12 ms·

Given how easy it is for China to buy US data legally from data brokers and how similar the functionality of TikTok and YouTube Shorts, I feel like the only exp

Given how easy it is for China to buy US data legally from data brokers and how similar the functionality of TikTok and YouTube Shorts, I feel like the only explanations are: 1. The govt is mad that a foreign company is outcompeting a domestic one Or more likely, given that there are so many other industries that didn't get a ban: 2. The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok

nextworddev 2y ago
Wrong - it's practically impossible to buy video and audio data at the PII level like Tiktok is getting.
- xnx 2y ago
  The video and audio data that users publicly post?
palata 2y ago
Totally. I find it very interesting that we tend to criticize China for their protectionism, but as soon as something out-competes US companies, it gets banned: Huawei, DJI, TikTok. Of course it cannot be said like this, because "free speech" and "democracy", so the official reason is "national security".
- tonyhart7 2y ago
  well china does it too with google,fb etc back then, and other nation do it too albeit not outright banned it all together but sometimes they prefer homegrown company/technology
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    I mean, let's be clear: Facebook and Google are very much banned in Mainland China.
  - palata 2y ago
    Sure. I just noted the irony that the US discourse has sounded a lot like "we are better than China, we are more free" for decades.
    - infecto 2y ago
      But we are, there is no irony. China has the great wall and massive corporate espionage games to steal state and corporate secrets. The US and its various federal intelligence agencies have certainly done nefarious things but never quite as documented at the level as China's. They actively monitor all of their Social Media, block most foreign social media. I can easily go to any Chinese social media/website from the US.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      In some ways, this is still true, even surrounding this decision. Do you think there were many people standing outside of government buildings in Beijing protesting the potential ban of Facebook and Google while politicians of different political parties were debating the ban in the country's primary legislative body? Do you think you could launch a campaign for office on repealing said ban in China?
      - antifa 2y ago
        I think they could, and fundamentally won't because they can be accessed via VPN, but ultimately aren't necessary because those companies are not exactly interesting for any purpose but talking to Americans or studying Americans.
        lenerdenator 2y ago
        That wasn't the case in the late 00s when those hacks happened.
    - shlant 2y ago
      > "we are better than China, we are more free" Anyone who disagrees with this is either not being honest or is not aware of what extent China restricts it's citizens.
  - TulliusCicero 2y ago
    > albeit not outright banned it all together No they absolutely do just ban them. It's not just that Google or FB can't operate Chinese-specific sites as a business within China, from within China you can't even get to the foreign/international versions of those sites, because they're blocked by China's firewall. Wikipedia has a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
- swed420 2y ago
  Yup. China has been kicking Silicon Valley's butt for some time now, and I don't see any signs of that changing any time soon. This drives the point home: AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order by Kai-Fu Lee https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38242135-ai-superpowers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38242135-ai-superpowers
  - tmaly 2y ago
    It was with the 2020 version of the algorithm till they changed things see https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/ https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/
    - swed420 2y ago
      I'm not referring exclusively to TikTok but tech in general. China makes SV look entitled and lazy.
- infecto 2y ago
  I cannot argue on the TikTok as strongly but I can see strong arguments on why Huawei and DJI are national security risks. Some of this is more educated guesses so not defensible with numbers. We know most major companies in the Chinese market have extremely close ties to the CCP. No doubt historically the US has gotten companies to put in backdoors or other mechanisms but I believe the CCP takes it to a next level. We know for a fact that the CCP and chinese entities play extremely hardball when it comes to corporate espionage. Some of the stories we have seen almost read like a spy novel. Certainly Huawei and DJI make some incredible products but when you have drones being used to survey the electric grid or other major pieces of infrastructure, I do believe it warrants major concern for national security. I think you are proposing a much more extreme conspiracy compared to the easier explanation, China is a fairly crafty bad actor in a lot of cases. 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked, just the ones that have very significant national security risks.
  - suraci 2y ago
    > 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked because it's impossible. the US offloaded low-added-value manufacturing to China, exchanging paper dollars for cheap industrial goods. When China tries to upgrade to high-added-value industries, like chips, guess what? National security risks! just enjoy cheap goods and nature resources from 3rd world...
    - infecto 2y ago
      I am not sure I follow your point. There have been both National Security risks as well as protectionist economic policy enforced against china that benefits domestic players. In a lot of those protectionist cases, there is either a case of China flooding the market or there are cases where the government makes a choice that its beneficial to keep domestic manufacturers alive. In the above provided examples its quite clear that there are possible national security risks involved with China being involved in US infrastructure and technology. If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion. If you have better example beyond hyperbole I am all ears.
- rwarfield 2y ago
  This claim is incompatible with the reality that the U.S. runs an enormous bilateral trade deficit with China.
  - iforgot22 2y ago
    Also Japanese cars
- pessimizer 2y ago
  It's important to say that the US had TikTok with Vine, but is so corrupt that it let Facebook buy it to shut it down.
- corimaith 2y ago
  Mercantalism begets Mercantalism. If their mercantalist policies become successfull then unfortunately we'll need to also assume similar policies to protect ourselves, aka Beggar Thy Neighbour, and everyone loses in an arms race of tariffs and subsidies. That's exactly why free trade proponets oppose those policies, but the CCP didn't want to reform so we'll go the opposite way.
- iforgot22 2y ago
  Huawei has been caught stealing more than enough trade secrets to justify a ban. I'd be happy if they banned a lot more Chinese firms for that, or just in response to China's own bans. But TikTok seems to be uniquely about censorship.
  - palata 2y ago
    > But TikTok seems to be uniquely about censorship. Censorship, or protectionism because TikTok is eating the lunch of the big US social media?
    - iforgot22 2y ago
      Gallagher (the bill sponsor) and several other lawmakers made it sound like censorship, and the timing also matches.
lenerdenator 2y ago
> 2. The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok If the last four years are indicative of anything, it's that the US government has fairly limited control over the narrative on American social platforms. I lost count of how many times I saw people typing in "FJB" and "MAGA".
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Facebook is extremely censored re: the genocide in Gaza TikTok is not
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Is it censored, or do most people just not talk about it on Facebook? It's interesting how incredibly supportive of human rights that a platform in bed with the CCP became, no? Do you think that China's human rights bugaboos are often discussed on their internal social networks? It's amplified.
    - 93po 2y ago
      there's a billion people on facebook, i am sure people talk about it
      - lenerdenator 2y ago
        It's possible, but ultimately it's hard to tell, especially in regard to the American users. The results of the election would point to the idea that most American voters aren't so perturbed by what's happening in Gaza as to want an administration that would be at least as effective in reeling in the Israelis as the Biden administration was. Whether that's right or wrong, well, that's another discussion. It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Do people not talk about Gaza on Facebook because it's censored, or do people not talk about Gaza on Facebook because no one was talking about it to begin with?
        2y ago
rwarfield 2y ago
The big issue isn't data security; it's propaganda. Irrespective of whether the government has control of the narrative on Facebook (I would argue they pretty clearly don't) there is no reason to let a foreign adversary have a deniable propaganda line to millions of Americans. Would we have let the USSR acquire a major television network? And even if you disagree with the national security reasons for disallowing China to control a major U.S. social network, there is still the issue of trade reciprocity - nearly all of the U.S. Web companies are banned in China.
- jeromegv 2y ago
  Looking forward to Europe banning Meta and X considering how their CEOs are meeting weekly with their government overlord, quite clear those social networks are in the pocket of the new US government.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Musk making threats against the UK government has gone down badly: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/uk-counter-extremism-unit-launch-probe-into-elon-musk-s-tweets-after-concerns-raised-over-risk-to-britain/ar-BB1rbpS5 https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/uk-counter-ext...
    - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      Musk, is a representative of Trump's government, right? A senior member of Trump's government is trying to mess with our political system - how is this not catastrophic for diplomatic relations, coming on top of the threats to our NATO allies?
  - kklisura 2y ago
    No, no, you can't do that. Than they'll come after you and claim how you're not free, you don't support free market and whatnot. Banning is tool for them, but not for you.
    - 2y ago
lolinder 2y ago
3. The government is concerned that having a company that's beholden to a foreign government control the algorithm that feeds the rising generation much of their worldview may not be a good long term plan. This has a passing resemblance to (2), but the key difference is that the government doesn't believe they have control over the narrative on Facebook, they just know that a foreign government doesn't. It's strictly better from the perspective of the US government to have the rising generation's worldview shaped by raw capitalism (after all, that's how all of the older generations' world views were shaped) than to risk the possibility that an adversary is tipping the scales. What I don't understand is why the politicians insist on talking about spying as the concern. The people who are pro-TikTok are pretty clearly skeptical either way, and "think of the children" is usually the most effective political tool they have.
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Funny you mention Raw Capitalism: It shows a point I like to bring up often that Capitalism and The Free Market are directly opposed. What capital (a fancy word for shareholders) want is an infinite money machine and that is easiest with a monopoly. Hence, banning a competitor that's doing too well in the free market. To the other part, I consider your 3 and my 2 the same, the US doesn't want us getting Chinese info and has their own perfered sources instead.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    They're strictly not equivalent—yours believes the US has a substantial amount of control over Facebook, mine does not. I can't change your belief, but I can draw a distinction between our beliefs.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      I think it's better to say it the other way round: Facebook and to a much greater extent X has a substantial amount of influence over the US government.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
notepad0x90 2y ago
it's not the same data or data quality. the concern isn't just data collection but manipulation of the american public (psyops). What russia is doing through their trollfarms, china is doing through tiktok.
- coldpie 2y ago
  > the concern isn't just data collection but manipulation of the american public (psyops). I don't buy it. If that were actually the concern, we would be talking about banning Facebook and X for manipulating Americans to vote against their own interests and hand over more power & money to the platforms' owners. Facebook has done way, way, way, way more harm to America and Americans than Tiktok ever did. The Tiktok ban is an illegitimate handout to America's oligarchs to protect them from having to compete. It's nothing to do with protecting Americans from manipulation.
  - rsanek 2y ago
    > we would be talking about banning Facebook and X for manipulating Americans vote in fact, there is alot of talk about this. wasn't that the main reason Musk bought Twitter?
    - coldpie 2y ago
      > wasn't that the main reason Musk bought Twitter? Yes. > there is alot of talk about this There's a lot of talk by politicians about banning Facebook & X in the US? Really?
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    American corporations have free speech rights. Chinese corporations do not.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      I'm not sure that's true, and even if it was, the law as passed requires American companies to not serve the app from their app stores, which is a restriction of American company speech.
pessimizer 2y ago
> 2. The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok This was the case for the first attempt, but then TikTok gave the US government access to everything. So the effort completely stalled, and the only people still banging the drum about it were R's who had run on anti-China rhetoric. Then Oct. 7th happened, and the followup genocide that the US decided to go out of its way to participate in. The most, and most influential, anti-genocide activity was on TikTok, simply because TikTok has a hold on the young audience and young content producers, and being young they aren't cynical and hollowed out inside, and can't justify being silent in order to protect their own incomes and families (which they don't have yet.) The Lobby quickly picked up the dropped ball and carried it over the line, and Biden continued his unbroken record of being completely humiliated by Bibi, a regular criminal before he was a war criminal. Now the ban is a zombie, because opposition to (and support for) the genocide is now set in stone, and it already looks like Trump has ended it even though he isn't in office yet through the technique of placing the slightest amount of pressure on Bibi. All we'll have left is a horrible soon-to-come Supreme Court decision that enshrines the idea that bills of attainder explicitly intended to limit free speech are ok now because China. Which is also because Russia and also because Hamas, and because Maduro, and because hate, and because sowing discord, and because, because, because... ----- edit: and if the Trump peace fails, and all the kids migrate to some other platform, that platform will be attacked. They lucked out that TikTok was owned by China, and Americans are such racists that they could use that racism to get them to agree to silence Americans speaking to Americans. But before, they were attacking every social network for allowing speech from Trump supporters, people criticizing covid policy, always Palestinians, women who don't accept transwomen (to get the libs onboard), etc...
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Absolutely
Cyph0n 2y ago
In support of (2): https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senator-romney-antony-blinken-tiktok-ban-israel-palestinian-content https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato... I personally see this as the beginning of a slippery slope - a move that follows in the footsteps of China.
voxic11 2y ago
> how easy it is for China to buy US data legally from data brokers A law passed at the same time as the tiktok ban attempts to address this: > a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to— (1) any foreign adversary country; or (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/9901 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/9901
NoGravitas 2y ago
Mitt Romney basically came out and admitted that the reason for the TikTok ban was that young people were getting unfiltered access to information about the genocide in Gaza. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/blinken-romney-israel-hamas-tiktok-b2540021.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Aunche 2y ago
> The govt is mad that a foreign company is outcompeting a domestic one China certainly engages in security theater for their own economic advantage as well. It's no coincidence that any American internet company that tries to operate in China gets throttled or "accidentally" blocked by the great Chinese firewall. And no, economic retaliation against China isn't "stooping down" to censorship of China. That would be like framing the EU's retaliatory tariffs against Trump as a punishment to European bourbon lovers. > The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok Yes, but people do not appreciate what that really means. Countries need to eat the consequences of influencing domestic media, so you at least need to maintain a weak form of checks and balances. For example, anti-lockdown censorship during Covid in China eventually caused even more resentment against the CCP. On the other hand, look at examples of Russian election interference in 2016 [1]. One of the posts is "Satan: If I win Clinton wins. Jesus: Not if I can help it. Press like to help Jesus win." The entire goal is to get Americans to distrust and hate each other. Nobody in America has anything to gain from posting this, but China and Russia have nothing but to gain from a more fractured America. We only found out about this because Facebook cooperated with American intelligence to find this foreign propaganda. At best, you can't expect the same cooperation from TikTok they are accountable to the CCP. At worst, TikTok would actively be working with China to disguise this propaganda as genuine content. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
jmyeet 2y ago
In the words of Noam Chomsky [1]: > [Manufacturing Consent] argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication. The problem with Tiktok, as far as the government is concerned, is the lack of control on narrative when Meta, Twitter and Google are an extension of the US State Department (eg [2]). The Tiktok ban came together in a matter of days as a bipartisan effort weeks after the ADL said (in leaked audio) that they have a "TikTok problem" [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [2]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/... [3]: https://x.com/TaylorNoakes/status/1766612105426596297 https://x.com/TaylorNoakes/status/1766612105426596297
cg5280 2y ago
To echo what other comments have said about it being propaganda related, we can already see this occurring today: https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A-Tik-Tok-ing-...
iforgot22 2y ago
Only legit reason would've been trade. China won't "import" our products, so we do the same. But that seems like not the reason.
mint2 2y ago
but your 2. implies China has control rather than the US. Isn’t that what the government has been saying?
penjelly 2y ago
it's been said many times, it's a national security risk, and it is very obviously one. Tiktok has already gone against the wishes of the US, there's evidence Chinese engineers accessed Tiktok data hosted in the US (related: project Texas). It's so easy to sway public opinion when you own the largest megaphone to the people... That's literally what's happening right now on tiktok.

nextworddev 2y ago

Wrong - it's practically impossible to buy video and audio data at the PII level like Tiktok is getting.

xnx 2y ago
The video and audio data that users publicly post?

palata 2y ago

Totally. I find it very interesting that we tend to criticize China for their protectionism, but as soon as something out-competes US companies, it gets banned: Huawei, DJI, TikTok. Of course it cannot be said like this, because "free speech" and "democracy", so the official reason is "national security".

tonyhart7 2y ago
well china does it too with google,fb etc back then, and other nation do it too albeit not outright banned it all together but sometimes they prefer homegrown company/technology
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  I mean, let's be clear: Facebook and Google are very much banned in Mainland China.
- palata 2y ago
  Sure. I just noted the irony that the US discourse has sounded a lot like "we are better than China, we are more free" for decades.
  - infecto 2y ago
    But we are, there is no irony. China has the great wall and massive corporate espionage games to steal state and corporate secrets. The US and its various federal intelligence agencies have certainly done nefarious things but never quite as documented at the level as China's. They actively monitor all of their Social Media, block most foreign social media. I can easily go to any Chinese social media/website from the US.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    In some ways, this is still true, even surrounding this decision. Do you think there were many people standing outside of government buildings in Beijing protesting the potential ban of Facebook and Google while politicians of different political parties were debating the ban in the country's primary legislative body? Do you think you could launch a campaign for office on repealing said ban in China?
    - antifa 2y ago
      I think they could, and fundamentally won't because they can be accessed via VPN, but ultimately aren't necessary because those companies are not exactly interesting for any purpose but talking to Americans or studying Americans.
      - lenerdenator 2y ago
        That wasn't the case in the late 00s when those hacks happened.
  - shlant 2y ago
    > "we are better than China, we are more free" Anyone who disagrees with this is either not being honest or is not aware of what extent China restricts it's citizens.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  > albeit not outright banned it all together No they absolutely do just ban them. It's not just that Google or FB can't operate Chinese-specific sites as a business within China, from within China you can't even get to the foreign/international versions of those sites, because they're blocked by China's firewall. Wikipedia has a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
swed420 2y ago
Yup. China has been kicking Silicon Valley's butt for some time now, and I don't see any signs of that changing any time soon. This drives the point home: AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order by Kai-Fu Lee https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38242135-ai-superpowers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38242135-ai-superpowers
- tmaly 2y ago
  It was with the 2020 version of the algorithm till they changed things see https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/ https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/
  - swed420 2y ago
    I'm not referring exclusively to TikTok but tech in general. China makes SV look entitled and lazy.
infecto 2y ago
I cannot argue on the TikTok as strongly but I can see strong arguments on why Huawei and DJI are national security risks. Some of this is more educated guesses so not defensible with numbers. We know most major companies in the Chinese market have extremely close ties to the CCP. No doubt historically the US has gotten companies to put in backdoors or other mechanisms but I believe the CCP takes it to a next level. We know for a fact that the CCP and chinese entities play extremely hardball when it comes to corporate espionage. Some of the stories we have seen almost read like a spy novel. Certainly Huawei and DJI make some incredible products but when you have drones being used to survey the electric grid or other major pieces of infrastructure, I do believe it warrants major concern for national security. I think you are proposing a much more extreme conspiracy compared to the easier explanation, China is a fairly crafty bad actor in a lot of cases. 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked, just the ones that have very significant national security risks.
- suraci 2y ago
  > 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked because it's impossible. the US offloaded low-added-value manufacturing to China, exchanging paper dollars for cheap industrial goods. When China tries to upgrade to high-added-value industries, like chips, guess what? National security risks! just enjoy cheap goods and nature resources from 3rd world...
  - infecto 2y ago
    I am not sure I follow your point. There have been both National Security risks as well as protectionist economic policy enforced against china that benefits domestic players. In a lot of those protectionist cases, there is either a case of China flooding the market or there are cases where the government makes a choice that its beneficial to keep domestic manufacturers alive. In the above provided examples its quite clear that there are possible national security risks involved with China being involved in US infrastructure and technology. If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion. If you have better example beyond hyperbole I am all ears.
rwarfield 2y ago
This claim is incompatible with the reality that the U.S. runs an enormous bilateral trade deficit with China.
- iforgot22 2y ago
  Also Japanese cars
pessimizer 2y ago
It's important to say that the US had TikTok with Vine, but is so corrupt that it let Facebook buy it to shut it down.
corimaith 2y ago
Mercantalism begets Mercantalism. If their mercantalist policies become successfull then unfortunately we'll need to also assume similar policies to protect ourselves, aka Beggar Thy Neighbour, and everyone loses in an arms race of tariffs and subsidies. That's exactly why free trade proponets oppose those policies, but the CCP didn't want to reform so we'll go the opposite way.
iforgot22 2y ago
Huawei has been caught stealing more than enough trade secrets to justify a ban. I'd be happy if they banned a lot more Chinese firms for that, or just in response to China's own bans. But TikTok seems to be uniquely about censorship.
- palata 2y ago
  > But TikTok seems to be uniquely about censorship. Censorship, or protectionism because TikTok is eating the lunch of the big US social media?
  - iforgot22 2y ago
    Gallagher (the bill sponsor) and several other lawmakers made it sound like censorship, and the timing also matches.

lenerdenator 2y ago

> 2. The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok If the last four years are indicative of anything, it's that the US government has fairly limited control over the narrative on American social platforms. I lost count of how many times I saw people typing in "FJB" and "MAGA".

spencerflem 2y ago
Facebook is extremely censored re: the genocide in Gaza TikTok is not
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Is it censored, or do most people just not talk about it on Facebook? It's interesting how incredibly supportive of human rights that a platform in bed with the CCP became, no? Do you think that China's human rights bugaboos are often discussed on their internal social networks? It's amplified.
  - 93po 2y ago
    there's a billion people on facebook, i am sure people talk about it
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      It's possible, but ultimately it's hard to tell, especially in regard to the American users. The results of the election would point to the idea that most American voters aren't so perturbed by what's happening in Gaza as to want an administration that would be at least as effective in reeling in the Israelis as the Biden administration was. Whether that's right or wrong, well, that's another discussion. It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Do people not talk about Gaza on Facebook because it's censored, or do people not talk about Gaza on Facebook because no one was talking about it to begin with?
      - 2y ago

rwarfield 2y ago

The big issue isn't data security; it's propaganda. Irrespective of whether the government has control of the narrative on Facebook (I would argue they pretty clearly don't) there is no reason to let a foreign adversary have a deniable propaganda line to millions of Americans. Would we have let the USSR acquire a major television network? And even if you disagree with the national security reasons for disallowing China to control a major U.S. social network, there is still the issue of trade reciprocity - nearly all of the U.S. Web companies are banned in China.

jeromegv 2y ago
Looking forward to Europe banning Meta and X considering how their CEOs are meeting weekly with their government overlord, quite clear those social networks are in the pocket of the new US government.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Musk making threats against the UK government has gone down badly: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/uk-counter-extremism-unit-launch-probe-into-elon-musk-s-tweets-after-concerns-raised-over-risk-to-britain/ar-BB1rbpS5 https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/uk-counter-ext...
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    Musk, is a representative of Trump's government, right? A senior member of Trump's government is trying to mess with our political system - how is this not catastrophic for diplomatic relations, coming on top of the threats to our NATO allies?
- kklisura 2y ago
  No, no, you can't do that. Than they'll come after you and claim how you're not free, you don't support free market and whatnot. Banning is tool for them, but not for you.
  - 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

3. The government is concerned that having a company that's beholden to a foreign government control the algorithm that feeds the rising generation much of their worldview may not be a good long term plan. This has a passing resemblance to (2), but the key difference is that the government doesn't believe they have control over the narrative on Facebook, they just know that a foreign government doesn't. It's strictly better from the perspective of the US government to have the rising generation's worldview shaped by raw capitalism (after all, that's how all of the older generations' world views were shaped) than to risk the possibility that an adversary is tipping the scales. What I don't understand is why the politicians insist on talking about spying as the concern. The people who are pro-TikTok are pretty clearly skeptical either way, and "think of the children" is usually the most effective political tool they have.

spencerflem 2y ago
Funny you mention Raw Capitalism: It shows a point I like to bring up often that Capitalism and The Free Market are directly opposed. What capital (a fancy word for shareholders) want is an infinite money machine and that is easiest with a monopoly. Hence, banning a competitor that's doing too well in the free market. To the other part, I consider your 3 and my 2 the same, the US doesn't want us getting Chinese info and has their own perfered sources instead.
- lolinder 2y ago
  They're strictly not equivalent—yours believes the US has a substantial amount of control over Facebook, mine does not. I can't change your belief, but I can draw a distinction between our beliefs.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    I think it's better to say it the other way round: Facebook and to a much greater extent X has a substantial amount of influence over the US government.
- Workaccount2 2y ago

notepad0x90 2y ago

it's not the same data or data quality. the concern isn't just data collection but manipulation of the american public (psyops). What russia is doing through their trollfarms, china is doing through tiktok.

coldpie 2y ago
> the concern isn't just data collection but manipulation of the american public (psyops). I don't buy it. If that were actually the concern, we would be talking about banning Facebook and X for manipulating Americans to vote against their own interests and hand over more power & money to the platforms' owners. Facebook has done way, way, way, way more harm to America and Americans than Tiktok ever did. The Tiktok ban is an illegitimate handout to America's oligarchs to protect them from having to compete. It's nothing to do with protecting Americans from manipulation.
- rsanek 2y ago
  > we would be talking about banning Facebook and X for manipulating Americans vote in fact, there is alot of talk about this. wasn't that the main reason Musk bought Twitter?
  - coldpie 2y ago
    > wasn't that the main reason Musk bought Twitter? Yes. > there is alot of talk about this There's a lot of talk by politicians about banning Facebook & X in the US? Really?
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  American corporations have free speech rights. Chinese corporations do not.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    I'm not sure that's true, and even if it was, the law as passed requires American companies to not serve the app from their app stores, which is a restriction of American company speech.

pessimizer 2y ago

> 2. The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok This was the case for the first attempt, but then TikTok gave the US government access to everything. So the effort completely stalled, and the only people still banging the drum about it were R's who had run on anti-China rhetoric. Then Oct. 7th happened, and the followup genocide that the US decided to go out of its way to participate in. The most, and most influential, anti-genocide activity was on TikTok, simply because TikTok has a hold on the young audience and young content producers, and being young they aren't cynical and hollowed out inside, and can't justify being silent in order to protect their own incomes and families (which they don't have yet.) The Lobby quickly picked up the dropped ball and carried it over the line, and Biden continued his unbroken record of being completely humiliated by Bibi, a regular criminal before he was a war criminal. Now the ban is a zombie, because opposition to (and support for) the genocide is now set in stone, and it already looks like Trump has ended it even though he isn't in office yet through the technique of placing the slightest amount of pressure on Bibi. All we'll have left is a horrible soon-to-come Supreme Court decision that enshrines the idea that bills of attainder explicitly intended to limit free speech are ok now because China. Which is also because Russia and also because Hamas, and because Maduro, and because hate, and because sowing discord, and because, because, because... ----- edit: and if the Trump peace fails, and all the kids migrate to some other platform, that platform will be attacked. They lucked out that TikTok was owned by China, and Americans are such racists that they could use that racism to get them to agree to silence Americans speaking to Americans. But before, they were attacking every social network for allowing speech from Trump supporters, people criticizing covid policy, always Palestinians, women who don't accept transwomen (to get the libs onboard), etc...

spencerflem 2y ago
Absolutely

Cyph0n 2y ago

In support of (2): https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senator-romney-antony-blinken-tiktok-ban-israel-palestinian-content https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato... I personally see this as the beginning of a slippery slope - a move that follows in the footsteps of China.

voxic11 2y ago

> how easy it is for China to buy US data legally from data brokers A law passed at the same time as the tiktok ban attempts to address this: > a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to— (1) any foreign adversary country; or (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/9901 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/9901

NoGravitas 2y ago

Mitt Romney basically came out and admitted that the reason for the TikTok ban was that young people were getting unfiltered access to information about the genocide in Gaza. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/blinken-romney-israel-hamas-tiktok-b2540021.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Aunche 2y ago

> The govt is mad that a foreign company is outcompeting a domestic one China certainly engages in security theater for their own economic advantage as well. It's no coincidence that any American internet company that tries to operate in China gets throttled or "accidentally" blocked by the great Chinese firewall. And no, economic retaliation against China isn't "stooping down" to censorship of China. That would be like framing the EU's retaliatory tariffs against Trump as a punishment to European bourbon lovers. > The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok Yes, but people do not appreciate what that really means. Countries need to eat the consequences of influencing domestic media, so you at least need to maintain a weak form of checks and balances. For example, anti-lockdown censorship during Covid in China eventually caused even more resentment against the CCP. On the other hand, look at examples of Russian election interference in 2016 [1]. One of the posts is "Satan: If I win Clinton wins. Jesus: Not if I can help it. Press like to help Jesus win." The entire goal is to get Americans to distrust and hate each other. Nobody in America has anything to gain from posting this, but China and Russia have nothing but to gain from a more fractured America. We only found out about this because Facebook cooperated with American intelligence to find this foreign propaganda. At best, you can't expect the same cooperation from TikTok they are accountable to the CCP. At worst, TikTok would actively be working with China to disguise this propaganda as genuine content. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...

jmyeet 2y ago

In the words of Noam Chomsky [1]: > [Manufacturing Consent] argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication. The problem with Tiktok, as far as the government is concerned, is the lack of control on narrative when Meta, Twitter and Google are an extension of the US State Department (eg [2]). The Tiktok ban came together in a matter of days as a bipartisan effort weeks after the ADL said (in leaked audio) that they have a "TikTok problem" [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [2]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/... [3]: https://x.com/TaylorNoakes/status/1766612105426596297 https://x.com/TaylorNoakes/status/1766612105426596297

cg5280 2y ago

To echo what other comments have said about it being propaganda related, we can already see this occurring today: https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A-Tik-Tok-ing-...

iforgot22 2y ago

Only legit reason would've been trade. China won't "import" our products, so we do the same. But that seems like not the reason.

mint2 2y ago

but your 2. implies China has control rather than the US. Isn’t that what the government has been saying?

penjelly 2y ago

it's been said many times, it's a national security risk, and it is very obviously one. Tiktok has already gone against the wishes of the US, there's evidence Chinese engineers accessed Tiktok data hosted in the US (related: project Texas). It's so easy to sway public opinion when you own the largest megaphone to the people... That's literally what's happening right now on tiktok.