8 ms·

> Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently

> Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally. These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature, increasingly so in the age of LLMs. They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astroturfing the platform and/or manipulating the algorithm (either through paid advertisements or by owning a platform and controlling the algorithm outright). They're places where a small minority of people can become an unstoppable movement that seems to have real support, sucking gullible voters in to join the growing "consensus". In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent. The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature The US Gov has a mandate to preserve and uphold democracy. Shuttering communication is prior restraint - an anti-democratic action. Platforms have no mandate to preserve and uphold democracy.
- EarlKing 2y ago
  The state is under no obligation to allow known foreign propagandists attached to a known communist party to engage in activities well outside the protections of the first amendment. Of course, they don't HAVE to shutter. They can sell their interest in Tiktok and stay open. They have chosen not to do that thus far, and hence they have chosen to shutter.
- sylware 2y ago
  "Forcing" people to be "free". If you want peace, you better prepare for war. It is forbidden to forbid. The necessary evil. All that to say, we live in a complicated world, and beautiful ideals are only a direction to keep, never to be reached.
- spokaneplumb 2y ago
  Restricting who can own what, however… that’s long been fair game. In my dream world we’d get something like the rules we had, until fairly recently, restricting max broadcast media audience control in a given market for a single owner, but for Web platforms. Don’t like being limited to five million users or whatever? Then use a standard that puts control over curation and presentation in the hands of the user. Want to control all that, like all these awful platforms do? Then live with the limit.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Creative + precedence, I like it. How can we get the fediverse enough funding to lobby Congress?
- lolinder 2y ago
  You're presuming that these are communication platforms. I argue that they aren't—to the extent that they are useful for communication it's a pure coincidence, not a design choice. Each of these platforms is fundamentally a propaganda platform—they're explicitly designed to manipulate people into buying stuff, and that capability is frequently turned to voter manipulation. The US government has decided that while US-based billionaires having access to such influence is fine and dandy, the CCP should not. So tiktok must be sold to a US owner.
- Freedom2 2y ago
  Absurd. To use just one example, if the US Gov has that mandate, why is extreme gerrymandering allowed? Seems like it's common for Americans to just repeat what they've been told without actually thinking about it.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Absurd. To use just one example, if the US Gov has that mandate, why is extreme gerrymandering allowed? Because worthwhile barriers to gerrymandering are difficult and complex to construct. Effective barriers would need to be overseen and updated by capable, uncompromised people. Instead, it is easier for Gov to yield to its political handlers. There are lots of reasons for this; I think those reasons can be grouped together under one human failing: No One Anywhere Wants To Clean Their Own House
braiamp 2y ago
There's a better way: privacy laws. The US government decided not to use it.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Privacy laws don't solve the real problem, they would only solve the fig leaf that politicians are hiding behind when it comes to tiktok. The actual problem is and always has been control over the content being fed to users. It's not an issue of privacy, it's an issue of voter manipulation. It's just that the US has decided that it's okay with its own plutocrats manipulating voters while it's not okay with the CCP doing so. On the one hand that's a very rational position for people who owe their election to algorithmic voter manipulation to take, but that doesn't really make it better ethically.
  - error_logic 2y ago
    The voting algorithm needs to change so that destructive (negative) campaigning is not so effective. Duverger's law makes campaigns devolve into undermining and destroying the competition, with the two parties hosting primaries to see which of them can "turn the wheel" the hardest before the general election where they claim "don't worry I won't crash the car!" despite their prior incentives. If we used plurality voting for the inputs to a decision problem that follows the classic tragedy of the commons, we'd see a similar result. If instead of just {+1, +0, +0, ...} without repeats, we instead voted with {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, ...} cooperation (or at least constructive competitive frameworks) would at least be at parity with destructive and potentially mutually destructive competition.
    - dralley 2y ago
      >The voting algorithm needs to change so that destructive (negative) campaigning is not so effective. No algorithm is going to fix this, it's human nature. Negative campaigning has been a constant of elections since elections were invented. At best you can tamp down on the aggressive engagement feedback loops. We should probably do that, but it's good to stay realistic about outcomes.
threatofrain 2y ago
In a trade war any company is fair game. A trade war thus naturally reaches across multiple values that a nation may hold, bringing them simultaneously under tension. Free speech is just a coincidence to the nature of TikTok, but what about cars, drones, phones, or even soybeans? When values are in conflict, which should win? In the hierarchy of values, where does economic world position stand in terms of national concerns?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  What? You're musing that a fucking trade war could possibly be placed above freedom of speech? The answer of which "values" should win is 110% clear.
  - User23 2y ago
    Just out of curiosity, do you think the 2nd amendment obligates the USA to sell foreign enemies any and all weapons?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      You’re going to have to work on that analogy a little more and come back to me
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    Do people have the prerogative to have successful industries? Do people have the prerogative to cheap energy, food, and other life basics? In the US, this is not actually enshrined anywhere, is it? The right to life simply means you roll the dice with life, doesn't it? One might say that even the beggars on the streets are enjoying their right to speech and life as we speak. Are we afraid to list the topology of our values? A framework for comparing which values are actually superior? That's all I asked for. Personally I think if China found the right narrative to pinpoint destroy Apple & Tesla, or moved too quickly to capture Taiwanese industry, then the US would seriously contemplate war.
hx8 2y ago
It's a shame that this is true for many platforms. Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. The more people watch content the more it's shown to other people. Anyone's voice could be amplified in a way that was limited to broadcast networking and printing presses in the past. A million small conversations can occur in such a way that they create a chorus of discussion about public interests. Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  > Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. The first step to reform would be to persuade legacy media to stop reporting the opinions trending on X/Twitter as "news". Stop reporting it entirely, it's manipulated, at best unverified, rubbish.
  - snypher 2y ago
    That would require legacy reporters to get out on the streets and do some reporting.
    - isodev 2y ago
      Can you imagine, holding public servants (a president for example) accountable for their statements… practically unheard of in the last decade…
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Freedom2 2y ago
        Americans have held all their presidents accountable in the way they deem best according to their values.
  - cma 2y ago
Barrin92 2y ago
>The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms. This logic applies to all media publications, not just internet platforms in the United States. When people say "anti-democratic" in the US I'm pretty certain they take it to mean "the government interfering in the speech of a private entity", not failing to uphold the principle of "1 tweet, 1 impression". Every newspaper, television station, blog post, what have you consists of a small minority of people both creating and selling reach in unequal ways. If it is anti-democratic and therefore presumably not tolerated for a small minority to exercise or sell speech, then that's just equivalent to saying no private media enterprise should exist. Needlessly to say the only person who can make this claim with a straight face is Noam Chomsky because he's been saying that about everyone for 50 years, but this is obviously not a position held by anyone currently trying to ban TikTok
- lolinder 2y ago
  There's a major difference with the modern social media platforms, which is that the way in which they manufacture consent gives the illusion of popular consensus. That illusion makes them much more powerful than anything that came before, to the point where they are different in kind, not just in degree. When a mainstream media outlet takes a position, most people are able to distinguish between that outlet's position and a large social movement in favor of a particular political position. The same cannot be said for these platforms, which by design attempt to make you feel like you're interacting with a large number of real people who hold real opinions. They much more effectively become seen as peers, and from that position can much more effectively manipulate people. The role of "influencer" is a thousand times more potent than anything that we had in the previous era, and that's without even getting into the possibility of creating hundreds of AI-powered sock puppets or of deliberately constructing an algorithm to put specific people into specific types of echo chambers. At this point in the game, the only way to equate speech-by-corporations with democracy is to be willfully blind to this difference in kind. The very rich at this point don't just have a megaphone, they have a direct neural link into an enormous number of brains. That's not free speech, that's free votes.
  - 2y ago
suraci 2y ago
[flagged]
- User23 2y ago
  This is nothing new. Google's instrumental role in the "Arab Spring" is old hat by now.
  - gunian 2y ago
    If you correlate the hacks of anonymous to that you will get an interesting picture to say the least :) As someone that loves dev stuff it is so beautiful not a single soldier deployed but an entire region destabilized and so many people killed
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      I was paying attention to telecomix and US forces in-country maintaining cellular infra to fight against the information blackouts but what was going down on 4chan?
      - gunian 2y ago
        Idk tbh never been on 4chan but you ever wonder why that infra was being defended? Ever heard of a guy called Pinochet? Noriega? Videla? Doe? Or my personal favorite Mobutu? Why are we pretending movements can't be co-opted or engineered or the CIA does things out of love would expect that on Reddit but not on HN. A lot of the countries involved did not recover look at their GDP pre vs during vs now. Look at how power centers have shifted and isolated Iran since then :)
        jazzyjackson 2y ago
        I definitely agree USA was pulling for the revolutionaries, and making sure the powers that be couldn't snuff out all communications was essential in throwing the fight, I just don't believe in inception as far as inspiring a revolt in the first place. I mention 4chan because I thought it synonymous with anonymous, and I was wondering what you knew that I didn't re: what hacking was happening. And yes Mobutu with his little leopard hat is my favorite too.
logicchains 2y ago
[flagged]
logicchains 2y ago
>In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent These platforms are much less subject to manufactured consent than the traditional news media, which was controlled by a small number of entities aligned with the elites of the day. Decentralised information transmission is fundamentally better for the people than centralised information transmission controlled by a few gatekeepers who suppress anything not in their interests. Look at how homogenous in views the baby boomers are relatively to the younger generations, as evidence of how much more effective at manufacturing consent the traditional media are.
logifail 2y ago
> They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astroturfing the platform and/or manipulating the algorithm (either through paid advertisements or by owning a platform and controlling the algorithm outright) Anyone willing to take a good-faith stab at why this couldn't equally well be a description of traditional media too - say - the WaPo?
- mmooss 2y ago
  The Washington Post has changed considerably in the last few months, specifically from being fiercely free to being bought. > couldn't Hypothetically, almost anything could happen.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > The Washington Post has changed considerably in the last few months, specifically from being fiercely free to being bought. I read it every day and hadn't noticed. Can you give examples, beyond having heard of the Presidential Endorsement saga?
    - thoroughburro 2y ago
      Sure! Here’s another that got wide attention, but many journalists have also left recently in quieter protest. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quits-wapo-over-bezos-trump-cartoon-washingtonpost https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quit...
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > Can you give examples Here are comments from many leading journalists at the Washington Post, many of whom have left. For example recently: Jennifer Rubin resigned: "The Washington Post's billionaire owner and enlisted management" "betrayed their audiences' loyalty and sabotaged journalism's sacred mission - defending, protecting and advancing democracy. ... They have undercut the values central to ... all journalism: integrity, courage, and independence. .... Jeff Bezos ... accommodate[s] and enable[s] the most acute threat to American democracy - Donald Trump ..." [1] Ann Telnaes resigned [2]: She "tells NPR she always accepts editing but had never previously been told she couldn't address a specific topic ..." [3] Management blocked Telnaes' cartoon criticizing Trump and billionaire media and tech execs bowing to Trump; an article, approved by editors, on Managing Editor Matea Gold leaving [4]; and more. Bezos, owner of one of the country's most important media institutions, has openly supported Trump and donated to him, while blocking content critical of him. That's all of the top of my head. We can always waste time by denying everything and bog down any discussion, but American democracy - that your ancestors bled and sacrificed to build - is burning and you are sitting in your chair playing with picayune arguments. You'd better act now. [1] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/i-have-resigned-from-the-washington https://contrarian.substack.com/p/i-have-resigned-from-the-w... [2] https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/why-im-quitting-the-washington-post https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/why-im-quitting-the-washin... [3] https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5258221/washington-post-will-lewis-jeff-bezos-year-one https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5258221/washington-post... [4] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/09/nx-s1-5222807/washington-post-editor-kills-article-times-bezos https://www.npr.org/2024/12/09/nx-s1-5222807/washington-post...
riffraff 2y ago
I mean, so are newspapers, but you don't want to ban those either. (I don't like TikTok and I agree it is damaging, but this is just reasoning I can't get behind)
uludag 2y ago
Ironically this is exactly why I think TikTok is so important. Obviously every media site is used for manufacturing content, from NYT to Facebook. Also, obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted. Wouldn't it be good then to have checks and balances to this, by having media not under the US government supervision? Unless are you suggesting that the US government doesn't misinform the public in harmful ways?
- tmnvdb 2y ago
  You are glancing over the fact that American media platforms are not really controlled by the US government except for legal restrictions on hate speech and violence, and that there is an extremely diverse set of voices that can be heard on the 'American' (or rather non-Chinese) internet. It is also not clear to me how TikTok is supposed to provide better "checks and balances" just because it is owned and manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party.
  - onei 2y ago
    Is Tiktok genuinely manipulated by the CCP? I could never quite tell if that was merely scaremongering and hypothesising by American politicians, or based on evidence of past transgressions.
    - tmnvdb 2y ago
      There is good evidence that topics the CCP does not like are significantly underrepresented compared to other social media platforms. I would add that if you know the CCP you would be extremely surprised if they did not take such an opportunity for information warfare.
      - dqv 2y ago
        You can't say "there is good evidence" and then not provide the evidence. If you're talking about the study about hash tag counts, that's not good evidence. https://www.cato.org/blog/lies-damned-lies-statistics-misleading-study-compares-tiktok-instagram https://www.cato.org/blog/lies-damned-lies-statistics-mislea...
thiagoharry 2y ago
> In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent. The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms. Which should be a major concerning point. Censoring a powerful media gives more power to the censor than censoring less powerful ones. Now the censor has the power to ensure that only US government and related big tech corporations are allowed to manufacturate consent over the public, with no way of having options of different views. Suddenly the media becomes even more dangerous.
nextaccountic 2y ago
How exactly does this differ from Facebook and Instagram?
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  Reds under TikTok beds.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I don't think it does, I think they all should be banned by the same reasoning.
  - junto 2y ago
    Expanding this further Europe should ban Chinese AND U.S. social media networks. What’s good for the goose…
- arizen 2y ago
  Owners residency/citizenship
sfjailbird 2y ago
The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. What's next? Should we prevent giving air time to people from 'adversarial' countries at all? Or only allow it when accompanied by a sanctioned commentary to 'correct' any unwanted information? While we're at it, how about 'adversarial' parties within our own country? Why should they be allowed to mislead gullible people?
- Retric 2y ago
  Making things up is inherently vastly cheaper than flighting misinformation. Spreading misinformation takes nothing more than being persuasive. Being able to pick and choose stuff out of context or even just say anything without a shred of support makes hours of “content” easy.
- troupo 2y ago
  > The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. We've seen how well it worked with Fox News, ONN, Alex Jones...
  - lemoncookiechip 2y ago
    And how well did kicking them out of the mainstream social platforms to hide them under the rug do? Rumble, Truth Social, Kick, and how many more echo chambers? You even gave the example of Alex Jones, he was silenced by the mainstream social media sites. Yes, fake and misleading news is easier to spread than issuing corrections or fact checking, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend they don't exist, because it's NOT working. EDIT: Mind you, I'm not advocating for what Twitter has essentially become, but hiding away these people is also not working very clearly based on how well things are going.
    - troupo 2y ago
      Because none of them really were kicked out, or silenced, or banned. Though I do agree, it's an insanely slippery slope: where do you draw the line.
- 2y ago
petre 2y ago
Precisely how Russia tainted the Romanian presidential elections using Tiktok dormant accounts to hijack another PR campaign. I'm with the SCotUS on this.
- throw-the-towel 2y ago
  Hasn't the Russia story been already debunked? https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/12/23/romanian-centre-right-partys-tiktok-campaign-used-for-far-right-win-report https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/12/23/romanian-centre-rig...
  - petre 2y ago
    That's the campaign that was hijacked by Russia. The PR company tried (and failed) to use a teasing campaign to promote another candidate without naming him. The Russian bots were commenting with the far-right ultranationalist's candidate name the day before the election under the unsuspecting influencers' videos paid for by the PR company. In parallel there were other campaigns in the ultranationalist's favour, paid for with crypto. He's also linked to a former secret service figure¹ who betrayed NATO to the KGB in the '60s, so he's either a FSB trojan, an useful idiot, or both. 1. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Caraman https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Caraman
  - phatfish 2y ago
    Debunked? That article says the election was annulled after evidence of Russian interference was provided. Anyway Russian interference doesn't usually involve the Kremlin giving money to voters directly (unless you are a citizen of Moldova), but through people in the country willing to sell themselves to Russia. Like "Bogdan Peșchir" in the article who donated €1 million to Tiktok users who promoted Georgescu.
- tw1237128 2y ago
  There has been very little public investigation. This is what I could find: https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-liberals-tiktok-campaign-pro-russia-candidate-calin-georgescu/ https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-... The Romanian National Liberal Party (opponents of Georgescu) bought the campaign. Their hashtag was "hijacked" (whatever that means) to boost Georgescu instead. I do not know how TikTok works. Perhaps it is as simple as Georgescu supporters simply using the paid for hashtag for their own messages. So, according to this article, the Russians did nothing. The Liberal Party engaged in questionable TikTok interference and Georgescu supporters jumped on the bandwagon. The Western media falling silent on the issue would indicate that this politico.eu is correct.
est 2y ago
yes these platforms are BAD. But still, tiktok is a tailored app for US market and bends to US regulations. You think this is bad? There are worse, some US users even chose to signup Douyin or REDnote. How would you ban THAT? Build a national firewall like the communists?
blitzar 2y ago
Now do twitter.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Agreed. And Facebook and Instagram. The US government appears to think that a US billionaire owning an algorithmic mind-shaper is fine, but I disagree.
paganel 2y ago
> In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent. Like Hollywood, then. In other words, some of the Westerners’ hypocrisy when it comes to the views they hold on their socio-economic system never ceases to amaze me, especially now, as we’re in the middle of a new translatio imperii phase.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hrtar 2y ago
The "small minority" label has been applied to Trump supporters on social media, yet they have won in the elections twice. Manufacturing consent still works via the traditional newspapers. That is where "the (current) truth" originates from. That is what is amplified on social media, including here. It takes years of struggle of independently minded people to argue against mainstream. Often after two years mainstream takes the position of independently minded people and takes the credit. TikTok is different in that it addresses teenagers. They don't have any political power and will change their opinions in their 20s/30s. The data collection and blackmail arguments are still valid. But they also happen in the West, except that three letter agencies collect compromising material on domestic and foreign politicians. I mean, really? On social media anti-China sentiment is at an all time high. This Chinese manipulation operation must have really failed.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms. Personally I don’t think singling them out is anti democratic, because this platform and Chinese run companies in general have issues unique to them. TikTok lied under oath about the location of data they claimed was stored in the US. That’s fraud and has concerning privacy and national security implications: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index.... This is why divestiture to an American entity with no ties back to a mainland China owner makes sense - it severs the tie that results in illegal surveillance. It’s not a ban on specific content or even the app - just a ban on the owner. Another issue - it has also come out that TikTok (not Douyin) employees have to uphold the goals of the CCP as part of their job: https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/14/tiktok-forced-staff-oaths-china-socialist-system-court-documents/ https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/14/tiktok-forced-staff-oaths... And then there’s the basic lack of reciprocity in market access, since all non Chinese social media is banned in China and yet their apps can access consumers outside China.
whycome 2y ago
It’s fascinating to talk to people from different cultures or different political leanings and find out how the internet that they browse is vastly different to the one I experience. Yet we aren’t necessarily seeking out different things. It’s just that tithe things presented to us align with (and reinforce) a different worldview. They’ll get annoyed about hearing about something constantly, and I’ll have little impression of the thing at all. We will have different “facts” established in our heads but not be able to pinpoint where we learned them. We have different realities.
gmuslera 2y ago
The biggest concern is having just one player directly or indirectly controlling all of them. One voice, under Trump (or anyone else) control.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature The US Gov has a mandate to preserve and uphold democracy. Shuttering communication is prior restraint - an anti-democratic action. Platforms have no mandate to preserve and uphold democracy.

EarlKing 2y ago
The state is under no obligation to allow known foreign propagandists attached to a known communist party to engage in activities well outside the protections of the first amendment. Of course, they don't HAVE to shutter. They can sell their interest in Tiktok and stay open. They have chosen not to do that thus far, and hence they have chosen to shutter.
sylware 2y ago
"Forcing" people to be "free". If you want peace, you better prepare for war. It is forbidden to forbid. The necessary evil. All that to say, we live in a complicated world, and beautiful ideals are only a direction to keep, never to be reached.
spokaneplumb 2y ago
Restricting who can own what, however… that’s long been fair game. In my dream world we’d get something like the rules we had, until fairly recently, restricting max broadcast media audience control in a given market for a single owner, but for Web platforms. Don’t like being limited to five million users or whatever? Then use a standard that puts control over curation and presentation in the hands of the user. Want to control all that, like all these awful platforms do? Then live with the limit.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Creative + precedence, I like it. How can we get the fediverse enough funding to lobby Congress?
lolinder 2y ago
You're presuming that these are communication platforms. I argue that they aren't—to the extent that they are useful for communication it's a pure coincidence, not a design choice. Each of these platforms is fundamentally a propaganda platform—they're explicitly designed to manipulate people into buying stuff, and that capability is frequently turned to voter manipulation. The US government has decided that while US-based billionaires having access to such influence is fine and dandy, the CCP should not. So tiktok must be sold to a US owner.
Freedom2 2y ago
Absurd. To use just one example, if the US Gov has that mandate, why is extreme gerrymandering allowed? Seems like it's common for Americans to just repeat what they've been told without actually thinking about it.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Absurd. To use just one example, if the US Gov has that mandate, why is extreme gerrymandering allowed? Because worthwhile barriers to gerrymandering are difficult and complex to construct. Effective barriers would need to be overseen and updated by capable, uncompromised people. Instead, it is easier for Gov to yield to its political handlers. There are lots of reasons for this; I think those reasons can be grouped together under one human failing: No One Anywhere Wants To Clean Their Own House

braiamp 2y ago

There's a better way: privacy laws. The US government decided not to use it.

lolinder 2y ago
Privacy laws don't solve the real problem, they would only solve the fig leaf that politicians are hiding behind when it comes to tiktok. The actual problem is and always has been control over the content being fed to users. It's not an issue of privacy, it's an issue of voter manipulation. It's just that the US has decided that it's okay with its own plutocrats manipulating voters while it's not okay with the CCP doing so. On the one hand that's a very rational position for people who owe their election to algorithmic voter manipulation to take, but that doesn't really make it better ethically.
- error_logic 2y ago
  The voting algorithm needs to change so that destructive (negative) campaigning is not so effective. Duverger's law makes campaigns devolve into undermining and destroying the competition, with the two parties hosting primaries to see which of them can "turn the wheel" the hardest before the general election where they claim "don't worry I won't crash the car!" despite their prior incentives. If we used plurality voting for the inputs to a decision problem that follows the classic tragedy of the commons, we'd see a similar result. If instead of just {+1, +0, +0, ...} without repeats, we instead voted with {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, ...} cooperation (or at least constructive competitive frameworks) would at least be at parity with destructive and potentially mutually destructive competition.
  - dralley 2y ago
    >The voting algorithm needs to change so that destructive (negative) campaigning is not so effective. No algorithm is going to fix this, it's human nature. Negative campaigning has been a constant of elections since elections were invented. At best you can tamp down on the aggressive engagement feedback loops. We should probably do that, but it's good to stay realistic about outcomes.

threatofrain 2y ago

In a trade war any company is fair game. A trade war thus naturally reaches across multiple values that a nation may hold, bringing them simultaneously under tension. Free speech is just a coincidence to the nature of TikTok, but what about cars, drones, phones, or even soybeans? When values are in conflict, which should win? In the hierarchy of values, where does economic world position stand in terms of national concerns?

llamaimperative 2y ago
What? You're musing that a fucking trade war could possibly be placed above freedom of speech? The answer of which "values" should win is 110% clear.
- User23 2y ago
  Just out of curiosity, do you think the 2nd amendment obligates the USA to sell foreign enemies any and all weapons?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You’re going to have to work on that analogy a little more and come back to me
- threatofrain 2y ago
  Do people have the prerogative to have successful industries? Do people have the prerogative to cheap energy, food, and other life basics? In the US, this is not actually enshrined anywhere, is it? The right to life simply means you roll the dice with life, doesn't it? One might say that even the beggars on the streets are enjoying their right to speech and life as we speak. Are we afraid to list the topology of our values? A framework for comparing which values are actually superior? That's all I asked for. Personally I think if China found the right narrative to pinpoint destroy Apple & Tesla, or moved too quickly to capture Taiwanese industry, then the US would seriously contemplate war.

hx8 2y ago

It's a shame that this is true for many platforms. Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. The more people watch content the more it's shown to other people. Anyone's voice could be amplified in a way that was limited to broadcast networking and printing presses in the past. A million small conversations can occur in such a way that they create a chorus of discussion about public interests. Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
> Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. The first step to reform would be to persuade legacy media to stop reporting the opinions trending on X/Twitter as "news". Stop reporting it entirely, it's manipulated, at best unverified, rubbish.
- snypher 2y ago
  That would require legacy reporters to get out on the streets and do some reporting.
  - isodev 2y ago
    Can you imagine, holding public servants (a president for example) accountable for their statements… practically unheard of in the last decade…
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Freedom2 2y ago
      Americans have held all their presidents accountable in the way they deem best according to their values.
- cma 2y ago

Barrin92 2y ago

>The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms. This logic applies to all media publications, not just internet platforms in the United States. When people say "anti-democratic" in the US I'm pretty certain they take it to mean "the government interfering in the speech of a private entity", not failing to uphold the principle of "1 tweet, 1 impression". Every newspaper, television station, blog post, what have you consists of a small minority of people both creating and selling reach in unequal ways. If it is anti-democratic and therefore presumably not tolerated for a small minority to exercise or sell speech, then that's just equivalent to saying no private media enterprise should exist. Needlessly to say the only person who can make this claim with a straight face is Noam Chomsky because he's been saying that about everyone for 50 years, but this is obviously not a position held by anyone currently trying to ban TikTok

lolinder 2y ago
There's a major difference with the modern social media platforms, which is that the way in which they manufacture consent gives the illusion of popular consensus. That illusion makes them much more powerful than anything that came before, to the point where they are different in kind, not just in degree. When a mainstream media outlet takes a position, most people are able to distinguish between that outlet's position and a large social movement in favor of a particular political position. The same cannot be said for these platforms, which by design attempt to make you feel like you're interacting with a large number of real people who hold real opinions. They much more effectively become seen as peers, and from that position can much more effectively manipulate people. The role of "influencer" is a thousand times more potent than anything that we had in the previous era, and that's without even getting into the possibility of creating hundreds of AI-powered sock puppets or of deliberately constructing an algorithm to put specific people into specific types of echo chambers. At this point in the game, the only way to equate speech-by-corporations with democracy is to be willfully blind to this difference in kind. The very rich at this point don't just have a megaphone, they have a direct neural link into an enormous number of brains. That's not free speech, that's free votes.
- 2y ago

suraci 2y ago

[flagged]

User23 2y ago
This is nothing new. Google's instrumental role in the "Arab Spring" is old hat by now.
- gunian 2y ago
  If you correlate the hacks of anonymous to that you will get an interesting picture to say the least :) As someone that loves dev stuff it is so beautiful not a single soldier deployed but an entire region destabilized and so many people killed
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    I was paying attention to telecomix and US forces in-country maintaining cellular infra to fight against the information blackouts but what was going down on 4chan?
    - gunian 2y ago
      Idk tbh never been on 4chan but you ever wonder why that infra was being defended? Ever heard of a guy called Pinochet? Noriega? Videla? Doe? Or my personal favorite Mobutu? Why are we pretending movements can't be co-opted or engineered or the CIA does things out of love would expect that on Reddit but not on HN. A lot of the countries involved did not recover look at their GDP pre vs during vs now. Look at how power centers have shifted and isolated Iran since then :)
      - jazzyjackson 2y ago
        I definitely agree USA was pulling for the revolutionaries, and making sure the powers that be couldn't snuff out all communications was essential in throwing the fight, I just don't believe in inception as far as inspiring a revolt in the first place. I mention 4chan because I thought it synonymous with anonymous, and I was wondering what you knew that I didn't re: what hacking was happening. And yes Mobutu with his little leopard hat is my favorite too.

logicchains 2y ago

[flagged]

logicchains 2y ago

>In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent These platforms are much less subject to manufactured consent than the traditional news media, which was controlled by a small number of entities aligned with the elites of the day. Decentralised information transmission is fundamentally better for the people than centralised information transmission controlled by a few gatekeepers who suppress anything not in their interests. Look at how homogenous in views the baby boomers are relatively to the younger generations, as evidence of how much more effective at manufacturing consent the traditional media are.

logifail 2y ago

> They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astroturfing the platform and/or manipulating the algorithm (either through paid advertisements or by owning a platform and controlling the algorithm outright) Anyone willing to take a good-faith stab at why this couldn't equally well be a description of traditional media too - say - the WaPo?

mmooss 2y ago
The Washington Post has changed considerably in the last few months, specifically from being fiercely free to being bought. > couldn't Hypothetically, almost anything could happen.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > The Washington Post has changed considerably in the last few months, specifically from being fiercely free to being bought. I read it every day and hadn't noticed. Can you give examples, beyond having heard of the Presidential Endorsement saga?
  - thoroughburro 2y ago
    Sure! Here’s another that got wide attention, but many journalists have also left recently in quieter protest. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quits-wapo-over-bezos-trump-cartoon-washingtonpost https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quit...
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > Can you give examples Here are comments from many leading journalists at the Washington Post, many of whom have left. For example recently: Jennifer Rubin resigned: "The Washington Post's billionaire owner and enlisted management" "betrayed their audiences' loyalty and sabotaged journalism's sacred mission - defending, protecting and advancing democracy. ... They have undercut the values central to ... all journalism: integrity, courage, and independence. .... Jeff Bezos ... accommodate[s] and enable[s] the most acute threat to American democracy - Donald Trump ..." [1] Ann Telnaes resigned [2]: She "tells NPR she always accepts editing but had never previously been told she couldn't address a specific topic ..." [3] Management blocked Telnaes' cartoon criticizing Trump and billionaire media and tech execs bowing to Trump; an article, approved by editors, on Managing Editor Matea Gold leaving [4]; and more. Bezos, owner of one of the country's most important media institutions, has openly supported Trump and donated to him, while blocking content critical of him. That's all of the top of my head. We can always waste time by denying everything and bog down any discussion, but American democracy - that your ancestors bled and sacrificed to build - is burning and you are sitting in your chair playing with picayune arguments. You'd better act now. [1] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/i-have-resigned-from-the-washington https://contrarian.substack.com/p/i-have-resigned-from-the-w... [2] https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/why-im-quitting-the-washington-post https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/why-im-quitting-the-washin... [3] https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5258221/washington-post-will-lewis-jeff-bezos-year-one https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5258221/washington-post... [4] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/09/nx-s1-5222807/washington-post-editor-kills-article-times-bezos https://www.npr.org/2024/12/09/nx-s1-5222807/washington-post...

riffraff 2y ago

I mean, so are newspapers, but you don't want to ban those either. (I don't like TikTok and I agree it is damaging, but this is just reasoning I can't get behind)

uludag 2y ago

Ironically this is exactly why I think TikTok is so important. Obviously every media site is used for manufacturing content, from NYT to Facebook. Also, obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted. Wouldn't it be good then to have checks and balances to this, by having media not under the US government supervision? Unless are you suggesting that the US government doesn't misinform the public in harmful ways?

tmnvdb 2y ago
You are glancing over the fact that American media platforms are not really controlled by the US government except for legal restrictions on hate speech and violence, and that there is an extremely diverse set of voices that can be heard on the 'American' (or rather non-Chinese) internet. It is also not clear to me how TikTok is supposed to provide better "checks and balances" just because it is owned and manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party.
- onei 2y ago
  Is Tiktok genuinely manipulated by the CCP? I could never quite tell if that was merely scaremongering and hypothesising by American politicians, or based on evidence of past transgressions.
  - tmnvdb 2y ago
    There is good evidence that topics the CCP does not like are significantly underrepresented compared to other social media platforms. I would add that if you know the CCP you would be extremely surprised if they did not take such an opportunity for information warfare.
    - dqv 2y ago
      You can't say "there is good evidence" and then not provide the evidence. If you're talking about the study about hash tag counts, that's not good evidence. https://www.cato.org/blog/lies-damned-lies-statistics-misleading-study-compares-tiktok-instagram https://www.cato.org/blog/lies-damned-lies-statistics-mislea...

thiagoharry 2y ago

> In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent. The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms. Which should be a major concerning point. Censoring a powerful media gives more power to the censor than censoring less powerful ones. Now the censor has the power to ensure that only US government and related big tech corporations are allowed to manufacturate consent over the public, with no way of having options of different views. Suddenly the media becomes even more dangerous.

nextaccountic 2y ago

How exactly does this differ from Facebook and Instagram?

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
Reds under TikTok beds.
lolinder 2y ago
I don't think it does, I think they all should be banned by the same reasoning.
- junto 2y ago
  Expanding this further Europe should ban Chinese AND U.S. social media networks. What’s good for the goose…
arizen 2y ago
Owners residency/citizenship

sfjailbird 2y ago

The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. What's next? Should we prevent giving air time to people from 'adversarial' countries at all? Or only allow it when accompanied by a sanctioned commentary to 'correct' any unwanted information? While we're at it, how about 'adversarial' parties within our own country? Why should they be allowed to mislead gullible people?

Retric 2y ago
Making things up is inherently vastly cheaper than flighting misinformation. Spreading misinformation takes nothing more than being persuasive. Being able to pick and choose stuff out of context or even just say anything without a shred of support makes hours of “content” easy.
troupo 2y ago
> The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. We've seen how well it worked with Fox News, ONN, Alex Jones...
- lemoncookiechip 2y ago
  And how well did kicking them out of the mainstream social platforms to hide them under the rug do? Rumble, Truth Social, Kick, and how many more echo chambers? You even gave the example of Alex Jones, he was silenced by the mainstream social media sites. Yes, fake and misleading news is easier to spread than issuing corrections or fact checking, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend they don't exist, because it's NOT working. EDIT: Mind you, I'm not advocating for what Twitter has essentially become, but hiding away these people is also not working very clearly based on how well things are going.
  - troupo 2y ago
    Because none of them really were kicked out, or silenced, or banned. Though I do agree, it's an insanely slippery slope: where do you draw the line.
2y ago

petre 2y ago

Precisely how Russia tainted the Romanian presidential elections using Tiktok dormant accounts to hijack another PR campaign. I'm with the SCotUS on this.

throw-the-towel 2y ago
Hasn't the Russia story been already debunked? https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/12/23/romanian-centre-right-partys-tiktok-campaign-used-for-far-right-win-report https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/12/23/romanian-centre-rig...
- petre 2y ago
  That's the campaign that was hijacked by Russia. The PR company tried (and failed) to use a teasing campaign to promote another candidate without naming him. The Russian bots were commenting with the far-right ultranationalist's candidate name the day before the election under the unsuspecting influencers' videos paid for by the PR company. In parallel there were other campaigns in the ultranationalist's favour, paid for with crypto. He's also linked to a former secret service figure¹ who betrayed NATO to the KGB in the '60s, so he's either a FSB trojan, an useful idiot, or both. 1. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Caraman https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Caraman
- phatfish 2y ago
  Debunked? That article says the election was annulled after evidence of Russian interference was provided. Anyway Russian interference doesn't usually involve the Kremlin giving money to voters directly (unless you are a citizen of Moldova), but through people in the country willing to sell themselves to Russia. Like "Bogdan Peșchir" in the article who donated €1 million to Tiktok users who promoted Georgescu.
tw1237128 2y ago
There has been very little public investigation. This is what I could find: https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-liberals-tiktok-campaign-pro-russia-candidate-calin-georgescu/ https://www.politico.eu/article/investigation-ties-romanian-... The Romanian National Liberal Party (opponents of Georgescu) bought the campaign. Their hashtag was "hijacked" (whatever that means) to boost Georgescu instead. I do not know how TikTok works. Perhaps it is as simple as Georgescu supporters simply using the paid for hashtag for their own messages. So, according to this article, the Russians did nothing. The Liberal Party engaged in questionable TikTok interference and Georgescu supporters jumped on the bandwagon. The Western media falling silent on the issue would indicate that this politico.eu is correct.

est 2y ago

yes these platforms are BAD. But still, tiktok is a tailored app for US market and bends to US regulations. You think this is bad? There are worse, some US users even chose to signup Douyin or REDnote. How would you ban THAT? Build a national firewall like the communists?

blitzar 2y ago

Now do twitter.

lolinder 2y ago
Agreed. And Facebook and Instagram. The US government appears to think that a US billionaire owning an algorithmic mind-shaper is fine, but I disagree.

paganel 2y ago

> In short, these platforms are places for manufacturing consent. Like Hollywood, then. In other words, some of the Westerners’ hypocrisy when it comes to the views they hold on their socio-economic system never ceases to amaze me, especially now, as we’re in the middle of a new translatio imperii phase.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

hrtar 2y ago

The "small minority" label has been applied to Trump supporters on social media, yet they have won in the elections twice. Manufacturing consent still works via the traditional newspapers. That is where "the (current) truth" originates from. That is what is amplified on social media, including here. It takes years of struggle of independently minded people to argue against mainstream. Often after two years mainstream takes the position of independently minded people and takes the credit. TikTok is different in that it addresses teenagers. They don't have any political power and will change their opinions in their 20s/30s. The data collection and blackmail arguments are still valid. But they also happen in the West, except that three letter agencies collect compromising material on domestic and foreign politicians. I mean, really? On social media anti-China sentiment is at an all time high. This Chinese manipulation operation must have really failed.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms. Personally I don’t think singling them out is anti democratic, because this platform and Chinese run companies in general have issues unique to them. TikTok lied under oath about the location of data they claimed was stored in the US. That’s fraud and has concerning privacy and national security implications: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index.... This is why divestiture to an American entity with no ties back to a mainland China owner makes sense - it severs the tie that results in illegal surveillance. It’s not a ban on specific content or even the app - just a ban on the owner. Another issue - it has also come out that TikTok (not Douyin) employees have to uphold the goals of the CCP as part of their job: https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/14/tiktok-forced-staff-oaths-china-socialist-system-court-documents/ https://dailycaller.com/2025/01/14/tiktok-forced-staff-oaths... And then there’s the basic lack of reciprocity in market access, since all non Chinese social media is banned in China and yet their apps can access consumers outside China.

whycome 2y ago

It’s fascinating to talk to people from different cultures or different political leanings and find out how the internet that they browse is vastly different to the one I experience. Yet we aren’t necessarily seeking out different things. It’s just that tithe things presented to us align with (and reinforce) a different worldview. They’ll get annoyed about hearing about something constantly, and I’ll have little impression of the thing at all. We will have different “facts” established in our heads but not be able to pinpoint where we learned them. We have different realities.

gmuslera 2y ago

The biggest concern is having just one player directly or indirectly controlling all of them. One voice, under Trump (or anyone else) control.