9 ms·
The TikTok Case Will Be Determined by What's Behind the Government's Black Lines
- lobochrome 2y agoThe only argument that speaks for allowing an state controlled media company from a hostile foreign power to operate in your country, in my opinion, is to trust in the ultimate wisdom of the consumer.
- throawayonthe 2y ago[dead]
- juanani 2y ago[dead]
- ksynwa 2y agoByteDance employs ex-NATO officials at high ranking positions. So it's tough to say if they are being wholly by a "hostile foreign power" as you put it.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoDoesn’t counteract active CCP leadership.
- rockskon 2y agoThus whole thing reeks of boomer Chinese and U.S. spies believing in magical social media mind control powers and fighting a war over something that doesn't exist in any such meaningful form. It's idiocy borne from octogenarian hysteria.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoGeofenced psychological warfare over TikTok is happening on the Russia/ukraine border. No need to go all conspiracy.
- rockskon 2y ago> psychological warfare Really does sound like you're dressing up a pig treating social media recommendations as akin to warfare.
- ksynwa 2y agoI get where you are coming from but I feel you are trivialising it a bit. It is only social media recommendations but I think they are a tool in information warfare. I won't cite any sources so feel free to disregard but social media is a major driver of information consumption today and it can be used to serve ideological ends if those who control it desire so. I don't know anything about the geofencing psyop bit though.
- rockskon 2y agoIf anything I'm not trivializing it enough. There are dozens of companies with vastly more cultural literacy vying to manipulate you into buying goods every day. Amidst the sea of "look at my notification! Look at my recommendation! ANNOYING clap AD clap TIME!!!!!!!", why do you think some random overly angry/insulting recommendation with a bizarre or nonsensical framing coming from China is going to change minds rather than be ignored? Foreign propaganda tends to gain traction when laundered through someone people pay attention to. (E-)celebrities, political figures, charismatic activist figureheads. Not a recommendation algorithm endlessly exploited by advertisers to get a tiny crumb of attention from. The Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense have minimal literacy in the economics of attention and it shows.
- wmf 2y agoEh, the way lobbying works is that you hire ex-government people to work against the interests of the government they used to work for.
- ksynwa 2y agoWhy? You could just hire a non-ex-goverment employee to do that. At least they won't come with the ideological baggage that would prevent them from engaging in sabotaging their own government. Also you paint the picture of these officials as self-serving turncoats. It might be true of some but I find it hard to believe that it is an acceptable generalisation.
- AlbertCory 2y ago> tough to say if they are being wholly by a "hostile foreign power" no, it isn't tough. Your ex-NATO officials are employees who lack the power to say No to the CCP.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mgiampapa 2y agoWho is suing? Would TikTok/ByteDance even have standing in a US court?
- wmf 2y agoByteDance/TikTok is suing the US government. Yes, foreigners who operate in the US have standing in US courts. Especially in this case where they're being targeted by an act of Congress.
- dathinab 2y agoAnd while US courts have repeatedly shown bias in rulings against non US companies, even if they are from close allies, it's just a limited bias. I.e. you have still a standing it's just slightly harder. In difference to US companies suing in China where you have on paper also a standing but the bias against you in all kinds of subtle ways is so earth shattering that most times it's not even worth considering suing.
- bingusmcgee 2y agoI think what is most interesting about this article and what it highlights is that software, especially software that is as big as tik Tok is almost offered the same protections that modern corporations are afforded. They simply are their own entity. To say that tik Tok is Chinese owned as said in the article is not necessarily true as the software is based in the cloud and the business side is located in the Cayman Islands. If America wins this prosecution this could have big impacts on other large tech companies as their “nationality” simply does not matter as they have become their own global entity.
- AlbertCory 2y agoWord-smithing. The Beijing government can tell the TikTok management, "give us all your data" and they will have to do it. That is not true of your other hypothetical companies. There are very few companies that (1) operate at large scale in the US, and (2) have such an obligation to a hostile government.
- Bilal_io 2y ago> The Beijing government can tell the TikTok management, "give us all your data" and they will have to do it. Citation needed
- AlbertCory 2y agoNo, it isn't needed. Do your own research.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- TrainedMonkey 2y agoPer https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/18/its-not-just-a-theory-tiktoks-ties-to-chinese-government-are-dangerous/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/18/its-not-just-a-theor... Chinese government has a seat on the board and there is a law that requires all Chinese companies provide data if queried (this sounds highly similar to U.S. national security laws).
- dtquad 2y agoAs a European I couldn't care less about Tiktok spying on me. US companies and NSA do the same. My problem is the unfair competition of Chinese app devs having access to Western markets when Western app devs don't have the same level of access to the Chinese market.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoEspecially when you see the difference of what TikTok shows Russian youth versus Ukrainian youth…
- viscountchocula 2y agoCan you elaborate?
- mensetmanusman 2y agoIt’s useful to Russia that the youth aren’t seeing the horrors of war on TikTok like the Ukrainian’s youth are. There is geofenced content control.
- Eji1700 2y agoPeople always treat it as hyperbole but I really think that the point of this is being missed. I don't like when anyone spies on people and think we need much much better data privacy laws for the modern generation. That said, there's a large difference between the US/Europe spying on each other, and a country like China, who (along with the US and Europe) has plans to go to war should they deem it necessary. I will not be shocked if this generation is remembered as the biggest security leak in history.
- energy123 2y agoIf we weren't in the Second Cold War against an autocratic near-peer rival, I would be more sympathetic to this "both sides are the same" argument. But given the context, both sides aren't the same as far as my security is concerned. I don't want this rival to control the most powerful information warfare tool ever invented.
- mindslight 2y agoWhat an all around terrible situation. The US government has had over two decades to come up with general laws to protect personal information and maintain competition by requiring open interoperability - protecting against all attackers foreign and domestic. Instead, they've sat on their hands while the surveillance industry has been allowed to keep festering, becoming ever more entrenched in Americans' day to day lives while being championed as bastions of "growth" and "innovation". Now that a single foreign company has gained the level of breakout popularity that had already been achieved by 20+ domestic companies, it's time for pearl clutching galore. Every single argument being levied at China and their authoritarianism is a dynamic we've already been suffering from domestic corporations and their authoritarianism. Give me a break! Instead of hanging their hats on this simplistic election year stunt, the government could still create universal regulations that reign in the surveillance industry and give Americans control of their personal data and digital lives, preserving individual liberty rather than trying to mitigate the downstream effects on the collective. Yet apart from essentially toothless regulations by a few states regarding some very specific types of personal data, still crickets. So I guess the lawmakers' concerns still aren't really about protecting Americans, but just making sure nominally American surveillance companies at least get paid when Americans get surveilled and propagandized by foreign powers? It seems like no matter which way this case gets decided and which way the precedent gets set, We the People are set to lose.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoA single foreign company with leadership mandated to have CCP government control.
- mindslight 2y agoThat was implied, and I don't see how spelling it out changes anything. The nominally domestic corporations aren't exactly sitting around fretting about how to preserve freedom.
- AlbertCory 2y agoThe issue is not protection of consumers, worthy as that is as a goal. No one ever said it was. I'd like to see that achieved, too. But your "20+ domestic companies" are not owned by enemy countries. The issue is surveillance by a hostile nation. It's not a "stupid election year stunt," since we have elections every other year, and that rule would preclude any effort to do anything ever.
- pyeri 2y agoIndia did the best thing by banning TikTok, you don't want apps with backend controlled by dark and shady actors.
- toofy 2y agoi’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: no one will ever convince me that any of the owners of megasocial companies are benevolent while state backed are somehow different. none of these people should have the kind of power they have—whether governments or billionaires, no matter their nationality. if we’re declaring that tiktok gives china massive amounts of power then this means that twitter gives elon massive amounts of power and amazon gives bezos massive amounts of power. if we’re declaring this is happening, then no, i don’t want anyone to have that kind of power. particularly small groups of billionaires who are shady and dark af. and who refuse to be transparent. and who refuse to be held accountable. and who actively take a “we rich deserve privacy protections and you non-billionaire peasants give us all of your secrets.” if we’re declaring tiktok gives this kind of power then we’re absolute fools if we don’t stop them all. and i don’t think that’s hyperbolic.
- bongodongobob 2y agoWho's easier for the US government to control, US CEOs and companies or the Chinese government?
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoI actually don't know the answer to this. The US government has more influence over US companies, but US companies also have more influence over the US government.
- toofy 2y agoim absolutely cynical these days, so take that into account, but i’m skeptical if some billionaires are influenced at all by the us government let alone “controlled” either way, if social media in its current form is that dangerous, and it very well may be, why do you believe any group should have that kind of power? that seems so strange to me.
- smolder 2y agoBanning TikTok is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
- aprilthird2021 2y agoWell said
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoI don't think the reasons are easily digested. That social media does manipulate people at scale so a foreign government shouldn't be doing that. Once you broach that people ask: Why is it acceptable to do to ourselves? Which moves people nervously close to asking: Why aren't domestic social media algorithms regulated? I find that a lot of these games are against opponents (real or imagined) that see the chessboard. They see moves ahead and realize that asking question x inevitable leads to y leads to z and z means that I lose money so let's act as if x is ridiculous or not feasible or crazy.
- seanvelasco 2y agomy issue with TikTok is not its privacy policy, or whether it spies on me or not. my issue with TikTok is it does not enforce its community standards on pro-CCP stances i've reported over 100 antisemitic content and comments - none of them have been taken down simply having an israel flag and yellow ribbon on your tiktok name can result in over 20 antisemitic replies, even if your comment has nothing to do with the conflict this lack of action seems to contribute to the growing number of teens developing antisemetic views, which is deeply, deeply troubling
- thoweirweer234 2y ago[flagged]
- vanjajaja1 2y agoyou've put your political position in your name on a social network, every comment you make is now directly connected to it. anyone trying to do something that has "nothing to do with the conflict" is reminded of the situation because of your choice of name.
- seanvelasco 2y agohaving a flag in your name isn't a political statement. it can simply indicate where you live or where you have strong ties. moreover, why should one be targeted by harassment by simply being born in a certain country?
- meiraleal 2y ago> moreover, why should one be targeted by harassment by simply being born in a certain country? When you type something like this, does it at least cross your mind that palestinians are humans, too? For their disgrace, they were also born in a certain country.
- seanvelasco 2y agodid i say something about the Palestinians? read my statement again - no one should be targeted by harassment by simply being born in a certain country - that includes Israelis, Palestinians, or any other nationality
- daft_pink 2y ago"it risks doing so in a way that will satisfy few observers, including those sympathetic to its position” I think there are many people sympathetic to the government’s position that will be totally satisfied and this quote is not correct at all.
- daft_pink 2y agoI think this is really about just not being a sucker. Why would we allow a country that bans all our news and social media tech companies to operate their company here? If they want to operate tiktok, then we should be allowed to operate google/Facebook/twitter/etc. They can’t ban our companies on national security grounds and then act like we are crazy for banning theirs. The difference between europe banning us companies vs Europe banning Chinese companies is simply that europeans can operate similar companies in the United States without issue, whereas any service like this owned by europeans would be immediately banned in China. Tit for tat policies serve as an effective standard for encouraging foreign countries to open their markets, as each side is incentivized to reduce trade barriers in response to similar actions by the other, ultimately fostering fair and balanced economic exchanges. We do it with airlines, why wouldn’t we do it with social media.
- consumer451 2y ago> Why would we allow a country that bans all our news and social media tech companies to operate their company here? I agree 100%. We don’t need to make it any more complicated than this simple argument.
- aprilthird2021 2y agoI would agree if this were the reason. But it's not the reason. The US gov't admits this is largely due to unrestricted Palestinians being able to post on TikTok when US social media is forced to ban them (Meta, etc.) I just don't think my gov't should be able to ban me from seeing information online. I hate China, but I hate my government banning my own consumption of media more.
- shprd 2y agoSo you want to copy the tactics of an authoritarian regime like China? Your strategy to "get back at them" is to take them as inspiration out of spite? You'd be destroying your own country by setting precedents and new legislation and suffer its implications forever, when instead you could respond with a capitalism mindset, understand the market and put together a coordinated effort to kick their asses and make them lose mindshare.
- aaomidi 2y agoI really hate the US for doing this. Every fucking country in the world is now going to point at the TikTok case and justify censorship. The arguments used for blocking TikTok are literally the same arguments Iran uses to block, say , YouTube. Like, copy paste and put them there.