9 ms·
The real concerns, in order of importance, are: 1. This is a way of getting memes to the masses that we (the US political establishment) can't fully control.
by charlieflowers 4y ago
The real concerns, in order of importance, are:
1. This is a way of getting memes to the masses that we (the US political establishment) can't fully control.
2. Meta and others are getting their asses kicked revenue-wise by Tik Tok. Like any business, they'd use anything they could to fight back. Turns out they can use China fear mongering, so they are.
3. (Added) Believe it or not, there's nationalistic pride here. There is a reluctance to admit that an app from "the other side" (China) is more appealing to the masses than _our_ social media apps. Surprising then that we don't ban Hondas and Toyotas, even though they're far superior to American cars (but at least they're made by Asians who are _allies_ I guess).
No matter that banning an app is completely against the principles we claim, such as freedom for individuals, competition in a free market, and freedom of information.
- Gigachad 4y agoWhen the memes involve destroying the school bathrooms and stealing cars. It's probably worth considering what control is had over it.
- BobbyJo 4y agoYeah, that's where the Toyota/Honda comparison breaks down to me. Toyota and Honda sell cars to users. TikTok sells users.
- charlieflowers 4y agoI mean, yeah, true. But only in the exact same way that Meta, Google, and a bunch of other American companies do too.
- throwaway-blaze 4y agoToyota and Honda both assemble cars here in the US and have a huge network of US-based suppliers. No one believes that those companies operate under Japanese government direction nor that the Japanese government has the ability to influence company management to the degree the CCP clearly can with TikTok. It is well documented that the "Golden Shares" owned by the CCP and the board seat on they have give them fundamental control of the company.
- ecshafer 4y agoSaying that the CCP is in control due to board seats is a bad reason. China gives CCP membership to the top students in schools, and most people try and join the CCP if they can. The people that make up the tops of companies are most likely to be CCP members because of the fact that highly driven people are most likely to be in or join the CCP. Yes the Chinese government has a lot of control, but members of the CCP being on the board is nonsense. It is extra nonsense when you consider how many US companies have government members on the board. Condoleezza Rice is a board member of Dropbox for example.
- madeofpalk 4y agoWould love to see the overlap of people concerned about threats to the conditional right to own guns, and those who are completely unconcerned about this direct attack on freedom of speech.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- harvey9 4y agoBeing able to post videos in a walled garden owned by a corporation is not free speech. freedom of speech, regardless of where you are on the political compass, is in platforms like Mastodon.
- jml7c5 4y agoThose aren't really relevant to the topic of Chinese ownership, unless you believe the government told TikTok to actively promote those videos. The stupid destruction trends seem organic to me, and did not require CCP interference.
- Gigachad 4y agoTiktok is not just a dumb video host. They chose the content they show to users. And the content their system is shoving in users faces is destructive.
- lurker919 4y agoAre you saying there are engineers sitting behind their laptops who upvote the "bathroom destruction" trend in some kind of global dashboard? You sound very certain about the degree of control they have over recommendation systems.
- Gigachad 4y agoI’m not saying they specifically coded in a “bathroom destruction” function, but they coded a function which results in promoting destruction videos more than any platform before it. The amount of brainrot content that tiktok pushes is staggering. The other video platforms don’t come close.
- winternett 4y agoMake no mistake, they let everything sensational trend until it makes the news because it makes them look edgy to a younger audience and that makes them lots of money... Covering your tracks is easy when there's no algorithm/operational transparency. Social media is the puts when it comes to moral bankruptcy... It is a casino based on popularity, and so many people are dumping money into it on a regular basis that it's really too late to do anything to stem the way it manipulates our world. Congressional action is far too late and futile to the maximum in encouraging any sort of ethics, they did nothing with all the damning evidence presented about Facebook, The only reason they'd ban TikTok is to satisfy the anti-competitive lobby of US competitors if you ask me. TilTok is a corrupt platform nonetheless, and I really wouldn't be sad if it got banned, the basis of it has already infected everything else, including YouTube to the point of useless overload, so the entire ideal of going viral and getting paid on platforms is actually way past anything meaningful any more.
- charlieflowers 4y agoLawmakers don't care about that. You're giving them way too much credit. Since the public is not in an uproar about this destructiveness, there are no votes or advantages to be gained by advocating against it. That's for altruists, who rarely make it to Washington and don't last long when they do.
- hellojesus 4y agoWhy don't we put the ownership of the actions back on the individuals? Presumably you and I would never destroy private property because it became a viral trend. We need parents to step up and educate their children on responsible decision making, and those breaking laws* should be held accountable. *laws that protect a negative externality for an involuntary transactor.
- paxys 4y agoYou are overestimating how much of a concern 2 is for lawmakers. Meta getting its ass kicked is a happy bonus for both political parties.
- charlieflowers 4y agoAgree, but then Meta and others are lobbying (throwing money at those politicians), which buys concern from the lawmakers.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago>Meta getting its ass kicked is a happy bonus for both political parties. Frankly, it should get this treatment. Its executives have been consistently hostile toward government inquiries and in public statements about its users. The hubris it has shown in its treatment on political speech and disdain for paid advertisers is revolting. The stock structure of the company is a physical manifestation of everything wrong - we can treat the public and the law with disdain and you can't touch us.
- ot 4y agoDo you have a reference for point 2?
- doctor_eval 4y agoFB has the motive and means to promote xenophobia, and has repeatedly shown willingness to do whatever it takes to make a profit. So while I think it’s fair to ask for a reference, it is prudent to assume it’s happening, unless proven otherwise. They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
- mttddd 4y agoMeta seems to be doing fine financially besides the VR money pit. Also in a weird way having TikTok around just bolsters their case against any sort of anti trust enforcement. That said I am sure they would be happy if TikTok did get banned but I also doubt they are sticking their neck out lobbying for that to happen (although I would not be surprised to be wrong)
- kirse 4y agoActual #1. TikTok is banned in China, but in their similar app (Douyin) their kids are limited to 40min a day and restricted from a lot of the digital opium drip that US kids are receiving in infinite quantities. Sounds like it'd only be fair to follow suit if China itself is limiting the poisoning of their own citizens: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2023/03/24/douyin-tiktok-comparison-wang-pkg-pt-intl-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2023/03/24/douyin-tiktok...
- charlieflowers 4y agoIt is mind boggling, and at the same time not surprising at all, that China is enforcing a humane policy to protect its children when we are not willing to do the same.
- goldfeld 4y agoIt is also surprising to realize that China and the chinese actually think as a nation and have a sense of collectivism, whereas the US is to each their gun and their million dollars in the bank. China has always had this sense of being one thing, historically, and even the atrocious regimes, emperors, and dictators are always representative of a populace wish to centralize and control things fluidly and efficiently. Who knows, maybe it will work out, even with the price it has that westerners won't ever consider, or ever let go of a philosophical individuality.
- kalleboo 4y ago> Surprising then that we don't ban Hondas and Toyotas This is a holdover from the US supporting the development of industry in Japan to keep them from turning communist (which was a real threat back in the 60's and 70's)
- alexfromapex 4y agoI think you're conflating the reasoning of the ban to be against Asians, when in fact it's purely against China. Japanese car manufacturers have done absolutely nothing wrong.
- liujy 4y agoNote that the Reagan administration negotiated “voluntary import quotas” with Japanese car manufacturers in the 1980s when US car manufacturers were being beaten by Japanese brands
- brigadier132 4y agoYou are also ignoring the fact that China does not allow our social media companies to operate in their jurisdiction. So part of this is a sense of fairness. Why do they get to operate here if we can't operate there?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoBecause open markets and free speech are national values, not tit-for-tat teenage diplomatic drama. We're supposed to be better than that.
- lazyeye 4y agoBut its not open markets if one partner blocks all access to it's own market? In what other trade context would this scenario be acceptable? And how does giving access to an authoritarian regime, famous for controlling speech, promote free speech?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kelseyfrog 4y agoConsumer choice is unequivocally good. Besides, the problem is already solvable. People could simply stop using TikTok if they agreed that its disadvantages outweigh its benefits. No one is forcing them. This is a vote with your feet issue, plain and simple.
- brigadier132 4y ago> People could simply stop using TikTok if they agreed that its disadvantages outweigh its benefits A democratically elected government banning something is the people deciding.
- lazyeye 4y agoRidiculous argument. A lot of people choose meth.
- throwawaysleep 4y agoTo correct #1, it is a way that China can fully control.
- mulmen 4y ago> Surprising then that we don't ban Hondas and Toyotas, even though they're far superior to American cars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax We do ban some import vehicles. Specifically light trucks. Harley-Davidson famously tried to get Japanese V-Twins banned for not leaking oil. Er, I mean, for “stealing their signature exhaust noise”.
- 1659447091 4y ago> Surprising then that we don't ban Hondas and Toyotas, even though they're far superior to American cars (but at least they're made by Asians who are _allies_ I guess). Both Honda and Toyota build a lot factories in the US, creating a lot of jobs for US Citizens that actually show up to vote. All while American brands move to Mexico, Canada etc. TikTok might as well be the same as "BigTech" but with the bonus of being Chinese—that is something politicians can work with. I think the root of the problem, though, is we (humans) are easy to manipulate, but I dont even know how we can even begin to tackle that.