4 ms·

>It is just a fact that Google and the US intelligence apparatus are more invasive than TikTok and the Chinese. This isn't a fact, and that people pretend that

>It is just a fact that Google and the US intelligence apparatus are more invasive than TikTok and the Chinese. This isn't a fact, and that people pretend that it is is a strange contortion of reality that I'm really struggling to understand. CCP is actively using a vast state-sponsored surveillance apparatus to do things like build actual (not imagined) concentration camps. And your reaction to these facts is to imagine that the American state's reaction to its secrets being exposed - regardless of how noble that action was - is the same thing. It's clearly not. For your comparison to be worthwhile, you have to pretend that CIA and NSA are co-owners of Meta and Google and have the means to use it to move elections and public opinion (foreign and domestic) in the way the American regime wants. Is this what you're claiming?

roenxi 4y ago
Well, the question of coups hasn't come up so far in the conversation but I am happy to claim that. They're media companies, and as we've learned from the history of journalism media companies do tend to put their finger on the scale when it comes to elections. There isn't really a question of whether US social media companies are actively influencing elections after the so-called Twitter Files and although there hasn't been a scandal involving the intelligence agencies influencing foreign elections yet. But it is coming. We know the US regularly heads out to topple foreign governments. It just isn't plausible that they'd ignore the influence of US social media companies when they do that. Certainly I think India and the EU would have to be a bit crazy to give Facebook & friends free access to their population. I expect there is a faction at Google who have Modi voodoo dolls on hand. > It's clearly not. I have no doubt it is clear to you, but the term for that is 'bias'. If you are in a Western country, you're probably safer with TikTok because it is less influential than the US media companies and the Chinese spying and renditioning apparatus is less sophisticated. China are also much more passive (not exactly by choice, it must be said) and won't use the data for targeting missile strikes on your military leaders.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Respectfully, I think you have this backwards. The experience that some Americans have, perhaps those who work in technology in particular, can make you fairly hostile to all of the above. I'm not denying that CIA or NSA or the US State Department use Meta or other social media systems to influence elections or governments abroad. I'm making two specific observations: 1) CIA/NSA are not part owners in those companies, and that's a very significant difference from how TikTok exists, where Bytedance is a CCP controlled organization and is part owner in the subsidiary that operates in the US; and 2) My hostility to TikTok is an extension of my hostility to Meta et al. Eventually our discussion will horseshoe and we'll end up saying basically the same thing. These companies are all terrible, but the specific defense of TikTok will remain bizarre to me, because when you admit that Facebook can influence or tip elections you have to also admit that TikTok can do this too. And it's reasonable to ban it because it's controlled by a power that has publicly stated it wishes to harm the United States. >I have no doubt it is clear to you, but the term for that is 'bias'. It is not "bias" to point out that there is a difference between putting dissenters in prison camps and what the US did to Assange. Both are bad, but to imagine these things as the same is a bridge too far for me.

roenxi 4y ago

Well, the question of coups hasn't come up so far in the conversation but I am happy to claim that. They're media companies, and as we've learned from the history of journalism media companies do tend to put their finger on the scale when it comes to elections. There isn't really a question of whether US social media companies are actively influencing elections after the so-called Twitter Files and although there hasn't been a scandal involving the intelligence agencies influencing foreign elections yet. But it is coming. We know the US regularly heads out to topple foreign governments. It just isn't plausible that they'd ignore the influence of US social media companies when they do that. Certainly I think India and the EU would have to be a bit crazy to give Facebook & friends free access to their population. I expect there is a faction at Google who have Modi voodoo dolls on hand. > It's clearly not. I have no doubt it is clear to you, but the term for that is 'bias'. If you are in a Western country, you're probably safer with TikTok because it is less influential than the US media companies and the Chinese spying and renditioning apparatus is less sophisticated. China are also much more passive (not exactly by choice, it must be said) and won't use the data for targeting missile strikes on your military leaders.

remarkEon 4y ago
Respectfully, I think you have this backwards. The experience that some Americans have, perhaps those who work in technology in particular, can make you fairly hostile to all of the above. I'm not denying that CIA or NSA or the US State Department use Meta or other social media systems to influence elections or governments abroad. I'm making two specific observations: 1) CIA/NSA are not part owners in those companies, and that's a very significant difference from how TikTok exists, where Bytedance is a CCP controlled organization and is part owner in the subsidiary that operates in the US; and 2) My hostility to TikTok is an extension of my hostility to Meta et al. Eventually our discussion will horseshoe and we'll end up saying basically the same thing. These companies are all terrible, but the specific defense of TikTok will remain bizarre to me, because when you admit that Facebook can influence or tip elections you have to also admit that TikTok can do this too. And it's reasonable to ban it because it's controlled by a power that has publicly stated it wishes to harm the United States. >I have no doubt it is clear to you, but the term for that is 'bias'. It is not "bias" to point out that there is a difference between putting dissenters in prison camps and what the US did to Assange. Both are bad, but to imagine these things as the same is a bridge too far for me.