5 ms·

What the “TikTok is just doing what other social media companies are doing” response misses is that US platforms are under the purview of US law and US governme

What the “TikTok is just doing what other social media companies are doing” response misses is that US platforms are under the purview of US law and US government. The US govt’s extensive monitoring and archiving of its own citizens + foreign citizens information is widely known at this point. This is a source of wide consternation for other foreign governments because the monitoring is a tremendous asset for US domestic and foreign intelligence, defense, and cyber warfare which is of course why China has banned many of these US services. Meanwhile TikTok has grown like a weed in the US and several times the so called “firewall” supposed to keep the US version of TikTok separate had been demonstrably proven to be effectively non existent. And considering the scale of election meddling, astroturfing, and psy ops that take place on US platforms - that both private industry and govt have failed to contain - the US intelligence community and govt likely well understands the threat of their unofficial, global arch rival owning the fastest growing new social media platform. I would love to know what the intelligence community is doing behind closed doors at this point but they must have balanced TikTok as an asset vs liability given the obvious threat it poses to the US’ near ubiquitous control of global social media.

toss1 4y ago
Considering that Stratva has revealed classified information merely by its ordinary function of publishing users' workouts when (foolishly) used ny soldiers in-country, the threat of an app tracking everyone's location to an enemy is terrifying - target any particular leaders, soldiers,pilots, etc., &/or their families, or just the command posts or barracks where they are located. Just connect missile guidance to the live coordinates. At this point, letting in any software or hardware from China or Russia is beyond idiotic. We can all live just fine without Kaspersky spyware and TikTok videos sending home our locations.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I dunno that isolationism is going to produce better outcomes. I think we should demand transparency and control over our data, and offer the same in return. Refusing to exchange software seems liable to chill economic and diplomatic relations, and result in us all creating our own Great Firewalls. We were able to negotiate the reduction of nuclear capabilities during the height of the cold war. I don't see why we couldn't negotiate the reduction of cyber capabilities now, were we to make it a priority. Certainly seems worth a try, if the alternative is destroying the internet as an international commons.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Maybe. Yes, the Internet was supposed to be an international commons. It had only a brief window when it was actually anything like that. That window has been closed for over a decade now, and it is time to recognize the facts. Considering the uncountable myriad of ways that such agreements could be evaded and subverted, and the fact that it is already rather uncool to be seen as spyware, yet the practice is so ubiquitous as to have a name of "surveillance capitalism", it seems like a fools errand. Also, CCP has already effectively blocked Google Facebook, etc., there is no reason to allow them continued free access. More broadly, the Grand Experiment has been fully and exhaustively tried, and it has colossally failed. The idea was that open trade and information exchange would inexorably lead to open markets and open democracies. This beautiful idea turned out to be entirely false. The measures from open markets and information exchanges have in fact been perverted to strengthen autocracies, and used in hybrid warfare to threaten democracy itself around the globe. It is past time to shut off access to those autocracies that wish us only harm. The days of the internet as an international commons are, sadly, long gone.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I regularly talk to people from all over the world and share ideas, so I just disagree that the internet has failed as a commons. Commons are messy and it might not feel like they're working, but I think when you're just not talking to each other and telling yourselves stories about the other party, things can go downhill quickly. The value of a commons isn't necessarily that its broadly a healthy place for discussion. It's that it makes such discussion possible, and in there will be pockets where it happens. Even in unhealthy communities, there will be times when healthy discussion happens on accident. Nuclear treaties are difficult to enforce too. Their enforcement isn't an unqualified success. But I think the world much better for them. I do agree that the strongest form of the liberalism thesis, where trade and cultural exchange make war impossible and such, is wrong, and was always farcical. That's not really what I'm advocating. I'm not a Liberal or Thatcherist or anything like that. I'm not saying that such exchange creates good as much as saying it reduces harm. If we break off into little internet fiefdoms, we will have more surveillance (as total surveillance is required to enforce these boundaries), which will empower and normalize authoritarianism.
guilhas 4y ago
> US platforms are under the purview of US law and US government Except when the US gov or their agencies decide that the law does not apply anymore, to the company, data or individual. Because for example you are a suspect of being a terrorist

toss1 4y ago

Considering that Stratva has revealed classified information merely by its ordinary function of publishing users' workouts when (foolishly) used ny soldiers in-country, the threat of an app tracking everyone's location to an enemy is terrifying - target any particular leaders, soldiers,pilots, etc., &/or their families, or just the command posts or barracks where they are located. Just connect missile guidance to the live coordinates. At this point, letting in any software or hardware from China or Russia is beyond idiotic. We can all live just fine without Kaspersky spyware and TikTok videos sending home our locations.

maxbond 4y ago
I dunno that isolationism is going to produce better outcomes. I think we should demand transparency and control over our data, and offer the same in return. Refusing to exchange software seems liable to chill economic and diplomatic relations, and result in us all creating our own Great Firewalls. We were able to negotiate the reduction of nuclear capabilities during the height of the cold war. I don't see why we couldn't negotiate the reduction of cyber capabilities now, were we to make it a priority. Certainly seems worth a try, if the alternative is destroying the internet as an international commons.
- toss1 4y ago
  Maybe. Yes, the Internet was supposed to be an international commons. It had only a brief window when it was actually anything like that. That window has been closed for over a decade now, and it is time to recognize the facts. Considering the uncountable myriad of ways that such agreements could be evaded and subverted, and the fact that it is already rather uncool to be seen as spyware, yet the practice is so ubiquitous as to have a name of "surveillance capitalism", it seems like a fools errand. Also, CCP has already effectively blocked Google Facebook, etc., there is no reason to allow them continued free access. More broadly, the Grand Experiment has been fully and exhaustively tried, and it has colossally failed. The idea was that open trade and information exchange would inexorably lead to open markets and open democracies. This beautiful idea turned out to be entirely false. The measures from open markets and information exchanges have in fact been perverted to strengthen autocracies, and used in hybrid warfare to threaten democracy itself around the globe. It is past time to shut off access to those autocracies that wish us only harm. The days of the internet as an international commons are, sadly, long gone.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I regularly talk to people from all over the world and share ideas, so I just disagree that the internet has failed as a commons. Commons are messy and it might not feel like they're working, but I think when you're just not talking to each other and telling yourselves stories about the other party, things can go downhill quickly. The value of a commons isn't necessarily that its broadly a healthy place for discussion. It's that it makes such discussion possible, and in there will be pockets where it happens. Even in unhealthy communities, there will be times when healthy discussion happens on accident. Nuclear treaties are difficult to enforce too. Their enforcement isn't an unqualified success. But I think the world much better for them. I do agree that the strongest form of the liberalism thesis, where trade and cultural exchange make war impossible and such, is wrong, and was always farcical. That's not really what I'm advocating. I'm not a Liberal or Thatcherist or anything like that. I'm not saying that such exchange creates good as much as saying it reduces harm. If we break off into little internet fiefdoms, we will have more surveillance (as total surveillance is required to enforce these boundaries), which will empower and normalize authoritarianism.

guilhas 4y ago

> US platforms are under the purview of US law and US government Except when the US gov or their agencies decide that the law does not apply anymore, to the company, data or individual. Because for example you are a suspect of being a terrorist