that. I think US allies want to keep the US an ally for all the right reasons, both economically and militarily.
The US economy is drastically larger than the EU economy at this point (soon to be double the size), we control the global reserve currency, and provide a very large military shield across the EU (currently keeping Russia from attacking numerous smaller European nations). The US can do a lot more damage to Europe than the other way around, if it's conflict that Europe seeks with the US (whether economic or military). The same is true with US allies in Asia (particularly Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia).
All the US has to do is look the other way and Russia and China will get to work destroying the status quo, which includes ripping apart Europe and Asia. The US can feed Asia to China anytime it wants to, that includes Australia + New Zealand; it obviously doesn't want to do that. I think US allies want to keep the US an ally for all the right reasons, both economically and militarily.
That kind of thinking is a good way to ensure that the US will lose influence globally as it assumes a weird lack of agency in others in the face of threats by what used to be an ally.
> If TikTok is a national sovereignty issue for the US, should a lot of other countries similarly be banning US tech companies?
Not only should they, but they do.
Not only should they, but they do.
The US government generally doesn’t hold a stake in US tech companies, nor direct influence over how they operate abroad.
US intelligence greatly benefits from the US tech companies, because they are required by law to provide the information if asked, and they can't even tell about this in certain situations.
As a result, it is more beneficial to ban specific applications and allow US companies collect as much data as possible.
Rules for thee but not for me.
As a result, it is more beneficial to ban specific applications and allow US companies collect as much data as possible.
Rules for thee but not for me.
> If TikTok is a national sovereignty issue for the US, should a lot of other countries similarly be banning US tech companies?
NATO, Five Eyes, and close allies like Japan need not bother. Russia, China, Iran, and a few others should, and mostly do.
I thought TikTok’s CEO did a great job in the hearing defending themselves, but ByteDance ultimately owns them. We compel companies to provide data silently through court orders all the time in the U.S. and to think China isn’t capable of accessing whatever data they want, at any time, assumes major incompetence of their intelligence services.
I think it comes down to this line of thought.
China can, so they will, because when we can, we do. China no doubt knows many of our non-public exploits, as we do of theirs.
In a real way, this forced sale is a sign of respect.
NATO, Five Eyes, and close allies like Japan need not bother. Russia, China, Iran, and a few others should, and mostly do.
I thought TikTok’s CEO did a great job in the hearing defending themselves, but ByteDance ultimately owns them. We compel companies to provide data silently through court orders all the time in the U.S. and to think China isn’t capable of accessing whatever data they want, at any time, assumes major incompetence of their intelligence services.
I think it comes down to this line of thought.
China can, so they will, because when we can, we do. China no doubt knows many of our non-public exploits, as we do of theirs.
In a real way, this forced sale is a sign of respect.
> should a lot of other countries similarly be banning US tech companies
Sure, if there's evidence of the US exerting its influence over the content in a way that's harmful to the country.
Sure, if there's evidence of the US exerting its influence over the content in a way that's harmful to the country.
We are already trying to ban Google Analytics in EU.
Neither you nor the government have any right to tell me what media to consume, and through which medium.
DO ban TikTok (and by “ban” we evidently mean “force a change in ownership of”). China imposes ownership restrictions when our companies do business there. We should do the same.
ALSO please do outlaw private dragnet spying no matter which company is doing it, yes.
ALSO please do outlaw private dragnet spying no matter which company is doing it, yes.
Never happen. ALSO please do outlaw private dragnet spying no matter which company is doing it, yes.
Intelligence and National Security sectors benefit way too much from it.
Intelligence and National Security sectors benefit way too much from it.
Hey, take it up with the EFF. I just think we should go ahead and do the other, separately-good and basically unrelated thing in the meantime.
I've never understood why, at a minimum, this is not a simple trade issue. Why is China allowed to run all their social media apps in the West whilst simultaneously blocking all access for foreigners in their own market?
In what other trade scenario would this be remotely acceptable?
In what other trade scenario would this be remotely acceptable?
Id consider that they're a US nexus since they accept American dollars, therefore the US constitution should apply.
Unless they've committed some crime, the property ownership should be protected
Unless they've committed some crime, the property ownership should be protected
I think technically you could probably have a western social media app in China. Just you would need to partner with a Chinese company, have all the data on chinese servers, give the chinese government access on demand and censor what they don't like. Most western companies logically think that handing over your IP, all the control and half the local profits is not really worth it.
Zuckerberg had big push in 2015s to reenter PRC, Google had Dragonfly, but IIRC they were killed internally because employees protested at least for Google. Bing's still in China. PRC fine with western platforms, as long as they censor like domestic PRC platforms and hand over dissident info, where dissident is whoever PRC says it is. Morally it's complicateded, economically it's probably not that profitable in long run, but regulatorily, it's straight forward. If anything PRC would love to have that leverage and try to get western platforms to extend censorship to PRC dissidents abroad.
> If anything PRC would love to have that leverage and try to get western platforms to extend censorship to PRC dissidents abroad.
Reminds me of that episode with activision/blizzard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy
In this case its the fear of losing business with China that is pushing the platform to apply standards to people who are not Chinese citizen.
Reminds me of that episode with activision/blizzard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy
In this case its the fear of losing business with China that is pushing the platform to apply standards to people who are not Chinese citizen.
Bingo, media is really one of those sectors where PRC has assymetric advantage in exploiting western corporations vs western corp in PRC will never get PRC media filtering to budge. Hence TikTok ban/divestment is really about just pushing TikTok out of US/or world with app ban, there's too much risk to a mediated outcome where PRC can still exert assymetric influence.
> Bingo, media is really one of those sectors where PRC has assymetric advantage in exploiting western corporations vs western corp in PRC will never get PRC media filtering to budge
They really do. The idea was that by doing business with them they would shift away from authoritarianism. If you look at the last years it is clear that exactly the reverse has happened. Companies are mainly profit driven and not by morals. They will happily compromise on their morals in the name of profit. In contrast the PRC will happily compromise on profits to keep control.
They really do. The idea was that by doing business with them they would shift away from authoritarianism. If you look at the last years it is clear that exactly the reverse has happened. Companies are mainly profit driven and not by morals. They will happily compromise on their morals in the name of profit. In contrast the PRC will happily compromise on profits to keep control.
Ergo, it's fine for the US to force ByteDance to divest from TikTok if they do not follow American laws.
Obviously, when did I suggest otherwise? The only difference is TikTok has more lawfare room due to 1st amendment shenanigans. Otherwise they'll be forced withdraw, no way PRC going to normalize US forcing PRC origin companies from divesting due to US pressure. The only other consideration is weighing benefits of banning TikTok vs cons for such behaviour spreading to other global jursidiction in the future against US platforms/interests.
It wouldn't be half the local profits, it would be the whole thing in the end.
They start with the scenario you mention, then they push the weakened foreign entity out of China entirely. They did that to numerous, huge US brands/companies, including McDonalds and AWS. They make it inhospitable to continue to exist at all in China, then a ditch sale becomes the only viable option for the US company.
They start with the scenario you mention, then they push the weakened foreign entity out of China entirely. They did that to numerous, huge US brands/companies, including McDonalds and AWS. They make it inhospitable to continue to exist at all in China, then a ditch sale becomes the only viable option for the US company.
McDonalds? They seem to invest. They are terrible though compared to the US variants and really expensive compared to real food in restaurants localy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-continues-china-ex...
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-continues-china-ex...
A case where "technically" doesn't align with "realistically".
Some companies do like Microsoft Bing as mentioned by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39695746.
I think Valve still has a version of steam: https://www.engadget.com/steam-china-launch-133119511.html?g...
Activision/blizzard used to have a partnership with netease to release overwatch in China.
It is technically and realistically possible as companies do it all the time.
I think Valve still has a version of steam: https://www.engadget.com/steam-china-launch-133119511.html?g...
Activision/blizzard used to have a partnership with netease to release overwatch in China.
It is technically and realistically possible as companies do it all the time.
These are obviously enormously restrictive conditions and effectively no different (worse?) than a tariff. Under normal conditions (not now, but way back when when govts used to act in the national interest) tariffs would always be reciprocated and a trade war would commence I think.
Very rare I disagree with EFF but here I do. It’s long overdue.
I didn't downvote you and I don't wish to cause offense, but unless you elaborate somewhat on why you disagree, this is a pretty low value comment.
Congress can do both.
I also disagree with EFF here.
I also disagree with EFF here.
I’m genuinely surprised by the EFF response, it feels misguided and they are conflating two separate issues
The EFF is correct and brings to light the hypocrisy of fighting companies rather than specific harmful activities, because making those activities illegal will have a very large blast radius and will destroy a lot of "value" in American companies that partake in those very profitable activities.
I see it on HN too, people hate on soft targets like Facebook, but their stock options/RSUs/portfolios depend on the respective companies (or sales funnels) depend on the same problematic behaviors. That's how we get "Google ads are evil, but Apple ads are fine. They do the same things, but Apple means well." TikTok is the softest of targets as it's not even American.
I see it on HN too, people hate on soft targets like Facebook, but their stock options/RSUs/portfolios depend on the respective companies (or sales funnels) depend on the same problematic behaviors. That's how we get "Google ads are evil, but Apple ads are fine. They do the same things, but Apple means well." TikTok is the softest of targets as it's not even American.
Are you saying that data should not be protected? Separate issue might be the content manipulation and censorship on TikTok, but "privacy issue" is the biggest argument so far publicly. If you are going to the privacy and data leak argument, then you should apply that for every application out there.
It's amusing how some Americans are buying into the idea that TikTok is a unique threat solely because it's associated with China, when platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others have been doing similar practices for over a decade.
I agree with the EFF. I have even less confidence in US companies/agencies handling my data based on their well-known history exposed by multiple whistleblowers. We need to follow the EU in this matter. They are miles ahead of us
I think this is not a binary issues. We can both ban TikTok and protect privacy in general at the same time.
TikTok is heavily a trade matter with regards to China blockading (or heavily restricting) US companies out of having access to their economy. That spans from Facebook to McDonalds to AWS to Disney (Disney isn't even allowed to outright own its parks in China).
The US has been far too lenient in the past with responding to China's hyper biased, anti-trade policies. If US social media companies can't operate in China, then Chinese social media companies shouldn't be allowed to have access to the US economy.
The US has been far too lenient in the past with responding to China's hyper biased, anti-trade policies. If US social media companies can't operate in China, then Chinese social media companies shouldn't be allowed to have access to the US economy.
So, I feel like we already have a mechanism as a country for working with a different country who is producing something that might be harmful to American business or politics, one that doesn't functionally impact our free speech principles. A tariff.
Just tax TikTok. Make Americans pay money to subscribe to it. Apply the same principle to any other social media entity based in another country. It's that easy.
Just tax TikTok. Make Americans pay money to subscribe to it. Apply the same principle to any other social media entity based in another country. It's that easy.
This is misguided and naive. The real world analogy is closer to Huawei 5G systems -- thinking about it in that context, the reasoning behind the ban makes more sense.
This isn't a "capitalism based harm" that tariffs are intended to fix, this is a "national security based harm" that's being targeted. You can debate the merits of whether or not TikTok is a threat to national security, but under the supposition that it is, tariffs are not the correct lever to pull.
So, it's not "that easy". I like the smugness though.
This isn't a "capitalism based harm" that tariffs are intended to fix, this is a "national security based harm" that's being targeted. You can debate the merits of whether or not TikTok is a threat to national security, but under the supposition that it is, tariffs are not the correct lever to pull.
So, it's not "that easy". I like the smugness though.
I'd be with you if there were any indication why TikTok specifically would be banned while other Chinese social media entities or those from other countries that might be deemed national security threats are not - apart from sheer popularity, which would likely be resolved by said tariff.
The US did not merely ban Huawei, it was part of a broader national security concern, where ZTE was also banned as part of the equation, and conceivably other major Chinese telecommunications firms with a strong enough foothold in the US would have been (or will be in the future) as well. Not to mention, use of TikTok is entirely an individual choice, a telephone network user does not choose (or have knowledge of) the origin of the devices their communications are transmitted through.
The US did not merely ban Huawei, it was part of a broader national security concern, where ZTE was also banned as part of the equation, and conceivably other major Chinese telecommunications firms with a strong enough foothold in the US would have been (or will be in the future) as well. Not to mention, use of TikTok is entirely an individual choice, a telephone network user does not choose (or have knowledge of) the origin of the devices their communications are transmitted through.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is playing a part in this. Israel has had a hard time controlling the narrative on Tiktok as organic support has stemmed from videos from Gaza. Especially amoung teens.
Israel has even gone to lengths to purchase advertisement slots on major platforms showing high budget propaganada. Once it's under US ownership they wll no longer have this issue.
Israel has even gone to lengths to purchase advertisement slots on major platforms showing high budget propaganada. Once it's under US ownership they wll no longer have this issue.
The current action occured when TikTok pushed users to call Congressional Members through anti-patterns within the app [0]
Not everything is about Israel-Palestine smh.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
Not everything is about Israel-Palestine smh.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
This seems like confused causality. The ban bill was put forward and passed because TikTok asked their users to contact their representatives and share their opinion about the ban bill?
To that point: Congressional staffers were posting on twitter that they were getting flooded by phone calls from 10-12 year olds
Banning TikTok is the kind of performative, 'tinker-at-the-edges' theatre that Congress does so well.
[deleted]
Ideas for why someone flagged this submission. We are left to guess.
EFF seems to be invoking "either-or" argument to deflect attention away from their failire to present any facts to support their position that a ban would be unconstitutional. A ban on TikTok and passage of data privacy regulation within the US are not mutually exclusive. It is not an "either-or" proposition.
The bipartisan response to this bill, 352 yea and only 65 nay, seems quite unusual in recent times.
EFF seems to be invoking "either-or" argument to deflect attention away from their failire to present any facts to support their position that a ban would be unconstitutional. A ban on TikTok and passage of data privacy regulation within the US are not mutually exclusive. It is not an "either-or" proposition.
The bipartisan response to this bill, 352 yea and only 65 nay, seems quite unusual in recent times.
Once more, with feeling: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/11/once-more-with-feeling-b...
Let's pass a strong privacy law instead of the likely unconsitutionality of this bill plus a ban only benefits Facebook/Meta if you have forgotten.
Let's pass a strong privacy law instead of the likely unconsitutionality of this bill plus a ban only benefits Facebook/Meta if you have forgotten.
[deleted]
Policy makers have clearly spoken: If China wants US citizen data, they should buy it from data brokers like everyone else!
Did somebody in Washington finally get around to reading Unrestricted Warfare?[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare
Is TikTok available in China uncensored?
Maybe they’re smarter?
Maybe they’re smarter?
Only if you fancy being censored yourself.
How about both EFF
And potentially solidify Facebook/Meta's monopoly on social media in the process? Plus not to mention that Meta is lobbying very hard for a ban so people can switch to Reels.
You surely don't want that do you?
The US needs to pass a strong privacy bill instead of this unconsititional crap.
You surely don't want that do you?
The US needs to pass a strong privacy bill instead of this unconsititional crap.
This completely ignores propaganda concerns. Having a prominent media platform under the control of a hostile government is a serious threat. If Nazi Germany or the USSR had gotten control of a large media conglomerate you'd expect a reaction.
Divesting Tiktok from China isn't a ban, and it's disingenuous to frame it as such while also ignoring the major problem with such control.
Divesting Tiktok from China isn't a ban, and it's disingenuous to frame it as such while also ignoring the major problem with such control.
Having a prominent media platform under the control of a hostile government is a serious threat.
Then China was right to ban Google, Facebook, and Reddit? This seems like a war where no one wins. Why not simply ensure platforms are open, neutral, and fair for everyone? (e.g. not reddit)
Then China was right to ban Google, Facebook, and Reddit? This seems like a war where no one wins. Why not simply ensure platforms are open, neutral, and fair for everyone? (e.g. not reddit)
I think there is an asymmetry here. The CCP has much greater control over TikTok than The US Federal govt. has over Google, Facebook, and Reddit. American tech giants regularly fight against the US govt. and sometimes win. AFAIK, this happens less in CCP controlled China.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_Stat...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_Stat...
> Then China was right to ban Google, Facebook, and Reddit?
From a strictly pragmatic, real-politik point of view, yes.
From my personal point of view, it would be preferable if the US and China were on friendlier terms and were not military and economic adversaries, so that this wasn't a concern.
The US isn't going to care if a French or German or UK company owned a social media company here.
From a strictly pragmatic, real-politik point of view, yes.
From my personal point of view, it would be preferable if the US and China were on friendlier terms and were not military and economic adversaries, so that this wasn't a concern.
The US isn't going to care if a French or German or UK company owned a social media company here.
Clearly in China's case they were.
If China could use protective tariffs against American firms and undercut American production, there's no reason to keep playing a morally pure yet essentially meaningless stance.
If China could use protective tariffs against American firms and undercut American production, there's no reason to keep playing a morally pure yet essentially meaningless stance.
This. US is readying to defend Taiwan. Government is obviously going to make sure no significant channels exist to go around its own propaganda.
Especially if the channel has ties to China.
Especially if the channel has ties to China.
[deleted]
Don't try to make it a "both sides" issue. It's not.
Don't try to reduce a complex issue to a thought stopping cliche.
(I should obviously take my own advice and add something more substantial to this comment, but the idea that are multiple sides in an war, with different goals, tactics, and with different stakes, is so trivial and self-evident that I'm feeling very silly commenting on it)
(I should obviously take my own advice and add something more substantial to this comment, but the idea that are multiple sides in an war, with different goals, tactics, and with different stakes, is so trivial and self-evident that I'm feeling very silly commenting on it)
I am not. But it's still something any reasonable state would do when facing the possibility of war.
Nazi content or serious threats will be used to control legitimate content.
Israel's recent genocide was documented largely through Tiktok with the help of the algorithm.
I can imagine this annoyed Israel quite some and the US, I envisage the algorithm being altered to stop this if the it comes under US control, like has been done on Instagram and Facebook.
Alot of footage would not have made it out if it wasn't for Tiktok.
Israel's recent genocide was documented largely through Tiktok with the help of the algorithm.
I can imagine this annoyed Israel quite some and the US, I envisage the algorithm being altered to stop this if the it comes under US control, like has been done on Instagram and Facebook.
Alot of footage would not have made it out if it wasn't for Tiktok.
[deleted]
The title is inaccurate. This is not a ban on TikTok, it is legislation requiring TikTok to be sold, so that is not owned by the Chinese communist government. This has been discussed several times before here, yet people still think it's a ban. That's wrong.
it is a defacto attempt to ban it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
If ByteDance calls Washingtons bluff --which they very likely will-- it sets the stage for a first amendment case at the supreme court as per Citizens United in 2010, corporate personhood is very much a thing in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
If ByteDance calls Washingtons bluff --which they very likely will-- it sets the stage for a first amendment case at the supreme court as per Citizens United in 2010, corporate personhood is very much a thing in the US.
They will call Washington's bluff because the Chinese Government will tell them to do so. It will not be out of a sense of protecting free speech or desire for the public good - quite the opposite. People seem to forget how Jack Ma virtually disappeared when he bucked the party's orders. Almost half of their users are from of the US. Surely a decentralized version of TikTok can be made to replace them.
> It will not be out of a sense of protecting free speech or desire for the public good
Arguing out of principle for 'free speech' is often used to defend literal Nazis even. Why couldn't they use it? Especially when corporations are people there.
Arguing out of principle for 'free speech' is often used to defend literal Nazis even. Why couldn't they use it? Especially when corporations are people there.
I agree - It is simply my opinion that regardless of the stated public stance the underlying reasons for whatever decision they make will be dictated by the Chinese Government.
There is a scene from "Cool Hand Luke" where the Warden instructs Luke "You gonna get your mind right." I think Jack Ma got his mind right. Navalny never quite got his mind right.
There is a scene from "Cool Hand Luke" where the Warden instructs Luke "You gonna get your mind right." I think Jack Ma got his mind right. Navalny never quite got his mind right.
No, it's an attempt to force them to sell it. The us government has zero motivation to ban any social media site.
I doubt that this will go in ByteDance's favor. This is actually an extremely serious national security issue.
Given that TikTok acquired Musical.ly, they fall under the purview of CFIUS, an executive branch agency. This legislation is welcome, but not actually necessary since there's already a Constitutionally-tested process for banning foreign companies. If the executive and legislative are in agreement... well, TikTok is not going to be able to ignore that.
Foreigners enjoy 1A protections _inside_ the US, but foreign-owned companies are not always entitled to the same protections for exactly these national security reasons.
Given that TikTok acquired Musical.ly, they fall under the purview of CFIUS, an executive branch agency. This legislation is welcome, but not actually necessary since there's already a Constitutionally-tested process for banning foreign companies. If the executive and legislative are in agreement... well, TikTok is not going to be able to ignore that.
Foreigners enjoy 1A protections _inside_ the US, but foreign-owned companies are not always entitled to the same protections for exactly these national security reasons.
> This is actually an extremely serious national security issue.
Can anyone pleaese inform me as to how this is actually a national security issue?
Americans voluntarily install and consume TikTok content. The government can prohibit this software from government-owned devices, just like any employer could, but to disallow it from the public is bonkers.
If the app gets removed from app stores, what will prevent people from side-loading it to circumvent the ban? What happens to me personally if I set up a proxy so you can send and receive info from TikTok through my servers for some small monthly price? I can even publish an app.
Can anyone pleaese inform me as to how this is actually a national security issue?
Americans voluntarily install and consume TikTok content. The government can prohibit this software from government-owned devices, just like any employer could, but to disallow it from the public is bonkers.
If the app gets removed from app stores, what will prevent people from side-loading it to circumvent the ban? What happens to me personally if I set up a proxy so you can send and receive info from TikTok through my servers for some small monthly price? I can even publish an app.
the first amendment protects us citizens or those on us soil. The chinese government meets neither of those standards.
It is a defacto attempt to ban it insofar as everyone is defacto admitting that Tik Tok is an arm of the CCP.
I usually agree with the eff but not on this.
The whole point here is not about the data, regardless of spurious justifications.
The whole point here is not about the data, regardless of spurious justifications.
This is as bad as China banning YouTube. US fell to the level of China.
It would, if YouTube would be controlled by the US government to divide and polarize the Chinese population to fuel social unrest and political instability.
> if YouTube would be controlled by the US government to divide and polarize the Chinese population to fuel social unrest and political instability.
Not Youtube, but american government using whatever social media they have access do operations like these against other countries: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-launched-cia-covert-i...
Not Youtube, but american government using whatever social media they have access do operations like these against other countries: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-launched-cia-covert-i...
An accusation of such would have as much merit as the accusations that China is dictating the tone of conversation on TikTok.
You'd have to be incredibly naive to think China wouldn't use TikTok to influence American discourse.
What is the actual problem with this tho? The US has used Hollywood to influence worldwide discourse for generations.
But aren't they? If I'm not mistaken, in China TikTok tends to shows educational content to kids. Meanwhile, in the west we get girls in bikinis dancing to the latest horrible pop song, and/or political narratives that align with whatever the chinese governments wants or at least does not disapprove of. It's a fact, even down here in Brazil which is definitely not a world power you can see how the algo is biased.
It's an algorithm that shows people stuff they engage with.
While Chinese tiktok users are interested in educational content, Americans are not.
While Chinese tiktok users are interested in educational content, Americans are not.
It's a well know fact that the reason chinese TikTok is an educational app is because the chinese government told them to do it. Just like they stopped chinese gamers from gaming for more than X hours in the day. You either don't know what you are talking about or you are willfully ignoring the facts. If the average chinese teenage boy was left to the hands of an "unbiased" TikTok algo, I bet the farm he would be seeing K-Pop idols and chinese fit influencers all day. Same for the girls, teenagers everywhere (in the sense of the average teenager) can't resist the crack cocaine temptations of an unlimited algo.
See e.g. https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...
"The conclusions of our research are clear: Whether content is promoted or muted onTikTok appears to depend on whether it is aligned or opposed to the interests of the Chinese Government. As the summary data graph below illustrates, the percentages of TikTok posts out of Instagram posts are consistently range-bound for general political and pop-culture topics, but completely out-of-bounds for topics sensitive to the Chinese Government."
It's not even theoretical. This is happening now.