6 ms·

Just a reminder that China banned Facebook in 2009 when riots were happening in Xinjiang and Facebook refused to block activists from communicating with each ot

Just a reminder that China banned Facebook in 2009 when riots were happening in Xinjiang and Facebook refused to block activists from communicating with each other or reporting it to the Chinese government. Similarly, Google was banned in 2010 following disputes over censorship of search queries, that the Chinese government wanted but Google refused to oblige by.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
Google was banned in 2010 from what I remember because they shut down their Chinese google site in protest of Chinese agents hacking gmail accounts in Hong Kong. So google.cn was redirected to google.hk until it was blocked. Fun times. Twitter was blocked because the American embassy was tweeting accurate air quality numbers which was embarrassing the Chinese government (who up until that time refused to acknowledge that the air quality was really bad). Or so we all thought at the time. I don't see a really good reason to ban tiktok in the USA, first we don't really ban things nor have the infrastructure for it. The best we can do is pollute some DNS records maybe, or maybe we can buy GFW technology from China to accomplish this? Second...tiktok is used mostly by teens, who will be all over anything that is officially banned by old people. We would just be making tiktok really popular, and there is no good infosec reason to do that.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Yes. China is an authoritarian state and their policies should largely not be emulated.
- edmundsauto 4y ago
  You don’t think tit for tat is a good strategy in this situation?
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." And competitive brinksmanship, xenophobia, and walled isolation aren't useful unless you're running DPRK.
    - edmundsauto 4y ago
      I'm sure it's fueled by xenophobia, but if we think of China / US as competing technology firms, the decision makes even more sense. What tech firm would want a one-sided relationship where their employees share information using a competitors platform, when you have no guarantee of privacy? I don't think the walled isolation claim sticks - the US would not be seeking to isolate itself. Instead, it would be requiring both countries to operate on the same playing field. Why would anyone want to play a game when the other side won't agree to the same rules?
  - musicale 4y ago
    Seems to be a good strategy for some situations like the iterated prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
- _8j50 4y ago
  Retaliation is not emulation. If they did that domestically and the US also did that domestically it would be emulation. This is similar to tariff wars, if they impose a tariff on something then you retaliate proportionally. We have an unequal trade with China where they ban western companies but their companies do what they want even while being state controlled under a hostile regime. This alone is a good reason to ban any Chinese social media company
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    Reaction in kind is emulation. Full stop. State-level censorship of apps the public can use should not be entertained in a free and open society.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      No, it is a response to a hostile act, it is not emulation because the scope is limited to that country. > State-level censorship of apps the public can use should not be entertained in a free and open society. Yes it should. The government is reponsible for regulating commerce, especially by foreigners. The whole point of the ban is that tiktok's owners are not in a free society and cannot take advantange of the benefits of a free society while escaping its responsibilities and their country being openly hostile/ Even within the US the government can block and ban facebook if facebook is in violation of any laws or is acting in aid of a foreign hostile government. You don't understand free speech or liberty. They both come with responsibility and commerce is a regulated privilege. Tiktok can become a non-profit app and sniff all your data all it wants. In a free society, a hostile foreign government has exactly zero rights.
      - sacnoradhq 4y ago
        A free and open society gives people the choice to use whatever they want within sensible bounds. I don't think you appreciate the nuances between a totalitarian regime like China, a nanny state like the UK, and an open society like the US. In an open society, people are free to use apps regardless of who may or may not be behind them. That's the price of freedom: bad actors, unpleasant words, unpopular views, and the freedom to be a jerk.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  I agree, so stop letting TikTok advertise to young adults and reward certain views with attention. Pushing a China-centric view on the populace and allowing the option for data gathering to influence TikTok rewards, can end up with a political outcome at the ballot box. Facebook did sway votes in the 2010s. Let's not emulate China's authoritarian state policies and close the option for that to happen. Laying the groundwork now to keep westerners separate from the social credit system, will likely be useful to prevent behavioural capture of economic activity.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

Google was banned in 2010 from what I remember because they shut down their Chinese google site in protest of Chinese agents hacking gmail accounts in Hong Kong. So google.cn was redirected to google.hk until it was blocked. Fun times. Twitter was blocked because the American embassy was tweeting accurate air quality numbers which was embarrassing the Chinese government (who up until that time refused to acknowledge that the air quality was really bad). Or so we all thought at the time. I don't see a really good reason to ban tiktok in the USA, first we don't really ban things nor have the infrastructure for it. The best we can do is pollute some DNS records maybe, or maybe we can buy GFW technology from China to accomplish this? Second...tiktok is used mostly by teens, who will be all over anything that is officially banned by old people. We would just be making tiktok really popular, and there is no good infosec reason to do that.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Yes. China is an authoritarian state and their policies should largely not be emulated.

edmundsauto 4y ago
You don’t think tit for tat is a good strategy in this situation?
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." And competitive brinksmanship, xenophobia, and walled isolation aren't useful unless you're running DPRK.
  - edmundsauto 4y ago
    I'm sure it's fueled by xenophobia, but if we think of China / US as competing technology firms, the decision makes even more sense. What tech firm would want a one-sided relationship where their employees share information using a competitors platform, when you have no guarantee of privacy? I don't think the walled isolation claim sticks - the US would not be seeking to isolate itself. Instead, it would be requiring both countries to operate on the same playing field. Why would anyone want to play a game when the other side won't agree to the same rules?
- musicale 4y ago
  Seems to be a good strategy for some situations like the iterated prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
_8j50 4y ago
Retaliation is not emulation. If they did that domestically and the US also did that domestically it would be emulation. This is similar to tariff wars, if they impose a tariff on something then you retaliate proportionally. We have an unequal trade with China where they ban western companies but their companies do what they want even while being state controlled under a hostile regime. This alone is a good reason to ban any Chinese social media company
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  Reaction in kind is emulation. Full stop. State-level censorship of apps the public can use should not be entertained in a free and open society.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    No, it is a response to a hostile act, it is not emulation because the scope is limited to that country. > State-level censorship of apps the public can use should not be entertained in a free and open society. Yes it should. The government is reponsible for regulating commerce, especially by foreigners. The whole point of the ban is that tiktok's owners are not in a free society and cannot take advantange of the benefits of a free society while escaping its responsibilities and their country being openly hostile/ Even within the US the government can block and ban facebook if facebook is in violation of any laws or is acting in aid of a foreign hostile government. You don't understand free speech or liberty. They both come with responsibility and commerce is a regulated privilege. Tiktok can become a non-profit app and sniff all your data all it wants. In a free society, a hostile foreign government has exactly zero rights.
    - sacnoradhq 4y ago
      A free and open society gives people the choice to use whatever they want within sensible bounds. I don't think you appreciate the nuances between a totalitarian regime like China, a nanny state like the UK, and an open society like the US. In an open society, people are free to use apps regardless of who may or may not be behind them. That's the price of freedom: bad actors, unpleasant words, unpopular views, and the freedom to be a jerk.
barrysteve 4y ago
I agree, so stop letting TikTok advertise to young adults and reward certain views with attention. Pushing a China-centric view on the populace and allowing the option for data gathering to influence TikTok rewards, can end up with a political outcome at the ballot box. Facebook did sway votes in the 2010s. Let's not emulate China's authoritarian state policies and close the option for that to happen. Laying the groundwork now to keep westerners separate from the social credit system, will likely be useful to prevent behavioural capture of economic activity.