5 ms·

If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable t

If I had children aged 7-17 and felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness, and if I was unable to control their access to it, I guess I might appreciate that my government had banned it. But, as others have mentioned, it sets a dangerous precedent. If nothing else, this attempted ban has raised national awareness about the negative impacts of TikTok. What could the US Federal Government do instead, assuming it is important to consider such platforms as per their effects on the population? If China sold candies that contained poison and marketed them to Us children, it would be easy, since the FDA prohibits this. If the FDA didn't exist, perhaps poisoned candy sales would prompt the creation of such a regulatory body. So I guess I oppose the ban while recognizing the danger, and suggest we consider regulating digital goods in the same manner as consumable foods; if provable harmful effects are evident then that is grounds for a ban of a product on the basis of health protection.

ccvannorman 2y ago
A very naive and hopeful part of me would wish for Facebook, Twitter, and other vapidness-enhancing platforms be regulated too. But the untrusting, freedom loving red-blooded American in me is also wary of government controls and power consolidation bordering on censorship. No easy answers I suppose; we'll just have to find a way to thrive in spite of platforms that profit from our wasted time.
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  Hey, one platform is Chinese, the others are American. That's the difference you're looking for
croes 2y ago
> felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness A ban based on a feeling?
glitchc 2y ago
I think that's where we were with seatbelts in the 1950s, tobacco in the 1920s and alcohol in the 1850s. In all of those cases, society ultimately decided that guardrails were needed.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Yet imagine a law that mandates seatbelts only for non-US manufactured cars... The main problem is the hyperoptimized addictive nature of some modern social media apps, not who makes them.
_bin_ 2y ago
I think the easier framework is this: China has banned her citizens from using most United States-based social networks. This prevents American companies from accruing profit from Chinese citizens and advertisers, and shrinks their potential pool of user data for refining algorithms or selling. As such, it's effectively a trade policy for us to in turn ban her social networks. Unless and until we are equally able to harvest Chinese data and suck yen out of China, she will not be allowed to harvest American data and suck dollars out of here.
- thehappypm 2y ago
  While this is a fair take, it's not what the law has in mind.
- henryfjordan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - computerdork 2y ago
    Well, it does offer an avenue for inacting some form of ban. And not so sure it's all that morally low. Because what China's ban of US social media might say is that China recognizes social-media's power to influence the populace (think Russia's use of Twitter and FB in the 2016 election). Yeah, am actually in favor of some form of restrictions, because we as a country need to realize that social media is a tool that can be used against us. Yeah, if it was an outside country owning a major US newspaper, it'd be more clearcut.
    - henryfjordan 2y ago
      If social media is so bad let's regulate ALL of it, US firms included. Personally I fear US-controlled social media more than Sino-controlled ones. It's not like the CCP can come and arrest me here in the US, or really use my data against me in any way. Both have plenty of reasons to throw propaganda at me, or censor certain viewpoints. At least when it's a foreign country I have a chance of seeing through it, compared to so many domestic media sources currently licking Trump's feet. I'm supposed to feel secure that they'll be telling me the truth over the next 4 years? Acting in my interest?
ge96 2y ago
> Candies Starts with an F ends in L
thehappypm 2y ago
> If China sold candies that contained poison and marketed them to Us children, it would be easy, since the FDA prohibits this. The FDA was created by an act of Congress, as was this ban. These are identical scenarios -- the FDA has a mandate to block certain things, as does the TikTok ban. What's being debated is the constitutionality of it; and there are arguments both ways, but it seems very likely that the ban will hold.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
I think the US social media mega corps are kindred spirits and if TikTok is considered harmful/propaganda then so are the US products. The subject draws an uncomfortable amount of heat.
Salgat 2y ago
The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Bytedance, as a Chinese company, is required by law (Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China) to provide full data access to the Chinese government on request, and they are compelled not to reveal when this occurs. Since this is done through legitimate channels (on Bytedance's side), this won't even be caught with an audit. So you have a situation where an app installed on half of America's phones shares all its data with China, along with any potential changes the government recommends for influencing the content.
- jimnotgym 2y ago
  Meta & co are required by US law to do the same for people in the rest of the world. Didn't see a huge US outcry about that, in fact I saw a lot of hate for things like GDPR
  - louky 2y ago
    The hate for the GDPR I read of is actually about the "allow cookie" popups that aren't needed at all are are just a form of protest by those individual sites because they are storing and selling personal information including IP addresses. If you aren't engaged in those practices then there's no need for any GDPR annoyances for users. I may misunderstand, I'm in America currently.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      The allow cookies was already there because of the cookie banner law, unfortunately GDPR did not stop the cookie law, but GDPR does say you need a way to agree to tracking etc. and to be informed when it happens so it sort of seems reasonable the allow cookies popups would be used for this.
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  >The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Would you like to buy a bridge?
- 2y ago
jimnotgym 2y ago
I do have children in that age range and see US social media damaging them. Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc?
- mcphage 2y ago
  > Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc? I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened yet, although those companies are also willing to adjust policies in foreign nations—for instance, Meta saying it won't eliminate fact checking outside of the US.
blandcoffee 2y ago
I appreciate a response like this on HN. IF there is a problem, let's solve the root issue (which may include looking at the algo feeds of all big tech, etc).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ccvannorman 2y ago

A very naive and hopeful part of me would wish for Facebook, Twitter, and other vapidness-enhancing platforms be regulated too. But the untrusting, freedom loving red-blooded American in me is also wary of government controls and power consolidation bordering on censorship. No easy answers I suppose; we'll just have to find a way to thrive in spite of platforms that profit from our wasted time.

amarcheschi 2y ago
Hey, one platform is Chinese, the others are American. That's the difference you're looking for

croes 2y ago

> felt China was intentionally nudging them via algorithmic suggestions away from STEM and toward vapidness A ban based on a feeling?

glitchc 2y ago

I think that's where we were with seatbelts in the 1950s, tobacco in the 1920s and alcohol in the 1850s. In all of those cases, society ultimately decided that guardrails were needed.

lxgr 2y ago
Yet imagine a law that mandates seatbelts only for non-US manufactured cars... The main problem is the hyperoptimized addictive nature of some modern social media apps, not who makes them.

_bin_ 2y ago

I think the easier framework is this: China has banned her citizens from using most United States-based social networks. This prevents American companies from accruing profit from Chinese citizens and advertisers, and shrinks their potential pool of user data for refining algorithms or selling. As such, it's effectively a trade policy for us to in turn ban her social networks. Unless and until we are equally able to harvest Chinese data and suck yen out of China, she will not be allowed to harvest American data and suck dollars out of here.

thehappypm 2y ago
While this is a fair take, it's not what the law has in mind.
henryfjordan 2y ago
[flagged]
- computerdork 2y ago
  Well, it does offer an avenue for inacting some form of ban. And not so sure it's all that morally low. Because what China's ban of US social media might say is that China recognizes social-media's power to influence the populace (think Russia's use of Twitter and FB in the 2016 election). Yeah, am actually in favor of some form of restrictions, because we as a country need to realize that social media is a tool that can be used against us. Yeah, if it was an outside country owning a major US newspaper, it'd be more clearcut.
  - henryfjordan 2y ago
    If social media is so bad let's regulate ALL of it, US firms included. Personally I fear US-controlled social media more than Sino-controlled ones. It's not like the CCP can come and arrest me here in the US, or really use my data against me in any way. Both have plenty of reasons to throw propaganda at me, or censor certain viewpoints. At least when it's a foreign country I have a chance of seeing through it, compared to so many domestic media sources currently licking Trump's feet. I'm supposed to feel secure that they'll be telling me the truth over the next 4 years? Acting in my interest?

ge96 2y ago

> Candies Starts with an F ends in L

thehappypm 2y ago

> If China sold candies that contained poison and marketed them to Us children, it would be easy, since the FDA prohibits this. The FDA was created by an act of Congress, as was this ban. These are identical scenarios -- the FDA has a mandate to block certain things, as does the TikTok ban. What's being debated is the constitutionality of it; and there are arguments both ways, but it seems very likely that the ban will hold.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

I think the US social media mega corps are kindred spirits and if TikTok is considered harmful/propaganda then so are the US products. The subject draws an uncomfortable amount of heat.

Salgat 2y ago

The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Bytedance, as a Chinese company, is required by law (Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China) to provide full data access to the Chinese government on request, and they are compelled not to reveal when this occurs. Since this is done through legitimate channels (on Bytedance's side), this won't even be caught with an audit. So you have a situation where an app installed on half of America's phones shares all its data with China, along with any potential changes the government recommends for influencing the content.

jimnotgym 2y ago
Meta & co are required by US law to do the same for people in the rest of the world. Didn't see a huge US outcry about that, in fact I saw a lot of hate for things like GDPR
- louky 2y ago
  The hate for the GDPR I read of is actually about the "allow cookie" popups that aren't needed at all are are just a form of protest by those individual sites because they are storing and selling personal information including IP addresses. If you aren't engaged in those practices then there's no need for any GDPR annoyances for users. I may misunderstand, I'm in America currently.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    The allow cookies was already there because of the cookie banner law, unfortunately GDPR did not stop the cookie law, but GDPR does say you need a way to agree to tracking etc. and to be informed when it happens so it sort of seems reasonable the allow cookies popups would be used for this.
WheatMillington 2y ago
>The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Would you like to buy a bridge?
2y ago

jimnotgym 2y ago

I do have children in that age range and see US social media damaging them. Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc?

mcphage 2y ago
> Would HN be OK with European governments banning Meta, X, Discord etc? I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened yet, although those companies are also willing to adjust policies in foreign nations—for instance, Meta saying it won't eliminate fact checking outside of the US.

blandcoffee 2y ago

I appreciate a response like this on HN. IF there is a problem, let's solve the root issue (which may include looking at the algo feeds of all big tech, etc).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]