5 ms·

This ban has always felt so silly. If it's privacy and data harvesting as a concern, don't a million apps do that? If it's anti-China sentiment, why TikTok and

by yyuugg 2y ago

This ban has always felt so silly. If it's privacy and data harvesting as a concern, don't a million apps do that? If it's anti-China sentiment, why TikTok and not a million other things? If it's about protecting elections and propaganda, why not X and Meta and YouTube? It's so weirdly targeted to me. Why TikTok only?

sethammons 2y ago
because tiktok was doing FB stuff better and FB got scared and lobbied. I think that about sums it up.
logicchains 2y ago
Because the AIPAC lobby explicitly called TikTok out for exposing young Americans to footage of the Gaza genocide (causing support for Israel among US youth to reach and all-time low), and pushed for the ban. The US politicians who initially pushed it had received hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from AIPAC. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/tiktok-accusations-anti-israel-content.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/tiktok-accusatio...
- banku_brougham 2y ago
  Its a straight line, openly conceived.
swatcoder 2y ago
> If it's about protecting elections and propaganda, why not X and Meta and YouTube? Because the government is not threatened by X, Meta, or YouTube. In many ways, it exists in their pocket. There's not a lot of looming dissonance between what those parties are interested in seeing happen and what the modern federal government (as run by either party) is pursuing, and at this point, those each provide far more value as an allied propaganda arm than as a hostile propaganda risk. But China and the US have directly competing interests in many places around the world, and the radical changes that both countries have undergone in the last 80 years have set the stage of a fresh contest of power. Obviously, both parties would like to navigate that contest in the best position possible. Allowing your anticipated opponent access to unmediated, private communications with hundreds of millions of citizens in an already vulnerable democracy is not a great position to be in during that contest.
quickthrowman 2y ago
X, Meta, and YouTube are not indirectly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. The end.
- yyuugg 2y ago
  So... nationalism? We like our surveillance state and demonize their surveillance state?
  - disattention 2y ago
    Yes? And it's not so much about the surveillance in the first place as opposed to the algorithmic manipulation of content to shift narratives and spread propaganda. Whether or not one believes the US based companies do similarly is beside the point, precisely because they're US based, whereas TikTok is the product of the US's primary economic and ideological adversary
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- banku_brougham 2y ago
  oh, but give a chance for rebuttal: I find the US propaganda simplistic and violent. I much prefer this Chinese propaganda, as an american consumer.
azinman2 2y ago
It’s very simple, the entire young generation lives on TT. It’s where they get all of their information. It’s owned by a foreign adversary. We already have laws against foreign owned media for radio and TV, why would this be any different given this is TV in 2024? I’ve used both reels and TT. I’ve only ever gotten lots of pro-China content on TT.
- thiagoharry 2y ago
  So, you agree that most countries should ban US social media, as most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV and radio?
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV and radio? Better check on that. I know of a few countries that have no problem with foreign-owned radio stations. I assume that applies to television stations, too. When the Iron Curtain came down, radio companies from around the world started buying up signals in eastern Europe.
    - thiagoharry 2y ago
      Yeah, I was thinking more in Europe and some countries in Latin America, which I know more. Not in Eastern Europe, where after the end of Soviet Union, a shock treatment were applied, creating a free market without any restrictions.
  - vl 2y ago
    You would be surprised perhaps, but a lot of countries actually ban US social media.
    - thiagoharry 2y ago
      Yeah, it is true for some definition of "a lot", but still is a minority, a number of countries much smaller than what should be according with that opinion. Nonetheless, it is funny how before US had the urge to do the same to control which parties should be allowed to mass spread messages within its borders, the common sense and default ideology was that those bannings in the Internet were a proof on how evil and dictatorial these countries were, in contrast to how free were the USA. But unsurprisingly, perceptions and ideologies always change with time, always based on how convenient and useful they are for the powerful.
wvenable 2y ago
Data harvesting is a-ok. Propaganda by Americans to Americans is protected by the first amendment. But a foreign state harvesting data and applying influence is more straight forward. Look at the proposed solution: Just sell TikTok to someone else who isn't China.

by yyuugg 2y ago

sethammons 2y ago

because tiktok was doing FB stuff better and FB got scared and lobbied. I think that about sums it up.

logicchains 2y ago

Because the AIPAC lobby explicitly called TikTok out for exposing young Americans to footage of the Gaza genocide (causing support for Israel among US youth to reach and all-time low), and pushed for the ban. The US politicians who initially pushed it had received hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from AIPAC. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/tiktok-accusations-anti-israel-content.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/tiktok-accusatio...

banku_brougham 2y ago
Its a straight line, openly conceived.

swatcoder 2y ago

> If it's about protecting elections and propaganda, why not X and Meta and YouTube? Because the government is not threatened by X, Meta, or YouTube. In many ways, it exists in their pocket. There's not a lot of looming dissonance between what those parties are interested in seeing happen and what the modern federal government (as run by either party) is pursuing, and at this point, those each provide far more value as an allied propaganda arm than as a hostile propaganda risk. But China and the US have directly competing interests in many places around the world, and the radical changes that both countries have undergone in the last 80 years have set the stage of a fresh contest of power. Obviously, both parties would like to navigate that contest in the best position possible. Allowing your anticipated opponent access to unmediated, private communications with hundreds of millions of citizens in an already vulnerable democracy is not a great position to be in during that contest.

quickthrowman 2y ago

X, Meta, and YouTube are not indirectly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. The end.

yyuugg 2y ago
So... nationalism? We like our surveillance state and demonize their surveillance state?
- disattention 2y ago
  Yes? And it's not so much about the surveillance in the first place as opposed to the algorithmic manipulation of content to shift narratives and spread propaganda. Whether or not one believes the US based companies do similarly is beside the point, precisely because they're US based, whereas TikTok is the product of the US's primary economic and ideological adversary
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
banku_brougham 2y ago
oh, but give a chance for rebuttal: I find the US propaganda simplistic and violent. I much prefer this Chinese propaganda, as an american consumer.

azinman2 2y ago

It’s very simple, the entire young generation lives on TT. It’s where they get all of their information. It’s owned by a foreign adversary. We already have laws against foreign owned media for radio and TV, why would this be any different given this is TV in 2024? I’ve used both reels and TT. I’ve only ever gotten lots of pro-China content on TT.

thiagoharry 2y ago
So, you agree that most countries should ban US social media, as most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV and radio?
- reaperducer 2y ago
  most of them probably have laws against foreign owned TV and radio? Better check on that. I know of a few countries that have no problem with foreign-owned radio stations. I assume that applies to television stations, too. When the Iron Curtain came down, radio companies from around the world started buying up signals in eastern Europe.
  - thiagoharry 2y ago
    Yeah, I was thinking more in Europe and some countries in Latin America, which I know more. Not in Eastern Europe, where after the end of Soviet Union, a shock treatment were applied, creating a free market without any restrictions.
- vl 2y ago
  You would be surprised perhaps, but a lot of countries actually ban US social media.
  - thiagoharry 2y ago
    Yeah, it is true for some definition of "a lot", but still is a minority, a number of countries much smaller than what should be according with that opinion. Nonetheless, it is funny how before US had the urge to do the same to control which parties should be allowed to mass spread messages within its borders, the common sense and default ideology was that those bannings in the Internet were a proof on how evil and dictatorial these countries were, in contrast to how free were the USA. But unsurprisingly, perceptions and ideologies always change with time, always based on how convenient and useful they are for the powerful.

wvenable 2y ago

Data harvesting is a-ok. Propaganda by Americans to Americans is protected by the first amendment. But a foreign state harvesting data and applying influence is more straight forward. Look at the proposed solution: Just sell TikTok to someone else who isn't China.