4 ms·

It's truly disheartening that TikTok usage is even framed at a NatSec issue when we should be self-limiting in the first place. The amount of individual attenti

It's truly disheartening that TikTok usage is even framed at a NatSec issue when we should be self-limiting in the first place. The amount of individual attention that has been robbed from our population through scroll-feeds is sickening. Monopolizing the attention economy will lead to the monopolization of the decision economy. Those who are neck deep in social media will begin to give away their own free will without realizing it.

gambiting 4y ago
It's not about attention - if tiktok was merely wasting everyone's time we wouldn't even be discussing it. It's about the fact that a corporation controlled by a foreign government has an app installed on the phones of most Americans, and that app captures a huge amount of information. That's why it's a national security issue. At least that's the way I understand it.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  Oh no, I agree that it's a natsec issue. I'm just saying it's sad that this is the point at which people start to pay attention. People should know better than to interact with it as much as they do anyway. Also, if it wasn't such a glorious attention-robbing mechanism, then the amount of information captured wouldn't be as big of an issue. The attention aspect is what will eventually cause the most harm. Attention feeds databases. The future of AGI is dependent on its utility to make decisions for us. The primary users of AGI as a personal decision maker will be those who are feeding the most information to these systems.
- halpmeh 4y ago
  The information collected isn’t great, but a large part of the concern is related to attention. Attention allows influence. For instance, the CCO could use TikTok to push conspiracy theories that undermine faith in the electoral system.
- jamesgreenleaf 4y ago
  Not just any foreign government, but an authoritarian rival Great Power. In addition to data-capture, the app also employs a closed-source algorithm that can promote or bury certain types of content. It's a window into the minds of the citizens of competing, democratic nations, and those nations do not have reciprocal methods of such access.
- nivenkos 4y ago
  As a non-American I really don't see how it's different to Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp. And those are all owned by one American corporation.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    Those services aren't controlled by an authoritarian government (yet). That said, we encourage you to block them all (don't forget Twitter!) in your country.
  - dismantlethesun 4y ago
    Facebook isn’t effectively run by the US government. If it was and one considered the US to be a hostile power then you should ban it. China, Iran and North Korea all ban Facebook under similar reasoning.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    Well of course, and your government should protest it as well. But don't expect American government to do anything about an American corporation capturing the data of their (and foreign) citizens - I bet it's considered convenient more than anything.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I'm still a bit lost. Maybe you can help me understand. From my perspective it looks like 1. TikTok is foreign owned and the line between the CCP and Chinese businesses is blurred. 2. TikTok collects a lot of data from its[US] users. 3. ???? 4. Bad stuff happens.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    We know, beyond any doubt, that you can influence someone's behaviour by just showing them targeted videos and ads. It isn't rocket science or some conspiracy nonsense - just basic psychology. The argument being that if a foreign government has an app on the phones of most Americans it can, at any point, decide to show them content that will influence how they lean politically, morally, religiously, or in any other way - the possibilities are really quite endless. Knowing exactly what all users like and what kind of content they are likely to consume is just a tool that could enable it. If you ask "well why aren't we concerned about Facebook doing the same to citizens of some other country(or even Americans)" - we are, but this is specifically about American government.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Thank you. I feel like I'm halfway to understanding. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what the part "this is specifically about American government" means. Is it that the American government is afraid of this being done to Americans by the Chinese government? Are there any concrete concerns like, "China wishes to destabilize the US by decreasing social cohesion/increasing social divide" or "China wishes to destabilize capitalism itself"?
      - gambiting 4y ago
        American government is worried about the Chinese government acting against it. I'm not aware of any concrete threats from China currently, but seeing as a conflict is brewing slowly(over Taiwan) I understand why the American government wants to limit this specific activity.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  > That app captures a huge amount of information. I've heard that bandied about, but banning an app over that seems... inefficient at the least. What exactly is it this app is capturing and how? And why not fix this by limiting the permissions of the app?
  - gambiting 4y ago
    It isn't the kind of information that can be fixed with permissions. Basically use tiktok long enough and they build a profile that includes everything about you purely based on your interests . Yes people are giving up this information about themselves voluntarily and there is nothing nefarious going on - but the fact that another country is building up such a database of your citizens is understandably worrisome to the American government.
    - zug_zug 4y ago
      Eh... how? Isn't this exactly what every single advertiser does? Isn't this what amazon does? Can anybody describe a single credible threatening scenario, even hypothetically?
      - gambiting 4y ago
        Sure - on the day of the next presidential election in US, tiktok shows everyone political content that makes them vote one way or another - tailored specifically to their interests and presented in the way that is most likely to have an impact. Before the government has any chance to react, the damage is already done - what do you do then? Or they can do the same but in a way more subtle way over months or years, they control the algorithm after all. Or they can influence how people feel about Taiwan, Ukraine, military, religion or a million other topics - they have the audience. They do this already elsewhere too - see comparison between what tiktok shows you in Russia and what it shows you in Ukraine. And yes Amazon Facebook and Google can do the same - but they are American corporations so the American government obviously isn't going to act against them..
        4y ago
UncleMeat 4y ago
I find these concerns to be concerning. They read exactly like concerns over television, or cartoons, or comic books, or video games. "They'll rot your brain." TikTok, for its many flaws and problems, is also a place where new culture really does happen. Just dismissing the entire thing as brain-rotting media makes everybody come across as the same "out of touch older generation" that was demanding that Mortal Kombat be made illegal. Concerns about harm caused by TikTok need to be expressed in specific rather than in broad terms - or else what possible reason to we have to believe that this moral outrage is appropriate?
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  I hear what you're saying but its not exactly like the other concerns you mention. The obsession and amount of time dedicated to short reel feeds is unparalleled. And is the culture generated on these platforms a good culture? Intellectually shallow, void of original thought, mob mentality. I'll pass. Anyway, my concern is where it's leading us. From attention theft to decision theft.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Each one of the things I listed felt "unparalleled" at the time. I don't know what good culture is, but there is definitely interesting things happening on TikTok. Because the stitch feature makes mashups and remixing so easy there is a lot of interesting new kinds of content being made that we haven't seen on other platforms in the past. There's a lot of junk on TikTok, but "intellectually shallow, void of original thought, mob mentality" are absolutely complaints lobbed at TV but we also get shows like Breaking Bad or The Wire.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > They read exactly like concerns over television, or cartoons, or comic books, or video games. "They'll rot your brain." Why are you so sure they don't? https://www.psychreg.org/political-speeches-simple-language/ https://www.psychreg.org/political-speeches-simple-language/ > The research also showed that the reading level of the speeches changed significantly over the years. The analysis measured the Coleman-Liau readability index, which estimates the reading level of a certain text and associates it with the appropriate school grade. The analysis showed that the reading level of congressional speeches made by both Republican and Democratic legislators increased consistently from the eighth-grade reading level in the 19th century, to the 10th-grade level in the 1970s. But since 1976 the reading level of political speeches has been declining consistently, and as of the 21st century, it is below the ninth-grade reading level. The same trend was also observed with the vocabulary used by congressional members in speeches, which had been increasing consistently until the early 1970s, and then started to decline, and it is still declining, Shamir said. > According to the study, the decline in reading level and vocabulary of the speeches can be related to the increasing presence of media – including live radio and TV coverage – in Congress beginning in the 1970s. Members of Congress started to gradually adjust their speech styles, addressing the public through the media rather than addressing their fellow legislators. Anecdotally; television news today is much worse than television news in the 90s. And television news has always been low quality compared to newspaper reporting. Furthermore the rise of television news has a fair share of the blame for the decline of the newspaper industry.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Is it also disheartening to see cigarette regulation framed as a second hand smoke issue, when alcohol causes car crashes? One problem hardly refutes the other. They're both problems. I agree with social media eroding free will and being generally harmful to society no matter what country the social media comes from. Nothing would please me more than to see the dissolution of Facebook. But that doesn't refute the national security implications of communist Chinese social media particularly. Both of these are problems.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  I think we're in agreement; perhaps I should have used better language. What I find disheartening is that it took a natsec angle for people to begin to care. To analogize, it would be the same feeling as secondhand smoke being the reason people finally begin to address cigarettes. As if it wasn't painfully obvious what they were doing to primary smokers. It's painfilly obvious what short reel scroll feeds do to primary users
soco 4y ago
We also should consume less refined sugars, exercise more, be more polite to strangers, vote informed... and you see how all that works.

gambiting 4y ago

It's not about attention - if tiktok was merely wasting everyone's time we wouldn't even be discussing it. It's about the fact that a corporation controlled by a foreign government has an app installed on the phones of most Americans, and that app captures a huge amount of information. That's why it's a national security issue. At least that's the way I understand it.

algoatecorn 4y ago
Oh no, I agree that it's a natsec issue. I'm just saying it's sad that this is the point at which people start to pay attention. People should know better than to interact with it as much as they do anyway. Also, if it wasn't such a glorious attention-robbing mechanism, then the amount of information captured wouldn't be as big of an issue. The attention aspect is what will eventually cause the most harm. Attention feeds databases. The future of AGI is dependent on its utility to make decisions for us. The primary users of AGI as a personal decision maker will be those who are feeding the most information to these systems.
halpmeh 4y ago
The information collected isn’t great, but a large part of the concern is related to attention. Attention allows influence. For instance, the CCO could use TikTok to push conspiracy theories that undermine faith in the electoral system.
jamesgreenleaf 4y ago
Not just any foreign government, but an authoritarian rival Great Power. In addition to data-capture, the app also employs a closed-source algorithm that can promote or bury certain types of content. It's a window into the minds of the citizens of competing, democratic nations, and those nations do not have reciprocal methods of such access.
nivenkos 4y ago
As a non-American I really don't see how it's different to Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp. And those are all owned by one American corporation.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  Those services aren't controlled by an authoritarian government (yet). That said, we encourage you to block them all (don't forget Twitter!) in your country.
- dismantlethesun 4y ago
  Facebook isn’t effectively run by the US government. If it was and one considered the US to be a hostile power then you should ban it. China, Iran and North Korea all ban Facebook under similar reasoning.
- gambiting 4y ago
  Well of course, and your government should protest it as well. But don't expect American government to do anything about an American corporation capturing the data of their (and foreign) citizens - I bet it's considered convenient more than anything.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
I'm still a bit lost. Maybe you can help me understand. From my perspective it looks like 1. TikTok is foreign owned and the line between the CCP and Chinese businesses is blurred. 2. TikTok collects a lot of data from its[US] users. 3. ???? 4. Bad stuff happens.
- gambiting 4y ago
  We know, beyond any doubt, that you can influence someone's behaviour by just showing them targeted videos and ads. It isn't rocket science or some conspiracy nonsense - just basic psychology. The argument being that if a foreign government has an app on the phones of most Americans it can, at any point, decide to show them content that will influence how they lean politically, morally, religiously, or in any other way - the possibilities are really quite endless. Knowing exactly what all users like and what kind of content they are likely to consume is just a tool that could enable it. If you ask "well why aren't we concerned about Facebook doing the same to citizens of some other country(or even Americans)" - we are, but this is specifically about American government.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Thank you. I feel like I'm halfway to understanding. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what the part "this is specifically about American government" means. Is it that the American government is afraid of this being done to Americans by the Chinese government? Are there any concrete concerns like, "China wishes to destabilize the US by decreasing social cohesion/increasing social divide" or "China wishes to destabilize capitalism itself"?
    - gambiting 4y ago
      American government is worried about the Chinese government acting against it. I'm not aware of any concrete threats from China currently, but seeing as a conflict is brewing slowly(over Taiwan) I understand why the American government wants to limit this specific activity.
zug_zug 4y ago
> That app captures a huge amount of information. I've heard that bandied about, but banning an app over that seems... inefficient at the least. What exactly is it this app is capturing and how? And why not fix this by limiting the permissions of the app?
- gambiting 4y ago
  It isn't the kind of information that can be fixed with permissions. Basically use tiktok long enough and they build a profile that includes everything about you purely based on your interests . Yes people are giving up this information about themselves voluntarily and there is nothing nefarious going on - but the fact that another country is building up such a database of your citizens is understandably worrisome to the American government.
  - zug_zug 4y ago
    Eh... how? Isn't this exactly what every single advertiser does? Isn't this what amazon does? Can anybody describe a single credible threatening scenario, even hypothetically?
    - gambiting 4y ago
      Sure - on the day of the next presidential election in US, tiktok shows everyone political content that makes them vote one way or another - tailored specifically to their interests and presented in the way that is most likely to have an impact. Before the government has any chance to react, the damage is already done - what do you do then? Or they can do the same but in a way more subtle way over months or years, they control the algorithm after all. Or they can influence how people feel about Taiwan, Ukraine, military, religion or a million other topics - they have the audience. They do this already elsewhere too - see comparison between what tiktok shows you in Russia and what it shows you in Ukraine. And yes Amazon Facebook and Google can do the same - but they are American corporations so the American government obviously isn't going to act against them..
      - 4y ago

UncleMeat 4y ago

I find these concerns to be concerning. They read exactly like concerns over television, or cartoons, or comic books, or video games. "They'll rot your brain." TikTok, for its many flaws and problems, is also a place where new culture really does happen. Just dismissing the entire thing as brain-rotting media makes everybody come across as the same "out of touch older generation" that was demanding that Mortal Kombat be made illegal. Concerns about harm caused by TikTok need to be expressed in specific rather than in broad terms - or else what possible reason to we have to believe that this moral outrage is appropriate?

algoatecorn 4y ago
I hear what you're saying but its not exactly like the other concerns you mention. The obsession and amount of time dedicated to short reel feeds is unparalleled. And is the culture generated on these platforms a good culture? Intellectually shallow, void of original thought, mob mentality. I'll pass. Anyway, my concern is where it's leading us. From attention theft to decision theft.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Each one of the things I listed felt "unparalleled" at the time. I don't know what good culture is, but there is definitely interesting things happening on TikTok. Because the stitch feature makes mashups and remixing so easy there is a lot of interesting new kinds of content being made that we haven't seen on other platforms in the past. There's a lot of junk on TikTok, but "intellectually shallow, void of original thought, mob mentality" are absolutely complaints lobbed at TV but we also get shows like Breaking Bad or The Wire.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> They read exactly like concerns over television, or cartoons, or comic books, or video games. "They'll rot your brain." Why are you so sure they don't? https://www.psychreg.org/political-speeches-simple-language/ https://www.psychreg.org/political-speeches-simple-language/ > The research also showed that the reading level of the speeches changed significantly over the years. The analysis measured the Coleman-Liau readability index, which estimates the reading level of a certain text and associates it with the appropriate school grade. The analysis showed that the reading level of congressional speeches made by both Republican and Democratic legislators increased consistently from the eighth-grade reading level in the 19th century, to the 10th-grade level in the 1970s. But since 1976 the reading level of political speeches has been declining consistently, and as of the 21st century, it is below the ninth-grade reading level. The same trend was also observed with the vocabulary used by congressional members in speeches, which had been increasing consistently until the early 1970s, and then started to decline, and it is still declining, Shamir said. > According to the study, the decline in reading level and vocabulary of the speeches can be related to the increasing presence of media – including live radio and TV coverage – in Congress beginning in the 1970s. Members of Congress started to gradually adjust their speech styles, addressing the public through the media rather than addressing their fellow legislators. Anecdotally; television news today is much worse than television news in the 90s. And television news has always been low quality compared to newspaper reporting. Furthermore the rise of television news has a fair share of the blame for the decline of the newspaper industry.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Is it also disheartening to see cigarette regulation framed as a second hand smoke issue, when alcohol causes car crashes? One problem hardly refutes the other. They're both problems. I agree with social media eroding free will and being generally harmful to society no matter what country the social media comes from. Nothing would please me more than to see the dissolution of Facebook. But that doesn't refute the national security implications of communist Chinese social media particularly. Both of these are problems.

algoatecorn 4y ago
I think we're in agreement; perhaps I should have used better language. What I find disheartening is that it took a natsec angle for people to begin to care. To analogize, it would be the same feeling as secondhand smoke being the reason people finally begin to address cigarettes. As if it wasn't painfully obvious what they were doing to primary smokers. It's painfilly obvious what short reel scroll feeds do to primary users

soco 4y ago

We also should consume less refined sugars, exercise more, be more polite to strangers, vote informed... and you see how all that works.