3 ms·

Yeah, not to defend Tik-Tok, China, or spyware in general, but it's ironic that nobody has a problem with Google, Facebook, and other American companies trackin

Yeah, not to defend Tik-Tok, China, or spyware in general, but it's ironic that nobody has a problem with Google, Facebook, and other American companies tracking everything people do, but when a Chinese company starts doing it, it's suddenly a big problem. But then again, TikTok probably doesn't answer their subpoenas...

fastball 6y ago
Yeah the difference is that if FB violates my rights, I have some recourse. Not so if its the CCP.
- everfree 6y ago
  What recourse do you mean, exactly?
  - tropdrop 6y ago
    One can successfully sue Facebook, etc. for violating privacy rights - https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/facebook-will-pay-550-million-to-settle-class-action-lawsuit-over-privacy-violations/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/facebook-will-pay-550-mill...
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      That's great for Illinois citizens. Federal legislators are bought off to prevent this from happening nationally.
    - jlarocco 6y ago
      Facebook had net income over $60 billion dollars in the 5 years that lawsuit was going on. At that rate they can continue violating people's rights indefinitely, so I really don't see the difference.
      - tropdrop 6y ago
        The question was only "what" recourse there was (and the answer - some), not whether said recourse fixed the issue entirely, nor even whether it is effective. The difference between "some" recourse and "no" recourse is not insignificant. It is exponentially harder to move the needle from "no recourse" to "some" than it is from "some" to "more."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
adventured 6y ago
There's nothing complicated or unusual about it. It's not ironic either. China is increasingly an adversary to the US. That context is going to get a lot worse this decade. TikTok is owned by a Chinese company and ultimately must (and will) answer to China. Facebook, Google, et al. are of course American companies. For a nation, whether Facebook concerns you as much as TikTok depends largely on which side you're on (or if you have a side at all). The world is going to be aggressively bifurcated, US-USSR style, going forward. There will be the liberal side and the China side. China's direction is fundamentally opposed to the major liberal nations, what they commonly believe in and how their systems operate. That conflict and incompatibility will get worse as China's behavior continues to get worse.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Unfortunately, the so-called "liberal side" is going for all the tools like censorship and banning, state interference in the corporate sector, and more that it berates the other side about, so there is no moral case here, just pure tribalism. Actually the "liberal side" invented all these tools but has had a vastly better propaganda machine and hides under the cover of due process and procedural justice that never seem to deliver actual justice to the people most in need of it. I'm glad the world is getting to see the naked body of the "liberal side" under Trump.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    Regardless (I both agree partially yet think you’re omitting major differences here), you still live somewhere. When states are adversaries, that means there are consequences to being involved with the other state.
jm4 6y ago
Google and Facebook implement tracking to serve ads. The risk with TikTok is the CCP tracks and builds profiles for the purpose of furthering communist goals. For example, they can serve up content that persuades users to be more sympathetic to communist ideals the same way Google can use AI to identify the types of ads you might respond to.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Please dispense with the naïveté. Serving ads is the ostensible commercial goal of Google and Facebook. That's not their only duty.
- jlarocco 6y ago
  First of all, that assumes serving ads is somehow better than spreading communist ideals. I'm skeptical, and I doubt there are convincing arguments for either side that don't rely on people's personal preferences. Second, you're ignoring that many US politicians and government agencies use web services like Twitter and Facebook to spread their own propaganda and control what people see. Unless somebody wants to argue that Donald Trump tweeting "POLITICAL WITCH HUNT"[1] isn't spreading propaganda, or that Facebook flagging political ads is somehow 100% completely unbiased. Obviously countries have some control over the media and propaganda and manipulation their citizens get to see, but lets not pretend ours is better just because it's ours. [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281260329247399936 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12812603292473999...
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Building profiles on people is not illegal and neither is espousing communist ideology. Hundreds of US based organizations do both.

fastball 6y ago

Yeah the difference is that if FB violates my rights, I have some recourse. Not so if its the CCP.

everfree 6y ago
What recourse do you mean, exactly?
- tropdrop 6y ago
  One can successfully sue Facebook, etc. for violating privacy rights - https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/facebook-will-pay-550-million-to-settle-class-action-lawsuit-over-privacy-violations/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/facebook-will-pay-550-mill...
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    That's great for Illinois citizens. Federal legislators are bought off to prevent this from happening nationally.
  - jlarocco 6y ago
    Facebook had net income over $60 billion dollars in the 5 years that lawsuit was going on. At that rate they can continue violating people's rights indefinitely, so I really don't see the difference.
    - tropdrop 6y ago
      The question was only "what" recourse there was (and the answer - some), not whether said recourse fixed the issue entirely, nor even whether it is effective. The difference between "some" recourse and "no" recourse is not insignificant. It is exponentially harder to move the needle from "no recourse" to "some" than it is from "some" to "more."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

adventured 6y ago

There's nothing complicated or unusual about it. It's not ironic either. China is increasingly an adversary to the US. That context is going to get a lot worse this decade. TikTok is owned by a Chinese company and ultimately must (and will) answer to China. Facebook, Google, et al. are of course American companies. For a nation, whether Facebook concerns you as much as TikTok depends largely on which side you're on (or if you have a side at all). The world is going to be aggressively bifurcated, US-USSR style, going forward. There will be the liberal side and the China side. China's direction is fundamentally opposed to the major liberal nations, what they commonly believe in and how their systems operate. That conflict and incompatibility will get worse as China's behavior continues to get worse.

pishpash 6y ago
Unfortunately, the so-called "liberal side" is going for all the tools like censorship and banning, state interference in the corporate sector, and more that it berates the other side about, so there is no moral case here, just pure tribalism. Actually the "liberal side" invented all these tools but has had a vastly better propaganda machine and hides under the cover of due process and procedural justice that never seem to deliver actual justice to the people most in need of it. I'm glad the world is getting to see the naked body of the "liberal side" under Trump.
- azinman2 6y ago
  Regardless (I both agree partially yet think you’re omitting major differences here), you still live somewhere. When states are adversaries, that means there are consequences to being involved with the other state.

jm4 6y ago

Google and Facebook implement tracking to serve ads. The risk with TikTok is the CCP tracks and builds profiles for the purpose of furthering communist goals. For example, they can serve up content that persuades users to be more sympathetic to communist ideals the same way Google can use AI to identify the types of ads you might respond to.

pishpash 6y ago
Please dispense with the naïveté. Serving ads is the ostensible commercial goal of Google and Facebook. That's not their only duty.
jlarocco 6y ago
First of all, that assumes serving ads is somehow better than spreading communist ideals. I'm skeptical, and I doubt there are convincing arguments for either side that don't rely on people's personal preferences. Second, you're ignoring that many US politicians and government agencies use web services like Twitter and Facebook to spread their own propaganda and control what people see. Unless somebody wants to argue that Donald Trump tweeting "POLITICAL WITCH HUNT"[1] isn't spreading propaganda, or that Facebook flagging political ads is somehow 100% completely unbiased. Obviously countries have some control over the media and propaganda and manipulation their citizens get to see, but lets not pretend ours is better just because it's ours. [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281260329247399936 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12812603292473999...
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Building profiles on people is not illegal and neither is espousing communist ideology. Hundreds of US based organizations do both.