Tell Congress: Stop the TikTok Ban. Instead, Protect Our Data No Matter Who
act.eff.org
act.eff.org
See e.g. https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...
"The conclusions of our research are clear: Whether content is promoted or muted onTikTok appears to depend on whether it is aligned or opposed to the interests of the Chinese Government. As the summary data graph below illustrates, the percentages of TikTok posts out of Instagram posts are consistently range-bound for general political and pop-culture topics, but completely out-of-bounds for topics sensitive to the Chinese Government."
It's not even theoretical. This is happening now.
They could easily have pretended TikTok was a neutral actor until they needed to sway US opinion over Taiwan (or something bigger). Instead they made the control obvious on a dozen issues and are going to get cut off way earlier.
Vietnam for example is fairly anti-China due to memories of the Sino-Vietnamese War, the PRC's support of the Khmer Rouge (edit: spelling), and the South China Sea dispute, but in my experience views among the younger generation have started to trend towards a Chinese view of the world because of TikTok.
South Korea and Japan still have massive soft power in the region, yet products like TikTok are definetly undermining it.
(not to say that criticism of Israel's handling of the war isn't valid, of course)
Anti-Israel skew is not being driven by government interests. Well, except for multiple hamfisted footguns by Israel (where their influence has backfired causing harm to Israel).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/15/more-amer...
AIPAC wants Tiktok shut down because it doesn't censor content on Gaza.
I'm not from US, rarely I have even watched anything from these (MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, WASH POST, NYT) in my life. Blank statement like 'main stream media are basically propaganda' seems wild to me. There are also other 'mainstream media' from US... are those propaganda as well? Like AP? There is bias, sure, but how can you say propaganda?
I read 'main stream media' - not just in English language and content there is not that bad - usually there is delay - which is good, because not everything what is posted is accurate.
Why does his views on Dictatorship make his critique of the press invalid? Isn't that like saying every criticism of Israel by a non-Jewish person is anti-semitic, no?
Yeah pretty "wild" I know, but true.
B) The united states doesn't _do_ state owned media in the United States. Even PBS and NPR are independent.
B) Does not matter: it is not owning media that USA spreads its propaganda and soft power.
Like even if it's not obvious to you how using Instagram as a "reference" for hashtags is not a good baseline it still doesn't mean anything in terms of how the content is spread because how are you going to detect algorithmic boosting and suppression by counting user generated content? A million posts with #cheesetastesbad could get less actual views than ten posts with #pro-cheese. And this is before accounting for vastly different tagging culture between social networks and different users entirely.
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/the-truth-about-tiktok-has...
> Blunt comparisons of hashtags is severely flawed and misrepresentative of the activity on TikTok.
> It’s critical to understand that hashtags on the platform are created and added to videos by content creators, not TikTok. Millions of people in regions such as the Middle East and South East Asia account for a significant proportion of views on hashtags. Therefore, there’s more content with #freepalestine and #standwithpalestine and more overall views. It is easy to cherry pick hashtags to support a false narrative about the platform.
TikTok could be completely totally bold-faced evil and this study still wouldn't be good evidence of it.
For example do an internet search for Chinese people live streaming under a bridge. I'm pretty sure these people are not all demonstrating job skills.
Like they banned effeminate man on TV: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effemina...
Frankly, nowadays it seems like we're just reviving McCarthyism when we talk about China.
>Douyin vs TikTok also differs in terms of popular content. The most popular on Douyin is definitely educational content, with videos helping to improve skills and grow personally, while on Tik Tok the most popular is narrating videos, which is a great opportunity for artists, singers, and music producers.
https://marketingtochina.com/differences-between-tiktok-and-...
In both cases, the operators don't have to actively boost that content, and it also is profitable, so they won't voluntarily remove it until forced to do so (by the government or public).
Their findings are unrelated to whether content is promoted or muted, they only look at post count. They don't even determine that it isn't Instagram that is biased (as they only compare the ratios), and these differences can pretty easily be attributed to different userbases.
They never explain how they chose hashtags that are compared, which could potentially be biased.
This isn't to say that TikTok isn't doing these things. This PDF just doesn't prove anything, and its claims are overstated.
See the discussion from this whitepaper was posted to HN at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38754653
It doesn't really matter how the hash tags are chosen; the fact that this is uniformly true, by a lot, for all the obvious hash tags you might pick is damning evidence.
The report is quite bad. There is no sensitivity analysis at all. Their methodology does not track bias but user base. I would discard it as a lobbyist hit piece.
If ByteDance can operate their platform in the US, then Meta and Alphabet should as well.
Like this is simple as hell. Why should western platforms not follow onerous PRC compliance that PRC companies have to follow?
Bytedance operates with respect to US law. If US wants reciprical PRC arrangement, like US platforms operate in PRC, they can legislate to force Bytedance to have local proxy like Oracle, or divest. The former fell apart. TikTok move to silo US data out of PRC... but still accused of retaining access. As if Microsoft in PRC is completely siloed. Regardless, until then, Bytedance is going to abuse the full extent of US law, including 1st amendment challenges. Then it's on Bytedance to comply or withdrawl. They'll likely do the latter and PRC retaliation will be calibrated on whether TikTok is just gone from US or world via app store bans.
> Microsoft in PRC is completely siloed
MS China (or at least Azure and all their Enterprise SaaS offerings) are a reskin around Tencent Cloud and Tencent's Enterprise SaaS offerings.
Most American Enterprise SaaS Vendors won't sell their product directly in China as Chinese IP Law around Software Patents is a bit unfriendly to foreign offerings.
It has lead to the development is a pretty cool domestic Enterprise SaaS market in China though, and has had a positive downstream impact such as with KubeAdmiral.
IMO, a western Open Core startup would have an easier time targeting the Chinese market as you can create two different enterprise SKUs - one for China and one for the rest - and not have to worry about IP Law hassles.
Any mass media platform could be problematic regardless of who owns it.
The current action occured when TikTok pushed users to call Congressional Members through anti-patterns within the app [0]
Not everything is about Israel-Palestine smh.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
I vividly recall because I owned a ton of Fastly stock which cratered when the former administration was trying to ban TikTok, leading ByteDance to move away from Fastly as their CDN.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bytedance-pulls-most-tiktok-t...
There are a lot of low effort commenters on HN now. If you take a look at most of the commenters talking about Israel or Palestine on this thread, their creation date appears to be around 2020-2022.
Every single time I mention this change I get downvoted to oblivion, yet it is very clearly happening.
I'd like to see some sources for a majority of Americans even agreeing that it's a genocide in the first place.
If TikTok is a national sovereignty issue for the US, should a lot of other countries similarly be banning US tech companies?
(Since even GDPR only scratches the surface of the power they're handing over.)
China already does for reasons similar to those that are in this bill.
Maybe technology is getting to a point where that needs to happen.
As a result, it is more beneficial to ban specific applications and allow US companies collect as much data as possible.
Rules for thee but not for me.
The US economy is drastically larger than the EU economy at this point (soon to be double the size), we control the global reserve currency, and provide a very large military shield across the EU (currently keeping Russia from attacking numerous smaller European nations). The US can do a lot more damage to Europe than the other way around, if it's conflict that Europe seeks with the US (whether economic or military). The same is true with US allies in Asia (particularly Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia).
All the US has to do is look the other way and Russia and China will get to work destroying the status quo, which includes ripping apart Europe and Asia. The US can feed Asia to China anytime it wants to, that includes Australia + New Zealand; it obviously doesn't want to do that. I think US allies want to keep the US an ally for all the right reasons, both economically and militarily.
Not only should they, but they do.
NATO, Five Eyes, and close allies like Japan need not bother. Russia, China, Iran, and a few others should, and mostly do.
I thought TikTok’s CEO did a great job in the hearing defending themselves, but ByteDance ultimately owns them. We compel companies to provide data silently through court orders all the time in the U.S. and to think China isn’t capable of accessing whatever data they want, at any time, assumes major incompetence of their intelligence services.
I think it comes down to this line of thought.
China can, so they will, because when we can, we do. China no doubt knows many of our non-public exploits, as we do of theirs.
In a real way, this forced sale is a sign of respect.
Sure, if there's evidence of the US exerting its influence over the content in a way that's harmful to the country.
In fact, I think the biggest threat to the US is the suspension of the first amendment because of the age old boogeyman of national security. Propaganda has always existed. The way to respond to bad speech is more speech. Banning it makes it forbidden and thus captivating, don't you know about the Streisand Effect?
If the transmission of media is a threat to national sovereignty, if the fate of the country can be undermined with memes, then we have already lost. The US should disconnect itself from the global internet.
In what conflict was giving an adversary a full attack surface for propanda etc. deemed the right approach?
The US had more a massive propaganda effort of their own during WWII, but yes we literally rounded up every person of Japanese descent and put them in camps, which should never happen again. Yes, there was a lot of really terrible censorship later in the Cold War like McCarthyism, which is the danger I am worried about. The public became so xenophobic that you could kill an actor's career in Hollywood by telling an agent that they had a copy of The Communist Manifesto. Simply having copies of books written by authors from the wrong country automatically made you "unamerican" and a traitor.
This is the path I fear we are going down again. The government is saying it knows best about what media we cannot be trusted to consume.
Using a freedom of information argument for Americans is a stronger position, but that isn't guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
This is going further than I want to go from a civil rights perspective, but there is at least some precedent. Corporate sanctions and bans have been used very effectively, as Huawei experienced not so long ago.
edit: Decedent western rock and roll also challenged the ideological purity of the Soviet Union so record imports were banned for a very long time.
I will never understand your particular brand of whataboutism.
VK has been the primary platform in the CIS for over a decade now at this point.
And even Signal was started in the US.
But for uninterested 3rd parties, it's quite entertaining the bitchslap games that China and the US play with these sort of policies (Google ban, tiktok ban, etc).
We sure do always come up with great and grand sounding reasons for everything though, at least to an American ear. It's only once your cynicism hits ridiculous levels that everything starts to suddenly make so much more sense.
[1] - https://www.wired.com/story/joe-biden-tiktok-campaign-commen...
For example are you saying that they are showing content to European youth to sow discord or something like that, or are you only talking about the data collection/mining?
Data collection and the ability for the government to gain access to this data without a warent.
Also lack of transparency regarding the algorithms which are built to cause maximum reaction / interaction which leads to radicalism.
Facebook was famously implicated in the genocide against the Rohingya ethnic minority in Myanmar.
>does the same they do to us
So you're saying that the US ought to be on your country's equivalent of the US government's "foreign adversaries" list <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_adversar...>, which includes China, that the proposed bill specifically targets? That's fine. I guess you won't have any objections to the US leaving NATO since you wouldn't want your country/continent to be in a military alliance with such a country.
ALSO please do outlaw private dragnet spying no matter which company is doing it, yes.
Intelligence and National Security sectors benefit way too much from it.
In what other trade scenario would this be remotely acceptable?
They start with the scenario you mention, then they push the weakened foreign entity out of China entirely. They did that to numerous, huge US brands/companies, including McDonalds and AWS. They make it inhospitable to continue to exist at all in China, then a ditch sale becomes the only viable option for the US company.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-continues-china-ex...
I think Valve still has a version of steam: https://www.engadget.com/steam-china-launch-133119511.html?g...
Activision/blizzard used to have a partnership with netease to release overwatch in China.
It is technically and realistically possible as companies do it all the time.
Reminds me of that episode with activision/blizzard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy
In this case its the fear of losing business with China that is pushing the platform to apply standards to people who are not Chinese citizen.
They really do. The idea was that by doing business with them they would shift away from authoritarianism. If you look at the last years it is clear that exactly the reverse has happened. Companies are mainly profit driven and not by morals. They will happily compromise on their morals in the name of profit. In contrast the PRC will happily compromise on profits to keep control.
Unless they've committed some crime, the property ownership should be protected
I also disagree with EFF here.
I see it on HN too, people hate on soft targets like Facebook, but their stock options/RSUs/portfolios depend on the respective companies (or sales funnels) depend on the same problematic behaviors. That's how we get "Google ads are evil, but Apple ads are fine. They do the same things, but Apple means well." TikTok is the softest of targets as it's not even American.
The US has been far too lenient in the past with responding to China's hyper biased, anti-trade policies. If US social media companies can't operate in China, then Chinese social media companies shouldn't be allowed to have access to the US economy.
Just tax TikTok. Make Americans pay money to subscribe to it. Apply the same principle to any other social media entity based in another country. It's that easy.
This isn't a "capitalism based harm" that tariffs are intended to fix, this is a "national security based harm" that's being targeted. You can debate the merits of whether or not TikTok is a threat to national security, but under the supposition that it is, tariffs are not the correct lever to pull.
So, it's not "that easy". I like the smugness though.
The US did not merely ban Huawei, it was part of a broader national security concern, where ZTE was also banned as part of the equation, and conceivably other major Chinese telecommunications firms with a strong enough foothold in the US would have been (or will be in the future) as well. Not to mention, use of TikTok is entirely an individual choice, a telephone network user does not choose (or have knowledge of) the origin of the devices their communications are transmitted through.
Israel has even gone to lengths to purchase advertisement slots on major platforms showing high budget propaganada. Once it's under US ownership they wll no longer have this issue.
Not everything is about Israel-Palestine smh.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
EFF seems to be invoking "either-or" argument to deflect attention away from their failire to present any facts to support their position that a ban would be unconstitutional. A ban on TikTok and passage of data privacy regulation within the US are not mutually exclusive. It is not an "either-or" proposition.
The bipartisan response to this bill, 352 yea and only 65 nay, seems quite unusual in recent times.
Let's pass a strong privacy law instead of the likely unconsitutionality of this bill plus a ban only benefits Facebook/Meta if you have forgotten.
Maybe they’re smarter?
You surely don't want that do you?
The US needs to pass a strong privacy bill instead of this unconsititional crap.
Divesting Tiktok from China isn't a ban, and it's disingenuous to frame it as such while also ignoring the major problem with such control.
Especially if the channel has ties to China.
(I should obviously take my own advice and add something more substantial to this comment, but the idea that are multiple sides in an war, with different goals, tactics, and with different stakes, is so trivial and self-evident that I'm feeling very silly commenting on it)
Then China was right to ban Google, Facebook, and Reddit? This seems like a war where no one wins. Why not simply ensure platforms are open, neutral, and fair for everyone? (e.g. not reddit)
If China could use protective tariffs against American firms and undercut American production, there's no reason to keep playing a morally pure yet essentially meaningless stance.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_Stat...
From a strictly pragmatic, real-politik point of view, yes.
From my personal point of view, it would be preferable if the US and China were on friendlier terms and were not military and economic adversaries, so that this wasn't a concern.
The US isn't going to care if a French or German or UK company owned a social media company here.
Israel's recent genocide was documented largely through Tiktok with the help of the algorithm.
I can imagine this annoyed Israel quite some and the US, I envisage the algorithm being altered to stop this if the it comes under US control, like has been done on Instagram and Facebook.
Alot of footage would not have made it out if it wasn't for Tiktok.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
If ByteDance calls Washingtons bluff --which they very likely will-- it sets the stage for a first amendment case at the supreme court as per Citizens United in 2010, corporate personhood is very much a thing in the US.
Arguing out of principle for 'free speech' is often used to defend literal Nazis even. Why couldn't they use it? Especially when corporations are people there.
There is a scene from "Cool Hand Luke" where the Warden instructs Luke "You gonna get your mind right." I think Jack Ma got his mind right. Navalny never quite got his mind right.
Given that TikTok acquired Musical.ly, they fall under the purview of CFIUS, an executive branch agency. This legislation is welcome, but not actually necessary since there's already a Constitutionally-tested process for banning foreign companies. If the executive and legislative are in agreement... well, TikTok is not going to be able to ignore that.
Foreigners enjoy 1A protections _inside_ the US, but foreign-owned companies are not always entitled to the same protections for exactly these national security reasons.
Can anyone pleaese inform me as to how this is actually a national security issue?
Americans voluntarily install and consume TikTok content. The government can prohibit this software from government-owned devices, just like any employer could, but to disallow it from the public is bonkers.
If the app gets removed from app stores, what will prevent people from side-loading it to circumvent the ban? What happens to me personally if I set up a proxy so you can send and receive info from TikTok through my servers for some small monthly price? I can even publish an app.
The whole point here is not about the data, regardless of spurious justifications.
While Chinese tiktok users are interested in educational content, Americans are not.
Not Youtube, but american government using whatever social media they have access do operations like these against other countries: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-launched-cia-covert-i...