12 ms·

Sadly, it has nothing to do with "talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm", because if it did, they would be trying to ban Facebook, Instag

Sadly, it has nothing to do with "talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm", because if it did, they would be trying to ban Facebook, Instagram, and other social media services that have the exact same effect as TikTok on children. This is really meant to be a punch in the fight against China. US government does not want any possibility of US citizens' data being in the hands of China and their questions to Chew made that clear. The narrative of child safety, for example the story about the kid who commit suicide because of their "for you" page, is being used as a kind of legal "pretext" so they can ban TikTok.

mistermann 4y ago
> Sadly, it has nothing to do with "talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm", because if it did, they would be trying to ban Facebook, Instagram, and other social media services that have the exact same effect as TikTok on children. This overlooks the "possibility" that those platforms have an "agreement" of sorts with the US Government. The Twitter Files have gone into some of that, but be careful: it is possible for things to exist that each individual/civilian may not have knowledge of, even though most people seem to be strongly under the impression that this is impossible, perhaps because it could be considered (or, has been marketed as) [only] a conspiracy theory. > This is really meant to be a punch in the fight against China. US government does not want any possibility of US citizens' data being in the hands of China and their questions to Chew made that clear. The narrative of child safety, for example the story about the kid who commit suicide because of their "for you" page, is being used as a kind of legal "pretext" so they can ban TikTok. It is plausible that there are certain ideas that they would not like the minds of the American Public exposed to, certain conversations they would prefer they do not have, etc. There is a surprising amount of detail to reality, but we miss out on most of it (and often do not realize it), for a variety of reasons. The thinking on these sorts of matters one reads in this thread is rather eye opening....I suspect a lot of the styles of logic that are perfectly acceptable in threads on this topic would be very unwelcome when writing software.
- bmarquez 4y ago
  > This overlooks the "possibility" that those platforms have an "agreement" of sorts with the US Government. Of course they do, it's called Prism and it's been around for over a decade. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...
withinboredom 4y ago
> [The] US government does not want any possibility of US citizens' data being in the hands of China. Yeah, except that any business can just buy that information. I can buy your day-to-day movements for dirt cheap. I own a non-American company (though I'm still an American citizen, but that isn't a factor), and it is insanely cheap to get information about any American you want. Hell, BingBot will tell you all about me, what I do for a living and where I live. This is about China, but it is a stupid and pointless zero-point game. This bill would get shot down in 30s for being unconstitutional, especially if the company has an American LLC or corporation (making it a legal entity protected by the constitution). Further, you'd think congress would have learned from prohibition that banning something ... hmm, doesn't work? At all? How would you even enforce something like this, stop people randomly to violate their privacy further and search their phone? Will this be another thing to get arrested for when you have a 'broken tailight'?
- yed 4y ago
  The bill doesn't directly ban data sharing but instead focuses on foreign ownership in US companies. It would be enforced similar to anti-trust laws today, by preventing Chinese nationals from purchasing or having an ownership stake in certain large technology companies deemed a security risk. I don't like the bill because I think it's unnecessary but it has nothing to do with searching people's phones or regulating actual data in any way.
- ddoolin 4y ago
  TikTok disappearing from tens of millions of iPhones overnight (I have no idea about Androids) would probably work pretty well. If I had to guess, almost none of those people can jailbreak their iPhone to get it again, either. Your option would be to switch to Android and learn to sideload apps (which I think is pretty damn easy these days). The point is not to enforce against individual users, just to remove it from the main distribution channels.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    You can freely install apps on your iphone. All you need is an Apple computer. It only can be used for a week? before you have to install it again. I don't pay apple a dime and still develop software for iPhones occasionally without any issues. Also, websites are pretty powerful. Apple even allowed websites to send notifications now.
FormerBandmate 4y ago
Well yeah, ByteDance directly takes orders from the Chinese government. Big Tech can also take orders from the American government, but America is bound by the rule of law and isn't actively imprisoning millions in concentration camps so it's way better
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  > America is bound by the rule of law People keep saying this, but the Snowden leaks make clear this is a fantasy. > America… isn’t actively imprisoning millions… It’s a good thing you said “in concentration camps” or that would have been a doozy!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here - because the U.S. has flaws, then - what? China?
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      That when we talk about China, we see all of their flaws as completely damning them and everything they do as a country, but in the same breath we speak of the rule of law in the USA as if that means something when it comes to mass surveillance (it does not - the USA is a pioneer in illegal mass surveillance). This is a particular problem when it comes to TikTok, because senators look at TikTok collecting data and influencing Americans and they say "We cannot let China do this to us!" while completely ignoring Facebook and Microsoft doing all of the same to us. This leads to harmful bills like this TikTok bill when what we really need are protections from all mass surveillance, foreign and domestic. But that will never happen as long as the good citizens of the USA continue to pretend that the rule of law has any meaning in the USA when it comes to mass surveillance, and we point at China and chide them for the millions they have imprisoned as if that is not the pot calling the kettle black. Calling out China will change very little there, and serves mostly to distract the conversation from the problems we really have the power to solve. We only have the power to change ourselves. The people in the USA and around the globe who suffer from US surveillance will continue to suffer all the while. And what is worse, China will simply start running domestic companies and collecting our data all the same, because these bills aren't solving the real problem. Blindly pointing the finger at China causes real harm to us.
gonehome 4y ago
The data isn’t the risk, it’s more the ability for CCP to leverage influence. https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ Dialing up things to cause unrest, dialing down stuff critical of the CCP. It’s not an issue about data, or even an issue about speech, it’s an issue of ownership of a media company by an adversary that will weaponize it against you. Who controls and owns media companies is a reasonable national security question. The CCP knows this risk, they don’t play fair.
- n0tahacker 4y ago
  I think this attitude is wrong. A strong democracy doesn't need to fight "fake news" legally and doesn't need their own propaganda op in foreign states like Radio Free Asia etc. If you are banning foreign media in your own country, you are doing the same as China in the end. Why not establish a great firewall?
  - xcrunner529 4y ago
    [dead]
  - collaborative 4y ago
    A strong democracy does as it pleases within its democratic laws
  - gonehome 4y ago
    Do you think the USG would have allowed the USSR to buy NBC? These aren’t new issues, there are certain types of corporations where there is a national security interest in American ownership and capability (see also: Intel). Ownership of airlines is another example, you can’t have a foreign controlling interest in a domestic airline (Richard Branson couldn’t save Virgin America due to this). There are good reasons for a nation to have rules about foreign control in certain types of companies that carry a national security risk.
    - caf 4y ago
      In the case of airlines it is just straight up protectionism. There's no national security risk there: if push came to shove in time of war the government could simply seize the assets and operate them as they saw fit.
PurpleRamen 4y ago
> Sadly, it has nothing to do with "talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm", because if it did, they would be trying to ban Facebook, Instagram, and other social media services that have the exact same effect as TikTok on children. Do they? My Impression is a bit different here. TikTok is much more focused on the automatically selected content, and has fewer options for letting users make their own choices. The format itself (video) also strongly boosts the connection between people. And both combined let TikTok-Trends move much faster and ingrain deeper in the minds of people. It was quite interesting to see how fast and deep the brainwashing on TikTok was spreading after the CEOs appearance in senat, and also kinda concerning. > US government does not want any possibility of US citizens' data being in the hands of China and their questions to Chew made that clear. But isn't that legit concern of any country regarding other countries with even less security than you have yourself? I mean in Europe we also have strong concerns against the USA and their poor handling of data.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
This. I had this very conversation today. I dislike applying rules not across the board. I would love if the same argument applied to TikTok, were applied to other social media. However, this is not about the arguments presented. Those are merely talking points as a way to get an upper hand on China. That is it. It is annoying, because there is actually a dire need to make children a little less addicted to screens ( not to mention the chance to get some privacy ).
jquery 4y ago
That’s what they say. Is it really so simply though? https://youtu.be/-zdBmA3Q-hk https://youtu.be/-zdBmA3Q-hk Politicsgirl makes the case this is about shutting down marginalized voices, among other things. I’m no TikTok user myself but the argument holds water.
chemmail 4y ago
Try using Tik Tok in China vs USA. The feeds are very different. The CCP has the influence to only allow more positive and educational topics on their social media. In the USA its the EXACTLY OPPOSITE. Whether you can blame culture, the government, whatevers, something needs to be done. USA media is out of control and if the gov needs to have a hand in it, let them.

mistermann 4y ago

> Sadly, it has nothing to do with "talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm", because if it did, they would be trying to ban Facebook, Instagram, and other social media services that have the exact same effect as TikTok on children. This overlooks the "possibility" that those platforms have an "agreement" of sorts with the US Government. The Twitter Files have gone into some of that, but be careful: it is possible for things to exist that each individual/civilian may not have knowledge of, even though most people seem to be strongly under the impression that this is impossible, perhaps because it could be considered (or, has been marketed as) [only] a conspiracy theory. > This is really meant to be a punch in the fight against China. US government does not want any possibility of US citizens' data being in the hands of China and their questions to Chew made that clear. The narrative of child safety, for example the story about the kid who commit suicide because of their "for you" page, is being used as a kind of legal "pretext" so they can ban TikTok. It is plausible that there are certain ideas that they would not like the minds of the American Public exposed to, certain conversations they would prefer they do not have, etc. There is a surprising amount of detail to reality, but we miss out on most of it (and often do not realize it), for a variety of reasons. The thinking on these sorts of matters one reads in this thread is rather eye opening....I suspect a lot of the styles of logic that are perfectly acceptable in threads on this topic would be very unwelcome when writing software.

bmarquez 4y ago
> This overlooks the "possibility" that those platforms have an "agreement" of sorts with the US Government. Of course they do, it's called Prism and it's been around for over a decade. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...

withinboredom 4y ago

> [The] US government does not want any possibility of US citizens' data being in the hands of China. Yeah, except that any business can just buy that information. I can buy your day-to-day movements for dirt cheap. I own a non-American company (though I'm still an American citizen, but that isn't a factor), and it is insanely cheap to get information about any American you want. Hell, BingBot will tell you all about me, what I do for a living and where I live. This is about China, but it is a stupid and pointless zero-point game. This bill would get shot down in 30s for being unconstitutional, especially if the company has an American LLC or corporation (making it a legal entity protected by the constitution). Further, you'd think congress would have learned from prohibition that banning something ... hmm, doesn't work? At all? How would you even enforce something like this, stop people randomly to violate their privacy further and search their phone? Will this be another thing to get arrested for when you have a 'broken tailight'?

yed 4y ago
The bill doesn't directly ban data sharing but instead focuses on foreign ownership in US companies. It would be enforced similar to anti-trust laws today, by preventing Chinese nationals from purchasing or having an ownership stake in certain large technology companies deemed a security risk. I don't like the bill because I think it's unnecessary but it has nothing to do with searching people's phones or regulating actual data in any way.
ddoolin 4y ago
TikTok disappearing from tens of millions of iPhones overnight (I have no idea about Androids) would probably work pretty well. If I had to guess, almost none of those people can jailbreak their iPhone to get it again, either. Your option would be to switch to Android and learn to sideload apps (which I think is pretty damn easy these days). The point is not to enforce against individual users, just to remove it from the main distribution channels.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  You can freely install apps on your iphone. All you need is an Apple computer. It only can be used for a week? before you have to install it again. I don't pay apple a dime and still develop software for iPhones occasionally without any issues. Also, websites are pretty powerful. Apple even allowed websites to send notifications now.

FormerBandmate 4y ago

Well yeah, ByteDance directly takes orders from the Chinese government. Big Tech can also take orders from the American government, but America is bound by the rule of law and isn't actively imprisoning millions in concentration camps so it's way better

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
> America is bound by the rule of law People keep saying this, but the Snowden leaks make clear this is a fantasy. > America… isn’t actively imprisoning millions… It’s a good thing you said “in concentration camps” or that would have been a doozy!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- claytongulick 4y ago
  I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here - because the U.S. has flaws, then - what? China?
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    That when we talk about China, we see all of their flaws as completely damning them and everything they do as a country, but in the same breath we speak of the rule of law in the USA as if that means something when it comes to mass surveillance (it does not - the USA is a pioneer in illegal mass surveillance). This is a particular problem when it comes to TikTok, because senators look at TikTok collecting data and influencing Americans and they say "We cannot let China do this to us!" while completely ignoring Facebook and Microsoft doing all of the same to us. This leads to harmful bills like this TikTok bill when what we really need are protections from all mass surveillance, foreign and domestic. But that will never happen as long as the good citizens of the USA continue to pretend that the rule of law has any meaning in the USA when it comes to mass surveillance, and we point at China and chide them for the millions they have imprisoned as if that is not the pot calling the kettle black. Calling out China will change very little there, and serves mostly to distract the conversation from the problems we really have the power to solve. We only have the power to change ourselves. The people in the USA and around the globe who suffer from US surveillance will continue to suffer all the while. And what is worse, China will simply start running domestic companies and collecting our data all the same, because these bills aren't solving the real problem. Blindly pointing the finger at China causes real harm to us.

gonehome 4y ago

The data isn’t the risk, it’s more the ability for CCP to leverage influence. https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ Dialing up things to cause unrest, dialing down stuff critical of the CCP. It’s not an issue about data, or even an issue about speech, it’s an issue of ownership of a media company by an adversary that will weaponize it against you. Who controls and owns media companies is a reasonable national security question. The CCP knows this risk, they don’t play fair.

n0tahacker 4y ago
I think this attitude is wrong. A strong democracy doesn't need to fight "fake news" legally and doesn't need their own propaganda op in foreign states like Radio Free Asia etc. If you are banning foreign media in your own country, you are doing the same as China in the end. Why not establish a great firewall?
- xcrunner529 4y ago
  [dead]
- collaborative 4y ago
  A strong democracy does as it pleases within its democratic laws
- gonehome 4y ago
  Do you think the USG would have allowed the USSR to buy NBC? These aren’t new issues, there are certain types of corporations where there is a national security interest in American ownership and capability (see also: Intel). Ownership of airlines is another example, you can’t have a foreign controlling interest in a domestic airline (Richard Branson couldn’t save Virgin America due to this). There are good reasons for a nation to have rules about foreign control in certain types of companies that carry a national security risk.
  - caf 4y ago
    In the case of airlines it is just straight up protectionism. There's no national security risk there: if push came to shove in time of war the government could simply seize the assets and operate them as they saw fit.

PurpleRamen 4y ago

> Sadly, it has nothing to do with "talking about how 'kids' might be influenced by an algorithm", because if it did, they would be trying to ban Facebook, Instagram, and other social media services that have the exact same effect as TikTok on children. Do they? My Impression is a bit different here. TikTok is much more focused on the automatically selected content, and has fewer options for letting users make their own choices. The format itself (video) also strongly boosts the connection between people. And both combined let TikTok-Trends move much faster and ingrain deeper in the minds of people. It was quite interesting to see how fast and deep the brainwashing on TikTok was spreading after the CEOs appearance in senat, and also kinda concerning. > US government does not want any possibility of US citizens' data being in the hands of China and their questions to Chew made that clear. But isn't that legit concern of any country regarding other countries with even less security than you have yourself? I mean in Europe we also have strong concerns against the USA and their poor handling of data.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

This. I had this very conversation today. I dislike applying rules not across the board. I would love if the same argument applied to TikTok, were applied to other social media. However, this is not about the arguments presented. Those are merely talking points as a way to get an upper hand on China. That is it. It is annoying, because there is actually a dire need to make children a little less addicted to screens ( not to mention the chance to get some privacy ).

jquery 4y ago

That’s what they say. Is it really so simply though? https://youtu.be/-zdBmA3Q-hk https://youtu.be/-zdBmA3Q-hk Politicsgirl makes the case this is about shutting down marginalized voices, among other things. I’m no TikTok user myself but the argument holds water.

chemmail 4y ago

Try using Tik Tok in China vs USA. The feeds are very different. The CCP has the influence to only allow more positive and educational topics on their social media. In the USA its the EXACTLY OPPOSITE. Whether you can blame culture, the government, whatevers, something needs to be done. USA media is out of control and if the gov needs to have a hand in it, let them.