4 ms·

> the damage has already been done in the sense that it leaked a lot of training data and PII data to China That's not nearly the damage that people are organi

> the damage has already been done in the sense that it leaked a lot of training data and PII data to China That's not nearly the damage that people are organizing against. It's hard to imagine China really gains much simply be holding some trove of old details about some subset of US consumers, no matter how large. Vanishingly few users are individually interesting from halfway around the world, and the aggregate data grows stale quickly. The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a) advance their global political agenda by dynamically manipulating what people see and how its presented to them in a way that almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept ostensibly private messaging between select users. From the national security perspective of a foreign government, both of these are huge vulnerabilities in a hot or even mildly warm conflict with China as most of the globe seems to be anticipating. And the fact that pushing back against these strategic threats raises ideological conflicts with Western celebration of free speech and free trade -- making it hard for the government to do anything about the threats and stoking internal conflict when they try -- is gravy on top of it.

inahga 2y ago
> The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a) advance their global political agenda by dynamically manipulating what people see and how its presented to them in a way that almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept ostensibly private messaging between select users. It's interesting that these are only actionable threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here]. That is, there's been lots of lip service paid about misinformation and privacy violations on/by U.S. companies. But it feels like the only meaningful action is being taken when it's some hypothetical foreign adversary. The further away they are, the more insidious. I've always felt the most tangible threat is in my backyard, instead of on the other side of the planet.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  To citizens and cultural health, yes, the large domestic companies are a much greater threat. There are also many more impediments (by way of law, sentiment, and corruption) to doing anything about it. But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Taking measures that prepare for that, under the lax purview of international law and diplomacy, is simply easier to do.
  - inahga 2y ago
    > But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Do you have more sources/readings on this? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the first rationale I've heard that doesn't boil down to vague innuendos about manipulation and national security that are equally applicable to US companies.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Not the person you're replying to, and I also don't have sources, but to me this is the logical conclusion to deeper thought beyond these vague innuendoes about manipulation and national security. And isolationist, hands-off US would be great for China (and Russia, etc.). China has been increasing their influence on the global stage for quite some time now, and would love to surpass the US in its global influence. Helping to get leaders elected (like Trump) who want to pull back and focus inward could easily be a part of that strategy. (To be fair, I don't think China got Trump re-elected; I think Democrat blindness toward actual domestic issues got Trump re-elected.) > "... that are equally applicable to US companies.* I don't really agree that's the case. From the US government's perspective, the dominant social media platforms being owned by US companies is a big win. Certainly those companies sometimes act in ways that piss off the US government, but the trade off is worth it.
    - swatcoder 2y ago
      Which part sounds unfamiliar to you? Modern history through the Cold War sees diplomacy through the lens of "great powers" exercising some "sphere of influence" over vassals, subjects, and partners. Through the 19th and 20th century, up to WWII, the US worked to define its sphere of influence as all of the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) and as much of Pacific rim as they could claw away from declining/decolonizing European powers. After WWII, as the only great power able to proceed at full stride and with no recovery to muster, they were able to cement the Pacific projection through new relationships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc But the landscape changed over the subsequent 80 years, with China's independent modernization and industrialization setting it up as the modern "great power" was due to inherit its legacy from pre-modern history. And so we arrive at today, where China feels increasingly ready to challenge stale European and US influence over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South East more generally. The US inevitably needs to respond to those challenges. That's the brewing, long-anticipated, and seemingly inevitable conflict that becomes increasingly hot as the US is stretched thin by internal conflict and Russias's parallel challenges to it in Europe. In this global conflict, TikTok's continued success is a huge benefit to China and huge vulnerability to the US. Meanwhile, domestic social media companies actually play the opposite strategic role, giving the US a channel to project its voice into foreign constituencies to influence both allies and enemies. Which we can assume is why China already bans them there.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > It's interesting that these are only actionable threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here]. Well, duh. I know my government and what it can do and tends to do, for the most part. I know what restrictions are placed on it, and that when they circumvent those restrictions, it usually comes to light, even if it takes a while. I know that news outlets here can criticize the government and not have their journalists arrested. US (and other Western) intelligence agencies presumably run influence campaigns on social media to influence foreign citizens. While I may not agree with that practice, it's not high on my list of things I'm going to be worried up about. [Insert foreign boogeyman] also presumably runs influence campaigns on social media that target the citizens of my country. When they run those campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Twitter, Bluesky, etc., it is safe to assume that the people running those companies (well, perhaps with the exception of Musk) don't like that, and will try (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to shut them down. If China wants to run influence campaigns on TikTok against US citizens, TikTok will actively help them do it. If they're not already doing this, their intelligence agencies are asleep at the wheel.
russli1993 2y ago
[flagged]

inahga 2y ago

> The pressing concerns are in them being able to (a) advance their global political agenda by dynamically manipulating what people see and how its presented to them in a way that almost nobody can monitor, and (b) intercept ostensibly private messaging between select users. It's interesting that these are only actionable threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here]. That is, there's been lots of lip service paid about misinformation and privacy violations on/by U.S. companies. But it feels like the only meaningful action is being taken when it's some hypothetical foreign adversary. The further away they are, the more insidious. I've always felt the most tangible threat is in my backyard, instead of on the other side of the planet.

swatcoder 2y ago
To citizens and cultural health, yes, the large domestic companies are a much greater threat. There are also many more impediments (by way of law, sentiment, and corruption) to doing anything about it. But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Taking measures that prepare for that, under the lax purview of international law and diplomacy, is simply easier to do.
- inahga 2y ago
  > But to the US government (and its codependent allies), losing grip of the influence the US secured over the Pacific rim of Asia during to the 20th century and yielding it to China is an embarrassment at best and a major strategic loss at worst, and sets the stage for some kind of active contest of power which would be really costly and painful. Do you have more sources/readings on this? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the first rationale I've heard that doesn't boil down to vague innuendos about manipulation and national security that are equally applicable to US companies.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Not the person you're replying to, and I also don't have sources, but to me this is the logical conclusion to deeper thought beyond these vague innuendoes about manipulation and national security. And isolationist, hands-off US would be great for China (and Russia, etc.). China has been increasing their influence on the global stage for quite some time now, and would love to surpass the US in its global influence. Helping to get leaders elected (like Trump) who want to pull back and focus inward could easily be a part of that strategy. (To be fair, I don't think China got Trump re-elected; I think Democrat blindness toward actual domestic issues got Trump re-elected.) > "... that are equally applicable to US companies.* I don't really agree that's the case. From the US government's perspective, the dominant social media platforms being owned by US companies is a big win. Certainly those companies sometimes act in ways that piss off the US government, but the trade off is worth it.
  - swatcoder 2y ago
    Which part sounds unfamiliar to you? Modern history through the Cold War sees diplomacy through the lens of "great powers" exercising some "sphere of influence" over vassals, subjects, and partners. Through the 19th and 20th century, up to WWII, the US worked to define its sphere of influence as all of the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine) and as much of Pacific rim as they could claw away from declining/decolonizing European powers. After WWII, as the only great power able to proceed at full stride and with no recovery to muster, they were able to cement the Pacific projection through new relationships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc But the landscape changed over the subsequent 80 years, with China's independent modernization and industrialization setting it up as the modern "great power" was due to inherit its legacy from pre-modern history. And so we arrive at today, where China feels increasingly ready to challenge stale European and US influence over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South East more generally. The US inevitably needs to respond to those challenges. That's the brewing, long-anticipated, and seemingly inevitable conflict that becomes increasingly hot as the US is stretched thin by internal conflict and Russias's parallel challenges to it in Europe. In this global conflict, TikTok's continued success is a huge benefit to China and huge vulnerability to the US. Meanwhile, domestic social media companies actually play the opposite strategic role, giving the US a channel to project its voice into foreign constituencies to influence both allies and enemies. Which we can assume is why China already bans them there.
kelnos 2y ago
> It's interesting that these are only actionable threats when they apply to [insert foreign boogeyman here]. Well, duh. I know my government and what it can do and tends to do, for the most part. I know what restrictions are placed on it, and that when they circumvent those restrictions, it usually comes to light, even if it takes a while. I know that news outlets here can criticize the government and not have their journalists arrested. US (and other Western) intelligence agencies presumably run influence campaigns on social media to influence foreign citizens. While I may not agree with that practice, it's not high on my list of things I'm going to be worried up about. [Insert foreign boogeyman] also presumably runs influence campaigns on social media that target the citizens of my country. When they run those campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Twitter, Bluesky, etc., it is safe to assume that the people running those companies (well, perhaps with the exception of Musk) don't like that, and will try (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to shut them down. If China wants to run influence campaigns on TikTok against US citizens, TikTok will actively help them do it. If they're not already doing this, their intelligence agencies are asleep at the wheel.

russli1993 2y ago

[flagged]