4 ms·

My opinion is still the same. If TikTok represents a threat, let the DOJ or FTC or whoever look into it and present a case to the courts and to the American pub

by rchaud 3y ago

My opinion is still the same. If TikTok represents a threat, let the DOJ or FTC or whoever look into it and present a case to the courts and to the American public. Congress can get the voters on its side by writing a bill requiring stronger privacy measures on iOS/Android for example. But they won't because this would adversely impact Google and Facebook. A government ban is an authoritarian move that will inevitably expand to non-TikTok apps. As for a broader change in opinion, I'd say that since 2022, American businesses have been happy to rally around protectionist policies in general (especially after the end of ZIRP) and that attitude feeds through to HN'ers that put a disproportionate amount of stock in things that people like Musk say. For example, here's Musk admitting that Chinese EVs will dominate global market share without trade barriers: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-ceo-musk-chinese-ev-firms-will-demolish-rivals-without-trade-barriers-2024-01-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...

Jensson 3y ago
This isn't about privacy, this is about influence. CCP having direct chain of authority to control what Americans watch isn't a thing many want.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  To be clear, we haven't been asked about it. Besides the framing of the question ultimately begs the response. Q1: Is it ok for China to control what Americans watch? Q2: Should companies have free association? Q1 and Q2 determine the same decision, but express different values and ultimately different responses. You have to be honest that the framing begs a particular response. That's the part that's not unbiased.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Answer to Q2 is easy: no. Nobody thinks that companies should be allowed to pledge allegiance to whoever they wish, there are already lots of laws in every country against pledging allegiance to terrorists or being owned by terrorists etc.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Again, a really good example that the framing of the concept begs a specific response. Keep 'em coming. Association and allegiance aren't synonyms.
      - natpalmer1776 3y ago
        I absolutely love the way you are engaging with this problem, and really appreciate how you’re trying to make discourse about the fundamental issue rather than the knee-jerk ‘murica “unrationale”. Personally I support the authoritarian measure against TikTok from a “general” standpoint since I firmly believe the nature of warfare lately has shifted to a more cultural front and thus is a matter of national security; Everything about this would be perfect if not for the glaring issue that is clear favoritism, and not addressing the root problem. Social media and its corresponding ad-tech at large is a publicly available propaganda engine that can be wielded by the highest state backed bidder via direct ads, or the highest spending intelligence actor via artificial accounts and discourse. LLM tech has only exacerbated this threat and in a perfect world this legislation would be the first of many steps to curtail the threat before it undermines the country any further. Now that I’ve said my controversial bits I would love to hear what your thoughts on the matter(s) are!
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        If the choice is who are we going to make in charge of feeding us propaganda then the game is fixed. We play this trick on 4 year olds to make them do what we want and when done to adults it's paternalistic. Fifteen year old me was right on this one. It's better to burn it down than pick the lesser of two evils. We always reserve the right to create our own options if what's presented to us isn't honest.
        natpalmer1776 3y ago
        Sure the game is rigged so that someone will be feeding us propaganda, that much is a given in today’s society. I don’t believe however it is in any citizen’s best interests to allow a foreign nation to control that propaganda due to the invariably detrimental incentives at play. The American government is more likely to produce propaganda that promotes an increase in GDP. The increase being won by sacrificing individual autonomy or quality of life is something that is at least in your control (emigrating, voting, lobbying, etc) which makes it the lesser of two evils. As to burning it down and picking a third option… I agree in principle but recent history rarely supports that path; modern technology and weaponry renders any kind of organized revolution a nonstarter, while other means of subverting the status quo (economically, culturally, etc) have been set up to incentivize those capable of doing so to be completely apathetic in the face of obscene wealth tied directly to upholding said status quo. Put simply we are in a social construct that is resilient to any significant change in course (or destruction) while still under threat from a foreign social construct that wishes to subvert our society to the benefit of its own.
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  Are Facebook, Twitter and Google any better?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    CCP doesn't control any of those, so they aren't national security issues. Edit: And in non American countries where US influence is a national security issue they are already adding similar laws or putting in similar pressure to ensure USA can't influence their people as much.
    - Auracle 3y ago
      Let’s say Meta started really pushing stuff to encourage teens to not join the military. What then?
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Nothing? Meta is owned by an American, that person probably don't want to see America get destroyed. Other nation states however has an interest in seeing USA get destroyed, so that makes things very different.
      - SR2Z 3y ago
        Public outrage and then a rock-solid 1A defense for Meta, since it's an American company controlled by American citizens?
      - bravetraveler 3y ago
        "it's not authoritarianism when it's something I want" Nothing should happen, limitations are deliberate Meta aside we're already here, by the way. The military and VA do this to themselves. Recruitment strategy is commercials and Call of Duty games, while we see what really happens through our families. Half-ass postings on the Internet aren't even close to the problem. Tldr: Don't like the news, fix it/make your own. Pray we don't have to rely on the draft.
  - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Is it the DOJ or FTCs purview to 'look out for threats'?
- rchaud 3y ago
  It is if credible evidence of such a threat could be provided. The FTC investigated and fined Facebook $5bn for its breaches. The DOJ investigated and fined Binance $4bn and cut off its USD off-ramps, effectively banning it for US residents. Why should TikTok not be investigated similarly? What Congress is proposing is banning an app without first providing any evidence that the app conducts activities that are illegal under US law. FTC v Facebook: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-imposes-5-billion-penalty-sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions-facebook https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/... DOJ v Binance: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/binance-and-ceo-plead-guilty-federal-charges-4b-resolution https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/binance-and-ceo-plead-guilty-...
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    It seems like the argument against TikTok is one of potential abuse, not that a specific illegal action had been taken by ByteDance. So, for the same reason that you can't find someone guilty of a crime that you believe they will commit in the future, the DOJ and FTC don't really have any standing here to press charges or levy fines.

by rchaud 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago

This isn't about privacy, this is about influence. CCP having direct chain of authority to control what Americans watch isn't a thing many want.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
To be clear, we haven't been asked about it. Besides the framing of the question ultimately begs the response. Q1: Is it ok for China to control what Americans watch? Q2: Should companies have free association? Q1 and Q2 determine the same decision, but express different values and ultimately different responses. You have to be honest that the framing begs a particular response. That's the part that's not unbiased.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Answer to Q2 is easy: no. Nobody thinks that companies should be allowed to pledge allegiance to whoever they wish, there are already lots of laws in every country against pledging allegiance to terrorists or being owned by terrorists etc.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Again, a really good example that the framing of the concept begs a specific response. Keep 'em coming. Association and allegiance aren't synonyms.
    - natpalmer1776 3y ago
      I absolutely love the way you are engaging with this problem, and really appreciate how you’re trying to make discourse about the fundamental issue rather than the knee-jerk ‘murica “unrationale”. Personally I support the authoritarian measure against TikTok from a “general” standpoint since I firmly believe the nature of warfare lately has shifted to a more cultural front and thus is a matter of national security; Everything about this would be perfect if not for the glaring issue that is clear favoritism, and not addressing the root problem. Social media and its corresponding ad-tech at large is a publicly available propaganda engine that can be wielded by the highest state backed bidder via direct ads, or the highest spending intelligence actor via artificial accounts and discourse. LLM tech has only exacerbated this threat and in a perfect world this legislation would be the first of many steps to curtail the threat before it undermines the country any further. Now that I’ve said my controversial bits I would love to hear what your thoughts on the matter(s) are!
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        If the choice is who are we going to make in charge of feeding us propaganda then the game is fixed. We play this trick on 4 year olds to make them do what we want and when done to adults it's paternalistic. Fifteen year old me was right on this one. It's better to burn it down than pick the lesser of two evils. We always reserve the right to create our own options if what's presented to us isn't honest.
        natpalmer1776 3y ago
        Sure the game is rigged so that someone will be feeding us propaganda, that much is a given in today’s society. I don’t believe however it is in any citizen’s best interests to allow a foreign nation to control that propaganda due to the invariably detrimental incentives at play. The American government is more likely to produce propaganda that promotes an increase in GDP. The increase being won by sacrificing individual autonomy or quality of life is something that is at least in your control (emigrating, voting, lobbying, etc) which makes it the lesser of two evils. As to burning it down and picking a third option… I agree in principle but recent history rarely supports that path; modern technology and weaponry renders any kind of organized revolution a nonstarter, while other means of subverting the status quo (economically, culturally, etc) have been set up to incentivize those capable of doing so to be completely apathetic in the face of obscene wealth tied directly to upholding said status quo. Put simply we are in a social construct that is resilient to any significant change in course (or destruction) while still under threat from a foreign social construct that wishes to subvert our society to the benefit of its own.
nextaccountic 3y ago
Are Facebook, Twitter and Google any better?
- Jensson 3y ago
  CCP doesn't control any of those, so they aren't national security issues. Edit: And in non American countries where US influence is a national security issue they are already adding similar laws or putting in similar pressure to ensure USA can't influence their people as much.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    Let’s say Meta started really pushing stuff to encourage teens to not join the military. What then?
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Nothing? Meta is owned by an American, that person probably don't want to see America get destroyed. Other nation states however has an interest in seeing USA get destroyed, so that makes things very different.
    - SR2Z 3y ago
      Public outrage and then a rock-solid 1A defense for Meta, since it's an American company controlled by American citizens?
    - bravetraveler 3y ago
      "it's not authoritarianism when it's something I want" Nothing should happen, limitations are deliberate Meta aside we're already here, by the way. The military and VA do this to themselves. Recruitment strategy is commercials and Call of Duty games, while we see what really happens through our families. Half-ass postings on the Internet aren't even close to the problem. Tldr: Don't like the news, fix it/make your own. Pray we don't have to rely on the draft.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Is it the DOJ or FTCs purview to 'look out for threats'?

rchaud 3y ago
It is if credible evidence of such a threat could be provided. The FTC investigated and fined Facebook $5bn for its breaches. The DOJ investigated and fined Binance $4bn and cut off its USD off-ramps, effectively banning it for US residents. Why should TikTok not be investigated similarly? What Congress is proposing is banning an app without first providing any evidence that the app conducts activities that are illegal under US law. FTC v Facebook: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-imposes-5-billion-penalty-sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions-facebook https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/... DOJ v Binance: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/binance-and-ceo-plead-guilty-federal-charges-4b-resolution https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/binance-and-ceo-plead-guilty-...
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  It seems like the argument against TikTok is one of potential abuse, not that a specific illegal action had been taken by ByteDance. So, for the same reason that you can't find someone guilty of a crime that you believe they will commit in the future, the DOJ and FTC don't really have any standing here to press charges or levy fines.