17 ms·
None of those arguments are the salient one, which is that a geopolitical adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. They could s
by wilg 2y ago
None of those arguments are the salient one, which is that a geopolitical adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. They could simply have divested.
- GolfPopper 2y agoYeah. If you don't stop it here, where does it end? Next thing you know, you'll have a guy doing millions of dollars of business with proxies for the Russian government in the White House.
- crummy 2y agoWas that happening or was it just something we were worried about? Maybe we could have just banned it when there was evidence it was actually occuring?
- wilg 2y agonothing wrong with doing it in advance but yes, there is some evidence but of course its very controversial
- josephcsible 2y agoMaybe we could have just closed the barn door when there was evidence the horse was actually bolting?
- ewild 2y agoto me this is the only important one. Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture, if they were to get in trouble for it, then what? the US doesnt have any influence over them we would just ban them and at that point its too late. realistically it already is too late. a huge point imo aswell is we ARENT at war right now, but if we are at war the amount of information china can both push and obtain through tiktok would be large enough to change the tides of a war
- hypeatei 2y ago> Not only can they subtely influence the entire us culture Not the entire U.S. population is on TikTok. Even if a significant percentage are, your argument is that they cannot think for themselves? It is widely known that TT is Chinese owned/controlled yet Americans still used it. Even a regulation requiring disclosure of that fact each time you open it would be fine. But an outright ban on the app itself? This is a huge "feel good" moment which will not improve any aspects of the social media environment in the U.S.
- wilg 2y agothey didn't ban the app. they said china couldn't own it. but china would rather not sell it. we don't let any foreign citizens work on missiles and stuff (ITAR), we shouldn't let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure
- hypeatei 2y agoYes, I know the law doesn't name TikTok/ByteDance specifically to be banned outright, that is just the effect. > let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure This is an exaggeration that a social media platform for short form content is communications infrastructure, akin to a cell tower or fiber optic line. I'd the say the same for your mention of ITAR in a thread about, again, a social media platform. If we were serious, there would be regulations for all social media, not just forcing of U.S. ownership then saying "all good, this can't be bad since Americans own it"
- wilg 2y agoit is not an exaggeration at all. it's a different layer of infrastructure, but it's still infrastructure. the mention of ITAR is an analogy, which I know you understand. if "we were serious" about what? the issue of foreign control is not relevant to domestic companies. we could have some other regulations too, sure, but this one is reasonable.
- tkel 2y agoIt is the salient point. A domestic adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. In the form of Instagram/Twitter/Facebook/etc.
- wilg 2y agothe us has political and legal jurisdiction over those companies which is the entire point
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ternnoburn 2y agoDo they? Do they actually? I'm not sure the U.S. has control sufficient to exercise meaningful jurisdiction, even if it exists on paper. Big companies have too much influence in Congress and with politicians to be meaningfully reigned in in practice.
- snovv_crash 2y agoSo you don't see Zuckerberg doing a roundabout on a bunch of policies with the new administration then?
- ternnoburn 2y agoYou think he changed because he was worried about either admin? I think he changed because he sees the outcome of an election as an endorsement of his beliefs by the populace.
- snovv_crash 2y agoHe's a billionaire, why would he put on a whole dog and pony show if he just wanted to do stuff? He'd just do it, no go on Joe Rogan as well. No, this is about kowtowing to the new powers that be.
- Pxtl 2y agoBy that logic Canada, Panama, and Denmark should ban X and Meta.
- wilg 2y agothose countries are not our geopolitical adversaries, but if the people of those countries want them to be considered as such, it would be reasonable to pass a similar law
- Pxtl 2y agoTrump has openly stated plans to annex them in part or whole against their will. That sounds pretty geopolitical adversary to me.
- wilg 2y ago[flagged]
- sekai 2y agoTrump has also said that wind turbines harm whales.
- goatlover 2y agoIs Trump still going to force Mexico to build that wall he promised in his first term? Dude says all sorts of things, he probably doesn't mean or remember 80% of it.
- defrost 2y ago> Dude says all sorts of things, he probably doesn't mean or remember 80% of it. Rather you don't remember the agenda and just roll with the flow. Trump and Boris Johnson are both total arse clowns, much smarter that they appear to be, and masters of throwing a dead cat on the table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy Trump is a _very_ good carny grifter, he can grab attention like few others can. Remember that pledge to fix Ukraine within a few days of taking office? Probably not - he tangented off on seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal. Meanwhile, that basket of deplorables is being sworn in.
- blackoil 2y agoWhile I agree with your argument partially, I still find it ironic. It assumes that we must prevent public from accessing some thoughts/propoganda as they may not be able to make right decision themselves. This is rhyming with 1930s Germany or other authoritative regimes since then.
- wilg 2y agoyou can still access any thought you want due to our permissive free speech laws. you just cant run the app if you're china
- sodality2 2y ago“You can still access any thought you want due to our permissive free speech laws. You just can’t sell this book if you’re Ray Bradbury”
- wilg 2y agoanalogy completely misses the point which is that there is no impact on what anyone is allowed to say
- sodality2 2y agoThere is an impact on the TikTok’s app to display content to American users.
- wilg 2y agoyes exactly but not on any of tiktok's users to say what they want, which is 1000x more important than the rights of the PRC to tweak the algorithm and moderation however they like
- sodality2 2y agoIMO the right to use TikTok in the US is actually way more important than the “right” of users to post whatever they want on it. In the same way that FB can ban you for violating content policy, and the app store can ban you for whatever reason. These are all okay because they’re all the domain of that company/entity to police. The problem is when the government steps in and forces it. I don’t think what website I can use is the domain of the government.
- fspeech 2y agoNot sure why you say "simply". There is nothing simple about it: there are issues of forced technology transfers; there is the problem that TikTok is a global platform and revenue generation is across the border. These are just things that immediately come to mind and I am sure there are more.
- wilg 2y agoselling a company is a solved problem
- russli1993 2y ago[flagged]
- wilg 2y agoyou already posted this elsewhere and it sounds deranged here too
- Aloisius 2y agoI'm sure they took note decades ago when the US first started doing it... then shrugged and continued on.
- encoderer 2y ago[flagged]
- Sabinus 2y agoForeign countries are free to mandate US companies sell or leave their market. Of course, they will not like the results of that process, but they are free and able to copy the US if they like. >USA has showed it is perfectly okay with this daylight robbery and piracy. Why? They didn't steal TikTok, they forbade it from operating in the US with the current ownership. The rest of your comment has so many falsehoods in it I don't really know where to start.
- 2y ago
- heresoiiixdgy 2y agoGod forbid the rest of the world stops wearing jeans, stops drinking coke and has declining divorce rates. They can't have TikTok at all costs. That will show em. We can't have them get brainwashed by others, we already have a monopoly on that. We need to keep it.
- keepthemensbusy 2y agoWe need to keep the women on the independent mindfu*k or else the GDP will go down.
- arrobbiato 2y agoUS social media companies have been banned in China for many years, so in fact the “brainwashing” you’re referring to has only gone in one direction until now.
- ciselybaldwic 2y agoThey are probably scared their productivity rate will go down or their birthrate. They definitely know something we don't.
- johnny22 2y agoif you were paying attention you'd know their birthrates have been plunging for years even after the revocation of the one child policy.
- saturn8601 2y agoIts the only saving grace the US has against China. Without it, an argument can be made that the game is already over and the US has lost.
- Sabinus 2y agoStiff systems like whatever version of Communism the Chinese have now, with Emperor for Life Xi don't do as well with changing circumstances and the buildup their own internal contradictions as well as the flexible democracies so there is more than just China's demographic collapse in the equation.
- russli1993 2y ago[dead]
- wilg 2y ago[flagged]
- suraci 2y agodoesn't seem like an American, as there's no American exceptionalism, more like a Chinese(or other 3rd-world country) liberal disillusioned after once believing in the old US... We have a lot of people like that, who used to believe in America's free trade, democracy, fair competition, and innovation. I used to be one too now things are changing...
- SanjayMehta 2y agoHe’s probably Chinese; a few weeks ago I remember seeing a similar long comment which referred to solar panels pricing in the context of women’s rights in China - which I thought was strange. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42556337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42556337
- ALittleLight 2y agoDoesn't China actively block many American companies from doing business there?
- muh_gradle 2y agoDon't bother, it's always crickets on this one. China doesn't play by the rules in literally anything and "well that's too bad".
- jazzyjackson 2y agoFrom the comment you're replying to: >> China gives you a list of requirements to operate in the country, if you meet it, you can operate. Some US companies (like Google) choose not to operate there because they don't want to put up with harassment and intellectual property theft that comes with having offices on the mainland.
- suraci 2y agolmao, it's just exactly what cpc said at the time they banning Google and Facebook we are the same now
- tivert 2y ago> lmao, it's just exactly what cpc said at the time they banning Google and Facebook The CCP is not some weird thing that's wrong 100% of the time, so the US must always do the opposite thing. The CCP banning Google/Facebook was wrong, but not for the reason of removing something a "geopolitical adversary has control" over, it was wrong because it was part of their extensive and illiberal censorship regime. The US has nothing similar. > we are the same now No.
- suraci 2y ago> The US has nothing similar this reminds me another brilliant comment: > China bans US businesses because it has an autocratic, ethnocratic government. The US is banning a Chinese business for obvious national security reasons. In the 1950s, China forced private enterprises to sell half of their shares to the state In the 1990s, it required foreign companies to establish joint ventures and share intellectual property as a condition for entering the Chinese market. Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism
- tivert 2y ago>> The US has nothing similar > this reminds me another brilliant comment: Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Because all the stuff you were reminded of has nothing to do with the kind of "illiberal censorship regime" that I was referring to in what you quoted. > Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism I feel like you're trying to taunt me, but you're doing a pretty poor job of it. Your mention of joint ventures, seems to confusing walking back from socialism with becoming more socialist, somehow.
- qwezxcrty 2y agoIf you look at the point of a Chinese, the block of Google/Facebook certainly can be justified by "geopolitical adversary has control". The exactly same reasoning of data security and propaganda manipulation can be applied. You can't say without hypocrisy that China blocking US social media is censorship but US banning Chinese app is national security.
- pizza 2y agoI’d rather have both data privacy protection through both laws and technological security AND a popular platform run by an adversary, than have neither privacy protections and only platforms that conceal their beneficiaries.
- wilg 2y agowell that doesn't really represent the situation here so it doesn't really matter what you'd prefer of those two options
- farts_mckensy 2y ago[flagged]
- wilg 2y agothese are just random irrelevant or incorrect platitudes
- farts_mckensy 2y agoWhich part is incorrect? You won't say. This is just an assertion. Why is it a platitude when I make an argument, but when you do it, it's accepted uncritically? State censorship is bad no matter what state is doing it.
- gdubs 2y agoAre they not allowed to sell books in the United States? How about guns? Can they release major motion pictures? Video games? We have freedom of speech in this country — and for the boogeyman that China was somehow weaponizing their platform, we just removed the voice of countless communities that had formed on TikTok.
- forrestthewoods 2y agoThose communities can form else where. There can be another short form video platform.
- sodality2 2y agoWhy do they have to? And if there is, what argument is there that we should stop just at this one platform?
- forrestthewoods 2y agoBecause TikTok is owned and controlled by hostile foreign country of communist totalitarians. That country would rather TikTok die than be sold to an operator they don’t control. The operator doesn’t necessarily have to be American. A European operator would be sufficient. But it can’t be an overtly hostile nation. All of these arguments have been made ad nauseum. All social media companies controlled by the CCP will be banned in the US. And since all tech companies in China are controlled by the CCP that means all Chinese social media products will be banned in the US. It’s not all that complicated. It’s not even that controversial.
- sodality2 2y agoNone of this is strong enough to justify banning speech to me. Do you think something like the Communist Manifesto should be banned in the US? Do you think someone professing the virtues of communism on a street corner should be forced to stop?
- 8note 2y agoits a horrible crutch that suggests america is already dead and gone. america and americans should be able to view any media and still come to the best conclusions. banning media is a lack of trust in americans ability to formulate opinions. what the point in having media and democracy if you dont think people can make good decisions based on it?
- Eextra953 2y agoI think this perfectly communicates why it feels so wrong that the government has banned tt. Its an implicit acknowledgement that our leaders feel that foreign influence will resonate with the public in a way that doesn't benefit the status quo.
- wilg 2y agothey're not banning any media or expression though so its a non-issue
- fspeech 2y agoSo many people focus only on TikTok instead of their fellow citizens' rights that are being trampled upon. Even NYT writers happily insinuate that all will be forgotten in no time. Cutting people's social links is not benign. An American may be happily watching Italian content, and when you cut her link it doesn't follow that the Italian creators will move their content to some other platform accessible to that American. Same for Americans with foreign followers. Americans may also have trouble reconnecting with American creators. It boggles the mind that these losses are given so little thought.
- t0bia_s 2y ago"...there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought." Geroge Orwell - Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972 https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
- moshun 2y agoAmazing that we don’t hear this book quoted more often along with 1984, we seem to be living funhouse versions of both.
- tsimionescu 2y agoNote that this preface was not allowed to be published together with the book, it was censored last minute by the publishers. The public narrative about Animal Farm is almost exclusively that it is an allegory for the USSR, an attack on the false equality that they professed. The preface explaining that it's very much intended to attack the UK and more generally European and US governments' tendencies is even today not included in the vast majority of printings of Animal Farm.
- _yb2s 2y agoThose publishers must have been tragically born without a sense of irony.
- ImHereToVote 2y agoThey are just practicing Oligarchical Collectivism.
- 2y ago
- ternnoburn 2y agoI see this thought posted frequently. It makes no sense to me... what power could China exert here that wouldn't also be a bad power for anyone to exert? Surely, if they started exerting power on their platform in ways people didn't like, people would leave, right? And also, what's the path to pressure bytedance by the ccp? It all just smacks of protectionism and isolationism to me.
- paganel 2y agoWhy should they? This is not the early 1900s anymore.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoThat might make policy sense in a world where those same adversaries couldn't just pay a western social media company to exert the same control. But since they can, it smells much more like protecting a monopoly than anything to do with preventing control.
- wilg 2y agoyou don't refuse to close one security hole because you might have another. we could make the latter illegal too! it might already be!
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI would love to make advertising illegal but it doesn't seem likely to happen. The place to protect against this kind of threat is in English class, and by regulating in favor of transparency (re: the algorithm), not by censorship. The latter will just create a fight for control over the censorship infrastructure, and given our cyber security track record and habit of letting companies do whatever they want, that's not a fight I think we can win without becoming all of the things about China that we find objectionable.
- low_tech_love 2y agoThis entire thread could be removed and only this comment should be kept. Unfortunately people have bought into this idea that all players in this game are following the rules. The US government is an extremely complex system and there is no way they would have reached a bipartisan conclusion on this if there wasn’t strong (confidential) evidence to support it.
- aqme28 2y ago> The US government is an extremely complex system and there is no way they would have reached a bipartisan conclusion on this if there wasn’t strong (confidential) evidence to support it. I'm sorry, but this is not a good assumption. It has not been the case historically.
- wildrhythms 2y agoLOL, and what is your opinion on the Iraq War? Let's hear it.
- BeFlatXIII 2y agoDownvoted for speaking truth.
- airstrike 2y agoDownvoted for whataboutism
- sudosysgen 2y agoIt is a relevant example that directly contradicts the general statement made about the motivations for bipartisan consensus, not whataboutism.
- cameronh90 2y agoAnd when Meta was used to undermine our (UK) elections, we should be able to force a sale to British ownership too then presumably?
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoYes?
- realityking 2y agoThen why does the law require divesting to only a US owner instead of also allowing NATO or major non-NATO allies as owners? Personally, I think it’s a bit of both. There’s definitely concern about Chinese control but it has also been seen as a business opportunity.
- colin_jack 2y agoSurely the risk is others respond, would X/FB not be at risk of same sorts of responses from geopolitical adversaries, which given recent events might be more of the world than it was a decade ago?
- ninkendo 2y agoTwitter and Facebook are already banned in just about every one of the U.S.’s adversaries. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc etc all ban them. Your comment makes me quite alarmed, to be honest. Are people really this clueless about what goes on in the world? Do they not already know that American platforms are already banned in countries that are adversarial to the US?
- colin_jack 2y agoThe white house statement said that TikTok “should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership”. If other regions, such as Europe, applied that logic the outcome would be messy. Imagine applying that to X (Musk is part of government) in Europe.
- ninkendo 2y agoThe actual law says what countries cannot run a social media site in America. It doesn’t say it has to be American owned. Just not a country that we’re in a quasi-cold war with (China, Russia, Iran, NK, are the usual suspects.) If America were a hostile nation to a European country, then said country probably would (and should, heck) ban an enemy nation from running a social media company in their borders. As it is, America is on friendly terms with “Europe” and so the worry isn’t really there. This is why it’s important for nations to not get to the point where relations are this bad in the first place. It results in isolationism and distrust, which is a slippery slope that results in zero-sum outcomes that are worse than if we had open trade. But that ship has sailed long ago. China has openly declared itself to be in utter opposition to the US and has been engaged in grey zone warfare with us for a decade or more. The next Cold War has already begun. You mention Europe, which is ironic: China is allied with Russia and is openly funding its invasion of Ukraine. Something the EU hasn’t really done anything to help with, because of a complete lack of resources spent on an independent military from the US’s which they have always counted on to defend them. The idea of EU states souring US relations so much that they welcome China, the very country that is funding the invasion of their continent, is utterly insane. If Germany/UK/France/etc had any kind of sense they’d ban TikTok too out of solidarity.
- aqme28 2y agoTwitter is owned by a South African who is making overt attempts to control our government and our public opinion.
- kasey_junk 2y agoElon Musk has had US citizenship for over 20 years.
- aqme28 2y agoI guess that means his interests align with the average American's
- kasey_junk 2y agoNo. It means he's an American. And in the context of the TikTok ban that matters.
- aqme28 2y agoWhy does it matter? Why should the machinations of China scare me more than the those of an oligarch?
- kasey_junk 2y agoBecause that’s the way the law is written? And you were the one that added the South African qualifier? I’m not making a point about the usefulness of the law, only the _definition_ of it. In the context of the ban Musks American-ness is more important than his South African-ness and both are more important than his wealth.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bdangubic 2y agoso he’s a fucking immigrant, eh?
- buyucu 2y agoHow will you react when other countries start banning Meta/Twitter with the same argument?
- ninkendo 2y agoAmerica's adversaries have already banned Meta/Twitter, what's your point? The word "Adversary" is literally the most important word of GP's sentence. They're a country that we're in a cyber cold war with, and they have god mode control over our public opinion. It would make about as much sense to let Moscow buy spectrum in the 1950s and broadcast TV directly to every American's home. In what universe does that make even the slightest bit of sense?
- op00to 2y ago> broadcast tv directly to every Americans home To take this further, they would be beaming specific content tailored individually for each American. This is why social media is so damaging for foreign adversaries to control. They’re beaming personally tailored propaganda.
- buyucu 2y agoI would love my country to ban Instagram and Twitter. No need for American propaganda.
- ninkendo 2y agoOk Edit: from your comment history it looks like you’re from turkey. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if turkey banned instagram/fb/X. In fact I’m kind of surprised they haven’t already.
- quitit 2y agoThere are a very large number of posts which follow the format of the parent post, each clearly aiming to make TikTok appear equivalent to US-owned social media platforms, while ignoring the actual issue that TikTok is an active propaganda arm of the CCP. TikTok's manipulation of the feed has been proven through extensive public studies: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning The pressing need to ban it on security grounds likely extends further into non-public knowledge - Let us not forget that in the current political landscape it's pretty hard to get both major parties to agree on anything, then to actually also vote that way: but that's what happened with regard to TikTok.
- japanification 2y agoExactly! The China and Russia supporters are crying and trying all sorts of deflection and false equivalence. never mind that 1.) It's pointless, TikTok is officially banned in US. Even if trump decides to find a US buyer for it, it will go under strict ownership investigation. So there's no way Chinese government has any influence anymore. 2.) This means that any future Chinese apps that get popular will get banned, and no need to go through any court challenges since there's precedent and law 3.) The traffic from the original TikTok will just keep getting split and syphoned, until the magnificent seven claims most of it
- 6P58r3MXJSLi 2y ago> The China and Russia supporters are crying except this is not what's happening, the opposite is true: the "manga" (make american nato...) supporters are screaming that China and Russia are finally defeated in the propaganda war, while China and Russia do not care about the tik tok ban. It's already a victory when the enemy castrate itself and goes against the sentiment of their population, especially the young ones, out of fear that something might happen, but there's no evidence it has happened yet not that it is going to happen anytime soon. When you think that tik tok is so dangerous that your democracy could fall because of it, well, you got bigger problems on your hands.
- 2y ago
- peoplefromibiza 2y ago[dead]
- billylindeman 2y ago"They could simply have divested" What an odd thing to say. Why should a company that started the biggest social media app in a decade "divest" it to US oligarchic interests when it's a global application? It makes no sense. This is the largest affront to American freedom since the patriot act, and the fact that people are celebrating it on some red-scare bullshit is terrifying. I am personally disgusted that my government thinks it should be in the business of telling me what apps I can have on my phone. I am a grown adult, and a taxpayer, and the US Government has no fucking business telling me where I can watch and/or post videos. Maybe it's time to build a decentralized alternative so this never happens again.
- scarab92 2y agoIt's hard for China to claim that they are being treated unfairly, when US companies are generally only permitted to hold a minority 49% interest of the Chinese operations. The US is just reciprocating.
- billylindeman 2y agoChinese investors own ~20% of ByteDance. Mostly own by large funds (State Street BlackRock, Sequoia, etc)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- IAmGraydon 2y agoIt's amazing to me that people don't recognize the influence that this kind of platform has. I know it goes against the prevailing idea that American corporations are evil, but American companies are interested in making money while China is interested in the disruption of western society. They are not the same level of risk.
- osrec 2y agoI'm not sure about that. The US and China sort of need each other, at least from an economic perspective. If one faces disruption, the effect on the other is guaranteed. I'm not saying they like each other, but the relationship is symbiotic in many ways.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoChina is not a geopolitical adversary to me. Why would I want to beef with China when China has never done anything to treat me poorly?
- hackerknew 2y agoI do not use TikTok so maybe I do not understand, but how does TikTok influence its users? I thought content comes from other users. Does TikTok decide which content to promote? And if so, what exactly are they promoting that is threatening to the United States?
- jalapenos 2y agoPlus people forget that China has long blocked every US social media app. Fair's fair.