FB and Twitter didn't have people on them embarrass Trump by tanking one of his rallies:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-...
This could be fixed in many , many ways - like not allowing political ads, or not allowing targeted political ads, or labeling clearly what is paid political propaganda or the exteme solution , limited electoral budget (why should the guy with more money is more equal then the rest?? it is are torical question I know constitution in US allows this )
E.g. people have had all the data for car accidents for decades, and yet we don't have a large, concerted movement to ban or "reinvent" cars/roads/driving/driver's licenses even though it could save tens of thousands of lives. Likewise, we've had police and crime statistics for decades as well but only recently had a "big movement" mobilize around addressing some of it. Additionally, we have all the data to "call in to question" some of the hard narratives of said movement, yet people are doubling-down on it. At some point we have to agree that it's not about data anymore. It's about mind-share, and feelings/emotions and other intangible things that are causing shifts that we should all be worried about.
With that in mind, it's absolutely clear to me that we should be taking a close look and scrutinize the platforms that can cause such societal shifts. TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Google Search, etc. They can all explicitly or at the very-least subtly manipulate and drive societal movements/impressions on issues. At least let's agree that they promote certain types of viral topics/movements that have criteria that make them more "virable".
Here's one way you could interfere with US elections without showing political ads BTW: show "vote" reminders only to people who you infer from data to be democrats. At a first approximation, to people in urban centers in swing states. Not an "ad" per se, but you can still swing the election quite easily - in swing states elections are close by definition. As far as I'm aware there exists no law prohibiting such interference.
This is how FB and Twitter are going to do it if the DNC doesn't like the final polls.
Let's assume you block all applications that are suspected of relations with CCP (no proof, no trial) this won't stop CCP just buying this data from shady american (or foreign) companies so it would be smart to fix the root of the problem(data collection and brainwashing)
In the US we have rule of law, we have rights. There is no rule of law in china only rule of the party. FB and Twitter er scrutinized, this would never happen in China.
That's the very very very big difference here.
Or at least they didn't, until this happened.
They would care about Tencent or Alibaba, but ByteDance isn't big or important enough for the party to care.
That's the problem.
See for example: https://www.ft.com/content/0c42dc7c-b927-477a-90b7-a202bbe4b...
Or also this: https://www.ft.com/content/61988d2d-4c95-4a35-8273-d6980af04...
I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there.
I'm very sceptical of US intelligence justifications in general (and have been since 2003) but even more so under the current administration.
"I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there. "
I really don't see any anti-Trump sentiment there, can you clarify what you mean?
The easiest answer is: because ByteDance said so.
ByteDance has a internal board staffed by the CCP, and their CEO Zhang Yiming has even:
> promised that the firm would in the future “Further deepen cooperation with authoritative [official party] media, elevating distribution of authoritative media content, ensuring that authoritative [official party] media voices are broadcast to strength.” [0]
> If "brainwashing" on social media exists then all should be made illegal not only the a small subset.
The US, like almost every other country, regulates international commerce differently than domestic commerce. The US intentionally makes it harder to regulate domestic matters in order to protect the rights of the people the government is tasked with protecting. They even go so far as having separate agencies responsible for domestic matters vs foreign matters.
[0]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/bytedance-cant-outrun-b...