4 ms·

this is not really the main concern. the real danger posed by TikTok is the ability to easily influence on a large scale.

diggan 2y ago
I feel like it's important to include "the ability for China to easily [...]" since that's probably the top reason TikTok is affected by this and not others who are identically able to "easily influence on a large scale".
imiric 2y ago
I don't get how more people don't realize this. Yes, all domestic media has also been corrupted by various agencies that wish to psychologically manipulate the masses. Some of this manipulation is to get you to buy things, while other wants to get you to think, act or vote a certain way. The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Allowing that adversary to also control the platform itself is beyond unsafe. The tricky thing is that the US built these tools, and opened them up for everyone to use. This libertarian position is what will ultimately be its downfall. They can't just go and block access to these tools for everyone outside the US, or heavily regulate them, as it will cause an internal uproar, but that is what they must do in order to survive this war. China is in a much better position in this conflict since the government has total control over the media its citizens consume (barring the rampant use of VPNs, which they can shut down at any point). They have no external but massive internal influence. I feel like everyone should watch this 1985 interview of an ex-KGB agent[1]. It's more relevant today than ever before, and explains the sociopolitical state of not just the US, but of many western countries as well. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmXiapfCs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmXiapfCs8
- quotemstr 2y ago
  > The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. They're just words. Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway. Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?
  - imiric 2y ago
    > Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any less true. > It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. It matters when those words cause internal social division to the point where it starts destabilizing the nation. This is what we've been seeing in the past decade+, particularly in the US. One of the effects of information warfare is confusion in the victim, where they're not even certain if they're under attack, let alone by whom. > They're just words. Words are never "just" words. They're powerful and in the Information Age they can be weaponized at a massive scale thanks to the global platforms the US pioneered. > Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway. Perhaps. But not at the rate it's falling apart as the subject of these attacks. > Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking? You can think of this however you want. But the fact of the matter is that those same freedoms you enjoy and require from your government have put you in a worse position geopolitically than countries that don't have them. Maybe it's time to rethink your priorities as a nation and sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good. Is watching silly videos really worth witnessing your country tear itself apart from the inside out? I'm not taking sides in this matter, BTW. The US has been the perpetrator of many atrocities around the world, some of which have impacted me personally, but I think the world would be in a far worse position if other countries were policing it. I'm just pointing out that from this outsider's perspective... you're screwed.
    - quotemstr 2y ago
      There are no information weapons --- only narratives inconvenient for this faction or that faction. We can converge on the truth only through unrestrained discourse. The lesson of the past ten years isn't that information is dangerous. It isn't, except to censors. The lesson is that trying to centrally control information flow is misguided and wrong > sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.
gorbachev 2y ago
Yes, so you're agreeing with me.

diggan 2y ago

I feel like it's important to include "the ability for China to easily [...]" since that's probably the top reason TikTok is affected by this and not others who are identically able to "easily influence on a large scale".

imiric 2y ago

I don't get how more people don't realize this. Yes, all domestic media has also been corrupted by various agencies that wish to psychologically manipulate the masses. Some of this manipulation is to get you to buy things, while other wants to get you to think, act or vote a certain way. The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Allowing that adversary to also control the platform itself is beyond unsafe. The tricky thing is that the US built these tools, and opened them up for everyone to use. This libertarian position is what will ultimately be its downfall. They can't just go and block access to these tools for everyone outside the US, or heavily regulate them, as it will cause an internal uproar, but that is what they must do in order to survive this war. China is in a much better position in this conflict since the government has total control over the media its citizens consume (barring the rampant use of VPNs, which they can shut down at any point). They have no external but massive internal influence. I feel like everyone should watch this 1985 interview of an ex-KGB agent[1]. It's more relevant today than ever before, and explains the sociopolitical state of not just the US, but of many western countries as well. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmXiapfCs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmXiapfCs8

quotemstr 2y ago
> The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. They're just words. Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway. Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?
- imiric 2y ago
  > Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any less true. > It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. It matters when those words cause internal social division to the point where it starts destabilizing the nation. This is what we've been seeing in the past decade+, particularly in the US. One of the effects of information warfare is confusion in the victim, where they're not even certain if they're under attack, let alone by whom. > They're just words. Words are never "just" words. They're powerful and in the Information Age they can be weaponized at a massive scale thanks to the global platforms the US pioneered. > Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway. Perhaps. But not at the rate it's falling apart as the subject of these attacks. > Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking? You can think of this however you want. But the fact of the matter is that those same freedoms you enjoy and require from your government have put you in a worse position geopolitically than countries that don't have them. Maybe it's time to rethink your priorities as a nation and sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good. Is watching silly videos really worth witnessing your country tear itself apart from the inside out? I'm not taking sides in this matter, BTW. The US has been the perpetrator of many atrocities around the world, some of which have impacted me personally, but I think the world would be in a far worse position if other countries were policing it. I'm just pointing out that from this outsider's perspective... you're screwed.
  - quotemstr 2y ago
    There are no information weapons --- only narratives inconvenient for this faction or that faction. We can converge on the truth only through unrestrained discourse. The lesson of the past ten years isn't that information is dangerous. It isn't, except to censors. The lesson is that trying to centrally control information flow is misguided and wrong > sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.

gorbachev 2y ago

Yes, so you're agreeing with me.