I'm really hoping this doesn't become a reality because if it does, we will end up with partitioned internet and stagnation.
People often forget that the US companies are foreign entity for most of the worlds population and with the WikiLeaks revelations we know for a fact that the US government has access to the data of American tech companies.
Yes, you have misunderstood.
GP asked what shade of gray goes with US gov running appstore. I responded with a fascist imagery - gray uniforms and black boots. [Those would be certain Americans wearing boots ..]
I agree with GP that taking a totalitarian regime (CPC's China) as a role model is not the right choice for us, at all.
this is now easier than ever through adobe cloud offerings! only 12 usd a month!
imo the most dystopian thing about TikTok is the fact that China intentionally exports a highly addictive product that they don't allow their own people to use
TikTok and Douyin have almost the same user interface but no access to each other's content. Their servers are each based in the market where the respective app is available.[11] The two products are similar, but their features are not identical. Douyin includes an in-video search feature that can search by people's faces for more videos of them and other features such as buying, booking hotels and making geo-tagged reviews.[12]
Edit: I see what you mean. For all intents and purposes, I stand corrected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY&ab_channel=60Min...
If you work in tech, you most certainly have a few Chinese citizens as coworkers and colleagues. Talk to them about what life is like if you're curious, don't rely on "60 minutes".
TikTok in China may be moderated but only to keep anything controversial from the government perspective off. I've seen this myth floating that somehow tiktok in China is much more wholesome, which is ridiculous. As far as the ill effects of social media, TikTok is arguably worse in China as it's almost entirely people trying to sell things and make a quick buck, flooded with get rich quick schemes and scams.
All of the things mentioned in that 60 minutes video can be found in the US version of TikTok, there is plenty of educational content. The idea that everyone in China is watching scientific experiments on tiktok while its corrupting American youth is ridiculous.
There might be some half truths to the 60 minute story but AFAIK the time limit is real and the content available to children is different which is what the piece is referring to. It might be more similar for adults.
compare to the US where there’s no separate experience for kids and there’s no time limit.
At a first glance the content is disappointingly similar to TikTok. Also, as I expected, with this type of content language is a non-issue.
Does anyone know if I can get the real Douyin? A search in the AppStore shows Kuaishou first and TikTok second.
Because Facebook lobbyists don't want that, they just want to eliminate the competition.
We don't need to regulate TikTok, we need to regulate Social Media as a whole.
Not a small group, and a very vulnerable group.
This legislation doesn't ban all Chinese government controlled apps that users might share their data with, only those that are social media specifically. If users cannot view content generated by other users, then it isn't social media and isn't banned by this bill. If the app doesn't sell digital advertising space, then it isn't social media (according to this bill) and isn't banned.
A Chinese government "backup app" that lets you upload all your documents to a server in China would presumably not be banned by this bill because it lacks those social media features. Maybe it would be banned by another law, but not this one. Or consider a Chinese "keyboard app", that logs everything you type. That's not social media, so this bill doesn't ban it.
The bill doesn't address Chinese ownership of US customer data. The bill is specifically about social media, and doesn't apply generally to other Chinese companies that also suck up US customer data.
Yet you admitted, another kind of services would "presumably not be banned by this bill because it lacks those social media features. Maybe it would be banned by another law, ..." which is in agreement with comments saying that this bill is targeted at Tik Tok.
The irony is that the pedagogic aspect is secondary if those comments are right, but because data which documents how much the people are lacking impulse control is at ridiculous levels, if I am projecting myself for a second. The why you don't face book and study meme applies.
On the surface it's about the kids. But congress is a social network with thought leaders and lobbyists, too. They ought to know the power those even bigger networks can have.
> [prohibits] all transactions from any social media company in, or under the influence of, China, Russia, and several other foreign countries of concern.
(After a quick read of the bill, it sounds like it may also ban VK. Although, it is already sanctioned.)
What other social media companies from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela might they have explicitly listed as a social media company? There are probably some.. maybe Yandex has some social media? WeChat? Regardless, only TikTok/Bytedance are explicitly named as examples. Obviously they have it in for TikTok specifically.
This comment made me think that TikTok (and Facebook before it) are somewhat like an attempt at hacker attack on the simulation we live in, where the analogue to the "simulation" is the system where freedom of speech is an absolute law, but the system is running on susceptible components: people, and is therefore vulnerable.
It's 4 times the number of people as the US. Imagine having 200 states instead of 50. I mean heck, they have over 300 languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China).
> if you believe China is a dystopian state why would a Chinese tech product that isn't even allowed in it's international form within China not itself "dystopian"
^^ The classification here as "chinese" tech product is the first issue
> imo the most dystopian thing about TikTok is the fact that China intentionally exports a highly addictive product that they don't allow their own people to use
^^ second issue is "china intentionally exports"
At least I read this as if there's an assumption there's some centralized bureau of dictats speaking with one voice in orchestrating policy as opposed to an $18 trillion economy with 1.4 billion people consisting of 43 million companies and a parliamentary system with 3155 members representing 10 political parties including 480 independents.
Everything is actually a confusing complicated hot mess and I reject such attributions and framings.
That's not to say there aren't policies, of course there are. It's more to say that if you are not only describing but also attributing intentionality and goals to an international policy in a way that takes under say, 10 words, I'm going to be suspicious of the accuracy.
TikTok's main power is creating associations. For example, CCP may dislike some US politician because he is a trouble for Huawei, so TikTok starts subtly pushing videos that associate that politician with bad stuff. In a few weeks 150 millions US citizens have a strong negative reaction to that politician. TikTok may do the same for targeted high-profile individuals, e.g. family members of congressmen or high rank CIA officers. That is an immense power.
I'd love to see it
Sorry for the high bar. Remarkable stories of secret vast networks of communist mind control have a long history. I claim aggressive skepticism of supposed international plots by a cabal of communist puppetmasters is warranted.
I mean Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, real spies. Not saying this stuff is impossible, there's just a lot of noise here.
Hell there's the long forgotten 1980s espionage by the Japanese stealing stuff from IBM https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/02/09/Hitachi-pleads-guilt... stuff does happen... Espionage in the Silicon Valley, a book published in 1984, is a pretty good summary of them if you're really interested. You'll have to toss about $20 on the used market to get a copy though. (I should send mine to internet archive)
Also, I want to note how your comment is structured:
1. Demand an impossible proof.
2. Gaslight with remarks about vast spy networks, mind control and illuminatis.
3. Distract with an irrelevant, but true story.
Like I said, you're defending TikTok & CCP with surprising passion and competence.
I literally gave two examples along with a giant book of where such proof is.
Yes, true stories, that's what I'm asking for. Not fantastic tales inspired from the protocols of the elders of Zion.
Something like the Panama papers or Epstein or the VW emission scandal. There's more examples
I'm referring to how digital assets can be owned non-exclusively, i.e. we can both have the same data.
In contrast material (or physical) assets are exclusive. Either I have it xOR you do, we cannot both own the same thing.
Stocks (and other sophisticated goods) are interesting because they mean we each own a fraction of something, even when that object cannot actually be easily split. But notice how there's still a sense of exclusivity; the same stock cannot be owned by multiple people at the same time.
Trade restrictions on physical goods don't exist due to matters of ownership.
> the same stock cannot be owned by multiple people at the same time.
This may be an irrelevant tangent, but that's entirely untrue.
regardless,
the restrictions on trade of physical goods exists due to matters of ownership over government-level permissions (licenses?) for import/export, taxation, an other such kinds of things. It's ownership over whole countries; that's the ownership at play when considering digital trade restrictions.
I'm fine with banning all apps from countries that require their app-makers to share data with the government. If that requires an international treaty to codify when a company must share data (e.g. only with a criminal warrant), then great, let's do that.
China would refuse to sign that treaty? Even better.
They're caught in a bramble bush and getting themselves unstuck is going to get them scratched up. But the longer they put off freeing themselves, the more the bramble grows around them. They should have done it years ago. They should do it now, before the "Trusted Computing" trap slams shut forever.
Finally, this hypothetical would say "a recipient country may ban the app." It wouldn't say "shall ban the app." So your country can just decide to keep using whatever they like.
But other governments should ban such apps. The CLOUD Act drafts all American tech companies into the US intelligence gathering apparatus; all American companies providing services to foreigners are legally compelled to be spies. EU laws that require EU data to be stored in the EU? Nullified! The CLOUD Act undercuts any foreign data residency laws by requiring US companies to hand over even that data which is stored in other countries. All US tech companies are required by law to participate in espionage. The EU should respond by banning all American apps in the EU (but won't, for obvious realpolitik reasons.)
No sense in giving the market to apps that are illegal in your country just because they operate on the internet.
For decades, the US has been a leader in global policy so there is no reason to think of them helplessly bowing to North Korea in the fu.
As for the validity of the complaint: that would be handled the same as for existing free trade treaties, i.e. slowly.
Banning one application (due to trade reasons) is not "full control" of what apps US citizens have access to.
The idea that we can allow China to ban all non-Chinese companies and then let Chinese companies "freely compete" with other global companies is insane, and I'm not sure why it's been going on for 30 years.
I guess because China was starting from so far behind that it took 20+ years for any Chinese companies to get to a point they are literal threats to western companies.
If we follow down this path of allowing China to gate access to 25% of the world and having our companies compete with theirs - there will mostly only be Chinese companies left...
That sounds infinitely more dystopian to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_rel...
You should figure out what part of what the Chinese apps are doing that you don't like and ban that behavior. Otherwise this year its Tik-Tok from China and next year it's Click-Clock from UAE. Instead ban a behavior and you don't have to play whack-a-mole with countries/apps.
A far better reason is that a nasty authoritarian regime is using Tiktok to gather intelligence in anticipation of doing nastier things. Just one example: one of the obvious things to do with Tiktok data would be to correlate it with the OPM hack[1]. Who knows what kind of insights into people's character you might find? I'm sure a trained handler who actually understands their capabilities can come up with far more interesting uses than that.
And note that in that context, stopping US citizens from foreign exploitation is a legitimate role for government.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
[Citation needed]
"China banning US opium is bad for Chinese citizens"
Which is why this seems quite strange to me because TikTok China content doesn't show up on the western TikTok because they are completely separate.
The nations that best bucked the trend were the Eastern Asian nations that engaged in protectionist policies despite the desires of the West. Much like China continues to do today.
Apple for instance follows Chinese law, and does a lot of business there.
America loves to talk about the "rule of law", but will just ban anything that competes with it's MIC controlled platforms.
Apple is not a social media company so it's not a good comparison.
The irony is there was a product, Vine, that filled this niche but it was ultimately killed by Facebook (who promoted Tiktok because they didn't want Vine making inroads with their users) and Twitter (by not developing it further).
Agreed on the twitter part, but the FB part feels like a pure conspiracy at best, and is just factually provable to be false. For one, Vine was killed off in September 2017, which is the same month that TikTok became available internationally.
To add, the acquisition happened in november 2017[0], which is after Vine had already been killed off. Vine had 200mil users as of 2015, while it took musical.ly until May 2017 to get there. Which is also, months after Vine had already been dead, and over half a year after Vine had announced the upcoming shutdown (those numbers and dates are all from the wikipedia pages of the companies mentioned).
0. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/chinas-toutiao-is-buying-m...
https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/28/13456208/why-vine-died-t...
TikTok is an international version of Douyin, which was released in the Chinese market in September 2016.[10] It launched in 2017 for iOS and Android in most markets outside of mainland China; however, it became available worldwide only after merging with another Chinese social media service, Musical.ly, on 2 August 2018.
From the links above Vine was already dying if not completely dead before TikTok was ascendent.
I too can predict conversation topics based on what's trending in Twitter. But Twitter is now owned (in part) by investors representing foreign interests, including KSA [1]. Recent editorial changes at Twitter have amplified "unamerican" rhetoric [2]. Does Twitter cross the same lines as TikTok?
Any "solution" that bans TikTok would leave behind a far-reaching precedent, one that is completely ineffective at dealing with the core problem. Trying to stand up a virtual iron curtain won't sit well with an american userbase that's accustomed to choosing the content they want.
Also, if there's one thing you can do to make young people more captivated and curious about something - make it forbidden.
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-hol...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zm9q/elon-musk-twitter-naz...
Source: https://wallaroomedia.com/blog/social-media/tiktok-statistic...
There's nothing that can be done about that reality, so we have to worry about people and mechanisms that have control over that conversation.
It should not sound unreasonable to worry about an adversarial country possessing what amounts to a gigantic, unauditable mind control machine.
Is this ok? Were any of those people on the social network "stupid" if they were more likely to vote after seeing targeted content?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
A courtesy also extended to Beijing [1].
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
This isn't some smoking gun about CCP surveillance, but more about how the sausage is made for a global app.
That is also a good idea and the US can do that too. In the past, Facebook got a multi-billion dollar fine from the FTC for violating user privacy. The exact same should happen and apply to all social networks worth over $1BN and repeat violations should be in the billions of dollars; not in the millions that the EU is doing.
If that is enough for them to stop these privacy violating operations or even better, to make them leave like what the EU is doing, rather that than companies worse than Facebook to continue their repeated invasive privacy violations just like TikTok.
What's the worst thing Bytedance / China can do with the average amount of "US citizen/TikTok user" data they have?
Yes, we can treat foreign companies differently than local companies, on the issue of data privacy, because of these national security concerns.
https://abload.de/img/screenshot2022-12-13aa4exy.png
NY Daily news:
Huawei - ban
TikTok - ban
EVs - subsidize tesla
This is disingenous, as reported by common-sense. For example, my city does not have sidewalks lined with tents full of TikTok users, but the same cannot be said of the comparand.
This has either or both of the following knock-on effects:
- Undermine trust in the speaker for people who feel the 'seam' in the analogy. American institutions are really good at undermining themselves in this way. Remember DARE? It took me years to trust any authority again after hearing their nonsense about cannabis, back in the nineties. They used to call it things like "herbal heroin", etc.
- Promote stigmatization of TikTok users, and social-media users more generally. It's like taking the Smudge Tool in photoshop and moving some of the stigma from fentanyl to TikTok. This will have the unintended effect of further isolating people who depend on social media because they are disabled and/or shut-in; socially isolated; physically isolated; LGBTQ; autistic; etc. You aren't accessing community now, you're ~high on fentanyl~. Like.
American politicians love lines like this because they feel good in the short term but contribute to the ruin of polity in the longer run. Which is why these quips are the proper analog of fentanyl.
I guess in practice, if need be economically and politically, you can always launder data.
Imo this legislation makes sense because our companies are more or less banned from entering China’s domestic market. Why should we allow their tech companies in when they’ve banned ours
This is not a regular app, but part of information warfare China is engaged in with the West.
The TikTok situation is new for the USA but it's nothing new for the rest of the world.
Millions (?) of Americans have freely chosen to receive and interact with the app, wouldn't their freedom of speech allow them to enjoy the content they choose?
I'm not trying to play the whatabout card, I'm trying to understand how we would legally articulate what TikTok has done to justify banning by congressional decree. The senate bill [1] doesn't appear to have any measurements or values or clarifications, it's just a few paltry pages that never specify what line TikTok crossed. The only argument I'm hearing is China=Bad.
And who knows, maybe China is nefariously manipulating the TikTok algorithm, but for the US government to step in and say "these ideas are too dangerous, you can not access them," seems like the cure is as bad as the disease. It's using blatant authoritarianism to try to stop the spread of potential authoritarianism.
[1] https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/1ebac814-15...
In my opinion, the difference is that insta (Meta) controls US government more than the government controls insta. I don't believe that's the case with tik tok and the CCP.
If they don't like that they should be free to ban social media being used in that way.
The refuge of people who have no other arguments.
By doing that you are effectively conceding that the original concern with TikTok is justified.
You just think that other bad things are happening.
So, I am glad you agree completely with everyone else, that yes there are problems with TikTok!
Legislation how data is acquired/stored/used will solve every problems, banning the people you don't like only solve one specific problem and makes you look like a fool
The US built a monopoly on online social media and communications, this move is another evidence that it wants to remain the sole big eye
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-the-nsa-spies...