Oh no, now we have to ban them all?? What a shame!
/s
But you can’t charge me with murder! That guy committed it too!
selective enforcement of the law is a real issue. One of the reasons Donald Trump will likely never go to jail is the failure to prosecute nixon, reagan (iran contra, iran hostage crisis meddling), and Bush/Cheney(wmd fiasco)
And one of the reasons POC are more likely go to jail (or even gets shot) for something a white man would be let free with only a warning… At least in the “free” land.
I hate Reagan with all my heart, but in his defence there is little to no evidence Reagan knew what his subordinates were doing with Iran Contra. Those subordinates did face judgement and were not pardoned until late 2007.
Bush’s fault, got it.
The argument here is more along the lines of, “you can’t make a law that defines something as murder only when I do it.”
Good thing that’s not what’s happening, then.
No that’s exactly what’s happened.
Lol
I’m surprised so many people think this is a good argument. TikTok is a social media platform. Temu is an online marketplace. The potential to cause disruption within US society is completely different.
Legally it is a very good argument. A law targeting a single company in name or effect is literally unconstitutional. It’s called a “Bill of Attainder”.
The counter argument is indicting Facebook because they never stopped selling information directly to the CCP.
Cool, let’s ban Temu then. Nothing of value will be lost.
In all honesty though, I disagree with banning software, and that includes TikTok. I think it’s a terrible platform and I refuse to use it, but I think we need to solve the underlying problem another way, otherwise we’re just picking and choosing what speech is allowed in this country. The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone.
That said, if we’re going to ban one, let’s ban them all. These apps haven’t provided any tangible value IMO and they’ve arguably caused a fair amount of harm, so I’m not going to die on a hill defending them.
The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone
Uh, no. It doesn’t protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.
…And this isn’t about which speech they’re allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov’t inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they’re no longer based in China and subject to China’s laws and interference, then there’s no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it’s collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.
As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.
There’s no been proof that Tik Tok sends all the data to China or that China manipulates the algorithm. In fact, to appease the US before, they agreed to let Oracle and a purely US subsidiary look at all their code and data and content moderation. Oracle would spot check the data flows and where it goes. Tik Tok would report to Committee on Foreign Investment in the US on everything, even hiring practices. And a 2021 study found Tik Tok didn’t really collect data beyond the norm of other players in the industry, or beyond what it said it did in it’s policy.
All this scaring is literally just because politicians are scared that people in Gaza can use it to report what’s happening to themselves during the genocide, without the blatant censorship of American companies on the issue. Even Romney admitted that’s the reason. I don’t actually use Tik Tok and I think it’s algorithms are bad for our ADHD addled brains, but I would also apply that to YouTube shorts and Instagram stories. They should all be regulated, not banned. Hell, we actually could use more foreign companies that aren’t vulnerable to US censorship, not the opposite. This is especially important since reporters aren’t being let in Gaza and the ones who are are killed. And we’ll probably lose it once they finish their restructuring in Project Texas, although sounds like they’ll be banned before they do.
The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.
True, but the US constitution guarantees Chinese citizens, living in or visiting the US or its territories, all the rights in the Constitution. So when TikTok operates in the US and provides services to US customers, it gets the protections of the US Constitution, as well as the obligations of US law.
TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t
And this is covered by freedom of the press. There’s no legal requirement for press to be pro-US, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be accurate, it just can’t be fraudulent. If TikTok is being fraudulent, then they should be held accountable for that.
As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate.
Yes, according to the law that they’re contesting.
I’m saying that I don’t think this law is constitutional. I don’t use TikTok, I believe TikTok is dangerous, and I don’t think anyone should use it, but I’m also uncomfortable with the government picking and choosing which apps I can use, especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app. So even though I wish TikTok would disappear, I don’t think that justifies using the law to accomplish that.
And this is covered by freedom of the press.
Their freedom of the press isn’t what’s in question. Their ownership is. They are welcome to continue operating as long as they are not owned by a Chinese company based in China and subject to Chinese national security laws.
But, even if it’s really, truly, a 1A issue, no rights are absolute. You can not, for instance, publish classified information, and then claim that it’s a free speech issue. National security interests can, and do, outweigh individual and especially corporate rights to free speech.
especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app
But that’s not the justification. The justification is first, access to data, and second, manipulation of that data. The gov’t is arguing that TT is hoovering up massive amounts of data on users, and then is manipulating the content that is shown to them in order to unjustly influence international policy, and all done with no transparency at all. It’s on-par with Russian election interference, although perhaps a little longer lasting and more subtly done.
They are welcome to continue operating as long as they are not owned by a Chinese company
Yes, according to the recently passed law. And the justification for that law is the notion of “enemy of the state,” which is, IMO, a tricky argument to make when they’re such a huge trading partner. It makes a lot of sense for something like N. Korea, Iran, or Russia where we have pretty much no economic involvement, but China is a weird one because of our close trading relationship.
To me, this smells like the US doesn’t feel comfortable not controlling every massive SM company. Would we try something similar if it came from a non-enemy, non-ally like India? That I even feel unsure of the answer is a massive problem IMO.
manipulation of that data
Which is speech. If I (US citizen) built something like TikTok and manipulated the sorting algorithm to show content consistent with my political views in an effort to change the outcome of the election, would I be shut down? Surely I have some cover from the 1A. Facebook, Google, and Twitter seemed to get away with some of that, and X seems to be getting away with it now. If TikTok was owned by a US company and manipulated data in exactly the same way, would they be okay?
This smells like they’re arguing the 1A only applies to US-based companies. It should apply to any company doing business in the US for customers who are in the US.
China having access to the data is certainly problematic, but does is it actually something that rises to the status of a national security issue? I completely agree with banning it for any US government personnel (esp. those who work at secure facilities), and I’m fine with an active campaign against people using it, but I think banning it outright unless China’s involvement is eliminated oversteps the bounds of the Constitution. I should be able to use any app I want and companies should be able to distribute any app they want, but if an app is used to commit a crime, that crime should be prosecuted. If certain apps are more likely to be used for crime, they should be closely monitored by law enforcement. But distributing software, by itself, should never be a crime outside of things like IP law.
It’s on-par with Russian election interference, although perhaps a little longer lasting and more subtly done.
The Russian election interference concern is overblown IMO. Yes, they have a heavy pro-Russia information campaign where they want US citizens to elect pro-Russian representatives. Pretty much everyone does this, and IMO it’s not election interference unless there’s actual fraud (i.e. ballot box stuffing, manipulation of voting machines, intimidation, etc), none of which there’s any evidence for given Trump’s fruitless lawsuits in the 2020 election. It’s a bunch of FUD IMO.
Yes, Russia and China suck for trying to sway American votes, but at the end of the day, Americans are the ones deciding the outcome of the election, not Russia or China, and it’s the US government’s job to counter that misinformation, but not by banning misinformation sources, but by pointing out and challenging the misinformation.
In the US, we do things differently. Instead of banning things we don’t like, we challenge and inform so the general public can make a better decision. Or at least that’s how it should be. The moment we collectively decide to let the government think for us is the moment we set ourselves up for fascism, and I want no part in it.
I said Facebook because we know they’re doing it and you’d still have to actually prove that case.
Sure, and we should absolutely indict Facebook. And ideally our government wouldn’t be so corrupt that it could indict our own government agencies from buying information from them in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments (and probably the 14th).
How about making data collection other than necessary to operate a website illegal, then making the sale of that data illegal, and absolutely require a warrant to collect it, including from FISA court?
I disagree, especially because “other than necessary” is a pretty squishy concept (i.e. selling tailored ads could be considered “necessary to operate a website”). Instead of that, I think selling or providing any form of data collected without the customer’s explicit consent (and to consent, the customer must know what data is being s hared) or without a warrant (and only the data in the warrant) should be illegal.
That should be sufficient and actually enforceable, since it has very clear boundaries on what’s included.
I think we’re in agreement. I could have said “technologically necessary” to have been more clear, but I don’t agree sale or sharing should be by consent. I think it should be illegal, full stop.
A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
- The law inflicts punishment.
- The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
- Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.
Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.
You mean the CCP is not an “individual or group”?
#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.
The parent company don’t have judicial protections. They’re based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn’t being punished, they’re explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.
The parent company don’t have judicial protections.
But the subsidiary does.
And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.
But explicit prohibition on continued operation if they don’t. ByteDance is not affected outside of the US. Only US employees are being threatened.
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3
The bill doesn’t target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.
unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down
A rule that applies exclusively to the US subsidiary of TikTok.
It would be akin to passing a law that says @finitebanjo must have all of his possessions seized in the next nine months, because he took money from the Canadian government. Canada isn’t the target of the legislation and the scope of the legislation isn’t universal - it’s only assigning a punishment to a single domestic resident - and entirely on the grounds that the current chief executive doesn’t like Justin Trudeau.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose’s friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.
The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose
Except, again, the business being penalized is the American subsidiary.
The fact that you think you can remove all context
The context is that the commercial assets and employees being threatened by the US government are all within US territory.
Not environmentally…
I thought we like disruption.
Removed by mod
“Thanks for bringing it to our attention. You are now banned as well”
It’s time to start taxing the acquisition, retention, and selling/trading of personal data.
Actually, that time was 40 years ago.
Google and Microsoft would be scrambling to pay off every single person associated with that before it ever hit the first courtroom floor.
GDPR is a start, but we need to actually ban it, not just annoy people until they click Accept at the 20th popup of that tantalising offer to share your details with 1473 trusted data partners.
You can just click deny instead. The law says the site must make it easy to do so.
There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.
Fortunately there’s a third option which is leave the site and never come back.
Plus most of the sites will ask you again after a period of time. Until you say yes. After that they can strangely remember your choice.
There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.
The EU has ruled that this isn’t sufficient and that people shouldn’t have to pay for privacy.
Of course, companies in the USA won’t care, except for customers in California (thanks, CCPA and CPRA).
ohhh data collection taxation, I like it. You would think it would be a no-brainer but look at marijuana taxation and the continued resistance to rake in all that public funding. Would make most of the controversy around AI disappear if they tax it’s collection.
Better solution.
Data are owned by the generator. Only they can sell it etc…
This also solves the privacy problem of law enforcement agencies applying warrants to phone companies etc. for access to your data, which has been an end-run around 4th Amendment rights for decades.
Exactly. If a company wants to sell my data, they should have to make an explicit agreement with me to do that. If law enforcement wants data from my phone company, they should either produce a warrant or get my permission to release it. And so on.
If a company holds my data, they should be legally accountable for safeguarding it, and liable if it gets in the hands of someone I don’t have an agreement with. Banks do that with my money, I don’t see why social media companies should have any less expectation here.
And no, burying some form of consent in a TOS isn’t sufficient, it needs to be explicit and there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the customer understands the terms.
I’d say it also needs to be entirely optional and be opt-in only. Any service, program, whatever needs to work fully for anyone who doesn’t allow their data to be sold or released with extremely few exceptions.
US tech companies too, you fucking cowards.
Facebook paid kids to install a VPN client on their smartphones so they could intercept AND DECRYPT traffic between competing services (like Snapchat, Amazon, Youtube)
facebook and any other company they acquire (or however they try to rebrand) are not only untrustworthy but active adversaries against common decency and basic privacy
America selectively caring about privacy.
The concern isn’t the input, it’s the potential output. Temu doesn’t have the potential to be used for a large micro-targeted political messaging campaign.
This is arguably more akin to how the US handles TV and radio. There are national security restrictions on foreign ownership.
So that explains Fox being owned by an Australian then?
Murdoch is an American citizen.
Murdoch became a naturalized US citizen in the 80’s so that he could comply with US laws about foreign nationals owning media entities.
Oh, ew.
Thanks for the correction but also that’s… About right for America and billionaires.
Just allowed in to fuck with people, hack phones, steal money and leave.
The US owns and regulates the frequencies TV and radio are broadcast on. The Internet is not the same. If the threat of foreign propaganda is the purpose, why can I download the official RT (Russia Today, government run propaganda outlet) app in the Play Store? If the US is worried about a foreign government spreading propaganda, why are they targeting the popular social media app that could theoretically (but no evidence it’s been done yet) be used for propaganda, instead of the actual Russian propaganda app? Hell I can download the south china morning post right from the Play store, straight Chinese propaganda! There are also dozens of Chinese and other foreign adversary run social media platforms, and other apps that could “micro target political messaging campaigns” available. So why did the US Congress single out one single app for punishment?
Money. The problem isn’t propaganda. The problem is money. The problem is tik Tok is or is on the course to be more popular than our American social media platforms. The problem is American firms are being outcompeted in the marketplace, and the government is stepping in to protect the American data mining market. The problem is young people are trading their data for tik toks, instead of giving that data over to be sold to us advertising networks in exchange for YouTube shorts and Instagram stories. If the problem was propaganda, the US would go after propaganda. If the problem is just a Chinese company offers a better product than US companies, then there’s no reason to draft nuanced legislation that goes after all potential foreign influence vectors, you just ban the one app that is hurting the share price of your donors.
The US owns and regulates the frequencies TV and radio are broadcast on.
The US has also historically regulated who owns media companies.
As for RT vs TikTok - good question. My guess is that scale and influence have a lot to do with why regulating TikTok was prioritized. Also RT has been removed from most broadcasters and App Stores in the US.
My guess is that scale and influence have a lot to do with
To break this down a little, first of all “my guess”. You are guessing because the government which is literally enacting a speech restriction hasn’t explained its rational for banning one potential source of disinformation vs actual sources of disinformation. So you are left in the position of guessing. To put a finer point on it, you are in the position of assuming the government is acting with good intentions and doing the labor of searching for a justification that fits with that assumption. Reminds me of the Iraq war when so many conversations I had with people had their default argument be “the government wouldn’t do this if they didn’t have a good reason”. I don’t like to be cynical, and I don’t want to be a “both sides, all politicians are corrupt” kind of guy, but I think it’s pretty clear in this case there is every reason to be cynical. This was just an unfortunate confluence of anti Chinese hate and fear, anti young people hate, and big tech donations that resulted in the government banning a platform used by millions of Americans to disseminate speech. But because Dems helped do it, so many people feel the need to reflexively defend it, even forcing them to “guess” and make up rationales.
As far as influence and reach, obviously that’s not in the bill. Influence is straight out, RT is highly influential in right wing spaces. In terms of numbers of users, that just goes to the profit potential that our good ol American firms are missing out on.
If the US was concerned with propaganda or whatever, they could just regulate the content available on all platforms. They could require all platforms to have transparency around algorithms for recommending content. They could require oversight of how all social media companies operate, much like they do with financial firms or are trying to do with big AI platforms.
But they didn’t. Because they are not attacking a specific problem, they are attacking a specific company.
Also RT has been removed from most broadcasters and App Stores in the US.
Broadcasters voluntarily dropped it after 2016, I think it’s still available on some including dish. As far as app stores, that’s just false, I just checked the Play store and it’s right there ready to download and fill my head with propaganda.
I’m mostly just guessing because I’m at work right now, and while I’m on a pee break I don’t have the time or energy to research the nuance of foreign media ownership legislation and regulation.
They care about companies they have less control over and a foreign adversary has more control over invading privacy, for reasons unrelated to seeing privacy as a good in itself.
It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.
Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.
The concern isn’t that these companies have microtargeting data. The concern is about what these companies could use that data for.
An off-brand t-shirt site would be a fairly ineffective vehicle for political propaganda. Tik Tok would be great at that.
*tiktok IS great for that.
Isn’t the primary critique of TikTok the number of American leftists and progressives posting on it?
Seems like the propaganda is coming from inside the house.
That’s definitely the critique coming from America’s right.
That said, both America’s left and right wing politicians seem to agree that it’s dangerous to have a mass media recommendation algorithm in the hands of a foreign adversary.
If they want to promote content favorable a Chinese political objective, they can use micro targeting data do that with extreme precision - if they wanted to.
It doesn’t matter who created the content or where it was created. What matters is the message of the content and who it’s being directed to.
That said, both America’s left and right wing politicians seem to agree that it’s dangerous to have a mass media recommendation algorithm in the hands of a foreign adversary.
The presumption that social media is an international weapon of war does raise some disturbing questions about the right to free speech.
It doesn’t matter who created the content or where it was created. What matters is the message of the content
What specifically are we referring to on TikTok qualifies that can’t be found on a rival platform?
Propaganda is a very well known way to enact influence on a foreign nation. It’s so well known that the US has 90 year old laws that limit foreign ownership of US media. For example, in order for Rupert Murdock to own media in the US, he had to become a US citizen and renounce his Australian citizenship in the 80s.
The people making the content have the right freedom of speech, but the people making the editorial decisions on what is / isn’t shown do not have that same right if they are not American citizens.
If tomorrow morning, the CCP decided to start promoting pro-CCP videos made by Americans, they could. And they could use micro targeting to connect people with pro-CCP influencers that were relatable. For example, I like nerdy shit, so I might get propaganda from a content creator that liked a lot of the same nerdy shit I liked.
The primary concern isn’t the content, it’s who controls the editor’s desk.
Propaganda is a very well known way to enact influence on a foreign nation.
Historically, the most effective use of propaganda is by the domestic government on its own citizenry. Closing out foreign sources of media, shutting down opposition venues for news and discussion, and criminalizing private parties that attempt to distribute outside opinion tend to facilitate the imposition of a national propaganda campaign.
The people making the content have the right freedom of speech, but the people making the editorial decisions on what is / isn’t shown do not have that same right if they are not American citizens.
This isn’t simply closing off access to “free speech”, it is closing off access to reporting on world events and international opinion. American citizens do not have the right to free expression of they are blinded and deafened to any kind of outside perspective.
How, exactly, do domestic residents gain information from the outside world if the state has the right to censor anyone outside of its borders from sending news into the country?
The primary concern isn’t the content, it’s who controls the editor’s desk.
If the US policy towards international media is “only American citizens have the right to sit at the editor’s desk” then we’re not talking about free speech, we’re talking about political control of the press. The “American citizens” canard is simply an excuse to deny Americans access to outside media.
It is also highly disingenuous. Nobody is proposing the US block access to the BBC or CBC on these grounds.
The US has different laws for media ownership depending upon what the type of media is owned. For example, networks like BBC America fell under less scrutiny because legacy regulations around paid cable broadcasters were less stringent than those given to free airwaves.
That all being said, all of these regulations, old and new, are basically trying to do the same thing - limit propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors.
IMHO, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to look at what’s going on in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and say “maybe the CCP shouldn’t have easy access to a major media algorithm where stars are literally praised for their ability to ‘influence.’”
For example, networks like BBC America fell under less scrutiny because legacy regulations around paid cable broadcasters were less stringent than those given to free airwaves.
Internet communications are functionally paid cable broadcasts.
That all being said, all of these regulations, old and new, are basically trying to do the same thing - limit propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors.
They are not, and that’s where this line of argument falls apart. The purpose of these regulations is to limit ownership of media institutions not propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors. If Steven Mnuchin’s group wants to take ownership of TikTok and run identical content, he’s free to do so. The important thing is that his insider business partners lay claim to the profit generated by the property.
What’s more, if Mnuchin is under the influence of a foreign government - his Saudi investors or UK/German financial allies or even other Chinese state actors using his firm as a foreign investment vehicle - that’s also fine from the perspective of the US government.
While it is inevitable that a Mnuchin owned property will see editorial content in line with his Trumpy friends, in the same way that Elon’s takeover of Twitter has turned it into a slurry of Apartheid South African style bigotry, this isn’t the purpose of the forced divestment. It’s just an anticipated consequence.
IMHO, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to look at what’s going on in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and say “maybe the CCP shouldn’t have easy access to a major media algorithm where stars are literally praised for their ability to ‘influence.’”
Wrt Hong Kong, isn’t this exactly what they were protesting? Chinese bureaucrats stepping in and closing off communications to the outside world, on the grounds that American liberal media might trick Hong Kong residents into violent disruption of the municipal economy?
If you’re a Free Hong Kong kind of guy, I would think the pacification of the city under Beijing rule is exactly what you don’t want to see. Similarly, in Taiwan, if people are being cut off from communicating between the island and the mainland, I would say that’s sending these two regions in exactly the wrong direction.
It’s akin to the mistake the Great Powers made wrt North/South Korea or East/West German during the Berlin Wall era. These divided states ratchet up tension as individuals lose contact with one another and states become a hot-house of domestically produced misinformation.
TikTok is correct. Ban them all.
While i dislike tiktok as much as the next one, please do temu first. Temu might actually be the downfall of our planet that is already falling down the stairs pretty hard.
I knew someone who got caught up in their
pyramidmarketing scheme. The prizes were some low quality shit. The watch they won got badly scratched and the wristband’s pin fell off the same day from regular use. It was pretty funny watching it disintegrate in real time.I abhor those Temu YouTube ads.
Get an ad blocker, problem solved.
So ban them too
Like Temu?
You mean like facebook and twitter.
No, they love those, since that data goes to the US government instead of to the CCP
that data goes to the US government instead of to the CCP
Going to blow people’s minds when they find out Temu data also goes to the US government and Facebook data also goes to the CCP.
This shit is just a commodity. It’s auctioned off at the bid rate. The NSA doesn’t just lay claim to this data, it buys it. And these Big Data companies are only handing it over because of the absurd margins NSA (and MI5 and the rest of the Five Eyes) directors are willing to pay.
Your data isn’t any safer because the parent company is owned by a foreign plutocrat. This is a big club and you ain’t in it.
Oh no, I’m not under any illusion that my data is safer with any of them lol. I’m just saying that that’s why the US doesn’t ban American social networks/companies. Because it’s all about control.
Cambridge analytics
I generally think that TikTok sucks but do agree with this argument. It’s silly to say that domestic companies can be evil but foreign ones no.
That’s not a silly argument if your argument is about national security. For the exact same reason, China blocks almost all western apps. It gives a potential route for whatever nation is considered hostile to influence your population, and TikTok has actually activated this influence at least once directly. They tried to activate their users to protest congress from passing laws restricting them.
Basically, they have the ability to influence users, and they also have the will to do so as they’ve already shown. In what world eould they not be a national security threat? It’s also really hard for me to accept this argument from a Chinese company when China has the great firewall to “protect” it’d citizens from outside influence.
You can argue that it is not to benefit the citizens and rather just the state, which is fair. You can’t reasonably argue that the state has nothing to fear.
Laws don’t exist to protect the state, they exist to protect the people.
Also, what another country decides to do shouldn’t really impact what we decide to do. If China blocks our apps, fine, their loss I guess. But if we start blocking their apps in retribution, that doesn’t make us any better than them. We should be fighting disinformation with information. This means better education and transparent government-funded research and information. But when the US government is secretive and frequently caught spreading its own disinformation, it makes it hard for me to agree to block other countries doing the same.
TikTok should be allowed to offer its services here, but US companies shouldn’t be obligated to host them on their services, and the government should publicize the negative information it has about them so journalists can help the public digest it.
National security interests are the interests of the people though.
The fundamental issue is that, assuming I’m not leaking national security information, I can say nearly anything I want on Facebook, Twitter, etc. (as long as I’m not in violation of their terms of service). The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov’t. If I am an authoritarian communist, I’m more than welcome to spread these views on any American social network that I choose without gov’t interference. I can spread anti-vax and Q nonsense if I wish, and the worst-case scenario is that my neighbors will stop talking to me. I can attack the very foundation of the country if I want, as long as I’m not spreading military secrets.
This is not the case in China. Spreading pro-capitalism and pro-democracy messages can quickly get you arrested. Trying to share accurate information about what really happened in Tianamen Square in 1989 can result in you disappearing. Words and phrases are actively censored by the gov’t on social media. The Chinese gov’t takes a direct role in shaping social media by what it promotes, and what it forbids. Anything that’s perceived as an attack on the political system of the country, the party, or any of the leaders (remember the internationally famous tennis player that abruptly disappeared when she accused a local party leader of sexual assault?) will put you at risk.
This isn’t a case of, “oh, both sides are the same”.
National security interests are the interests of the people though.
In a broad sense, sure, but “national security interests” are a huge excuse for bad policy.
assuming I’m not leaking national security information
That only applies if you are in a position that has access to classified information, or have reason to believe that a certain piece of information is classified. If you acquire information without access to classified information (i.e. if you see something on government property with binoculars or something), you are free to share that information.
The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov’t
Not individuals, sure, but there are backroom threats for journalists that can significantly impact what the average person sees. If you get a big enough audience, you’ll start to see these threats.
Here’s the press freedom index the RSF posts, and while the US is better than most, it’s not at the top, and it’s a big reason why I like to read news publications from other areas (Canada and UK).
And yes, China is way worse, that goes without saying. But that doesn’t mean we should completely block them, it means we should be taking an active role in pointing out the propaganda so the world can see through their BS.
This isn’t a case of, “oh, both sides are the same”.
Never claimed it was.
Tiktok is probably used 10 times as much though (users x time on the app) and Temu isn’t spreading messages in quite the same way. Comparing apples and gerbils, whataboutism, etc.
The argument isn’t that they’re “evil”, it’s that they could be used as tools by strategic rivals.
If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.
This is a good point actually. That’s almost like trying to ban Naruto because it’s Japanese, but not banning Dragonball Z. We’l see where this goes. If they would enforce these law equally it wouldn’t be as much of a concern. Overall, whether they ban TikTok or not, if as a user you don’t like a said platform, just don’t use it.
Yes and no. Without endorsing them, the arguments for banning Tik Tok are subtler than Chinese = security risk. The fears, however reasonable you may find them, are largely that it presents a danger of foreign information gathering of detailed behavioral/location/interest/social network information on a huge swath of the U.S. population which can be used either for intelligence purposes or targeted influence/psyops campaigns within the U.S. When you look at the history of how even relatively benign data from sources not controlled by foreign adversaries has been used for intelligence gathering, e.g. Strava runs disclosing the locations of classified military installations, these fears make a certain amount of sense.
Temu, et al., on the other hand are shopping apps that don’t really lend themselves to influence campaigns in the same way (though, if they are sucking up data like all the other apps, I wouldn’t be surprised if folks in the U.S. security apparatus are concerned about those as well.
Ultimately, I think the argument fails because it assumes an obligation for Congress to solve every tangentially related ill all at once where no such obligation exists.
They desperately need to do something about car software before China starts being really relevant here in EVs too.
I absolutely support massively restricting what anyone can gather, not just China, (and the same for social media/ad networks/retailers), but it’s fundamentally not the same threat as data vacuums controlled by an enemy state.
pretty sure china can just buy all the info they want from facebook, twitter. If I recall a bunch of US secret military sites were exposed by apple watches
I have no doubt that China can and does buy data from data brokers. I think it’s unlikely, however that any of the major players are going to be willing to sell all their data on anyone- being able to target ads to individuals is their entire value proposition after all. On top of that, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have fallen pretty heavily out of favor with folks in their teens/early 20s (i.e. the demographic most ripe to be sources of bad OPSEC).
But even assuming that an adversary could buy all the data they could possibly want, doing so could tip off anyone who cared to be watching about the sorts of data they’re interested in. This is generally not something you want as it can reveal your own strategic concerns/intentions.
Having your own app that can collect whatever you want, where you can promote whatever information/view that you want is a pretty big advantage over buying data.
If the argument is about privacy, I think banning tik tok is complete bullshit. If it’s about limiting intelligence gathering and influence campaigns, I think it makes more sense.
Sure, but a lot of that can easily be done via corporate proxies as well. After all its not hard to make a corporation in the US
After all its not hard to make a corporation in the US
…A US corporation is subject to US laws.
ByteDance is subject to Chinese laws.
If TikTok wants to do everything that it’s currently doing, but under US law and under US scrutiny, they’re more than welcome to do so. But they’re currently evading any serious scrutiny. Hence the reason to shut them down if they refuse gov’t oversight.
Extremely well said, thank you.
The fears, however reasonable you may find them, are largely that it presents a danger of foreign information gathering of detailed behavioral/location/interest/social network information on a huge swath of the U.S. population which can be used either for intelligence purposes or targeted influence/psyops campaigns within the U.S.
Tbh, I’m troubled by my own government doing that to us.
Is tiktok saying that all Chinese apps that steal our data are also stealing our data because they were designed to steal our data?!
I am SHOCKED.
You don’t even need the word Chinese
Lol, what domestic social media apps are the US government trying to ban?
What’s that? None of them? Ah okay.
The concern is international espionage, there are really only 2 big players in that space. One of them is the US, can you guess the other?
I think you replied to the wrong person. I was writing about stealing data.
Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.
I don’t recall making any arguments, can you elaborate?
You’re clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.
This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it’s much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don’t really know what’s going on.
They’re right, we should regulate or ban then too.
Technically, the second partof that bill bans sending user data to China for all companies, so it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.
I hope the Facebook multi-billion dollar fines act as precedent.
it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.
Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.
American trade with China only ever increases year-to-year, despite all the noise about a Trade War. Chinese based drop-shipping schemes only ever eat into our domestic market share, because American incomes are falling into line with the global average and that’s the kind of trade good international middle class workers can afford. And all this shit is getting blended together - Indian and Chinese businesses outsource to Indochina and Malaysia and Indonesia where labor is cheaper. Everything gets routed and flagged through Singapore anyway, so the real origin of a good is obscured by the time it lands on your doorstep. And nobody in the business of making money wants to pay a politician to do anything about this in practice.
Nobody is getting fined, much less into-the-dirt.
Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.
That is literally what Facebook was fined for, BEFORE the new laws were put in place. Cambridge Analytica did what you just described.
