3 ms·
> Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish Okay. Now imagine CNN and NYTimes and Fox News being coerc
by raydev 2y ago
> Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish
Okay. Now imagine CNN and NYTimes and Fox News being coerced into publishing or not publishing info because a US gov agency demands it. Or how about the US gov pressuring Meta and Twitter to change their algos around very specific topics? You don't need to imagine it actually.
So why is that less of a concern than China controlling a media delivery service?
- darknavi 2y agoFrom the US government's perspective? Because they are the ones in control of those US-based scenarios.
- raydev 2y agoNo, from yours/commenters' perspectives. What about US-governed control is functionally better for consumers?
- temporalparts 2y agoThis can't be a serious question. US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves. They don't want an adversary to have control. Is the distinction not obvious??
- raydev 2y agoI'm very serious. > US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves. I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective. > They don't want an adversary to have control. Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?
- kelnos 2y ago> Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner? No, because there's more nuance in the world than you seem to suggest.
- tivert 2y ago>>> So why is that less of a concern than China controlling a media delivery service? >> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves. > I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective. Why is it less of a concern to you if you control your bank account than if I do? If we're not making obvious distinctions today, you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same. >> They don't want an adversary to have control. > Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner? It is not. I have difficulty imagining your question is not founded on feigned ignorance. China is an adversary of the US. Some optimistic and naive Western politicians in the 90s thought making them a "primary trade partner" would cause political changes that would eliminate the rivalry. They were wrong, and weakened their countries in the process. That's been clear for like ten years. Now their mistake needs to be dealt with.
- raydev 2y ago> you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same. How is this comparable to the media you're consuming?
- tivert 2y ago> How is this comparable to the media you're consuming? If you can't see the point without tedious hand-holding, I can't help you.
- lazyeye 2y agoI wonder if once any post goes up that is relevant China's interests, an email goes out from some department in the CCP govt, then hordes of Chinese advocates descend on the comments section, arguing, diverting, obsfucating, and muddying the waters so much that no sensible conclusion can ever be made.
- raydev 2y agoI've been here for years, I just constantly see a lot of talk of harms but no details of what the harms are and it's tiring.
- kortilla 2y ago>Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner? Absolutely not. Japan was a primary trade partner going into WW2. The US is actively preparing for wars over Taiwan.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoThe gov doesn’t care about your perspective. trade partner does not exclude adversary. Look at US-Japan trade in the 30s up until just before WW2 when the US decision to embargo exports to Japan (to try to force Japan to stop its occupation of China) led to WW2. It was a pretty quick flip from major trading partner to war.
- kelnos 2y agoIt's less of a concern because it hasn't happened, and -- assuming Trump doesn't "suspend the constitution" -- can't constitutionally happen. If it does happen, then yes, I will be incredibly concerned about it, more than whatever China is doing. But right now, today, we have a media delivery service, controlled by China, that millions of Americans use. That's a real, present concern.
- raydev 2y agoSince it's a hot button conspiracy theorist topic, I need to preface that I don't actually care about the Hunter Biden laptop drama nor the contents of the laptop, but Twitter and Meta actually were told to suppress sharing and discussion of the topic, and they followed orders. It happened. And that's just a recent time that we happen to know about. > But right now, today, we have a media delivery service, controlled by China, that millions of Americans use. That's a real, present concern. Again, I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?
- sethammons 2y agoThey might make an echo chamber that causes a given party to think they will win and thus less people show to the polls. Do people think China wants Trump? Because everyone on tiktok apparently thought this was going to be a Harris landslide victory.
- blitzar 2y agoWe must have different tiktok feeds. Because everyone on tiktok apparently thought this was going to be a Trump landslide victory
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- raydev 2y agoYeah, that's kinda how all social media algos work. You get bucketed in with the content you engage with and watch the most ie the stuff you likely (but not necessarily!) agree with the most already. It's almost as if TikTok's algo isn't any different than FB or IG or X.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]