5 ms·

> The China thing is touchy but I want the west to beat them by being better, not by being dismissive and protectionist. I don't think the only question is "wh

> The China thing is touchy but I want the west to beat them by being better, not by being dismissive and protectionist. I don't think the only question is "who wins at having the most popular social network." The more concerning one is of exerting political influence through manipulative amplification/suppression (which is something the PRC has a lot of experience with). That could be both highly effective and extremely subtle and difficult to detect (e.g. activating one political tendency with relatively more call to action videos, while distracting its opposition with relatively more cat videos and relatively fewer calls to action).

the-dude 5y ago
As opposed to US based networks?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > As opposed to US based networks? There are important differences between being influenced by domestic actors, as part of a domestic political process, and being influenced by foreign actors. The latter is a far more serious threat to political independence. It's also pretty well documented that the PRC political authorities already use its domestic social networks in this way.
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    You are assuming that the person you respond to is american. He's dutch, and is regularly spied on by the US.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > You are assuming that the person you respond to is american. No, I was responding with my thoughts as an American. And frankly, his comment was ambiguous enough to be open to multiple interpretations (e.g. 1. to a non-American, US-controlled networks are foreign; 2. and manipulation/propaganda happens on US-controlled networks already, so why should it be any more concerning on one from China; 3. etc.). > He's dutch, and is regularly spied on by the US. The issue I was talking about isn't spying.
      - the-dude 5y ago
        If we ever get a Weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the capitols of Europe episode again, I would wager FB and YT will start to block content which questions that narrative ( or fairytale rather ).
  - the-dude 5y ago
    I am Dutch.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      And I'm an American, speaking as an American. If you want to ban Facebook and Tiktok in the Netherlands over these issues, it's totally fine by me. I have no love for any social network. I actually had a thought in the back of my mind that the outlook may be different in other countries, but I didn't write it down. Especially since American companies have a tendency to pursue their own agendas, even against the American government.
    - godelski 5y ago
      Which country has closer values to your country? US or China? Take the parents comment above and turn it from binary into a spectrum using this metric.
      - guest159835 5y ago
        censored
      - agul29 5y ago
        As far as colonialism and imperialism goes, you're right that the Dutch has closer values to the US.
  - iamstupidsimple 5y ago
    Both Facebook and TikTok are foreign actors in my country (and almost all of them).
    - godelski 5y ago
      I'm not sure how this is a counter to the above comment. Seems to still apply. To add nuance, it's also not a binary problem. Is it influence from a country with closer values to you/your country or one further apart? Obviously your country is likely to be one end of the spectrum. I'd also say that US and China have very different cultural/political/economic views and considering a significant percentage of HN posters are American, this is why the specific comparison is frequently made (and a Dutch, for example, social network isn't really a world player right now).
  - rchaud 5y ago
    It's also documented that Cambridge Analytica used data made available to it by Facebook to target millions with political propaganda. It wasn't just the US election, they had plenty of practice validating the strategy in elections in smaller countries. Where's the evidence that TT has been successfully used for nefarious purposes on a similar scale?
    - birdyrooster 5y ago
      Think about how last summer Harvard discovered that Covid started in Wuhan back in August 2019 using satellite imagery and then overnight the focus became how to combat anti-Chinese sentiment (hate crimes had risen against Asian-Americans to levels seen earlier in the 2010s, still an order of magnitude less prevalent than hate crimes against American Blacks). TikTok was the principle platform leading that charge. Pretty simple strategy and it worked, no one even talks about the timing of the Wuhan cover up anymore.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - rchaud 5y ago
        From where I'm sitting, the overnight focus was on establishing public health protocols to prevent the healthcare system from a black-swan type of event-driven collapse. And passing legislation to provide financial relief. And coordinating global travel restrictions. And coordinating vaccine development efforts.
        birdyrooster 5y ago
        Those four things are absolutely what the discourse morphed into, but it goes to show the success of the campaign. Because Trump called it the "kung flu" and is almost always racist with his rhetoric, liberals piled onto anyone that tried to dig into the origin of covid as being racially motivated. TikTok made that culture war really simple for liberals to fight. Trump is a nasty guy full of bad ideas, but the culture war and Trump Derangement Syndrome are real things that shut down legitimate inquiry.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > There are important differences between being influenced by domestic actors, as part of a domestic political process, and being influenced by foreign actors Just because the actors are domestic doesn't make it at all better. Domestic actors don't have public welfare in mind, they have their own welfare in mind. This influence happens behind close doors, and I, as a constituent, don't get to have any input on it. For a great example, I didn't get to vote on whether or not Fox news should peddle absolute nonsense 24/7 that radicalizes their base. Its owners made that decision, without my input. If you want 'domestic' influence and oversight over your mass media, social networks, etc, use the political process to set some ground rules, and make everyone operating these businesses in your country follow them. Blaming or targeting the foreign boogieman is a distraction, when we've got plenty of domestic monsters living in our closet.
    - xyzelement 5y ago
      >> Just because the actors are domestic doesn't make it at all better. Domestic actors don't have public welfare in mind No love for any social network from me, but there's a huge difference between a company looking for its own interest, and one being controlled by a state which may be in a hot (or certainly cold) war with your country in the near future. You can surmise that FB will put its interests over your own, but you can bet that a Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live, it's just a matter of time.
      - vkou 5y ago
        > You can surmise that FB will put its interests over your own, but you can bet that a Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live, it's just a matter of time. There are plenty of powerful domestic actors that actively want to harm particular groups of people. Sometimes the cruelty and the harm is the point. Sometimes it's just a distraction, intended to pit half the country against the other half, while they get away with highway robbery. Sometimes it's because they are sociopaths on a massive ego trip. And I'm not talking about Facebook's leadership, here. You are correct that it just wants to make money.
      - bllguo 5y ago
refenestrator 5y ago
What sort of manipulative amplification/suppression, specifically? Maybe a skinner box outrage machine that turns us into hostile tribes sniping over cultural crap while completely unable to govern ourselves as they surpass us?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > What sort of manipulative amplification/suppression, specifically? Maybe a skinner box outrage machine that turns us into hostile tribes sniping over cultural crap while completely unable to govern ourselves as they surpass us? Amplifying pre-existing fault lines to encourage general weakness is certainly one that's been well explored. Another might be amplifying political or ideological that serve the foreign power's goals (e.g. general pacifism when that power is planning some kind of aggression or military build up, or electioneering messages for a candidate with a more favorable trade policy to that power). No one could deliver particular results with certainty using any of these methods, but they could definitely put their finger on the scales.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    Sorry I was describing our current social networks. Impossible to gauge how thick to lay it on in text.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Sorry I was describing our current social networks. Impossible to gauge how thick to lay it on in text. I know you were. The issue here isn't that this kind of manipulation is totally unheard of, it's that it could be done far, far more effectively and stealthily with the control of the platform.
      - refenestrator 5y ago
        Eh let's take responsibility for our own culture before blaming on the insidious machinations of the great hidden Other.
jareklupinski 5y ago
> exerting political influence through manipulative amplification/suppression and social influence there are a few worrying trends on the internet which are difficult to attribute to simply headstrong visionaries concerned with the general progress of our species
wongarsu 5y ago
That is a real threat, but that's a problem with (proprietary, centralized) online media in general. Which social network would you trust not to do that? Facebooks experiment on manipulating emotions comes to mind [1]. The only way to minimize these effects is to consume a multitude of media from multiple sources, so no one entity has too much influence. Balancing all the US-based social networks with some TikTok certainly seems healthy in that regard. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=3efc06cd197c https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  TikTok has already been found to be censoring content that criticises the Chinese government [1]. Theres a big difference between that and a nonpolitical public research project that ended up with a minuscule effect size. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
  - the-dude 5y ago
    > a nonpolitical public research project Are you referring to Camebridge Analytica?
    - saddlerustle 5y ago
      No, the emotional contagion paper the OP linked. Facebook had no active role in the Cambridge Analytic affair.
- godelski 5y ago
  Is the network authority the only entity to blame here? Looking at the other end of the spectrum, if a popular network was fully decentralized and had zero censorship or speed bumps to control how viral something goes, then I still think that social network would be vulnerable to propaganda machines. Specifically still by those with the most money to throw at it. I don't think Facebook and many social networks are doing a good job but I think we should also recognize that the problem is difficult and unclear how to solve. There's an issue with how information naturally flows and how that can be manipulated. Specifically I don't think TikTok is great because the focus on short videos (we see this on Facebook too. A meme is even shorter). 30 sec to 3 min political videos are more likely to be propaganda in my experience (e.g. NowThis). Though that isn't too say there aren't longer form versions (e.g. PragerU).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwawaysea 5y ago
I do think TikTok's chosen format and their algorithm make a great product. However, I am also increasingly wary of their growing power. Although I didn't expect it because they are foreign-owned, they are much more heavy-handed about censorship of centrist and conservative views (on the American political spectrum) than other platforms like Twitter and Facebook. I've seen numerous people I follow get banned aggressively, and apart from making me/others feel oppressed, such censorship also makes me concerned about the degree of influence they have in shaping public conversation in our society - particularly with younger generations. A feasible explanation is that they are simply conforming to the same politically-biased moderation practices seen elsewhere, like on Twitter ,and are conforming to what they perceive the market is demanding. A more sinister explanation is that this is a purposeful plan by the CCP to sow chaos in America by fanning the flames of a very fundamental, pervasive, ideological division.
jinguang 5y ago
得了吧，政治影响操纵国非美国莫属。中国只关心自己家里的事情，自己的人民，一家私企才不会上升到政治高度。都是西方人自己内心里有鬼罢了。
xvector 5y ago
What is stopping Facebook or Google from doing this for their own political goals? Did y'all just forget Cambridge Analytica?

the-dude 5y ago

As opposed to US based networks?

tablespoon 5y ago
> As opposed to US based networks? There are important differences between being influenced by domestic actors, as part of a domestic political process, and being influenced by foreign actors. The latter is a far more serious threat to political independence. It's also pretty well documented that the PRC political authorities already use its domestic social networks in this way.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  You are assuming that the person you respond to is american. He's dutch, and is regularly spied on by the US.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > You are assuming that the person you respond to is american. No, I was responding with my thoughts as an American. And frankly, his comment was ambiguous enough to be open to multiple interpretations (e.g. 1. to a non-American, US-controlled networks are foreign; 2. and manipulation/propaganda happens on US-controlled networks already, so why should it be any more concerning on one from China; 3. etc.). > He's dutch, and is regularly spied on by the US. The issue I was talking about isn't spying.
    - the-dude 5y ago
      If we ever get a Weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the capitols of Europe episode again, I would wager FB and YT will start to block content which questions that narrative ( or fairytale rather ).
- the-dude 5y ago
  I am Dutch.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    And I'm an American, speaking as an American. If you want to ban Facebook and Tiktok in the Netherlands over these issues, it's totally fine by me. I have no love for any social network. I actually had a thought in the back of my mind that the outlook may be different in other countries, but I didn't write it down. Especially since American companies have a tendency to pursue their own agendas, even against the American government.
  - godelski 5y ago
    Which country has closer values to your country? US or China? Take the parents comment above and turn it from binary into a spectrum using this metric.
    - guest159835 5y ago
      censored
    - agul29 5y ago
      As far as colonialism and imperialism goes, you're right that the Dutch has closer values to the US.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  Both Facebook and TikTok are foreign actors in my country (and almost all of them).
  - godelski 5y ago
    I'm not sure how this is a counter to the above comment. Seems to still apply. To add nuance, it's also not a binary problem. Is it influence from a country with closer values to you/your country or one further apart? Obviously your country is likely to be one end of the spectrum. I'd also say that US and China have very different cultural/political/economic views and considering a significant percentage of HN posters are American, this is why the specific comparison is frequently made (and a Dutch, for example, social network isn't really a world player right now).
- rchaud 5y ago
  It's also documented that Cambridge Analytica used data made available to it by Facebook to target millions with political propaganda. It wasn't just the US election, they had plenty of practice validating the strategy in elections in smaller countries. Where's the evidence that TT has been successfully used for nefarious purposes on a similar scale?
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    Think about how last summer Harvard discovered that Covid started in Wuhan back in August 2019 using satellite imagery and then overnight the focus became how to combat anti-Chinese sentiment (hate crimes had risen against Asian-Americans to levels seen earlier in the 2010s, still an order of magnitude less prevalent than hate crimes against American Blacks). TikTok was the principle platform leading that charge. Pretty simple strategy and it worked, no one even talks about the timing of the Wuhan cover up anymore.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - rchaud 5y ago
      From where I'm sitting, the overnight focus was on establishing public health protocols to prevent the healthcare system from a black-swan type of event-driven collapse. And passing legislation to provide financial relief. And coordinating global travel restrictions. And coordinating vaccine development efforts.
      - birdyrooster 5y ago
        Those four things are absolutely what the discourse morphed into, but it goes to show the success of the campaign. Because Trump called it the "kung flu" and is almost always racist with his rhetoric, liberals piled onto anyone that tried to dig into the origin of covid as being racially motivated. TikTok made that culture war really simple for liberals to fight. Trump is a nasty guy full of bad ideas, but the culture war and Trump Derangement Syndrome are real things that shut down legitimate inquiry.
- vkou 5y ago
  > There are important differences between being influenced by domestic actors, as part of a domestic political process, and being influenced by foreign actors Just because the actors are domestic doesn't make it at all better. Domestic actors don't have public welfare in mind, they have their own welfare in mind. This influence happens behind close doors, and I, as a constituent, don't get to have any input on it. For a great example, I didn't get to vote on whether or not Fox news should peddle absolute nonsense 24/7 that radicalizes their base. Its owners made that decision, without my input. If you want 'domestic' influence and oversight over your mass media, social networks, etc, use the political process to set some ground rules, and make everyone operating these businesses in your country follow them. Blaming or targeting the foreign boogieman is a distraction, when we've got plenty of domestic monsters living in our closet.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    >> Just because the actors are domestic doesn't make it at all better. Domestic actors don't have public welfare in mind No love for any social network from me, but there's a huge difference between a company looking for its own interest, and one being controlled by a state which may be in a hot (or certainly cold) war with your country in the near future. You can surmise that FB will put its interests over your own, but you can bet that a Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live, it's just a matter of time.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > You can surmise that FB will put its interests over your own, but you can bet that a Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live, it's just a matter of time. There are plenty of powerful domestic actors that actively want to harm particular groups of people. Sometimes the cruelty and the harm is the point. Sometimes it's just a distraction, intended to pit half the country against the other half, while they get away with highway robbery. Sometimes it's because they are sociopaths on a massive ego trip. And I'm not talking about Facebook's leadership, here. You are correct that it just wants to make money.
    - bllguo 5y ago

refenestrator 5y ago

What sort of manipulative amplification/suppression, specifically? Maybe a skinner box outrage machine that turns us into hostile tribes sniping over cultural crap while completely unable to govern ourselves as they surpass us?

tablespoon 5y ago
> What sort of manipulative amplification/suppression, specifically? Maybe a skinner box outrage machine that turns us into hostile tribes sniping over cultural crap while completely unable to govern ourselves as they surpass us? Amplifying pre-existing fault lines to encourage general weakness is certainly one that's been well explored. Another might be amplifying political or ideological that serve the foreign power's goals (e.g. general pacifism when that power is planning some kind of aggression or military build up, or electioneering messages for a candidate with a more favorable trade policy to that power). No one could deliver particular results with certainty using any of these methods, but they could definitely put their finger on the scales.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  Sorry I was describing our current social networks. Impossible to gauge how thick to lay it on in text.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Sorry I was describing our current social networks. Impossible to gauge how thick to lay it on in text. I know you were. The issue here isn't that this kind of manipulation is totally unheard of, it's that it could be done far, far more effectively and stealthily with the control of the platform.
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      Eh let's take responsibility for our own culture before blaming on the insidious machinations of the great hidden Other.

jareklupinski 5y ago

> exerting political influence through manipulative amplification/suppression and social influence there are a few worrying trends on the internet which are difficult to attribute to simply headstrong visionaries concerned with the general progress of our species

wongarsu 5y ago

That is a real threat, but that's a problem with (proprietary, centralized) online media in general. Which social network would you trust not to do that? Facebooks experiment on manipulating emotions comes to mind [1]. The only way to minimize these effects is to consume a multitude of media from multiple sources, so no one entity has too much influence. Balancing all the US-based social networks with some TikTok certainly seems healthy in that regard. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=3efc06cd197c https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...

saddlerustle 5y ago
TikTok has already been found to be censoring content that criticises the Chinese government [1]. Theres a big difference between that and a nonpolitical public research project that ended up with a minuscule effect size. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
- the-dude 5y ago
  > a nonpolitical public research project Are you referring to Camebridge Analytica?
  - saddlerustle 5y ago
    No, the emotional contagion paper the OP linked. Facebook had no active role in the Cambridge Analytic affair.
godelski 5y ago
Is the network authority the only entity to blame here? Looking at the other end of the spectrum, if a popular network was fully decentralized and had zero censorship or speed bumps to control how viral something goes, then I still think that social network would be vulnerable to propaganda machines. Specifically still by those with the most money to throw at it. I don't think Facebook and many social networks are doing a good job but I think we should also recognize that the problem is difficult and unclear how to solve. There's an issue with how information naturally flows and how that can be manipulated. Specifically I don't think TikTok is great because the focus on short videos (we see this on Facebook too. A meme is even shorter). 30 sec to 3 min political videos are more likely to be propaganda in my experience (e.g. NowThis). Though that isn't too say there aren't longer form versions (e.g. PragerU).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwawaysea 5y ago

I do think TikTok's chosen format and their algorithm make a great product. However, I am also increasingly wary of their growing power. Although I didn't expect it because they are foreign-owned, they are much more heavy-handed about censorship of centrist and conservative views (on the American political spectrum) than other platforms like Twitter and Facebook. I've seen numerous people I follow get banned aggressively, and apart from making me/others feel oppressed, such censorship also makes me concerned about the degree of influence they have in shaping public conversation in our society - particularly with younger generations. A feasible explanation is that they are simply conforming to the same politically-biased moderation practices seen elsewhere, like on Twitter ,and are conforming to what they perceive the market is demanding. A more sinister explanation is that this is a purposeful plan by the CCP to sow chaos in America by fanning the flames of a very fundamental, pervasive, ideological division.

jinguang 5y ago

得了吧，政治影响操纵国非美国莫属。中国只关心自己家里的事情，自己的人民，一家私企才不会上升到政治高度。都是西方人自己内心里有鬼罢了。

xvector 5y ago

What is stopping Facebook or Google from doing this for their own political goals? Did y'all just forget Cambridge Analytica?