10 ms·

This is exactly why adversarial countries like China want to block large multinational social media and technology companies from their market. India saw facebo

This is exactly why adversarial countries like China want to block large multinational social media and technology companies from their market. India saw facebook try to meddle in their elections. This is probably why the US should block TikTok, although there are further repercussions on free speech and the free market (something China ideologically doesn’t care about).

shadowgovt 1y ago
If the US wants to stop meddling in their elections, they should block Facebook.
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Now why would the powers that be want to ever abandon their reigns?
  - fph 1y ago
    Did you mean to write "reins"? This is one rare sentence that works with both spellings, but means different things.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
TBH the US should block Facebook it's just one party doesn't have the voter base and the other party is evil
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  Engagement-driven personalized “algo” feeds need to be banned in general, by any countries that don’t want to continue swinging rightward. I would feel a lot more confident about the future of liberal democracy if this were under serious discussion in at least some countries, but, afaik, it’s still not even now (it should have been years ago!) which is worrisome.
_heimdall 1y ago
I still don't quite understand the free speech issue with banning one particular foreign media outlet or platform. Banning TikTok would do nothing to hinder Americans' ability to say (almost) whatever they want without fear of government retribution. Anything you would have said on TikTok can still be said on Facebook for example, or your own website.
- frollogaston 1y ago
  Same reason they can't shut down a newspaper for its opinions. The ban is the government retribution. They also pressure Facebook etc to hide or downrank what they want.
  - stevenAthompson 1y ago
    >The ban is the government retribution. No it isn't. China has already admitted they hacked us all the major US telecoms to spy on American citizens, and shown no indication that they intend to stop doing that sort of thing. We simply can't trust them to install applications on devices that store the most sensitive secrets of our politicians, military leaders, and citizens. See Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon for more information. China admitted that Salt Typhoon was them, and Volt Typhoon is relatively obvious. It's worth also noting that they used the backdoors that were put in place for CISA requests, which is a perfect example of why government mandated backdoors are a bad idea.
    - frollogaston 1y ago
      This is all true, but it's not the reason for the ban. Sen. Romney admitted it. The sponsor Rep. Gallagher and other lawmakers pretty much said it too.
    - guappa 1y ago
      What would banning 1 single app do when all of them do the same shit? How does it help anyone to be spied by 1 less app?
      - 1y ago
frollogaston 1y ago
And the speech repercussions are more like the entire point of the ban. It's not even about trade or security. I'd be fine if they just said, we're banning this because it's from China.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- catlikesshrimp 1y ago
  >"I'd be fine if they just said, we're banning this because it's from China." Some of us would understand that message, but that would be eternal fuel for a political fire. The Huawei debacle stumbled in serious opposition.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    According to the bill's sponsor, this is exactly what happened. The bill was dead until the Oct 7 Hamas attacks, then suddenly lawmakers were supporting it for speech reasons.
- pas 1y ago
  I recommend reading the court's decision, it goes through all the relevant facts and statutes, how they apply, and more importantly it says that even if the higher standard of scrutiny would apply it would pass the test. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-1113-2088317.pdf https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111... page 40, "The problem for TikTok is that the Government exercised its considered judgment and concluded that mitigation efforts short of divestiture were insufficient, as a TikTok declarant puts it, to mitigate “risks to acceptable levels.” "
kjkjadksj 1y ago
Makes me wonder if the best inroad into influencing china is just direct bribes to government officials. You can’t do it the old fashioned way of propagandizing the population directly given restrictions on third party content, but I’m sure there are plenty of palms for want of greasing in the east same as there are here. Usually such restrictions on action are specifically to force a greasing of a palm anyhow in order to achieve that action than any outright ban.
dvngnt_ 1y ago
I'd rather have social media reform and stronger algorithm controls for users vs banning meta's biggest competitor that actually does everything people are afraid of tiktok doing https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/facebooks-onavo-vpn-used-to-wiretap-competitor-data-court-filings-reveal https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/facebooks...

shadowgovt 1y ago

If the US wants to stop meddling in their elections, they should block Facebook.

kjkjadksj 1y ago
Now why would the powers that be want to ever abandon their reigns?
- fph 1y ago
  Did you mean to write "reins"? This is one rare sentence that works with both spellings, but means different things.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

TBH the US should block Facebook it's just one party doesn't have the voter base and the other party is evil

alabastervlog 1y ago
Engagement-driven personalized “algo” feeds need to be banned in general, by any countries that don’t want to continue swinging rightward. I would feel a lot more confident about the future of liberal democracy if this were under serious discussion in at least some countries, but, afaik, it’s still not even now (it should have been years ago!) which is worrisome.

_heimdall 1y ago

I still don't quite understand the free speech issue with banning one particular foreign media outlet or platform. Banning TikTok would do nothing to hinder Americans' ability to say (almost) whatever they want without fear of government retribution. Anything you would have said on TikTok can still be said on Facebook for example, or your own website.

frollogaston 1y ago
Same reason they can't shut down a newspaper for its opinions. The ban is the government retribution. They also pressure Facebook etc to hide or downrank what they want.
- stevenAthompson 1y ago
  >The ban is the government retribution. No it isn't. China has already admitted they hacked us all the major US telecoms to spy on American citizens, and shown no indication that they intend to stop doing that sort of thing. We simply can't trust them to install applications on devices that store the most sensitive secrets of our politicians, military leaders, and citizens. See Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon for more information. China admitted that Salt Typhoon was them, and Volt Typhoon is relatively obvious. It's worth also noting that they used the backdoors that were put in place for CISA requests, which is a perfect example of why government mandated backdoors are a bad idea.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    This is all true, but it's not the reason for the ban. Sen. Romney admitted it. The sponsor Rep. Gallagher and other lawmakers pretty much said it too.
  - guappa 1y ago
    What would banning 1 single app do when all of them do the same shit? How does it help anyone to be spied by 1 less app?
    - 1y ago

frollogaston 1y ago

And the speech repercussions are more like the entire point of the ban. It's not even about trade or security. I'd be fine if they just said, we're banning this because it's from China.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
catlikesshrimp 1y ago
>"I'd be fine if they just said, we're banning this because it's from China." Some of us would understand that message, but that would be eternal fuel for a political fire. The Huawei debacle stumbled in serious opposition.
- frollogaston 1y ago
  According to the bill's sponsor, this is exactly what happened. The bill was dead until the Oct 7 Hamas attacks, then suddenly lawmakers were supporting it for speech reasons.
pas 1y ago
I recommend reading the court's decision, it goes through all the relevant facts and statutes, how they apply, and more importantly it says that even if the higher standard of scrutiny would apply it would pass the test. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-1113-2088317.pdf https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111... page 40, "The problem for TikTok is that the Government exercised its considered judgment and concluded that mitigation efforts short of divestiture were insufficient, as a TikTok declarant puts it, to mitigate “risks to acceptable levels.” "

kjkjadksj 1y ago

Makes me wonder if the best inroad into influencing china is just direct bribes to government officials. You can’t do it the old fashioned way of propagandizing the population directly given restrictions on third party content, but I’m sure there are plenty of palms for want of greasing in the east same as there are here. Usually such restrictions on action are specifically to force a greasing of a palm anyhow in order to achieve that action than any outright ban.

dvngnt_ 1y ago

I'd rather have social media reform and stronger algorithm controls for users vs banning meta's biggest competitor that actually does everything people are afraid of tiktok doing https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/facebooks-onavo-vpn-used-to-wiretap-competitor-data-court-filings-reveal https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/facebooks...