27 ms·

There are two issues: 1) Data collection and algorithmic manipulation. This has been discussed to death, but why you'd let an adversary control the information

There are two issues: 1) Data collection and algorithmic manipulation. This has been discussed to death, but why you'd let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me. This is obviously a national security issue. 2) Fairness in the marketplace. No, I'm not talking about the U.S. marketplace. U.S. tech companies have had their IP stolen and unfair regulations placed on them in China. Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their marketplace? I'm not going to feel pity for TikTok.

unclebucknasty 4y ago
>let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population It is mind-numbing that we made it this far without very serious consideration of this point. I've frankly just never understood it, especially given what we know about the power of algorithms to define reality at scale.
- debacle 4y ago
  I do believe it is because of e.g. Twitters TPP program and other programs that allow the US govt to exert control over "our" social networks.
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    >Twitters TPP program That returns absolutely nothing when searched for yet seems intriguing. Please elaborate.
- user_named 4y ago
  Conversely the EU needs to ban the FAANG companies
  - unclebucknasty 4y ago
    I'm not naive with regard to even friendly nations jockeying for control of the information space. But there is something uniquely irresponsible about letting foreign adversaries run algorithms on your populace.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Absolutely. Any country that doesn't ban foreign social media is behaving foolishly. This is true whether it's American social media in Europe, Chinese social media in America, or American social media in China (actually, they're ahead of the curve in this regard.)
  - xdennis 4y ago
    The EU is partially reining in the abuses of those companies (and more should be done), but this shouldn't be equated to TikTok and what China is doing. FAANGs aren't state-controlled and Europeans do have access to the American market.
    - AngryData 4y ago
      Personally I think whether something is state controlled or not matters less and less the larger corporations get. At the end of the day it still comes down to a large power imbalance between these entities and average consumers and citizens.
      - giantrobot 4y ago
        > Personally I think whether something is state controlled or not matters less and less the larger corporations get. Except in China where the CCP (the only party that can control the government) has seats on the governance boards of every large company or outright owns others. Companies only exist there with the approval of the CCP (the government). There's no court in China that can overrule the CCP's leadership so effectively the CCP is the final arbiter of what is legal or not. The US government doesn't sit on the board of Apple or Google. If Apple sued the government over something they could actually win their case and the government would be bound by the court's decision and both parties could appeal that decision. I'm not saying the system in the US or EU is perfect but it is a very far cry from the system in China. Large companies are literally state controlled no matter how big they are.
        AngryData 4y ago
        And as an average citizen, how does that change anything to me? Whether some government stooge or some corporate stooge tells me to go fuck myself, it makes not one bit of difference in the end. Both are far too powerful for me to fight and take on. Especially when government policy is mostly decided by corporate money these days anyways.
    - angio 4y ago
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    I could see an argument for social media co's but Apple? Why?
    - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
      Tax evasion? Not made in the EU? Not made within EU human rights standards?
      - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
        On the first point, EU courts overturned the ruling on the landmark apple tax decision (that said, I also agree the global tax system is awful and favors bigco's). What phone is made in the EU? When I lived there the most popular devices were Apple and a variety of Chinese and Korean brands, none of which were produced in the EU. Which are made within EU human rights standards? I've never heard this claim before about Apple products.
    - angio 4y ago
      As a US business, they are required by law to share any data they have with the us governement. They were also part of PRISM so they have 0 credibility about protecting EU citizens' data.
      - jonnybgood 4y ago
        What law are you referring to? I'm pretty sure no such law exists. The US government can't request any data as they please. EU governments can and do request data as well since US companies operate in EU countries.
        angio 4y ago
        It's the CLOUD ACT. An EU entity's data stored in the EU can be requested without going through an EU court, which is insane.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > It is mind-numbing that we made it this far without very serious consideration of this point. Simple: because no one want(s/ed) to piss off China too much. Effectively, the West has been at war with Russia and China for years now. Industrial espionage, rampant IP theft, frauds and forgery in supply chains that yield no intervention by the Chinese government, cyber attacks by actors at least supported if not outright financed and ordered by the governments, holding people hostage [1], undermining of democracy by financing and supporting far-right and separatist movements, undermining of free speech by extortion [2] or by threat campaigns [3], threatening and following through with sanctions on anyone willing to support Taiwan [4], the list is long and doesn't even include the crimes both nations have committed against humanity both domestically and on foreign soil. But since China has managed to grab up a lot of the world's cheap production and the politically extremely well connected automotive industry has their largest growing market in China, politicians have long been way too silent on even calling China (and Russia) out, much less actually punish them in return or declare the official state of war that both countries completely deserve. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58687071 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58687071 [2] https://globalnews.ca/news/7734158/china-pressure-activists-canada-uyghur-hong-kong-tibet-spying/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7734158/china-pressure-activists-... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57647418 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57647418 [4] https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1612407/latvian-mp-on-lithuania-s-taiwan-mission-do-you-want-to-foster-ties-or-just-piss-off-china https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1612407/latvian-mp-...
  - unclebucknasty 4y ago
    >no one want(s/ed) to piss off China too much. Agreed. See also NBA retractions, John Cena hostage-video apology, influence on Hollywood messaging, etc. All of these are products of companies wanting access to Chinese markets, and it's a nauseating sellout of values for profit.
    - bigcat12345678 4y ago
      Aside from Taiwan, and Xi, are there other formal restrictions to placate Chinese government? Of course, commercial companies always need to please their customers, so that's an entirely different topic. You cannot blame the firms who avoid stereotyping Chinese people. Because the customers are going to be mad.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  It's because if we start critically examining this, even from perspectives of foreign adversaries, we might also look, similarly, inwards. Trillion dollar companies and economies exist today because of our aversion to looking inwards when it comes to information flow and privacy.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
- lmm 4y ago
  > especially given what we know about the power of algorithms to define reality at scale. That it's a completely ineffectual bogeyman?
TIPSIO 4y ago
> Data collection and algorithmic manipulation These to me are separate issues that should be discussed independently. So for your post: Data Collection, Algorithmic Manipulation, and Fairness in the Marketplace
bombcar 4y ago
> let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me. Because most of the possible responses are various forms of censorship.
- new_stranger 4y ago
  Wait, censorship or reduction in choices? They are different concepts with some overlap. China has the most draconian censorship in the world: lethal censorship. Nothing like the "de-platformed" or "down-voted" censorship Americans face.
- hannasanarion 4y ago
  And what, you think the chinese government never censors anything in their black-box algorithmic-feed app? Censorship is going to happen, on all platforms, no matter what. Call it "moderation" or "upvoting" or "algorithmic recommendation", doesn't matter, the censorship is there, like it or not. Instead of knee-jerk opposition to anything that reminds you explicitly of the abstract idea of "censorship", consider instead what forms censorship can take on any particular platform and whether you trust the people with the ability to leverage those forms to use it responsibly.
- fortuna86 4y ago
  > Because most of the possible responses are various forms of censorship. I have come across some deeply misguided interpretations of the word "censorship" - this might take the cake.
elzbardico 4y ago
Don't complain when the rest of the world starts doing the same with American companies.
- pretdl 4y ago
  You know that other countries do just that especially China.
  - throwaway123989 4y ago
    What are the cases of such events?
    - thisarticle 4y ago
      How many Google businesses operate in China?
    - pretdl 4y ago
      Banned in china: Google Gmail Google Play Google Maps Google Drive Google News Facebook Facebook Messenger Instagram Twitter Reddit Tumblr Pinterest WhatsApp Snapchat Slack Viber Line Discord Telegram Signal Wikipedia Dropbox OneDrive Blogger WordPress Medium Quora BBC The New York Times The Guardian The Washington Post Daily Mail CBC (Canada) ABC (Australia) Spotify SoundCloud Amazon Music Pandora Tinder Pornhub XVideos Chaturbate Twitch PlayStation Coinbase Binance
      - KennyBlanken 4y ago
        azemetre 4y ago
        You should edit your comment, it comes across as being in poor taste. There's this idea that people of one race have a very hard time seeing differences in other races: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect Just because you can't tell the difference between a variety of women of one race doesn't mean they have no features. The good news is that this effect is easily reversible (even being aware of it helps tremendously).
hnlmorg 4y ago
> Data collection and algorithmic manipulation. This has been discussed to death, but why you'd let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me. This is obviously a national security issue. I understand your concern, I honestly do, but Americans are always the first to cry foul when others, such as the EU, put measures in place to curtail the amount of data collection that happens by US firms (you even made that complaint about China yourself). At least in the EU we're not advocating the complete removal of access to foreign social networks. And that's the real crux of the issue here. You want a borderless internet but only when it's US companies in control. And you don't want government intervention just so long as it's only US companies abusing their position. From an outsider looking in, it all looks a little hypocritical. Which is why I Personally feel the EU approach is a lot smarter: allow other nations to operate equally but put legislation in place to protect consumer rights.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Which Americans are crying foul? I don’t think many everyday people really care about how the EU regulates tech companies. Ask your parents how they feel, or the bartender next time you’re out. Also the US isn’t an adversary, so it’s different. The stakes are different. The main issue with the EU approach is that they only view surface level compliance.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > Which Americans are crying foul? On this website, many of those with FAANG in their financial portfolio or on their CV. More generally? Virtually nobody.
  - mr_toad 4y ago
    There are plenty of anti-GDPR comments any time the subject comes up. Whether they’re FAANG shills or not, they’re numerous and obviously American. It would be interesting to know what their position is when the shoe is on the other foot.
- thisarticle 4y ago
  Let me know when the EU stops extract bullshit tolls from US tech companies via fines.
throwaway123989 4y ago
sct202 4y ago
I do see risk with the algorithm being manipulated in the future, but right now it seems like I have the most personal control over the Tiktok feed than any other social media app. If I click the not interested button, it stops sending me videos of content similar to that. Youtube, Facebook, Google News, and Twitter all seem to ignore me when I click their equivalent buttons. I have been attempting for years to get Google News to stop showing me Meghan Markle drama, and have blocked half of the news outlets in the UK.
- winternett 4y ago
  The videos are attached to the sounds used in them. Anyone can literally stick a totally false political statement or whatever they want over "OhNo" by Creeper and it's highly likely to trend. It's also why the song OhNo, and many variations of it played so often on the platform. There is always a limited and interchangeable pool of songs designated by the platforms to trend, in order to make the ruse less obvious. The designated sounds can also be muted so that uploaded video sound can only be heard as well, but plays of the original sound still get the royalties. On the back-end of that, Creeper makes royalties from each stream, and gives a cut to sponsors and TikTok... Literally millions of dollars each day are generated by any associated video plays... The entire music industry is looted by this too. This is the BS involved with the algorithm on TikTok, it's not mostly AI driven recommendations, it's driven by a pre-designated sounds that make a lot of money because of royalty plays. TikTok gains popularity and money each time these trending sounds play picks the songs that trend. Other musicians, thinking they have a chance (without being endorsed by the platform) struggle fruitlessly to get their sounds to trend, but undercover they can't because they are not aligned with the right brand partnerships that lobby TikTok and pay heavily for advertising. It's primarily not the algorithm in charge based on my observations as a developer, and the idea of content "choice" on TikTok is mostly a fallacy, though taxonomy does play a minor role in the mix, user accounts also manipulate their taxonomy to insert their content regularly into your feed.
  - ShroudedNight 4y ago
    > The designated sounds can also be muted so that uploaded video sound can only be heard as well, but plays of the original sound still get the royalties. I'm not sure I'm parsing this correctly: Is the implication here that TikTok is using popular music in a similar manner to a scrambler [1], allowing them to descramble and extract a "clean" version of whatever was recorded from the user's environment? If so, it's not clear to what purpose, and how that ties in to nefarious royalty games. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambler
sneak 4y ago
> but why you'd let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me. Because the US has freedom of expression and free publishing, regardless of nationality of the publisher. Once you start doing the same "foreigners can't publish here [and the local ones are under our influence]" nonsense that China does, it becomes indistinguishable from the adversary.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  A state controlled data harvesting and algorithm propaganda machine is not the equivalent of a private market app. You could easily even argue this doesn’t come under any first amendments rights because it’s obvious TikTok is an adversarial foreign government controlled entity.
  - lmm 4y ago
    No it's not, and even if it was, if corporations have free speech then why should being owned by an adversarial foreign government change that?
    - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      It looks like you're writing that you don't understand why adversaries and friendlies/neutrals should be treated differently. If you can confirm that's the issue you're not understanding I can put together some examples of the typical/possible consequences of treating enemies like neutrals/friendlies. Please let me know if that would help you.
      - lmm 4y ago
        No, what I don't understand is why foreign governments should be treated as more adversarial than domestic corporations.
        cloutchaser 4y ago
        Because domestic corporations agree to work under domestic law, which a country created for a reason, in the US's case pretty democratically, and those laws align with things like individual rights, tort law etc. An app owned by a foreign government that in no way subscribes to these values gives them freedom to do a lot more shady shit that would have consequences domestically, but don't as a foreign government. But judging form your comment you don't really see any value difference in Chinese Communist Party values (and laws) vs say Facebook's values (and laws it obeys), so perhaps there's not much to talk about. I do see a difference.
whatshisface 4y ago
>Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their marketplace? The final purpose of the market is not to serve producers. It is, rather, to serve consumers through producers. You might protect U.S. companies by preventing U.S. consumers from choosing the best and cheapest products they can find abroad, but you are not protecting U.S. consumers by expecting them to use inferior products. Because TikTok is in a leisure market, neither a self-consistent imperialist philosophy, nor one focused on the happiness of US citizens, can justify favoring it over domestic competitors. Of course, it is in our interest to ban the importation of all products of the labor that we ourselves perform, but let's not pretend there is anything but self-interest behind the desire to do so.
boredumb 4y ago
Agreed, but I will miss the unbridled level of insane people I get to watch filming themselves in short intervals throughout my week though.
- wavesounds 4y ago
  There's so many good alternatives now: YouTube's shorts, Instagram's Reels, Snapchat's Spotlight
  - xnx 4y ago
    all full of videos that were first popular on TikTok a month ago
outworlder 4y ago
> Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their marketplace? That is a point that very few people grasp. I've found that it's a bit easier to explain how the policies impact the technical side. You can extrapolate other facets from there (say, sales, for which I don't have direct expertise, although from what I hear, it's worse). Let's say you want to sell stuff over there. Given that it's 2022, maybe you want a website to go with that? Possibly using some AWS services? Ok let's do this. Maybe you just want to translate your stuff and continue hosting from the US(or anywhere else really). Well, even if the traffic was allowed(it probably will be, at least initially), the firewall will make the experience miserable (ranges wildly, down to single digit bytes per second). The first request to anywhere is usually blocked. Geographical distance doesn't matter. Cross the border and the experience is terrible. So, that's not really an option. You really need to host from there. First of all, your website needs a license. Even if all it says is "coming soon". Doesn't matter. Port 80(and 443) will be blocked until you get your ICP license. If you check wikipedia it talks about a 'grace period'. I'm not sure that is accurate. Traffic is usually blocked by providers regardless. As a foreign company, you can't get one. You will need boots on the ground. And a lot of documentation. You cannot have non-Chinese DNS servers pointing to IPs in China. Yes this is scanned for and flagged and you better fix it otherwise you can lose your license. No it does not matter that these are automation/internal use domains. This license thing takes at least a month in a happy day scenario. Potentially more. You also need your 'AWS' account. It's in quotes because it's not really AWS. And no, it's not like "Amazon", the parent company, has an overseas "branch" or "affiliate" which, even though it's registered locally with the host country, it is effectively also Amazon and controlled by Amazon. No. The Beijing region is operated by Sinnet, Nginxia is operated by NWCDD. They are not Amazon, they are third parties. One wonders why Amazon went that route, since it seems suboptimal. The process to get this account may take months. Once you get your account, _you do not get the root credentials_. Those companies have it. They will tell you "there's no root user concept". That's not true(even though this is in the documentation now!). It's still basically the same AWS software, it has a root account. But they hold it, then use it to create an IAM user for you, and hand off that one to you instead. Over email. Ok you have signed off on all those things. Now let's import some AMIs like we do everywhere else on the planet and start the services? No, you cannot do that. AWS China is a different 'partition'. Just like GovCloud. So they cannot be transferred. Same goes for just about everything else. Even S3 buckets. The one silver lining is that you can reuse the same bucket names. So let's just rebuild those images right? Well, remember the firewall thing? It's going to hit you here too. You will be using unbearably slow links that barely compete with dialup _unless_ everything you need is already mirrored over there. Containers for the rescue. Or not? Your k8s cluster takes 5 minutes to download all containers in the US? It's going to take hours or days for you. Assuming it's not blocked - I hope none of your stuff uses gcr.io, for example (like K8s own components like to do). If they do, better mirror everything. Money can help some of these link issues. You can pay companies to get around the firewall(but not around the regulations – if a destination is blocked it will stay blocked). If you do so, you will also have to provide a list of IPs that you will be talking to and what their purpose is. They will be vetted. If you have anything serious there, go that route(but be prepared to pay 5 digits for a link that's slower than your average Comcast business DSL). "AWS" to AWS connections also seem to have some special rules, because the bandwidth is consistently better(not amazing, but better). So maybe setup your command and control that way. Can't do that via IPSEC tunnels though, that's not allowed. Unless done by "approved" vendors, to approved destinations. If try to do that by yourself, you risk your services getting shutdown, if not your entire account. SSH may or may not work. Some of that affects local companies too (they all have to get the ICP thing) and can be, charitably, be blamed on excessive bureaucracy. Some of that may be due to decisions made specifically by AWS. But not everything can be explained that way. And all you wanted to do was to setup a website.
baby 4y ago
FYI: these kind of patriotic comments is why we are in such a divided world. First, if we saw China as another state that was part of the US, 1 would sound like a ridiculous claim. 2 would still be an issue, but this is why we have international regulations, trade agreements, and so on.
walleeee 4y ago
An all-American clone of an app like TikTok is not much better than TikTok itself imo, all things considered There are deeper and farther-reaching issues here than competition between nation-states for information supremacy Effects of regular use on cognition and attention span, data harvesting, pervasive advertising, etc This affects humanity at large and the US particularly profoundly, as the US is friendlier to the most pernicious media business models than nearly anywhere else, and we are among the world's most addicted to new media National sovereignty/security concerns are understandable and legitimate. This is a criticism many outside the US have been leveling at relentless American cultural export for decades
- est 4y ago
  > An all-American clone of an app like TikTok is little better than the Chinese version imo Tiktok is the all-American clone of Chinese version Douyin.
  - walleeee 4y ago
    an American clone would presumably not be built by a Chinese company
    - est 4y ago
      > all-American clone Except every US tech company has some Chinese personals, H-1B or not? Suppose there is a US company that builds and runs a Tiktok alternative. Should the staff be screened by race and birth certificates to make the company "pure American"?
      - walleeee 4y ago
        Can you help me understand the point you're making with regard to my original comment?
        est 4y ago
        The point is what defines "all-american"? all-American funds? all-American CEOs? all-American staff?
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
> IP stolen The notion that imaginary property can be "stolen" is so ridiculous and dystopian to me. Information isn't ownable, and the assertion that it can be was dreamt up by and for lawyers. We finally invent something - The Internet - that lets information be free and available to everyone, and computers that let people share copies of thing at effectively no cost, and rent seeking lawyers go and invent some bullshit to fuck it all up by bribing congress to make it law that benefits them immensely to everyone else's net detriment. China doesn't recognize dystopian American copyright laws. Why should they? They're not China's laws, and they're detrimental to China. Asserting "fairness in the marketplace" and copyright infringement (and calling it theft) in the same paragraph is absurd. In a fair marketplace, copyright infringement isn't a thing, and neither is "Imaginary Property" law. And don't get me started on software patents. That said, I also feel no pity for TikTok and I'll never install it. I don't have the facebook app either.
- biztos 4y ago
  I wish there were no software patents, and I can even understand why someone might cheer on countries that don't respect their IP treaty commitments[0] as a sort of anarchist burn-it-down position. But as long as IP is a thing in the world economy we shouldn't be surprised that the countries where it's protected take issue with the countries where it's not. The original "imaginary property" is land. There are people who make the same argument against the legal fiction of "owning" a piece of the ground. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm happy to "own" my house (subject to the continued good graces of the government in the country in which it's located, etc, YMMV). [0]: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv//eng/bjzl/t176937.htm https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv//eng/bjzl/t176937.htm
- whiddershins 4y ago
  Stolen IP is often in the form of trade secrets.
ConstantVigil 4y ago
3rd reason: It reinforces the low attention span, quick reward impulses of the users much like twitter also does this. I'm all for banning TikTok on that front alone. Twitter too, but good luck.
vkou 4y ago
> This is obviously a national security issue. Yes, living in a country with free speech is a national security issue. This should be obvious to a child. It's one of the tradeoffs of freedom of speech. Sometimes, people will use it to lie. Sometimes, malicious foreign actors will use that freedom against it. But here's the problem. Sometimes, malicious domestic actors will use that freedom against it. If we're going to pick and choose who gets to be the gatekeepers of information, why are you only singling out malicious foreign actors? There's no shortage of malicious domestic actors. You can't say that you have freedom of speech, if you're not allowing speech that doesn't serve the interests of the state.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whiddershins 4y ago
  Because the scale (resources) of the foreign actor, combined with the reality that they are competing in what they perceive as a no rules zero sum game, make for an exceptional situation. I don’t read the first amendment as protecting the propaganda of hostile foreign state actors. Do you? I believe a tax paying citizen has the right to expect our government protect their speech. I don’t extend that right to the PRC army intelligence branch.
  - vkou 4y ago
    If the scale of influence is the problem, the same restrictions should be applied to billionaires or corporations pushing paid speech. > I believe a tax paying citizen has the right to expect our government protect their speech. I don’t extend that right to the PRC army intelligence branch. Is there anyone else who shouldn't expect this protection? Fifth columnists (however you define them)? Immigrants? Criminals? Permanent residents? Visitors? Non-tax-payers? Bad people in general? Corporations? Traitors, wreckers, and saboteurs? These same arguments are the fig leaf used in modern day Russia, to justify its crackdown on speech. The people saying bad speech are subjects of foreign powers acting against the interests of the nation, etc, etc.
thereisnospork 4y ago
> 2) Fairness in the marketplace. No, I'm not talking about the U.S. marketplace. U.S. tech companies have had their IP stolen and unfair regulations placed on them in China. Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their marketplace? The lack of regulatory reciprocity has always bugged me about US economic policy: e.g. if it is unlawful to pay a worker less than 7.50$/hr then shouldn't it be unlawful to import goods made by someone making less than that? Ditto for environmental regulations, privacy requirements, etc.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
3) Protection of end-users, the owners of the data at issue, instead of treating them as pawns in a game. This seems to be a blind spot for those who support "tech" companies.
sterlind 4y ago
I've just developed such a hatred for Facebook and Instagram at this point, really all of the US social networks, that I like TikTok out of spite. and it's fun, to me, in a way the others just aren't. I see the national security angle, but I want Meta to burn.
powerapple 4y ago
1) TikTok is a powerful platform, but for privacy is the least offender amongst all social apps because of its nature. It doesn't have personal information from your and your social circle. 2) Didn't US just take Huawei out not only from its market, but also forced its allies to do the same? There is nothing about fairness in the marketplace, just different interests. US wants to kill its competitor, I am fine with it. It is expected to happen, just our nature.
dillondoyle 4y ago
This deserves it's own thread, but just read this piece after this thread thought it was worth chaining to this comment as relevant. "China lured graduate jobseekers into digital espionage." Sure all governments spy. But you can't discount the massive digital dragnet (targeting their entire own country and us as well) and huge mechanical turk of p2p spies they have built. https://archive.ph/t2w0b https://archive.ph/t2w0b
publicola1990 4y ago
But aren't users free to choose to install or not install an app? Why federal government has to make the choice for all citizens. Moreover if the apps are not doing anything illegal what is the justification for taking such a measure.

unclebucknasty 4y ago

>let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population It is mind-numbing that we made it this far without very serious consideration of this point. I've frankly just never understood it, especially given what we know about the power of algorithms to define reality at scale.

debacle 4y ago
I do believe it is because of e.g. Twitters TPP program and other programs that allow the US govt to exert control over "our" social networks.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  >Twitters TPP program That returns absolutely nothing when searched for yet seems intriguing. Please elaborate.
user_named 4y ago
Conversely the EU needs to ban the FAANG companies
- unclebucknasty 4y ago
  I'm not naive with regard to even friendly nations jockeying for control of the information space. But there is something uniquely irresponsible about letting foreign adversaries run algorithms on your populace.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Absolutely. Any country that doesn't ban foreign social media is behaving foolishly. This is true whether it's American social media in Europe, Chinese social media in America, or American social media in China (actually, they're ahead of the curve in this regard.)
- xdennis 4y ago
  The EU is partially reining in the abuses of those companies (and more should be done), but this shouldn't be equated to TikTok and what China is doing. FAANGs aren't state-controlled and Europeans do have access to the American market.
  - AngryData 4y ago
    Personally I think whether something is state controlled or not matters less and less the larger corporations get. At the end of the day it still comes down to a large power imbalance between these entities and average consumers and citizens.
    - giantrobot 4y ago
      > Personally I think whether something is state controlled or not matters less and less the larger corporations get. Except in China where the CCP (the only party that can control the government) has seats on the governance boards of every large company or outright owns others. Companies only exist there with the approval of the CCP (the government). There's no court in China that can overrule the CCP's leadership so effectively the CCP is the final arbiter of what is legal or not. The US government doesn't sit on the board of Apple or Google. If Apple sued the government over something they could actually win their case and the government would be bound by the court's decision and both parties could appeal that decision. I'm not saying the system in the US or EU is perfect but it is a very far cry from the system in China. Large companies are literally state controlled no matter how big they are.
      - AngryData 4y ago
        And as an average citizen, how does that change anything to me? Whether some government stooge or some corporate stooge tells me to go fuck myself, it makes not one bit of difference in the end. Both are far too powerful for me to fight and take on. Especially when government policy is mostly decided by corporate money these days anyways.
  - angio 4y ago
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I could see an argument for social media co's but Apple? Why?
  - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
    Tax evasion? Not made in the EU? Not made within EU human rights standards?
    - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
      On the first point, EU courts overturned the ruling on the landmark apple tax decision (that said, I also agree the global tax system is awful and favors bigco's). What phone is made in the EU? When I lived there the most popular devices were Apple and a variety of Chinese and Korean brands, none of which were produced in the EU. Which are made within EU human rights standards? I've never heard this claim before about Apple products.
  - angio 4y ago
    As a US business, they are required by law to share any data they have with the us governement. They were also part of PRISM so they have 0 credibility about protecting EU citizens' data.
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
      What law are you referring to? I'm pretty sure no such law exists. The US government can't request any data as they please. EU governments can and do request data as well since US companies operate in EU countries.
      - angio 4y ago
        It's the CLOUD ACT. An EU entity's data stored in the EU can be requested without going through an EU court, which is insane.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mschuster91 4y ago
> It is mind-numbing that we made it this far without very serious consideration of this point. Simple: because no one want(s/ed) to piss off China too much. Effectively, the West has been at war with Russia and China for years now. Industrial espionage, rampant IP theft, frauds and forgery in supply chains that yield no intervention by the Chinese government, cyber attacks by actors at least supported if not outright financed and ordered by the governments, holding people hostage [1], undermining of democracy by financing and supporting far-right and separatist movements, undermining of free speech by extortion [2] or by threat campaigns [3], threatening and following through with sanctions on anyone willing to support Taiwan [4], the list is long and doesn't even include the crimes both nations have committed against humanity both domestically and on foreign soil. But since China has managed to grab up a lot of the world's cheap production and the politically extremely well connected automotive industry has their largest growing market in China, politicians have long been way too silent on even calling China (and Russia) out, much less actually punish them in return or declare the official state of war that both countries completely deserve. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58687071 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58687071 [2] https://globalnews.ca/news/7734158/china-pressure-activists-canada-uyghur-hong-kong-tibet-spying/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7734158/china-pressure-activists-... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57647418 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57647418 [4] https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1612407/latvian-mp-on-lithuania-s-taiwan-mission-do-you-want-to-foster-ties-or-just-piss-off-china https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1612407/latvian-mp-...
- unclebucknasty 4y ago
  >no one want(s/ed) to piss off China too much. Agreed. See also NBA retractions, John Cena hostage-video apology, influence on Hollywood messaging, etc. All of these are products of companies wanting access to Chinese markets, and it's a nauseating sellout of values for profit.
  - bigcat12345678 4y ago
    Aside from Taiwan, and Xi, are there other formal restrictions to placate Chinese government? Of course, commercial companies always need to please their customers, so that's an entirely different topic. You cannot blame the firms who avoid stereotyping Chinese people. Because the customers are going to be mad.
heavyset_go 4y ago
It's because if we start critically examining this, even from perspectives of foreign adversaries, we might also look, similarly, inwards. Trillion dollar companies and economies exist today because of our aversion to looking inwards when it comes to information flow and privacy.
cloutchaser 4y ago
lmm 4y ago
> especially given what we know about the power of algorithms to define reality at scale. That it's a completely ineffectual bogeyman?

TIPSIO 4y ago

> Data collection and algorithmic manipulation These to me are separate issues that should be discussed independently. So for your post: Data Collection, Algorithmic Manipulation, and Fairness in the Marketplace

bombcar 4y ago

> let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me. Because most of the possible responses are various forms of censorship.

new_stranger 4y ago
Wait, censorship or reduction in choices? They are different concepts with some overlap. China has the most draconian censorship in the world: lethal censorship. Nothing like the "de-platformed" or "down-voted" censorship Americans face.
hannasanarion 4y ago
And what, you think the chinese government never censors anything in their black-box algorithmic-feed app? Censorship is going to happen, on all platforms, no matter what. Call it "moderation" or "upvoting" or "algorithmic recommendation", doesn't matter, the censorship is there, like it or not. Instead of knee-jerk opposition to anything that reminds you explicitly of the abstract idea of "censorship", consider instead what forms censorship can take on any particular platform and whether you trust the people with the ability to leverage those forms to use it responsibly.
fortuna86 4y ago
> Because most of the possible responses are various forms of censorship. I have come across some deeply misguided interpretations of the word "censorship" - this might take the cake.

elzbardico 4y ago

Don't complain when the rest of the world starts doing the same with American companies.

pretdl 4y ago
You know that other countries do just that especially China.
- throwaway123989 4y ago
  What are the cases of such events?
  - thisarticle 4y ago
    How many Google businesses operate in China?
  - pretdl 4y ago
    Banned in china: Google Gmail Google Play Google Maps Google Drive Google News Facebook Facebook Messenger Instagram Twitter Reddit Tumblr Pinterest WhatsApp Snapchat Slack Viber Line Discord Telegram Signal Wikipedia Dropbox OneDrive Blogger WordPress Medium Quora BBC The New York Times The Guardian The Washington Post Daily Mail CBC (Canada) ABC (Australia) Spotify SoundCloud Amazon Music Pandora Tinder Pornhub XVideos Chaturbate Twitch PlayStation Coinbase Binance
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      - azemetre 4y ago
        You should edit your comment, it comes across as being in poor taste. There's this idea that people of one race have a very hard time seeing differences in other races: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect Just because you can't tell the difference between a variety of women of one race doesn't mean they have no features. The good news is that this effect is easily reversible (even being aware of it helps tremendously).

hnlmorg 4y ago

> Data collection and algorithmic manipulation. This has been discussed to death, but why you'd let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me. This is obviously a national security issue. I understand your concern, I honestly do, but Americans are always the first to cry foul when others, such as the EU, put measures in place to curtail the amount of data collection that happens by US firms (you even made that complaint about China yourself). At least in the EU we're not advocating the complete removal of access to foreign social networks. And that's the real crux of the issue here. You want a borderless internet but only when it's US companies in control. And you don't want government intervention just so long as it's only US companies abusing their position. From an outsider looking in, it all looks a little hypocritical. Which is why I Personally feel the EU approach is a lot smarter: allow other nations to operate equally but put legislation in place to protect consumer rights.

ericmay 4y ago
Which Americans are crying foul? I don’t think many everyday people really care about how the EU regulates tech companies. Ask your parents how they feel, or the bartender next time you’re out. Also the US isn’t an adversary, so it’s different. The stakes are different. The main issue with the EU approach is that they only view surface level compliance.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > Which Americans are crying foul? On this website, many of those with FAANG in their financial portfolio or on their CV. More generally? Virtually nobody.
- mr_toad 4y ago
  There are plenty of anti-GDPR comments any time the subject comes up. Whether they’re FAANG shills or not, they’re numerous and obviously American. It would be interesting to know what their position is when the shoe is on the other foot.
thisarticle 4y ago
Let me know when the EU stops extract bullshit tolls from US tech companies via fines.

throwaway123989 4y ago

sct202 4y ago

I do see risk with the algorithm being manipulated in the future, but right now it seems like I have the most personal control over the Tiktok feed than any other social media app. If I click the not interested button, it stops sending me videos of content similar to that. Youtube, Facebook, Google News, and Twitter all seem to ignore me when I click their equivalent buttons. I have been attempting for years to get Google News to stop showing me Meghan Markle drama, and have blocked half of the news outlets in the UK.

winternett 4y ago
The videos are attached to the sounds used in them. Anyone can literally stick a totally false political statement or whatever they want over "OhNo" by Creeper and it's highly likely to trend. It's also why the song OhNo, and many variations of it played so often on the platform. There is always a limited and interchangeable pool of songs designated by the platforms to trend, in order to make the ruse less obvious. The designated sounds can also be muted so that uploaded video sound can only be heard as well, but plays of the original sound still get the royalties. On the back-end of that, Creeper makes royalties from each stream, and gives a cut to sponsors and TikTok... Literally millions of dollars each day are generated by any associated video plays... The entire music industry is looted by this too. This is the BS involved with the algorithm on TikTok, it's not mostly AI driven recommendations, it's driven by a pre-designated sounds that make a lot of money because of royalty plays. TikTok gains popularity and money each time these trending sounds play picks the songs that trend. Other musicians, thinking they have a chance (without being endorsed by the platform) struggle fruitlessly to get their sounds to trend, but undercover they can't because they are not aligned with the right brand partnerships that lobby TikTok and pay heavily for advertising. It's primarily not the algorithm in charge based on my observations as a developer, and the idea of content "choice" on TikTok is mostly a fallacy, though taxonomy does play a minor role in the mix, user accounts also manipulate their taxonomy to insert their content regularly into your feed.
- ShroudedNight 4y ago
  > The designated sounds can also be muted so that uploaded video sound can only be heard as well, but plays of the original sound still get the royalties. I'm not sure I'm parsing this correctly: Is the implication here that TikTok is using popular music in a similar manner to a scrambler [1], allowing them to descramble and extract a "clean" version of whatever was recorded from the user's environment? If so, it's not clear to what purpose, and how that ties in to nefarious royalty games. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambler

sneak 4y ago

> but why you'd let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me. Because the US has freedom of expression and free publishing, regardless of nationality of the publisher. Once you start doing the same "foreigners can't publish here [and the local ones are under our influence]" nonsense that China does, it becomes indistinguishable from the adversary.

cloutchaser 4y ago
A state controlled data harvesting and algorithm propaganda machine is not the equivalent of a private market app. You could easily even argue this doesn’t come under any first amendments rights because it’s obvious TikTok is an adversarial foreign government controlled entity.
- lmm 4y ago
  No it's not, and even if it was, if corporations have free speech then why should being owned by an adversarial foreign government change that?
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    It looks like you're writing that you don't understand why adversaries and friendlies/neutrals should be treated differently. If you can confirm that's the issue you're not understanding I can put together some examples of the typical/possible consequences of treating enemies like neutrals/friendlies. Please let me know if that would help you.
    - lmm 4y ago
      No, what I don't understand is why foreign governments should be treated as more adversarial than domestic corporations.
      - cloutchaser 4y ago
        Because domestic corporations agree to work under domestic law, which a country created for a reason, in the US's case pretty democratically, and those laws align with things like individual rights, tort law etc. An app owned by a foreign government that in no way subscribes to these values gives them freedom to do a lot more shady shit that would have consequences domestically, but don't as a foreign government. But judging form your comment you don't really see any value difference in Chinese Communist Party values (and laws) vs say Facebook's values (and laws it obeys), so perhaps there's not much to talk about. I do see a difference.

whatshisface 4y ago

>Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their marketplace? The final purpose of the market is not to serve producers. It is, rather, to serve consumers through producers. You might protect U.S. companies by preventing U.S. consumers from choosing the best and cheapest products they can find abroad, but you are not protecting U.S. consumers by expecting them to use inferior products. Because TikTok is in a leisure market, neither a self-consistent imperialist philosophy, nor one focused on the happiness of US citizens, can justify favoring it over domestic competitors. Of course, it is in our interest to ban the importation of all products of the labor that we ourselves perform, but let's not pretend there is anything but self-interest behind the desire to do so.

boredumb 4y ago

Agreed, but I will miss the unbridled level of insane people I get to watch filming themselves in short intervals throughout my week though.

wavesounds 4y ago
There's so many good alternatives now: YouTube's shorts, Instagram's Reels, Snapchat's Spotlight
- xnx 4y ago
  all full of videos that were first popular on TikTok a month ago

outworlder 4y ago

> Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their marketplace? That is a point that very few people grasp. I've found that it's a bit easier to explain how the policies impact the technical side. You can extrapolate other facets from there (say, sales, for which I don't have direct expertise, although from what I hear, it's worse). Let's say you want to sell stuff over there. Given that it's 2022, maybe you want a website to go with that? Possibly using some AWS services? Ok let's do this. Maybe you just want to translate your stuff and continue hosting from the US(or anywhere else really). Well, even if the traffic was allowed(it probably will be, at least initially), the firewall will make the experience miserable (ranges wildly, down to single digit bytes per second). The first request to anywhere is usually blocked. Geographical distance doesn't matter. Cross the border and the experience is terrible. So, that's not really an option. You really need to host from there. First of all, your website needs a license. Even if all it says is "coming soon". Doesn't matter. Port 80(and 443) will be blocked until you get your ICP license. If you check wikipedia it talks about a 'grace period'. I'm not sure that is accurate. Traffic is usually blocked by providers regardless. As a foreign company, you can't get one. You will need boots on the ground. And a lot of documentation. You cannot have non-Chinese DNS servers pointing to IPs in China. Yes this is scanned for and flagged and you better fix it otherwise you can lose your license. No it does not matter that these are automation/internal use domains. This license thing takes at least a month in a happy day scenario. Potentially more. You also need your 'AWS' account. It's in quotes because it's not really AWS. And no, it's not like "Amazon", the parent company, has an overseas "branch" or "affiliate" which, even though it's registered locally with the host country, it is effectively also Amazon and controlled by Amazon. No. The Beijing region is operated by Sinnet, Nginxia is operated by NWCDD. They are not Amazon, they are third parties. One wonders why Amazon went that route, since it seems suboptimal. The process to get this account may take months. Once you get your account, _you do not get the root credentials_. Those companies have it. They will tell you "there's no root user concept". That's not true(even though this is in the documentation now!). It's still basically the same AWS software, it has a root account. But they hold it, then use it to create an IAM user for you, and hand off that one to you instead. Over email. Ok you have signed off on all those things. Now let's import some AMIs like we do everywhere else on the planet and start the services? No, you cannot do that. AWS China is a different 'partition'. Just like GovCloud. So they cannot be transferred. Same goes for just about everything else. Even S3 buckets. The one silver lining is that you can reuse the same bucket names. So let's just rebuild those images right? Well, remember the firewall thing? It's going to hit you here too. You will be using unbearably slow links that barely compete with dialup _unless_ everything you need is already mirrored over there. Containers for the rescue. Or not? Your k8s cluster takes 5 minutes to download all containers in the US? It's going to take hours or days for you. Assuming it's not blocked - I hope none of your stuff uses gcr.io, for example (like K8s own components like to do). If they do, better mirror everything. Money can help some of these link issues. You can pay companies to get around the firewall(but not around the regulations – if a destination is blocked it will stay blocked). If you do so, you will also have to provide a list of IPs that you will be talking to and what their purpose is. They will be vetted. If you have anything serious there, go that route(but be prepared to pay 5 digits for a link that's slower than your average Comcast business DSL). "AWS" to AWS connections also seem to have some special rules, because the bandwidth is consistently better(not amazing, but better). So maybe setup your command and control that way. Can't do that via IPSEC tunnels though, that's not allowed. Unless done by "approved" vendors, to approved destinations. If try to do that by yourself, you risk your services getting shutdown, if not your entire account. SSH may or may not work. Some of that affects local companies too (they all have to get the ICP thing) and can be, charitably, be blamed on excessive bureaucracy. Some of that may be due to decisions made specifically by AWS. But not everything can be explained that way. And all you wanted to do was to setup a website.

baby 4y ago

FYI: these kind of patriotic comments is why we are in such a divided world. First, if we saw China as another state that was part of the US, 1 would sound like a ridiculous claim. 2 would still be an issue, but this is why we have international regulations, trade agreements, and so on.

walleeee 4y ago

An all-American clone of an app like TikTok is not much better than TikTok itself imo, all things considered There are deeper and farther-reaching issues here than competition between nation-states for information supremacy Effects of regular use on cognition and attention span, data harvesting, pervasive advertising, etc This affects humanity at large and the US particularly profoundly, as the US is friendlier to the most pernicious media business models than nearly anywhere else, and we are among the world's most addicted to new media National sovereignty/security concerns are understandable and legitimate. This is a criticism many outside the US have been leveling at relentless American cultural export for decades

est 4y ago
> An all-American clone of an app like TikTok is little better than the Chinese version imo Tiktok is the all-American clone of Chinese version Douyin.
- walleeee 4y ago
  an American clone would presumably not be built by a Chinese company
  - est 4y ago
    > all-American clone Except every US tech company has some Chinese personals, H-1B or not? Suppose there is a US company that builds and runs a Tiktok alternative. Should the staff be screened by race and birth certificates to make the company "pure American"?
    - walleeee 4y ago
      Can you help me understand the point you're making with regard to my original comment?
      - est 4y ago
        The point is what defines "all-american"? all-American funds? all-American CEOs? all-American staff?

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

> IP stolen The notion that imaginary property can be "stolen" is so ridiculous and dystopian to me. Information isn't ownable, and the assertion that it can be was dreamt up by and for lawyers. We finally invent something - The Internet - that lets information be free and available to everyone, and computers that let people share copies of thing at effectively no cost, and rent seeking lawyers go and invent some bullshit to fuck it all up by bribing congress to make it law that benefits them immensely to everyone else's net detriment. China doesn't recognize dystopian American copyright laws. Why should they? They're not China's laws, and they're detrimental to China. Asserting "fairness in the marketplace" and copyright infringement (and calling it theft) in the same paragraph is absurd. In a fair marketplace, copyright infringement isn't a thing, and neither is "Imaginary Property" law. And don't get me started on software patents. That said, I also feel no pity for TikTok and I'll never install it. I don't have the facebook app either.

biztos 4y ago
I wish there were no software patents, and I can even understand why someone might cheer on countries that don't respect their IP treaty commitments[0] as a sort of anarchist burn-it-down position. But as long as IP is a thing in the world economy we shouldn't be surprised that the countries where it's protected take issue with the countries where it's not. The original "imaginary property" is land. There are people who make the same argument against the legal fiction of "owning" a piece of the ground. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm happy to "own" my house (subject to the continued good graces of the government in the country in which it's located, etc, YMMV). [0]: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv//eng/bjzl/t176937.htm https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv//eng/bjzl/t176937.htm
whiddershins 4y ago
Stolen IP is often in the form of trade secrets.

ConstantVigil 4y ago

3rd reason: It reinforces the low attention span, quick reward impulses of the users much like twitter also does this. I'm all for banning TikTok on that front alone. Twitter too, but good luck.

vkou 4y ago

> This is obviously a national security issue. Yes, living in a country with free speech is a national security issue. This should be obvious to a child. It's one of the tradeoffs of freedom of speech. Sometimes, people will use it to lie. Sometimes, malicious foreign actors will use that freedom against it. But here's the problem. Sometimes, malicious domestic actors will use that freedom against it. If we're going to pick and choose who gets to be the gatekeepers of information, why are you only singling out malicious foreign actors? There's no shortage of malicious domestic actors. You can't say that you have freedom of speech, if you're not allowing speech that doesn't serve the interests of the state.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
whiddershins 4y ago
Because the scale (resources) of the foreign actor, combined with the reality that they are competing in what they perceive as a no rules zero sum game, make for an exceptional situation. I don’t read the first amendment as protecting the propaganda of hostile foreign state actors. Do you? I believe a tax paying citizen has the right to expect our government protect their speech. I don’t extend that right to the PRC army intelligence branch.
- vkou 4y ago
  If the scale of influence is the problem, the same restrictions should be applied to billionaires or corporations pushing paid speech. > I believe a tax paying citizen has the right to expect our government protect their speech. I don’t extend that right to the PRC army intelligence branch. Is there anyone else who shouldn't expect this protection? Fifth columnists (however you define them)? Immigrants? Criminals? Permanent residents? Visitors? Non-tax-payers? Bad people in general? Corporations? Traitors, wreckers, and saboteurs? These same arguments are the fig leaf used in modern day Russia, to justify its crackdown on speech. The people saying bad speech are subjects of foreign powers acting against the interests of the nation, etc, etc.

thereisnospork 4y ago

> 2) Fairness in the marketplace. No, I'm not talking about the U.S. marketplace. U.S. tech companies have had their IP stolen and unfair regulations placed on them in China. Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their marketplace? The lack of regulatory reciprocity has always bugged me about US economic policy: e.g. if it is unlawful to pay a worker less than 7.50$/hr then shouldn't it be unlawful to import goods made by someone making less than that? Ditto for environmental regulations, privacy requirements, etc.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

3) Protection of end-users, the owners of the data at issue, instead of treating them as pawns in a game. This seems to be a blind spot for those who support "tech" companies.

sterlind 4y ago

I've just developed such a hatred for Facebook and Instagram at this point, really all of the US social networks, that I like TikTok out of spite. and it's fun, to me, in a way the others just aren't. I see the national security angle, but I want Meta to burn.

powerapple 4y ago

1) TikTok is a powerful platform, but for privacy is the least offender amongst all social apps because of its nature. It doesn't have personal information from your and your social circle. 2) Didn't US just take Huawei out not only from its market, but also forced its allies to do the same? There is nothing about fairness in the marketplace, just different interests. US wants to kill its competitor, I am fine with it. It is expected to happen, just our nature.

dillondoyle 4y ago

This deserves it's own thread, but just read this piece after this thread thought it was worth chaining to this comment as relevant. "China lured graduate jobseekers into digital espionage." Sure all governments spy. But you can't discount the massive digital dragnet (targeting their entire own country and us as well) and huge mechanical turk of p2p spies they have built. https://archive.ph/t2w0b https://archive.ph/t2w0b

publicola1990 4y ago

But aren't users free to choose to install or not install an app? Why federal government has to make the choice for all citizens. Moreover if the apps are not doing anything illegal what is the justification for taking such a measure.