7 ms·

I don't think it is just about TikTok being capable of spying on foreign users; my opinion is that it is more about TikTok's propaganda potential, i.e. how it c

I don't think it is just about TikTok being capable of spying on foreign users; my opinion is that it is more about TikTok's propaganda potential, i.e. how it can be used to manipulate narratives in the most subtle way against U.S.'s national interest. Imagine the case where the U.S. government would like the (western) world to form certain sentiments on the current regional conflicts that are aligned with its own interests, and then imagine how TikTok's recommendations could be deliberately designed to compromise such alignment...

newsclues 3y ago
Like how Twitter was used?
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Why past tense?
  - rchaud 3y ago
    Twitter isn't as universal as it used to be. Even people who didn't have a Twitter account would see Twitter embeds on every news page for the past decade. That's gone down a lot over the past year.
    - hotnfresh 3y ago
      I was initially happy with Musk’s acquisition, both because watching a dumpster fire is entertaining and because he actually made it work a lot better for logged-out use, very soon after the purchase. Changes in the last few weeks have flipped that around and made it terrible if you’re logged out. Friends (with accounts) have started sharing screenshots rather than links, because the links strip all context for a post if you visit them while logged out. Logged out search no longer works. Account pages have seemingly insane post ordering putting posts from months or years ago at the top, and newer posts often no-where. Whole site’s now entirely useless without an account.
ok_dad 3y ago
Sounds like something out of 1984 to me. “We better ban all the news sources that aren’t approved by the state!” That’s going to push the USA into becoming a totalitarian state. I’m against that, I prefer free access to information with all the warts that come with that as well. I don’t want to be tools what the state approved facts are, because that can be warped in the future when China isn’t a threat or another political group uses the law maliciously in the future. The first amendment is the first one for a reason. Free expression is key to keeping a democracy, IMO.
- solardev 3y ago
  I'm not sure that the 1A can scale properly for modernity, though. It was written two hundred years ago by men in a different world, without broadcast propaganda that can reach billions in seconds, dark money financing every major politician, a corrupt Supreme Court, and capitalists able to freely convert billions into political speech. Put it all together and what you have isn't a vibrant democracy with a bunch of dissenting voices, but thought bubbles shaped almost entirely by the ultra-rich and their political allies, manipulating the billions away from human rights and democratic principles -- arguably the intent of what the 1A was actually trying to protect. Instead of a citizen-first democracy, it's been warped into a "capital compels thought" dystopia. There's nothing free about this expression; it is both expensive as in dollars and enslaved as in ideology.
  - bassrattle 3y ago
    > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition the governement for a redress of grievances The founding fathers were documented as being MUCH more forward-thinking than most people assume. The thought bubbles you mention and mass-manipulation existed hundreds of years ago. "Capital compels thought" isn't new and the only saving grace is the anyone can voice anything they desire and we don't need any license to participate in the marketplace of ideas.
    - 3y ago
wolverine876 3y ago
Propaganda is widely used on social media. Why focus on TikTok? Other countries have laws and agencies to protect against propaganda; the US doesn't bother. I doubt the propaganda concern is driving political will.
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  In the US, it is because other platforms share data more freely with the government than required by law. Presumably, TikTok follows the law but no more.
- RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
  > Propaganda is widely used on social media. Why focus on TikTok? Because TikTok is a "rogue" social media (from the U.S.'s perspective, of course)? > Other countries have laws and agencies to protect against propaganda; the US doesn't bother. I am not sure I follow your point here; could you elaborate?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    >> Other countries have laws and agencies to protect against propaganda; the US doesn't bother. > I am not sure I follow your point here; could you elaborate? My point is, the US government doesn't otherwise care much about propaganda, so I doubt that's a motivation here.
    - RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
      I think they do care. People thinking the U.S. government doesn't care may as well be an indication that their efforts on propaganda are highly effective and successful.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Do you have evidence for any of that?
  - rchaud 3y ago
lilyball 3y ago
This argument always strikes me as weird given that we know domestic social networks are doing precisely this, adjusting their algorithms to promote or suppress things for political reasons, but I have yet to see any claim that TikTok has ever done this, only that they could.
- usernomdeguerre 3y ago
  Given that we've learned about western companies practices here as a result of whistleblowers it seems unlikely we'll see that from Bytedance. Especially considering how they've treated whistleblowers so far.
- snoman 3y ago
  Please excuse my ignorance here, but how do we know that?
  - johngladtj 3y ago
    Is this a good faith request for information?
    - snoman 3y ago
      Absolutely. My ignorance on the issue is not feigned. A lot of news feels like noise so I avoid it almost completely. That means I miss a lot of the big stories. It’s a balance that I’m still ok with. Someone else did post some material though, and I was able to find some information googling myself as well.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Cambridge Analytica scandal aside, we know from first hand research papers that Facebook has conducted experiments to manipulate users' moods. We also have whistleblower data that they (allegedly intentionally) intentionally ignored manipulation for the 2016 election. Worth reading Sophie Zhang's narrative: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook-whistleblower-sophie-zhang-global-political-manipulation/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook... Sure, none of these is a smoking gun for the explicit claim that the companies themselves are explicitly manipulating users, but they certainly appear to be complicit. Complicit in a conspiracy (in the legal sense) to influence voters.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

newsclues 3y ago

Like how Twitter was used?

AlexandrB 3y ago
Why past tense?
- rchaud 3y ago
  Twitter isn't as universal as it used to be. Even people who didn't have a Twitter account would see Twitter embeds on every news page for the past decade. That's gone down a lot over the past year.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    I was initially happy with Musk’s acquisition, both because watching a dumpster fire is entertaining and because he actually made it work a lot better for logged-out use, very soon after the purchase. Changes in the last few weeks have flipped that around and made it terrible if you’re logged out. Friends (with accounts) have started sharing screenshots rather than links, because the links strip all context for a post if you visit them while logged out. Logged out search no longer works. Account pages have seemingly insane post ordering putting posts from months or years ago at the top, and newer posts often no-where. Whole site’s now entirely useless without an account.

ok_dad 3y ago

Sounds like something out of 1984 to me. “We better ban all the news sources that aren’t approved by the state!” That’s going to push the USA into becoming a totalitarian state. I’m against that, I prefer free access to information with all the warts that come with that as well. I don’t want to be tools what the state approved facts are, because that can be warped in the future when China isn’t a threat or another political group uses the law maliciously in the future. The first amendment is the first one for a reason. Free expression is key to keeping a democracy, IMO.

solardev 3y ago
I'm not sure that the 1A can scale properly for modernity, though. It was written two hundred years ago by men in a different world, without broadcast propaganda that can reach billions in seconds, dark money financing every major politician, a corrupt Supreme Court, and capitalists able to freely convert billions into political speech. Put it all together and what you have isn't a vibrant democracy with a bunch of dissenting voices, but thought bubbles shaped almost entirely by the ultra-rich and their political allies, manipulating the billions away from human rights and democratic principles -- arguably the intent of what the 1A was actually trying to protect. Instead of a citizen-first democracy, it's been warped into a "capital compels thought" dystopia. There's nothing free about this expression; it is both expensive as in dollars and enslaved as in ideology.
- bassrattle 3y ago
  > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition the governement for a redress of grievances The founding fathers were documented as being MUCH more forward-thinking than most people assume. The thought bubbles you mention and mass-manipulation existed hundreds of years ago. "Capital compels thought" isn't new and the only saving grace is the anyone can voice anything they desire and we don't need any license to participate in the marketplace of ideas.
  - 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

Propaganda is widely used on social media. Why focus on TikTok? Other countries have laws and agencies to protect against propaganda; the US doesn't bother. I doubt the propaganda concern is driving political will.

edmundsauto 3y ago
In the US, it is because other platforms share data more freely with the government than required by law. Presumably, TikTok follows the law but no more.
RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
> Propaganda is widely used on social media. Why focus on TikTok? Because TikTok is a "rogue" social media (from the U.S.'s perspective, of course)? > Other countries have laws and agencies to protect against propaganda; the US doesn't bother. I am not sure I follow your point here; could you elaborate?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  >> Other countries have laws and agencies to protect against propaganda; the US doesn't bother. > I am not sure I follow your point here; could you elaborate? My point is, the US government doesn't otherwise care much about propaganda, so I doubt that's a motivation here.
  - RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
    I think they do care. People thinking the U.S. government doesn't care may as well be an indication that their efforts on propaganda are highly effective and successful.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Do you have evidence for any of that?
- rchaud 3y ago

lilyball 3y ago

This argument always strikes me as weird given that we know domestic social networks are doing precisely this, adjusting their algorithms to promote or suppress things for political reasons, but I have yet to see any claim that TikTok has ever done this, only that they could.

usernomdeguerre 3y ago
Given that we've learned about western companies practices here as a result of whistleblowers it seems unlikely we'll see that from Bytedance. Especially considering how they've treated whistleblowers so far.
snoman 3y ago
Please excuse my ignorance here, but how do we know that?
- johngladtj 3y ago
  Is this a good faith request for information?
  - snoman 3y ago
    Absolutely. My ignorance on the issue is not feigned. A lot of news feels like noise so I avoid it almost completely. That means I miss a lot of the big stories. It’s a balance that I’m still ok with. Someone else did post some material though, and I was able to find some information googling myself as well.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Cambridge Analytica scandal aside, we know from first hand research papers that Facebook has conducted experiments to manipulate users' moods. We also have whistleblower data that they (allegedly intentionally) intentionally ignored manipulation for the 2016 election. Worth reading Sophie Zhang's narrative: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook-whistleblower-sophie-zhang-global-political-manipulation/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook... Sure, none of these is a smoking gun for the explicit claim that the companies themselves are explicitly manipulating users, but they certainly appear to be complicit. Complicit in a conspiracy (in the legal sense) to influence voters.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]