6 ms·

1) to be honest, when I see how russia, Iran and other states influence all other networks (especially when it comes to voting), not sure how tiktok is worse th

1) to be honest, when I see how russia, Iran and other states influence all other networks (especially when it comes to voting), not sure how tiktok is worse than all of them - just think of Facebook & Cambridge Analytica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... 2) yes, that is an issue. 3) fair point.

next_xibalba 2y ago
Cambridge Analytica had zero effect on the 2016 elections. It was the mother of all nothingburgers. I encourage all who see this comment to dig into the truth of that case. The huge difference is that while foreign adversaries run influence networks on other social media platforms (and are opposed and combatted by those platforms) TikTok (the platform itself) is controlled by the foreign adversary (the CCP).
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  It was more a proof of concept. If that could be done on a small scale, why not a large one? And elections are decided by margins, pushing them even slightly has massive, irrevocable consequences.
Manuel_D 2y ago
Russia illegally spent something like $100,000 on political ads. Thats basically nothing compared to aggregate political spending.
- epolanski 2y ago
  Meanwhile US channels this propaganda money through no profits.
  - dv_dt 2y ago
    Yup exactly the same thing is happening only with money laundered through nonprofits and political pacs. Once its there the same buy data and place ads & influence is completely legal - which makes the singled out ban on TikTok at odds with the stated purpose of it
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      It's not the "exact same thing" since it's legal spending. If you and your friends want to pool money together and put up billboards promoting carbon free energy solutions, congrats you've formed a political PAC. This is distinct from a foreign entity, without registering as a foreign entity, directly participating in electioneering. While it's true that the Russian involvement in 2016 was overblown let's not pretend it's the same as legal political spending.
      - dv_dt 2y ago
        There are multiple organizations not registering as foreign entities who route a lot of political spending. Sometimes they are caught, but there is very little enforcement of political spending rules - and there is even more spending unchecked in the open skirting the transfers legally as far as I can tell.
      - epolanski 2y ago
        US funds foreign political no profits in other countries thanks to the Foreign Assistance Act agencies like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. That's besides the money funneled through other agencies which are more covert. That means that countries around the world have US funded no profits effectively doing non bi-partizan political activity. Officially those should only inform (foreign) citizens about their civic and voting rights, in reality they are more often than not tools of the US to influence and take huge biases in other countries. And here's the underlying problem: as per American exceptionalism it's fine when US does that, but it's unacceptable when others do it in US.
- arrozconcosas 2y ago
  It is mind blowing to me that this fact is not widely understood. A mountain was made out of a molehill. $4B was spent in 2016. $12B in 2024. Yet $100,000 somehow is believed to have made any difference whatsoever. Literally 0.0025% of the total in 2016. *Source: https://www.emarketer.com/content/political-ad-spend-nearly-triple-what-was-2016 https://www.emarketer.com/content/political-ad-spend-nearly-...
  - seizethecheese 2y ago
    This is, of course, because both USA political parties run their own propaganda machines
  - lossolo 2y ago
    Because it's a good scapegoat, why take responsibility for losing an election when you can easily shift the blame to someone else?
throwawayq3423 2y ago
1. This was a scandal for FB, not a feature.

next_xibalba 2y ago

Cambridge Analytica had zero effect on the 2016 elections. It was the mother of all nothingburgers. I encourage all who see this comment to dig into the truth of that case. The huge difference is that while foreign adversaries run influence networks on other social media platforms (and are opposed and combatted by those platforms) TikTok (the platform itself) is controlled by the foreign adversary (the CCP).

throwawayq3423 2y ago
It was more a proof of concept. If that could be done on a small scale, why not a large one? And elections are decided by margins, pushing them even slightly has massive, irrevocable consequences.

Manuel_D 2y ago

Russia illegally spent something like $100,000 on political ads. Thats basically nothing compared to aggregate political spending.

epolanski 2y ago
Meanwhile US channels this propaganda money through no profits.
- dv_dt 2y ago
  Yup exactly the same thing is happening only with money laundered through nonprofits and political pacs. Once its there the same buy data and place ads & influence is completely legal - which makes the singled out ban on TikTok at odds with the stated purpose of it
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    It's not the "exact same thing" since it's legal spending. If you and your friends want to pool money together and put up billboards promoting carbon free energy solutions, congrats you've formed a political PAC. This is distinct from a foreign entity, without registering as a foreign entity, directly participating in electioneering. While it's true that the Russian involvement in 2016 was overblown let's not pretend it's the same as legal political spending.
    - dv_dt 2y ago
      There are multiple organizations not registering as foreign entities who route a lot of political spending. Sometimes they are caught, but there is very little enforcement of political spending rules - and there is even more spending unchecked in the open skirting the transfers legally as far as I can tell.
    - epolanski 2y ago
      US funds foreign political no profits in other countries thanks to the Foreign Assistance Act agencies like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. That's besides the money funneled through other agencies which are more covert. That means that countries around the world have US funded no profits effectively doing non bi-partizan political activity. Officially those should only inform (foreign) citizens about their civic and voting rights, in reality they are more often than not tools of the US to influence and take huge biases in other countries. And here's the underlying problem: as per American exceptionalism it's fine when US does that, but it's unacceptable when others do it in US.
arrozconcosas 2y ago
It is mind blowing to me that this fact is not widely understood. A mountain was made out of a molehill. $4B was spent in 2016. $12B in 2024. Yet $100,000 somehow is believed to have made any difference whatsoever. Literally 0.0025% of the total in 2016. *Source: https://www.emarketer.com/content/political-ad-spend-nearly-triple-what-was-2016 https://www.emarketer.com/content/political-ad-spend-nearly-...
- seizethecheese 2y ago
  This is, of course, because both USA political parties run their own propaganda machines
- lossolo 2y ago
  Because it's a good scapegoat, why take responsibility for losing an election when you can easily shift the blame to someone else?

throwawayq3423 2y ago

1. This was a scandal for FB, not a feature.