Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudosysgen | Hacker News Reader

Of course, that's not the concern, the concern is that they don't get that data, somebody else does. It's pure hypocrisy. They could have done the right thing by passing sweeping privacy laws that every company would be subjected to, but in reality the goal is to maintain the monopoly of the USG on espionage.

View on HN

I think the real concern is that social networks can be used for mass political opinion manipulation. Algorithmic recommendations and deplatforming have become political battlegrounds and the power of the social media companies is recognized more and more as being immense.

> I think the real concern is that social networks can be used for mass political opinion manipulation

Again, the concern is not that that is happening, but that it's happening by people not under control of the US elite. The hyper-partisan news organisations of the US engage in "opinion manipulation" just fine, as does Facebook.

Correct. The difference between Facebook and Tiktok is who can apply pressure and in what ways. For example many people believe that Trump's antitrust moves against Google are also political, different situation different techniques but same goal, a battle over the control of social networks.

"but that it's happening by people not under control of the US elite"

Wow, no. This is not it.

Facebook is not interested in influencing the outcomes of elections, and the US Gov is not using FB to do so directly - other than to ban egregious misinformation and to allow any legit actor to participate.

WeChat/TikTok are organs of the state - they can and are used at will by CCP organs for censorship, control, monitoring etc. - for any reason, at any time, at any whim.

The moral equivalence arguments being made are simply out of touch with the operational realities of companies in the China vs. US/Europe etc..

If that was the case Facebook would be banned as well, it’s just another grift as usual. He even explicitly said that a US company could buy it as long as the federal gov got a cut of the sale: pure grift.

You are mixing streams here.

First - you mean 'graft' not 'grift'.

Second - Trump's indicating that 'the US should get a cut' is just ridiculous and bizarre. He's not getting a cut, so it's not really 'graft' - but it just plays into his deal-making instinct that the US 'is a player and ought to get a piece'. He's just blatantly ignorant. There is 0% chance of this happening, there are 0 people in his circle that would ever conceive of such a thing, it's just one of those 'Trump things' they smile and ignore.

grift: noun, a petty or small-scale swindle.

graft: noun, a shoot or twig inserted into a slit on the trunk or stem of a living plant, from which it receives sap.

Edit: Ugh nevermind I found more definitions of graft. Google only showed the plant/medical-related ones by default.

So 'graft' is the right word in this context, but hey, I learned that 'grift' is a crime. Now I guess I know what 'grifter' means ...

If this manipulation was in Trump’s favour, this wouldn’t be happening.

The USA is becoming a banana republic.

Trump doesn't want another social network that he cannot control. Tiktok's young user are not his base. He wants to silence them. It's censorship of free speech right before the election. It is impeachable.

There is no concern about the data. Trump got trolled by TikTok users who RSVPed to his Tulsa rally. That's the entire reason, full stop. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with TikTok's business practices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com