Hacker News Reader

Comment by blindriver | Hacker News Reader

Banning TikTok is a completely rational thing to do, given the control that the CCP has over the app. We can't poison our minds with letting China control the algorithm and affect hundreds of millions of Americans. We aren't talking about a company motivated by money, it's motivated by power and control. It is 100% a national security threat.

We should absolutely ban it, the same way China bans Instagram, Facebook, Google, etc for the same reasons: national security threat.

And I personally love TikTok, I'm active on it for a couple of hours a day, but I know that it's a threat.

View on HN

> We should absolutely ban it, the same way China bans Instagram, Facebook, Google, etc for the same reasons: national security threat.

China has not banned those. Foreign internet companies can operate in China if they obey the same rules that Chinese internet companies have to obey, such as Chinese censorship requirements and requirements to share data with the government.

Most US internet companies aren't willing to meet those requirements, so don't operate there.

If the US wants to ban TikTok it should do the same thing here: make privacy and transparency rules that all social media companies that want to operate in the US must follow.

Great. Let’s copy and paste China’s rules on western social media apps and apply them to Chinese owned social media apps in the US.

I wonder how many people in the US will use TikTok if the rules require government censorship and data sharing.

That's not what they meant and probably you know that, it's more like coming up with a standard set of rules that applies for all the apps and TikTok can either choose to obey them or exit the US market. Exactly like how American companies exited China. What the government perceives as a threat for apps from other nations must also apply to home grown apps. It's not like US based apps haven't been unethical, or didn't cause a crisis.

There’s also forced tech transfer

Transparency law is never going to happen because US companies don’t want to follow such things.

Imagine the CCP following rules set by an adversary.

US: Listen CCP, you can't use your tech companies to deploy a massive surveillance system on American soil as you do in China.

CCP: OK!

> China has not banned those. Foreign internet companies can operate in China if they obey the same rules that Chinese internet companies have to obey, such as Chinese censorship requirements and requirements to share data with the government.

Those rules, however, are official state secrets, and western companies who wish to operate in China must infer what they are themselves lest they get kicked out. China works on the standard that "there are rules that you must break, we won't tell you what they are, so be very very very careful." Not transparent at all (incidentally, China rejects rule of law as a western imperialist concept).

No one has succeeded in doing that, despite a number of attempts by companies that have operated in the country for decades. Microsoft was the most recent to give up by stripping the social features from LinkedIn in china a few years ago.

The laws on paper might be entirely fair, but what those laws say doesn't matter.

Which US social media company respects privacy and has transparency rules?

> We should absolutely ban it, the same way China bans Instagram, Facebook, Google, etc for the same reasons: national security threat. China has not banned those. Foreign internet companies can operate in China if they obey the same rules that Chinese internet companies have to obey, such as Chinese censorship requirements and requirements to share data with the government. Most US internet companies aren't willing to meet those requirements, so don't operate there.

Wow. Talk about being disingenuous. “oh you can vote - you just have to take a literacy test first and show us 5 different types of ID we’re sure you don’t have - it’s just the law”.

“It’s just the rules” - what else could it be? Censorship isn’t this mystical thing the government does - it’s implemented with rules. Sounds like “go back to your country” at company scale.

From a European perspective, I don't see TikTok as any different from American platforms. America has been caught spying on other countries and interfering with democracies before.

Completely fair. Why not ban both?

counterpoint: why instead not ban anything?

why ban at all?

or did you mean why not ban TikTok AND america?? hmmm that's a more interesting proposition

Ban CCP spyware and US spyware. I'm not sure of a country I'd trust with my data, maybe a Swiss company.

Ban this, ban that. Lets ban everything I don't like! Lets ban the Statue of David even...

It's a slippery slope

> It's a slippery slope

no it's not. there's no such thing as a slippery slope.

ban TikTok. it is a threat.

can I ban you? I feel threatened by your idiocy as exposed from your saying clearly false things like "there's no such thing as a slippery slope."

there isn't. slippery slopes are a mythical problem.

the outcome is either the result of a single decision (not a slope) or a result of multiple independent decisions, any one of which could stop the forecasted unintended consequence (not slippery).

read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

There's a section of that page dedicated to non-fallacious usage. If a decision makes a subsequent decision more likely, the former is a slippery slope to the latter.

There is very little risk that I hurt myself doing cocaine responsibly once. The risk in doing cocaine is that if I do it once, I will be inclined to do it again and so on until I'm a broke addict. If slippery slopes were a mythical problem, I could just commit to doing cocaine only once.

If you ban alcohol, private citizens will be more likely to decide to start a criminal enterprise to supply it outside of the law. If someone is running a profitable criminal enterprise, they'll be less concerned about breaking the law in general and more likely to branch out to violent crimes. If slippery slopes were a myth, we could institute prohibition without risking a massive expansion of the criminal underworld.

I can't find it now, but I saw a comment on HN the other day where a UK citizen expressed how foolish Americans were for disliking their knife laws. Of course they should ban knives in public- knives account for the majority of homicides in their country. No one in the US could be convinced by that argument until effective gun control made it true. Instituting gun control makes it more likely for citizens and politicians to support knife control. (Whether this is worth it is another matter.)

Independent decisions are a myth; every decision is made in the context of the ones that came before.

The proposed law doesn't ban TikTok, it creates an open-ended, mostly unchecked Presidential authority that is not at all restricted to TikTok.

It's not a slippery slope, true, its already the bottom one worries about a slippery slope leading to.

I didn't say "pass the proposed law" I said "ban TikTok" and that's what I meant.

Who says there’s no such thing as a slippery slope? I can’t tell if your serious… this is dangerous levels of ignorance.

no such thing as a slippery slope in this way.

either the one decision destroys something (no slope into an uncontrollable outcome) or there are multiple decisions which appear as a single destructive decision (multiple independent decisions, rather than a slope into an uncontrollable outcome) even though any decision could have been the one to stop the unintended effect feared in the beginning. the outcome is always under control. maybe not by someone you favor, but it is always under control.

it's literally called "The Slippery Slope Fallacy."

"dangerous levels of ignorance" pfft

The Streisand effect?

TikTok is sketchy AF, but you don’t ban it. Just have your buddies at Raytheon or Teledyne snatch up the old Vine assets and get cheugy with it.

The question you should ask, as a fellow European, is whether reducing influence from the US government, a stable but somewhat flawed democracy, is worth the price of losing access to US social media. Think in geopolitical terms, with all this entails of long-term divergence in cultural values, trade and other forms of economic compatibility.

And whether this judgement is significantly different from whether reducing influence from the CCP, an obviously totalitarian government that does not balk at overtly undermining of democratic values within your own borders, is worth losing access to TikTok.

I am confused by your questions, honestly. Maybe my English skills are lacking, but could you clarify?

Here:

- Is it worth losing access to US social media to reduce the influence of the US government?

- Is it worth losing access to TikTok to reduce the influence of the CCP?

Are these the questions your are asking? I really want to understand your comment because I think the same as the parent commenter. And even though I don't understand what you're try saying, it seems like they are important questions I should ask myself.

Yes, that is what they are asking.

I think the previous commenter was implying that one may be worse than the other and trying to get you to reevaluate the idea that you see banning tiktok to be the same as banning US social media because of the differences between the Chinese government and the US government.

Yes. Banning US social media will in my estimation be a net loss for Europe, whereas banning TikTok would be a net win.

Subtle US interference and soft power, unpalatable though it may be, is not a real problem for European quality of life even in isolation, certainly not compared to the benefits of cultural exhcange & compatibility, and the following long-term trade and geopolitical cooperation with the US.

Whereas interference and soft power from the CCP deliberately undermines multiple core values of our society. It’s pretty damn obvious.

I guess to which degree Europe & the EU actually follows democratic values is a separate and very worthwhile discussion; maybe it’s closely related. Certainly looks like that from where I sit, at the northernmost border of the economic block.

I’d very much appreciate a reduced US influence and social apps in my country.

I'd rather the US than CCP because my culture, political system and system of law more closely matches that of the USA.

The CCP seeks to undermine these systems to favour totalitarianism.

Yeah, because US were always a champion in democracy cries in Latin America’s multiple 20th century dictatorships backed by the US

Yes I am aware of that. I have read confessions of an economic hitman many times, great book.

Still it has not much of an effect on the here and now. I'd still rather not be ruled by a communist totalitarian dictatorship.

imo, our data is getting harvested regardless, and if we were to have a say, I'd choose whichever country that does not have a tendency towards violence and let's be honest, between the options on the table, which one has a longer track record of waging wars? I don't want that country.

I'd rather the country that spent 800,000 lives ending slavery than the one that executed tens of millions in the great leap forward for petty and ideological reasons.

Social media provides no value.

In geopolitical terms, the US has spent the last decade antagonising China for internal political gain. Resulting in the present situation where they've chosen not to align with the west on Russian sanctions. Not to say that China is entirely free from blame either.

As a European, I'm more likely to be extradited and tortured by the US than the CCP. I'm sure much of the world hasn't forgotten their penchant for assassinations, support for dictators, and destabilisation of democratically elected governments. Let's not forget the decades long mess that was the Iraq war.

Chinese expats are frequently "extradited" to face torture via the Chinese police stations set up in foreign countries around the would.

Not just Chinese expats, you could totally switch your citizenship to Swedish and still get abducted by the Chinese government in Thailand.

Glass houses:

> The administration of President George W. Bush abducted hundreds of "illegal combatants" for U.S. detention, and transported detainees to U.S.-controlled sites as part of an extensive interrogation program that included torture.

> Extraordinary rendition continued under the Obama administration, with targets being interrogated and subsequently taken to the U.S. for trial.

> A June 2006 report estimated that one hundred people had been kidnapped by the CIA on European Union soil

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Yes that is also bad. You want a cookie?

Has there been some kind of collective amnesia regarding Guantanamo bay or the torture that took place in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did America's campaign of drone strikes simply not occur?

In less recent memory we might recall the US "protecting democracy" by providing direct financial, training, operational training, and the occasional assassination to military coups/dictators in Latin America[0].

Allies of the US certainly have it a lot easier but it doesn't mean their leaders communications won't be monitored [1].

China's behaviour is certainly objectionable but as someone that lives in neither country the US has a much more worrying history of foreign interference.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24690055

Just because one thing is bad doesnt mean another thing is suddenly rendered not bad. Come on.

Given China's cozying up to Russia, I'd think harder about which countries are really on your side when push comes to shove.

As a European you're effectively only protected from Russian aggression (or re-invasion, depending on which country you're in) because of NATO, which is substantially led by the US. Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. would be completely up shit creek right now if it wasn't for US military involvement in NATO and arms in Ukraine. It's why you see Finland etc. racing to join after years of non-alignment.

> Given China's cozying up to Russia, I'd think harder about which countries are really on your side when push comes to shove.

Why wouldn't China cosy up to Russia? The US has spent much of the last decade tearing apart most of the progress they made over the last five. The Trump administration took an overtly hostile stance to relations.

> As a European you're effectively only protected from Russian aggression (or re-invasion, depending on which country you're in) because of NATO, which is substantially led by the US. Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. would be completely up shit creek right now if it wasn't for US military involvement in NATO and arms in Ukraine. It's why you see Finland etc. racing to join after years of non-alignment.

Russia can barely deal with Ukraine's largely irregular army. They'd get wiped trying to invade any of the EU states.

There is a big difference. American platforms are not state owned and controlled, they are independently owned and operated by private individuals.

TikTok is state owned and state controlled. On top of that, the communist Chinese state has consistently threatened its neighbors with violent annexation. I think it's a dishonest argument to claim that independent American platforms and state-owned Chinese platforms are equivalent.

US tech companies are not owned by the government, but they are heavily in bed with government.

When you say "they are heavily in bed with government", can you articulate what you mean?

Are you saying that the US government can compel these companies to take certain actions in the same way that the Chinese government can? Like, as in, being able to force the company to give up all of its users' private details? Or being able to force the company to inject malware into their software?

The US government can definitely compel US tech companies to give out information on users, they do regularly.

What evidence do you have for this claim? Are you saying the they can request user data arbitrarily?

>But Facebook policy also allows for “emergency requests,” where the tech giant will voluntarily hand over data outside of the legal process when police claim a case involves death or “potential bodily harm.” Increasingly, law enforcement has taken advantage. In 2019, the government made 6,447 such “emergency requests,” compared to 6,000 in 2018 and 3,672 in 2017. Police submitted “preservation requests,” which operate outside of the legal process and preserve user data for 90 days, for more than 110,000 accounts in 2019.

https://onezero.medium.com/cops-are-increasingly-requesting-...

I'm surprised you haven't heard of this by now, its been known for years. Of course you can say police will only use it in "real emergencies" but you're not the one defining what a "real emergency" is and cops lie constantly just to get information

>Are you saying that the US government can compel these companies to take certain actions in the same way that the Chinese government can? Like, as in, being able to force the company to give up all of its users' private details?

There is reasonable evidence of this happening. For example: what happened with Qwest. The former CEO claims this was the primary reason for him being targeted. He was openly against the spying by the NSA before the charges were filed. https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/former-qwest-ceo-joe-na...

Are you claiming that because the US has the ability to get individual user data in law enforcement investigations, they also have the authority to get all of their user data?

You're not being very clear in your communication:

> ByteDance is financially backed by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, SoftBank Group, Sequoia Capital, General Atlantic, and Hillhouse Capital Group. As of March 2021, it was estimated to be valued at $250 billion in private trades.[0]

> ByteDance says 60% of its shares are owned by non-Chinese investors such as U.S investment firms Carlyle Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Japan's SoftBank Group. Employees own 20% and its founders the remaining 20%. [1]

> On top of that, the communist Chinese state has consistently threatened its neighbors with violent annexation. I think it's a dishonest argument to claim that independent American platforms and state-owned Chinese platforms are equivalent.

I don't think America has much moral high ground when it comes to violent foreign interference.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/us-chinese-owned...

So do I (French). But I realize that we are not really powerful for a country like the US. Even as the EU.

If the US withdrew from NATO we would be in theoretical trouble.

If US would like to hurt us economically, our retaliation capacities are weak.

All in all we unfortunately depend on the US and have to play along.

we were fine before sarkozy let us back in. actually it has been worse by all accounts after joining back...

If only the EU could be more united. But of course that's not in the interest of the US...

This is not always a matter of not being united - it can be the sheer difference in power.

When Donald Trump decided to punish Iran he forced EU companies to retract from Iran as well (despite having contracts there). If we were to not comply, there would be sanctions against EU companies operating in the US.

We asked the EU Commission for help on that but ultimately the EU did not have enough weight. So we got off Iran.

Note that I am not addressing the human/ethical aspects of operating in Iran, just the economic imbalance between the US and EU

Then advocate for banning American social media companies in European countries. This type of "whataboutism" keeps coming up every time the news breaks about the USA banning or restricting Chinese tech companies. It misses the point.

The point is that EVERY country needs to concern itself with its own national security, local laws and regulations. I wish that every country would embrace freedom, free trade and the open Internet and that we could all just get along ... but those are my personal value judgments being applied. In the current world of foreign relations, countries are going to act according to their own national interests, whatever those happen to be. Each will pretend that it is the one taking the "right" position, and each might behave hypocritically in the moment. The question of who is "right" and who is "wrong" will vary according to your own set of moral principals and beliefs.

This is not whataboutism. It is a European saying that from their point of view, the tracking in TikTok is not worse than the tracking by the US Big Data.

They are not saying that it should or should not be banned.

And I do agree: I don't feel more threatened by TikTok than by Big Data.

You don't even need to have an European perspective to realize this. Do you think Facebook, a private company, has any problem with selling (American) data to the CCCP?

Adding to my previous comment: If I lived in the US, I'd be far more afraid of how American companies and government entities use my data. It's a far more real and immediate threat.

Yes it's a fine worry to have on a personal level, but tiktok is a threat at the national level as it threatens the very culture and system of democracy.

If I was American, I would be much less concerned with China having my data than my own government, who can act against me at will.

ah, but the data is digital, so both will have it.

that way governments may act against you regardless of where you are, best abide by the law, citizen,

You can be weaponized against your own interests through psychological manipulations. China may not have physical access to do harm to you but they do have digital access and that can do serious damage if you aren't careful.

On a personal level, yes, I'd be much less concerned with China having my data than my own government.

On a national scale? Well, I certainly do not want an adversary with an interest in overtaking the U.S. have both data and means to manipulate the opinions of its citizens.

> with an interest in overtaking the U.S. have both data and means to manipulate the opinions of its citizens

How is that any different from the US itself. People seem to have forgotten the WMD lie...

Or the COVID lies, but most aren't willing to admit they got fooled again like they did with WMDs.

One is my government, one is a hostile government. Why do you suggest they are the same? Why do you imply I approve of the US doing it too?

Your argument leans on whataboutism.

> One is my government, one is a hostile government. Why do you suggest they are the same?

Your government was the one kidnapping its own citizens through 'rendition flights' totally outside the legal apparatus and holding and torturing them whenever it wanted. It still does that.

Your government has power over you. Not China. If you would be concerned about 'opinion manipulation', there is still the open issue of the Iraqi WMDs lie and the entire false reality created by that very government of yours and its private sector extensions. If you are not worried about that, you would have no grounds to be worried about 'hostile' governments.

And what does 'hostile' even mean? You think that China or any other country cares about what you do as a singular American? And their hostility is toward you, the random American in god knows where in the US and not instead towards your government that is openly, explicitly, directly saying that it is targeting China in total violation of the international laws? Are you aware that any such threat or open admission of intent of economic or actual warfare from a country that can follow up those threats gives a legitimate casus belli against the targeted country and triggers the Article 51 of the UN convention?

Its amazing how the Americans think that they have anything in common with their government and establishment and they literally claim shared interest...

> whataboutism

There is nothing wrong about 'whataboutism'. Those who make moral, legal, ethical accusations have to provide an objective framework for their accustion. You cant just smear others while your own side does even worse things than what you accuse others of. Without an objective framework, any kind of moral accusation becomes a mere smear.

Chinese government does not have the power to abduct you without telling anyone, hold you in an undisclosed location for however long it wants without telling anyone. The US president does. No other president and government in the world has that kind of openly legislated power. Not even any secret service anywhere has been given that power. And yet you worry about 'other governments'.

This behavior pattern seems more like projecting the troubles at home to abroad to avoid cognitive dissonance than any actual concern...

It seems that you may not be fully informed about the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, often referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act. This significant piece of legislation aimed to shield American citizens from being influenced by propaganda disseminated by organizations such as the CIA.

In 2012, the act was updated to accommodate the prevalence of the Internet, and has led to an increase in the spread of government propaganda. Individuals who unwittingly perpetuate these false narratives may inadvertently be contributing to the deterioration of the Western world, all for the benefit of a select few who manipulate situations for their personal gain.

It's essential to recognize that remaining ignorant on such matters is not acceptable. We must strive to educate ourselves and be critical of the information we consume. If this is your first exposure to the Smith-Mundt Act, it may be time to reflect on whether you have been misled in the past.

Also, "whataboutism" only serves to stifle meaningful conversation and hinder our ability to understand different perspectives. To foster a healthy exchange of ideas, we must commit to evaluating arguments based on their merits, rather than resorting to discrediting tactics that have been employed by evil political parties you think you're against.

If you ever have conversation with people in meat space and wonder why they don't listen to your incredible wisdom, consider that sounding like a condescending, well, I can't say it on HN.

Being condescending does not help you win arguments.

After I got past your tone, I saw you completely ignored the part where I said my disapproval of Chinese spyware does not imply approval of American spyware.

EDIT- Let the record show that infamouscow substantially edited their remarks above without noting it. The tone was indeed condescending and referred to me as a marionette.

I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.

If one chooses not to actively participate in the exchange of ideas, it may lead to a perception that the informed individuals are being condescending, when in reality they're sharing knowledge and perspectives.

You edited your original post to be more acceptable, didn't acknowledge it, then doubled down on implying I don't want to engage. Shame on you.

I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.

I am willing and able to debate the nature of all governments and to acknowledge history. I don't enjoy sarcasm, snide remarks, and unacknowledged bad faith edits.

I apologize. I edited the previous messages to come across less snarky; that was not my intention and is why I quickly deleted my comment about being a marionette. I genuinely value open dialogue and the exchange of ideas. However, I must point out the irony that while we both claim to be interested in constructive conversation, this discussion has yet to delve into the substantive aspects of the issue at hand:

"One is my government, one is a hostile government."

Instead, we find ourselves focusing on peripheral points and accusations.

This situation brings to mind the tactics employed by the CIA to discredit truth tellers like journalists and academics. These tactics often involve diverting attention from the core issues, creating distractions, and undermining the credibility of the individuals presenting the facts. Engaging in this behavior we inadvertently contributes to a climate of misinformation and confusion, which hinders productive discourse and prevents us from reaching a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

You are missing the point.

"One is my government, one is a hostile government."

This is a perfectly valid retort.

A hostile foreign government spying on Americans is a national security risk.

It is perfectly fine to care more about national security risks like that, even if both situations are arguably bad.

Hostile foreign governments doing it is simply worse and more important to regulate.

Please respond to this directly instead of talking around it.

The claim on its face was never in dispute.

The primary focus of the discussion has been on the potential influence of the Smith-Mundt Act on one's opinions and understanding of the issue at hand.

Engaging in a deeper analysis provides a more stimulating conversation, as opposed to simply expressing superficial agreement or disagreement, which isn't thought-provoking or worth commentary in the slightest.

> The claim on its face was never in dispute

Ok gotcha, so then the point is valid, and it is totally fine to be more worried about, and ban the actions of a hostile foreign government.

Glad you agree completely with the central point, and we cleared that up that you are in 100% agreement with the original statement.

The central point is that when presented with the factual realities of the Smith-Mundt Act being repealed, it's crucial to reevaluate one's opinions to ensure they are not influenced by tainted information. By not acknowledging the impact of the Smith-Mundt Act, it's unclear whether the opinions being expressed are free from propagandistic influences.

I urge you to consider the implications of the Smith-Mundt Act and its repeal in the context of your viewpoints. Engaging with this crucial aspect of the conversation allowing for a more informed and nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and to help ascertain whether opinions are genuinely untainted by external manipulation.

So is that a yes, that you agree completely that it is correct to be more concerned about actions of hostile foreign governments, and it's Ok to ban those things first?

Because that sounds like a yes to me!

You didn't say no! So I can only assume that this is a yes.

If you do not explicitly include the words "yes" or "no" in your response, I will assume that your answer is "yes".

Actually you already basically said yes here: "The claim on its face was never in dispute".

This is a yes.

To be honest, the hostility appears to be coming from one side in particular...

I see, so America should block and filter content its government judges to be adversarial. Shall we call it the great freedom firewall?

Big difference between preventing information getting in vs getting out.

Is it really? Both look like hallmarks of an authoritarian society to me: you don't want your subjects to have access to any information that might lead them to inconvenient questions, and you also don't want your subjects to smuggle out information that contradicts official reports.

Depends on the information, do you want to open source the manufacturing process for hydrogen bombs?

Cambridge Analytica and Trump 2016? I think they leveraged US companies.

As an American, I'm less concerned with China having this data than I am with US corporations having this data. China has limited interest or means to harm me, personally. US corporations have plenty of interest and means.

> China has limited interest or means to harm me.

Source? They are a totalitarian government that considers the US it's #1 enemy, and has its sights on a military invasion of a peaceful democratic nation and ally in a 2-5 year horizon.

They do indeed. But none of that means that they care even a little bit about me, personally. Why would they? I can neither help nor hinder their efforts.

Understand what I'm saying here -- I'm specifically talking about whether I'd prefer to be spied on by China or by corporations. If that's my choice, I'd prefer to be spied on by China because they don't care much about me, individually.

But really, I'd prefer not to be spied on at all -- and that's my underlying point. When it comes to issues like TikTok, I'm not saying TikTok isn't a problem. I'm saying that the problem TikTok presents is not unique to them. If we are to address the problems -- and I think we should -- we should address it across the board, not just with a single company.

The US does not live in an isloated vaccum where it's not affected by geopolitics. Your life will be impacted, personally when China decides to invade Taiwan.

I don't want to be spied on by either government, but this point you are trying to make that China has 0 influence or means to impart change in American life is incorrect.

> this point you are trying to make that China has 0 influence or means to impart change in American life is incorrect.

That is most definitely not the point I was trying to make.

I'm talking about data collection, not propaganda.

Well if TikTok is obligated by law to cooperate with the military, its main value proposition to the PLA is probably going to be its repositories of data on the citizens of foreign nations (particularly the US and its allies) and you can be pretty sure the data collection efforts are not being used to recommend some tasty local dim sum restaurants. In other words its highly probable that the data collected is used to support its propoganda efforts abroad. Given the close knit nature of the public and private sector fusion in China it might be safe to assume they are one and the same thing. Maybe TikToks role is not limited to just propoganda purposes but thats just too easy and valuable of a use case for it not to be employed in that context. I know of a few people on opposite ends of the political spectrum that eat up content that makes caricatures out of the other side. Not that this problem is limited to TikTok but in thier case being obligated to serve as an extension of the communist government it seems to be a ripe opportunity for spreading division and uncertainty in the citizens of rival countries.

Of course.

But I was talking specifically about China's ability and interest in harming me, personally, directly. I was not talking about China's ability to do societal harm.

The way to prevent China from invading Taiwan was to foster a friendly relationship.

The US has squandered what good will it had with China to the point that they and even India have aligned more closely to Russia as a consequence of the Ukraine conflict.

The inability of the west to effectively put an end to Russian aggression in Ukraine only makes an invasion of Taiwan more likely.

It's clear you know nothing or are being obtuse to spread an agenda.

See: one China policy

I don't think I've been obtuse whatsoever. The existence of the One China policy doesn't change the fact that since 2015, broader US policy has shifted from viewing China as a partner to a competitor[0]. That policy has been described as "a blueprint for a Cold War 2.0"[1] and that:

> Any effort on the Biden team's part to improve relations (and China has indicated a strong desire to do so) would likely have the administration fending off charges of being soft on China.

The results of this approach have been, among others: a trade war, a president repeating conspiracy theories that blame China for Coronavirus[2], and publicly accusing China of controlling the WHO[2]:

> "I chose not to make a statement today," Mr Trump said on Monday about the event, while describing the body as "China-centric" and "a puppet of China".

> He said the WHO had "gave us a lot of very bad advice, terrible advice" and were "wrong so much and always on the side of China".

More recently we've heard American politicians, in a congressional hearing, repeatedly refer to China as their "enemy". Are we supposed to believe that doesn't indicate how far relations have cooled? Are we supposed to be shocked that China doesn't align with US interests on Russia when the US has been displaying open hostility?

[0] https://theconversation.com/trump-took-a-sledgehammer-to-us-...

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/01/23/959683134/what-trumps-declass...

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-hel...

China sees the US as a competitor, not a partner. Why would the USA not respond in kind?

Not only that but China is committing mass espionage in US universities through their Thousand Currents program and National Front Work Programming.

They are using 5th generation war tactics to attack and debase the US society through cultural weapons such as tiktok, as well as Facebook and twitter.

They are attempting to install backdoors in US infrastructure such as the power grid (Biden signed executive order reversing a ban on such equipment) and the communications backbones (huawei, zte, etc).

They have police stations in countries all over the world to ensure they can rendition misbehaving expats.

Its likely covid was leaked by improper handling of virus research in the BSL2 parts of the WIV. So they likely are to blame for poor practice's.

The WHO was demonstrably favourable to China giving them a two week headstart and refusing to acknowledge or talk about Taiwan as a country. It doesn't matter what trump said we have video from the source.

They frustrate freedom of movement operations in international water they claim sovereignty over.

And overall they operate in bad faith, using hypocritical unequal double standards, pushing for conditions in the USA and elsewhere that they disallow in China.

So it is no wonder US politicians believe them to be an enemy, when they act like one.

Wrong. Taiwan is internationally recognized as being part of China. Heretofore the United States has had an official policy of 'strategic ambiguity' - play both sides. Pretend Taiwan is part of China when convenient and then pretend Taiwan is its own sovereign entity when convenient. You can thank Kissinger for that cowardly policy.

Taiwan is not the Ukraine.

For better or worse, I'll give Biden credit for picking a side, though I personally think he picked the wrong side.

No. Let's call spades, spades. The Unite States is declaring war on China, not the other way around. Our policy with Taiwan is as stupid as if the EU recognized the Confederacy as not belonging to the United States.

Once again the United States seeks war - and this coming from a U.S. Marine.

Once again the United States will compromise its principles in its pursuit of war. Winston Churchill is credited with the quote, and I'm paraphrasing, "the United States can be relied upon to do the right thing, once it has exhausted all other possibilities."

Here we go again, exhausting all those other possibilities.

Winston Churchill, the man that went to war to stop the invasion of peaceful democratic countries by the nazis.

Except that TikTok is known to have used private information to go after people.

True. But TikTok is far from the only company known to do this, so it's not an argument for singling them out. It's a problem that needs to be resolved on an industry-wide basis.

IMO it's less about them taking your data, and more about what data they will selectively choose to show you.

Source? From my understanding, tiktok leaves the algorithm highly unconstrained in figuring out what the user wants, compared to its domestic counterpart. Yes, this alone might end up bad, but any restrictions would be exactly the political nightmare we complain about

The government isn't going to come after you. You can stop living your weird libertarian fever dream. That's not a thing that happens. The government is not just going to randomly pick out epups and then do something nefarious with the data.

Instead of banning TikTok, why don't we ban the data collection policies that make it a threat?

I don't really see a fair way to handle this that doesn't end up also banning Facebook, Instagram, etc. The problem is that these companies are collecting enough sensitive data to pose a huge security risk, but our politicians are acting like it's only a problem when someone else does it.

> Instead of banning TikTok, why don't we ban the data collection policies that make it a threat?

So much this. Everyone's gotten focused on one particular company when this problem is much more widespread than that.

What makes you think a country with a long history of theft and cheating agreements will do anything besides ignore any rules the west attempts to create?

That's missing the point. The point is that this is a problem with US (and other) companies just as much with Chinese ones. Any legislative solution should address the underlying issue and attempt to resolve the problem across the entire industry, not just with one single company.

If a company (Chinese or otherwise) ignores the law, then it would be appropriate to sanction them.

"a country with a long history of theft and cheating agreements will do anything besides ignore any rules the west attempts to create" - kinda ironic you mention this considering your description fits the US like a glove.

"I Know you are but what am I" is not productive. The US has been stealing Chinese IP and reneging on trade deals for the last 2 decades?

No it hasn't. It admitted China into the WTO (only to have China go back on pledges to open their economy), stood up multiple industries domestically in China with expertise only to have all foreign entities kicked or squeezed out.

Why would anyone think China would go along with any international agreement ?

I'm sorry, but what? You haven't cited anything that shows China cares about using TikTok as a means of influencing foreign countries? You're just spouting rhetoric that is made to fearmonger.

China bans western websites because they don't follow China's censorship requirements. Apple services exist in China, why isn't Apple a national security threat? They're the richest tech company on the planet, and based in the US.

Because Apple sucks up to China. And they're not a security threat to China because they're controlled by their shareholders, not the government. Shareholders who will not want to throw their entire investment into the toilet.

Tim Cook just went all the way over there to kiss their feet: https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/tim-cook-touts-apples-symbioti...

And he doesn't have a choice. Google took a stand and had to give up its position in the Chinese market. But Apple as a manufacturer will have to give up their entire business if they go against China.

> And they're not a security threat to China because they're controlled by their shareholders, not the government. Shareholders who will not want to throw their entire investment into the toilet.

Bytedance is majority owned by foreign shareholders:

China is preparing a military invasion of a US Ally (Taiwan) within the next 5 years. They absolutely care about influenceing the US public to oppose military support for Taiwan.

I would go a step further and say that reclaiming Taiwan and triumphing over the US are among the top goals of the CCP.

So the big threat of China having control of Tik tok is that… the people of the us might not support going to war over Taiwan?

That’s a silly reason.

Obviously its alot more than that. Its about having the ability to control public discourse in its favor. A path that could have drastic consequences to those that the chinese government has already decided should be put under subjugation. For starters there are the Tibetans, the Christians, the Uyghurs, Hong Kong's activists, Falun Gong practitions, journalists, etc. Australia already had issues around that when chinese officials were sent after Australian protesters of chinese decent to shut them down. As if they were criminals engaging in criminal acts in a location subject to its jurisdiction. Its not just about Taiwan. Its about who the party deems undesirable. US citizens potentially pose one of the largest obstacles to its foreign policies. Instead of sending armed troops to dissuade them through military intimidation however, they can just put on a demonstration of force and pit us against each other. The abilities that TikTok provides the government are not limited to dissuading the US from defending Taiwan but things like sowing division in democratic countries, curating data to enact targetted propoganda campaigns, curating data to go after political opponents, tracking and hunting of dissident journalists, etc. "Knowledge is power" is the common expression but more accurately, applied knowledge is power and this gives them knowledge that they are applying. This in and of itself is not too different from what the snowden revalations revealed about the US other than perhaps the extent to which compliance is mandatory. However the biggest point of contention is arguably more in how the knowledge is being applied. Should we empower a government that has a track record of kidnapping falun gong practitioners and harvests thier organs or silencing critics that they deem difficult to manipulate or the government that has a track record of racist policing and military intervention over false pretext? If we can agree that the Taiwan issue is not a false pretext and that the average US citizen is better informed about our previously hidden activities abroad and about the social plights of their fellow americans of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds would that be an improvement? I think so and in my opinion a future with that type of US righting its wrongs and setting the example would be preferable to one where they give the reigns to the ccp . even better would be where the reigns were given to the international community as a whole but the details of that are a whole seperate diacussion. i do agree however that the worst possible outcome would be one in which we go to war and somebody pushes the nuclear button out of preassure, insecurity, spite, miscalculation, technological distortions, equipment failure, hacking, manipulations, subversion, extremism, terrorism or any other one of the million things that could go wrong and lead to everyones untimely demise.

>They absolutely care about influenceing the US public to oppose military support for Taiwan.

Soo... where is all this anti-Taiwan stuff on tiktok then? Because I've seen exactly 0.

I’m an American and I’d probably oppose direct military support for Taiwan? Aside from the obvious fact it seems like it could easily escalate into a direct war between the US and China, why is it the USs business in the first place?

The US/UK didn’t do anything to save Hong Kong’s democracy, so I don’t know how much I’d buy the tired “protecting democracy everywhere” approach. Is it just because we have military bases there?

That’s your stance, but look at the comment I was replying to “You haven't cited anything that shows China cares about using TikTok as a means of influencing foreign countries”.

The US (and post WW2 europe) has a long-standing policy of protecting democratic countries against expansionist dictatorships.

WW2 was an battle between two types of nations: democracies and dictatorships that wished to expand their empires. What is playing out in Ukraine and China is no different. If the democratic world shows weakness (e.g letting Russia to take over Ukraine) it threatens the entire democratic world order since suddenly smaller nations are free pickings to expand Russia / China’s sphere of influence.

Even something as benign as adjusting the temperature for Ukraine related content is 100% in China’s interest here. Ukraine cannot defend itself without the support of the US public, and any sign of weakness from the democratic countries will have material consequences.

Banning TikTok is not the point. The point is about stopping the bill congress is creating to enforce the ban.

I oppose banning TikTok. I oppose it even though I dislike the platform. I dislike its data collection. I dislike that the CCP likely can access the data. I dislike that it is a national security threat.

I would accept limited bans within specific contexts (e.g., people in sensitive positions with access to sensitive data).

At the same time, I crave reform to our privacy laws. We, the people, need better protection against data collection and use by both private and public entities.

You've just described Facebook, Instagram, Google, Netflix.. Just swap CCP with CIA, NSA, FBI...

It sounds like you see banning TikTok as rational out of a sense of reciprocity with the application's country or origin. Is that the operating principle?

If the RESTRICT act passes, TikTok will likely be just the first ICT (Internet Communication Technology) service to be banned. Next on the list may be Russia Today, Rumble, or any other app or site that is not fully US based and controlled. The decisions are at the discretion of the president. Be careful what precedent you set.

With the argument, we (speaking as a european) should ban Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and so on.

Is that really where you want to go.

Ah, the American freedom of thought... Communism not allowed. Any other political party or group is allowed, and could have a platform. There are a lot of foreign media allowed there. Internally even KKK is allowed. But who were really persecuted were groups like the Black Panthers, which until nowadays have members kept as political prisoners.

>> Ah, the American freedom of thought... Communism not allowed. Any other political party or group is allowed, and could have a platform.

Not true. Communism is allowed:

https://www.cpusa.org/

It is just not very popular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#Best_resul...

Madison Square Garden used to allow Nazi rallies. Now Reddit will have you fired if you make the OK sign because they're too embarrassed to admit they got trolled by 4chan and have no problem destroying the lives of innocents who don't keep up with the latest outrage culture headlines to understand what's suddenly unacceptable common behavior.

> Madison Square Garden used to allow Nazi rallies. Now Reddit will have you fired if you make the OK sign

Progress?

Sure, it is very easy and convenient to allow dissent only when it offers no risk. But if there were a chance for them to became popular, then FBI would restart the pogroms from McCarthyist era. There are still Black Panther members jailed and kept in solitary confinement because authorities are afraid that they could talk with other inmates and convince them of their ideology.

China didn't ban Instagram, Facebook, Google

Sorry?

China set conditions for those apps to operate within their nation. The companies which own the apps declined to jump through the hoops for the apps which aren't in available China. China didn't specifically ban any of these US apps. TikTok in China operates quite a bit differently than in the US because the US doesn't have laws protecting children from social media abuse the way China does.

A couple of hours a day is a lot of time on TikTok. What content have you seen that might be CCP controlled?

OP is irrational here. You can find videos about 'Uyghur genocide' with that exact search term and countless of Tiananmen square videos.

Memes about Tiananmen square were popular on that platform. As well as videos critical of the CCP.

Anyone who claims otherwise clearly hasn't used Tiktok. And they'll shift goalposts to fit their narrative

Well yeah because this platform is focused on Western markets. TikTok is not available in China itself, there's a different version.

There's no point in hiding these things from western users because we already know about them. If they will block them it will only attract more attention (aka Streisand effect)

> OP is irrational here. You can find videos about 'Uyghur genocide' with that exact search term and countless of Tiananmen square videos.

Sure, but would you get delivered this content if you didn't search for it?

Or if you are in a contested region? https://futurism.com/china-hong-kong-censoring-protests-tikt...

Big difference.

Yes. I've been delivered John Cena bing chilling memes with slightly racist undertones. I've seen memes about Tiananmen square. Winnie the pooh xi jinping memes.

And we're talking about TikTok content in America, not in Hong Kong.

That's only because they got called out on it.

Yea, we muricans need to focus on letting fox and myface poison our minds!

but its ok to have "open"AI steal everything on the open web, use it as a training set and rent it to people so that the guys who answers the questions and built the prior knowledge of the web can be paid less or even removed? hell Id take TikTok anyday vs OpenAI

paranoid zuckerburg shill.

What? China bans Facebook, Google, and Instagram because of censorship, not because they're "national security threats". And it will absolutely be motivated by money once Bytedance sells the platform.

A Chinese company sold Grinder because of privacy concerns. Tiktok will either IPO or be sold off

Ah, yes, the typical HN arrogance that the pee-ons must be protected from any thought or concept that doesn't support the poster's beliefs. It's important for Democracy for the voters to have only a restricted view of the world, lest they vote the wrong way, at which point, where would we be?

Ignoring that nation states are have organized efforts to degrade other countries over time by these mediums doesn't make it any less true. It just means your head is in the sand.

"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." It's reliably a marker of bad comments and worse threads.

Instead, the idea is: if you have a substantive point, make it thoughtfully; if not, please don't comment until you do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com