Let's pretend I hire two people: The first is a private detective, the other is an entertainer.
The private detective is able to follow you around and watch everything you do. They know when you eat, when you sleep, and even when you poop. They know who you talk to and for how long. They know everything that interests you and bores you, down to the microsecond (knowing what makes you pause). The PI gets to know you pretty well and honestly, probably better than many close friends.
The entertainer is your main source of entertainment. They offer a wide variety of things and they're highly addictive and prevent you from being bored. Since they are a major part of your day, they are a major influence of the information that you consume. Be this in comedy, politics, academic information, or whatever. That all depends on what interests you that day.
Now I've hired these two people and am able to direct them. The PI are my eyes and ears, the entertainer are my hands. If I want to make the most profit off of you I can make deals with McDonalds and get the entertainer to influence you that way (maybe do comedy bits about burgers) and the PI can track how interested and influential the entertainer is. Allowing us to refine our techniques on a personal level. On the other hand, if I am interested in politics I can do the same. I know what makes you afraid. I know what makes you sad. I know what makes you angry. I know what makes you feel good.
Now we're just looking at you, a single person here. But I have a billion PIs and entertainers. I know all your friends, family members, and even your crushes. I know how close all these bonds are because I'm doing to them what I am doing to you. Consider this and then tell me that I don't have influence over you. I am a significant part of your environment. You may have free will, but you are also a product of your environment.
> My naive assumption is that Tiktok is a meme sharing platform and timesink
And that's why I have influence over you. The less important you think it is, the more influence I have since your guard is down. Same way comedians crack people up.
Simply over subscribe the generations on antiwork and the cons (as opposed to pros) of (Democracy, America, Freedom, Modern thought, etc. whatever are the targets) and you can bend a generational trend.
Humans aren't particularly good at seeing evidence and realizing they're only seeing part of the whole picture.
FTFY
That's the threat.
Eugene Wei's article [0] helped me see how TikTok uses more of an interest graph, whereas many of the other platforms use more social graphs. By this, I think he means that TikTok cares much more about knowing what people are interested in than knowing to whom they're connected.
> But what if there was a way to build an interest graph for you without you having to follow anyone? What if you could skip the long and painstaking intermediate step of assembling a social graph and just jump directly to the interest graph? And what if that could be done really quickly and cheaply at scale, across millions of users? And what if the algorithm that pulled this off could also adjust to your evolving tastes in near real-time, without you having to actively tune it?
I think the fear is that the algorithm can be tweaked to nudge people towards things that the platform, or in this case, the CCP, want them to want.
For example, if I see you watching videos about the book 1984, and I want you to be less interested in things that promote fear of a totalitarian government, and I also know that you feel really afraid of your home getting robbed, I can have the algorithm show you more videos about homes getting robbed so that you boost your feelings of fear of neighbors and therefore you may even want to have a stronger government to protect you from your neighbors.
[0]: https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2020/8/3/tiktok-and-the-sorti...
You mean like mainstream media has done for decades?
Mass media isn’t individualized in the same way
Lets say you're sharing a bunch of memes about being a private in the army. What is the likelihood you are actually a private in the army? Can tiktok use that to propagandize you in any way? For example, by sending you a lot of what I would consider far right propaganda that the US military is weak because it believes in 'wokeness', could this cause you to be less effective in the military?
Probably Cambridge Analytica has the best information on how such programming works. Or, Google/YouTube with their "What goes viral" algorithms.
However, that is not the only valuable information.
The user behavioral profiles (which users have viewed what videos when, what do they engage with, what do they re-share to others) are valuable, particularly if you can de-anonymize them against account registration data. Also, the social graph of a big service like TT is a goldmine.
Both types of information are useful whether you're doing traditional espionage, targeted influence operations, or mass-influence/propaganda.
For traditional espionage, knowing what sort of content someone watches could give you direct insight into non-public aspects of their life that could be leveraged. (I.e. mental or physical illness, sexual interests, relationship problems, fringe political leanings, etc. etc.) There's a fair amount of not-exactly-porn but porn-adjacent stuff (and lots of health/wellness/lifestyle content) on TT that could give you leverage or at least ideas on how to approach someone if you wanted to convince them to pass information to you, provide access to something, etc.
The real value is in targeted influence ops, though. Find someone you want to influence, or a small subset of the population you want to influence, and drill down to figure out who their 'thought leaders' / opinion-setters are within their social circle. Figure out what kind of media engages them. Go after them indirectly via their friends/colleagues/family. TT is demographically limited right now, so you're probably not changing many Senators' votes directly, but you might be able to get their kids, their kids' friends, their junior staffers, etc. thinking a particular way. Done the right way, the actual influence target might never even need to be messaged-to directly. They'd get the full social-media 'Inception' treatment and probably think they came up with their opinion organically or by being in touch with the culture.
And then of course for mass-messaging/propaganda, you use the information in aggregate just like any big advertising company does, but for political ends, and without having to engage an actual advertising company that's going to create a tangible trail.
Second, it’s easy to find secrets on important people or politicians through their online habits - it’s pretty easy to see how that can be used for influence.
Btw on a meta level this doesn't matter when the CCP has completely walled 1.4 billion people in. Every single American social media app is banned, the vast majority of foreign news sites is censored. It should not even be a question what the app is about, the regime is as obvious an enemy to free society as it gets and before they open up as was promised in the past in exchange for economic investment, no Chinese internet company should be permitted operating anywhere.
While the Chinese internet is so tightly controlled and the US & co are attacked in Chinese state media on a daily basis, foreign countries let them move in this Trojan horse. There's a book called Unrestricted Warfare where the authors describe just this sort of weakness of the US to political/information warfare 20 years ago. It turns out they were spot on.
Speculation about how adversaries might advantageously use data is meaningless unless coupled with policy that allows access to such data only with binding agreements about how that data can be used.
As a general principle, I believe adversaries should not have blanket access to data of US citizens.
My belief, however, is meaningless when US powers-that-be to date show little interest in regulating data policy with respect to any business, foreign or domestic.
Have a neutral mutually beneficial idea? Let’s contextualize it as a divisive political issue that is championed by the political leader you hate the most.