8 ms·

Why are so many tech professionals pro the ban of TikTok when most can see the problem in the monopolies of Facebook and Google? To me TikTok and fair regulati

Why are so many tech professionals pro the ban of TikTok when most can see the problem in the monopolies of Facebook and Google? To me TikTok and fair regulation of how to handle user data the hammer that finally can crack the surveilance advertisement monopolies of Facebook and Google.

idrios 6y ago
Because the ban is an admission of the influence that a company with nothing but troves of data can have, and thus is a step towards actually addressing the issues of Facebook, Google and the like. But what we really need is a US version of GDPR
- dopamean 6y ago
  How's gdpr working out? Seriously, I'm in the US and have no idea what's going on with it.
  - et-al 6y ago
    Since GDPR came out, the two companies I worked at have been more cognisant about how we stored user data for EU customers (e.g. making more fields optional, giving user deletion options). And we also undertook a review of how we stored data for California customers for CCPA.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  You'll never get enough credit for that statement. It's exactly why there is a large pushback from the other data collection companies. Once the DOJ can set precedent on one "low hanging fruit", it can start tackling the rest. Sort of like when RICO was first proposed and used. It was a huge issue, but once legitimized in the courts, many organized crime families started to crumble. While org crime is still a problem as it adapted and evolved, they're arguably less influential on a national scale as they used to be pre-RICO. Faang doesn't want the same thing happen to them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rchaud 6y ago
  The Tiktok ban is predicated on national security concerns. I guarantee that whatever precedent that sets will be deemed to not apply to FB and Google. They are two of America's richest and most powerful companies, and politicians tend to let those 'self-regulate' so as not be accused of interfering with market forces. It also helps that they both hand over a good amount of data to the US Government.
jtdev 6y ago
Because TikTok is a software asset of a foreign adversary known to engage in covert activities and which is diametrically opposed ideologically with nearly everything the U.S. (however flawed) stands for. How is this so difficult for you to understand???
- trasz 6y ago
  This makes sense from the US standpoint, but not necessarily for people living in, say, EU.
- bfgoodrich 6y ago
  At this point, after four years of unprecedented corruption and ignorance-as-official-policy, it's extremely hard to see what the US "stands for". I'm saying that with all sincerity, and it is blatantly clear during the current banana-republic actions of the administration and its enablers that the US does not represent democracy. Find actual abuses by the application or its data and then there are credible arguments. Simply alluding to some notion of evil-by-association is a dangerous game for the US to play given PRISM, FISA warrants, etc. And let's be real -- you're typing on your made in China computer full of components made in China, your data traversing made in china routers and relays, etc. This never had anything to do with any imagined security risk, and had to do with the corrupt manchild targeting a platform for carrying content unfavorable to him. It is just another demonstration that the US doesn't "stand for" much [1]. [1] - The only saving grace right now is effectively the so called "Deep State". The career judges and civil servants who don't twist every norm and rule and precedent because of this corrupt tinpot dictator and his pathetic army of deplorables. They may not be enough, though.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    You seem to be implying that a nation has no right to make policy aimed at defending itself from foreign threats (perceived or material)... because the nation has had a buffoon for POTUS for the last 4 years...?? The number of logical fallacies that you've bundled up in that statement is impressive. Would you feel different if TikTok were software of Russian origin? I suspect you would.
beerandt 6y ago
Because government is the ultimate monopoly. If China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens (which legally is 100% a matter of foreign policy, and therefore at the executive branches sole discretion) then celebrating the demise of one "monopoly" (tech) by the hands of an agent of another (a foreign govt) isn't principled capitalism/free-trade/etc, it's traitorous/patriotic, depending on perspective.
- franklampard 6y ago
  > China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens Evidence other than Donald, the Mr.Credible’s claim?
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    Why wouldn’t they?
    - franklampard 6y ago
      Very fine piece of evidence
      - trasz 6y ago
        If the US is doing it, then China must be doing it too.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        The US isn’t doing what China is accused of because they lack the ability. They definitely would if all corporations were state controlled.
        trasz 6y ago
        Snowden documents clearly show the US corporations cooperate with NSA by providing backdoors. We don't know for sure if they do this because they are being forced to, bribed, or just nice to the government agencies, but the end effect is the same: they do whatever the US agencies tell them to.
splaytreemap 6y ago
If Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al are not allowed to operate in China, I see no reason why we should allow chinese social media companies to operate here. It would give Chinese companies a huge competitive advantage if they were the only ones allowed to operate in both markets. It's roughly equivalent to China enacting a 100% tariff on American goods, and the US continuing to buy Chinese goods with no tariff at all.
- vkou 6y ago
  1. As of 2020, Facebook and Google make billions of dollars a year in China. 2. Google is allowed to operate in China. Have you forgotten project Dragonfly (It's internal effort to create a china-only service compatible with China's laws? It wasn't sunk by the CCP, but by employee activism.) 3. Many economists believe that protectionism that locks foreign competitors out is only harmful to your own people. 4. If China enacted a 100% tariff on US goods, let them. It is only robbing its own people - which is no concern of anyone who doesn't live in China.
  - eloff 6y ago
    I think you don't get how trade works. There are two parties to a transaction, and by definition of agreeing to a trade, both benefit. Ergo it's impossible that blocking a trade only hurts one side.
    - vkou 6y ago
      > There are two parties to a transaction, and by definition of agreeing to a trade, both benefit. 1. So, what you're saying is that banning imports hurts ourselves. 2. The parties who benefit from a trade are not necesarily the countries involved, but a handful of individuals in the countries involved. Foreign policy should not be set for the purpose of maximizing their comfort. It should be set for the purpose of maximizing overall welfare. 3. If China wants to export useful goods, in exchange for worthless pieces of paper that they can't buy anything with because of tariffs, that sounds very much like 'not our problem'. Either way, this is all a complete tangent from my original point - that Google, Facebook, etc, do operate in China, and can operate in China, when they adjust their local operations to comply with local law. The TikTok ban has nothing to do with lack of compliance with local law, and everything to do with an arbitrary executive order, not approved by congress, issued by what is now a lame-duck president. (Which is, ironically, the very same kind of capricious behavior that folks accuse the CCP of.) You don't want foreign social media companies operating in the US? Fine. Pass a law banning that. Get ready for the world to reciprocate, though. I'm sure there are Indian, German, French, and British startups chopping at the bit, waiting for an opportunity to move into the space that banning Google/Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn/Yelp would do in their countries. The US has everything to lose, and nothing to gain by getting involved in this war - because it has a monopoly on exporting social media. By your logic, for example, Germany would lose nothing from banning US social media platforms, because it has no social media platforms that are being exported to the US market, and thus, a reciprocal ban would have no effect on them.
mochialex 6y ago
Because when CCP is influential enough (through all the seemly benign companies it controls), you, as a citizen of US, will be forced to not to speak anything bad about it, an authoritarian country now and a totalitarian-Empire-to-be.
throwaway1777 6y ago
Because the surveillance by the CCP is far more extreme than that of FB or Google. FB and Google as powerful as they are at least are lead by proponents of democracy, social justice, etc, meanwhile the CCP is responsible for many human rights violations.
13415 6y ago
Personally, I'm agnostic about the issue because I don't have the necessary data to evaluate it. If there are legitimate concerns by intelligence agencies that the CCP might use TikTok to influence users or spy on them on a large scale (which is very well possible), then I'm entirely for the ban and the question whether other intelligence agencies do the same is irrelevant. I don't think "it's okay because everybody does it" arguments are sound. However, if there is no evidence for such behavior, then I'm against the ban. So far I haven't seen any evidence, but it's unfortunately not hard to imagine how the Chinese government would abuse a large social network for their purposes. They certainly do that domestically.
- yibg 6y ago
  One problem is the current administration has very little credibility. To say “we have a tonne of evidence, we just can’t show you. Trust us”, just doesn’t cut it anymore because we know how much this administration lies. This isn’t an attempt to make this political. But credibility matters and being able to claim the moral high ground matters.

idrios 6y ago

Because the ban is an admission of the influence that a company with nothing but troves of data can have, and thus is a step towards actually addressing the issues of Facebook, Google and the like. But what we really need is a US version of GDPR

dopamean 6y ago
How's gdpr working out? Seriously, I'm in the US and have no idea what's going on with it.
- et-al 6y ago
  Since GDPR came out, the two companies I worked at have been more cognisant about how we stored user data for EU customers (e.g. making more fields optional, giving user deletion options). And we also undertook a review of how we stored data for California customers for CCPA.
NoOneNew 6y ago
You'll never get enough credit for that statement. It's exactly why there is a large pushback from the other data collection companies. Once the DOJ can set precedent on one "low hanging fruit", it can start tackling the rest. Sort of like when RICO was first proposed and used. It was a huge issue, but once legitimized in the courts, many organized crime families started to crumble. While org crime is still a problem as it adapted and evolved, they're arguably less influential on a national scale as they used to be pre-RICO. Faang doesn't want the same thing happen to them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rchaud 6y ago
The Tiktok ban is predicated on national security concerns. I guarantee that whatever precedent that sets will be deemed to not apply to FB and Google. They are two of America's richest and most powerful companies, and politicians tend to let those 'self-regulate' so as not be accused of interfering with market forces. It also helps that they both hand over a good amount of data to the US Government.

jtdev 6y ago

Because TikTok is a software asset of a foreign adversary known to engage in covert activities and which is diametrically opposed ideologically with nearly everything the U.S. (however flawed) stands for. How is this so difficult for you to understand???

trasz 6y ago
This makes sense from the US standpoint, but not necessarily for people living in, say, EU.
bfgoodrich 6y ago
At this point, after four years of unprecedented corruption and ignorance-as-official-policy, it's extremely hard to see what the US "stands for". I'm saying that with all sincerity, and it is blatantly clear during the current banana-republic actions of the administration and its enablers that the US does not represent democracy. Find actual abuses by the application or its data and then there are credible arguments. Simply alluding to some notion of evil-by-association is a dangerous game for the US to play given PRISM, FISA warrants, etc. And let's be real -- you're typing on your made in China computer full of components made in China, your data traversing made in china routers and relays, etc. This never had anything to do with any imagined security risk, and had to do with the corrupt manchild targeting a platform for carrying content unfavorable to him. It is just another demonstration that the US doesn't "stand for" much [1]. [1] - The only saving grace right now is effectively the so called "Deep State". The career judges and civil servants who don't twist every norm and rule and precedent because of this corrupt tinpot dictator and his pathetic army of deplorables. They may not be enough, though.
- jtdev 6y ago
  You seem to be implying that a nation has no right to make policy aimed at defending itself from foreign threats (perceived or material)... because the nation has had a buffoon for POTUS for the last 4 years...?? The number of logical fallacies that you've bundled up in that statement is impressive. Would you feel different if TikTok were software of Russian origin? I suspect you would.

beerandt 6y ago

Because government is the ultimate monopoly. If China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens (which legally is 100% a matter of foreign policy, and therefore at the executive branches sole discretion) then celebrating the demise of one "monopoly" (tech) by the hands of an agent of another (a foreign govt) isn't principled capitalism/free-trade/etc, it's traitorous/patriotic, depending on perspective.

franklampard 6y ago
> China is using TikTok against the interests of US citizens Evidence other than Donald, the Mr.Credible’s claim?
- edgyquant 6y ago
  Why wouldn’t they?
  - franklampard 6y ago
    Very fine piece of evidence
    - trasz 6y ago
      If the US is doing it, then China must be doing it too.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        The US isn’t doing what China is accused of because they lack the ability. They definitely would if all corporations were state controlled.
        trasz 6y ago
        Snowden documents clearly show the US corporations cooperate with NSA by providing backdoors. We don't know for sure if they do this because they are being forced to, bribed, or just nice to the government agencies, but the end effect is the same: they do whatever the US agencies tell them to.

splaytreemap 6y ago

If Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al are not allowed to operate in China, I see no reason why we should allow chinese social media companies to operate here. It would give Chinese companies a huge competitive advantage if they were the only ones allowed to operate in both markets. It's roughly equivalent to China enacting a 100% tariff on American goods, and the US continuing to buy Chinese goods with no tariff at all.

vkou 6y ago
1. As of 2020, Facebook and Google make billions of dollars a year in China. 2. Google is allowed to operate in China. Have you forgotten project Dragonfly (It's internal effort to create a china-only service compatible with China's laws? It wasn't sunk by the CCP, but by employee activism.) 3. Many economists believe that protectionism that locks foreign competitors out is only harmful to your own people. 4. If China enacted a 100% tariff on US goods, let them. It is only robbing its own people - which is no concern of anyone who doesn't live in China.
- eloff 6y ago
  I think you don't get how trade works. There are two parties to a transaction, and by definition of agreeing to a trade, both benefit. Ergo it's impossible that blocking a trade only hurts one side.
  - vkou 6y ago
    > There are two parties to a transaction, and by definition of agreeing to a trade, both benefit. 1. So, what you're saying is that banning imports hurts ourselves. 2. The parties who benefit from a trade are not necesarily the countries involved, but a handful of individuals in the countries involved. Foreign policy should not be set for the purpose of maximizing their comfort. It should be set for the purpose of maximizing overall welfare. 3. If China wants to export useful goods, in exchange for worthless pieces of paper that they can't buy anything with because of tariffs, that sounds very much like 'not our problem'. Either way, this is all a complete tangent from my original point - that Google, Facebook, etc, do operate in China, and can operate in China, when they adjust their local operations to comply with local law. The TikTok ban has nothing to do with lack of compliance with local law, and everything to do with an arbitrary executive order, not approved by congress, issued by what is now a lame-duck president. (Which is, ironically, the very same kind of capricious behavior that folks accuse the CCP of.) You don't want foreign social media companies operating in the US? Fine. Pass a law banning that. Get ready for the world to reciprocate, though. I'm sure there are Indian, German, French, and British startups chopping at the bit, waiting for an opportunity to move into the space that banning Google/Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn/Yelp would do in their countries. The US has everything to lose, and nothing to gain by getting involved in this war - because it has a monopoly on exporting social media. By your logic, for example, Germany would lose nothing from banning US social media platforms, because it has no social media platforms that are being exported to the US market, and thus, a reciprocal ban would have no effect on them.

mochialex 6y ago

Because when CCP is influential enough (through all the seemly benign companies it controls), you, as a citizen of US, will be forced to not to speak anything bad about it, an authoritarian country now and a totalitarian-Empire-to-be.

throwaway1777 6y ago

Because the surveillance by the CCP is far more extreme than that of FB or Google. FB and Google as powerful as they are at least are lead by proponents of democracy, social justice, etc, meanwhile the CCP is responsible for many human rights violations.

13415 6y ago

Personally, I'm agnostic about the issue because I don't have the necessary data to evaluate it. If there are legitimate concerns by intelligence agencies that the CCP might use TikTok to influence users or spy on them on a large scale (which is very well possible), then I'm entirely for the ban and the question whether other intelligence agencies do the same is irrelevant. I don't think "it's okay because everybody does it" arguments are sound. However, if there is no evidence for such behavior, then I'm against the ban. So far I haven't seen any evidence, but it's unfortunately not hard to imagine how the Chinese government would abuse a large social network for their purposes. They certainly do that domestically.

yibg 6y ago
One problem is the current administration has very little credibility. To say “we have a tonne of evidence, we just can’t show you. Trust us”, just doesn’t cut it anymore because we know how much this administration lies. This isn’t an attempt to make this political. But credibility matters and being able to claim the moral high ground matters.