Europe gives TikTok 24 hours to explain 'addictive and toxic' new app
theregister.com
theregister.com
Toxic and Addictive, collecting data, brainwashing people, propaganda etc is all fine when we do it.
Go for it and ban it - but there is no need to treat everyone like an idiot with the stupid excuses.
I bet this move is more to please US to show we are still aligned, otherwise we would be banning all meta products and couple more left and right.
European security is dependent on American guarantees and as such it is in Europe’s interest to not deviate too far from America’s foreign policy goals. Especially when there is a major war going on in Europe caused by its main rival.
Even so Europe has targeted America’s most powerful corporations for regulation. This is a good thing. Maybe America will someday follow Europe’s example.
It may be now, but not because of China, but because of the disastrous policies of the EU commission that cannibalized its own industrial base.
> European security is dependent on American guarantees
It is now, because De Gaulle and Adenauer were under massive attack by the Atlanticists when they tried to establish a sovereign European security infrastructure. The CIA, the BND and the Spiegel actually were instrumental to that.
The crazy thing is that America would be far more powerful if it empowered its allies rather than cannibalizing them.
From a historical point of view, it is the other way around. Germans, French and the English always had a hard on for the slavs. They desperately wanted those resource rich, strategically located lands. They still do.
I believe the opposite of this, and I believe that you cannot understand what is happening now without understanding what happened historically.
Russia is a personalist dictatorship. It's actions are at the whims of it's dictator. It does not matter what actually happened historically to understand the present reality. What does matter is how one person views history and how that influences his decisions. But this only matters as it pertains to predicting his reactions/actions.
For instance if Putin beleives that the U.S. is the cause of all that is wrong in Europe then it doesn't matter if he is right/wrong. What matters is that he believes this and acts on this belief. Knowing his view of history is important but it in no way has any bearing on wether or not nations fear Russia at this moment in time.
Germany initiated two world wars and was responsible for the deaths of millions, including systematic extermination of 6 million jewish civilians. Yet, they are somehow the good guys now leading the EU. If Russia is bad because its parent USSR was an oppressive regime, what of Germany?
Russia could argue that it has legitimate national security interests with Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.
I find the recent reflexive hatred of Russia puzzling. They are no worse than their accuser.
Considering how many millions of people the Soviet Union murdered in its own nation (before and after WWII), and the nation's of other non-Soviet European nations being invaded anexed.."to save Europe from Europe" would be a statement that many, many Europeans may not agree with.
> The Uprising started when the Red Army appeared on the city's doorstep, and the Poles in Warsaw were counting on Soviet front capturing or forwarding beyond the city in a matter of days. This basic scenario of an uprising against the Germans, launched a few days before the arrival of Allied forces, played out successfully in a number of European capitals, such as Paris and Prague. However, despite easy capture of area south-east of Warsaw barely 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) from the city centre and holding these positions for about 40 days, the Soviets did not extend any effective aid to the resistance within Warsaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising#Soviet_stance
I think you confused saving with conquering.
By the end of 1939, there was no such state - Poland. There was the Polish nation, but there was no Polish state that exercises its power within its borders. There were Soviet Union and Germany and border between them. And after the end of WWII, Poland was restored. Not just restored, but got about 20% of its current territory from Germany. Only Red army from all the Allies was present and won the battles on this territory. Would you restore a neighbour state and gift it yesterday's German territory filled with the blood of only your soldiers if you just want to conquer it?
Meanwhile the EU exports massive amounts of goods and intellectual property into China. China is also controlling the vast majority of rare earth supply. If China were to cut ties with the EU, the EU economy would tank massively.
China is also known to supply Russia with chips for their weapon systems, which means they work together in defense matters and if Russia is a threat, then China is, too.
Now we all know at this point what relationship russia has generally with truth, but for imminent threat (next few decades), we worry at murderers on our doorstep and stating openly they want to enslave and kill us, rather than something remote that may be a problem in few decades, maybe. Imminent military/existential threat > economical competition, always. China ain't exporting despotism, I am not aware of a single country falling into this category. russia on the other hand, almost 100 years of consistent achievements in that space.
This also comes from past and quite recent experience - eastern part of Europe was enslaved by soviets/russia for 4 decades. I've grown up in one such place, its destroyed for generations, and its not something I'll ever forgive them. China? Nothing.
You just can't compare these threats. Sure we are aligned with US as much as we can, but US acts in its own priorities, which sometimes are directly against our own. US spies on us, wages trade wars with us. US has Trump. And US is currently giving a gigantic FU with blocking help to Ukraine, we all know and see daily consequences, and we all know Europe's security from Russia ain't top US priority now. So lets be a bit honest here.
How does that follow? The war united the west, not divide it.
> China is the only one actually capable of influencing the world to embrace despotism and collectivism at the expense of freedom.
You mean china is the one forcing collectivism ( EU ) on europe? What is 'the west' other than collectivism?
So many stupid people watching stupid youtube videos and regurgitating nonsense. You probably have a brain. Try using it sometimes.
The most despotic entities in the world isn't china, it's the US and the EU. The most collectivist entities it the world isn't china, it's 'the west'.
Is china forcing everyone to be like them? Are they exporting communism everywhere? No. Guess who is trying to force everyone to be like them? The west.
Anything China however, we are reliant on the goodwill of a dictatorship. And that cannot stand longer, especially as China is not giving us reciprocal access - Youtube and Facebook for example are banned there, so it is only fair to do the same against anything Chinese.
It's not 'people' demanding anything. It's the elites. Why would the elites want to ban facebook or any social media they control. Not to mention facebook, reddit, youtube, etc are much older than tiktok.
After banning TikTok people will naturally start to wonder about regulating Facebook and other social media and this would be a good thing.
give the impression that I for the things you claim I’m for? You did not understand what was written.
It is human nature to find that some actions done by your own society are more acceptable than when done by another society. The CIA drugging Americans is a lot more palatable to Americans than if Chinese spy agencies did that. Neither is good but one garners much less outrage than the other. This was my point. And by regulation obviously I was referring to government regulation.
This is specifically the opinion of one person from the EU who has issues with a lot of what is going on in tech. Regardless of who owns the app.
Later it became more nuanced and economical. But the EU does have a point and they're not just targeting Chinese apps.
No, not obviously. If you have any evidence that the government was trying to influence which non-Chinese firm would end up owning TikTok or collecting TikTok's profits, lay it out for us. I always thought that the government was leaving that choice up to the current owners of TikTok.
Tons of new laws to reduce cigarette usage in the UK and EU have been implemented or talked since .. a long time. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68824493
Some EU countries have rules against lootboxes. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clgm1i0ko002...
Sadly it seems Casinos and sportsbetting is making a comeback :/
> collecting data
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
Sort buy fine and the top companies are meta, amazon, google, whatsapp .. but yes also TikTok. But no, it's not fine if other EU countries are doing this.
> brainwashing people, propaganda
I don't remember the details, but did meta and youtube not have to implement tools to combat "anti vacs fakenews" during the rona times? Or was that not forced they did it on their own?
I don't know man, It seems you are wrong. It's not all fine when "we do it"
Well besides a potential gambling addiction.
I hope my country never ends where 'Stralia is now :/
There is plenty to criticise in the hysterical response we’ve seen particularly in US government to the mere existence of TikTok. But IMO the EU has been pretty consistent about this stuff, grouping everyone together as “the West” isn’t that helpful.
That's probably justified, but TikTok IS far more addictive than the competing western developed apps, particularly with children and the young. The EU would also be pushing them if it was developed elsewhere.
Deleted my account after a week and i see plenty of kids waisting a ton of time on it.
We, as our socity, do protect ourselves from thinks like lead in wallcolors, etc. why not addiction?
In all hopes an EU company is storing and treating the data it collects under the EU law. In China there is no such thing.
No it's not. Ban that shit.
At least in the EU those things are regulated, so it’s not particularly surprising the that the EU gets involved.
The speed is unusual, it probably would have taken month if this was American and not Chinese.
I think the EC has learned its lesson from the GDPR; “you might one day be fined, maybe in five years” (Facebook, say, was recently fined a billion of so for behaviour going back years) is not a sufficient deterrent.
"EXPLAIN THIS FUN GAME!"
"Well we wanted to make a fun game, so we made it fun."
"THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!"
And besides:
> The app is called TikTok Lite and offers the chance to "to complete challenging tasks and earn great rewards!"
> Tasks include watching vids, liking content, or following other users. Rewards include Amazon vouchers, PayPal gift cards, or TikTok's in-app currency that can be used to tip other members.
Is this a “game”? Really?
"explain this non-fun, stress-inducing addiction generator"
"well, we wanted to make a lot of money with incredibly low effort, so we just found out how to best psychologically manipulate users into being unable to leave and stress them into giving us money while they're there in various ways."
"wait why was this not already illegal"
The difference to a game is that a game is first and foremost designed to be entertaining and the user starts playing and stick around with it because they like the entertainment. An addiction to a non-malicious game could be considered like an addiction to good food. Not great, but you're addicted to what you like. Some games (and foods) are more addictive than others, and some games are particularly malicious and are occasionally struck down against or hung out for their methods, but it's overall seen as okay.
These apps are not meant to be entertaining. They use stress, FOMO or outright manipulation to make you return. This addiction is more like being addicted to cigarettes. One can argue whether even self-harm should be up to the individual, but no sane individual would argue that cigarettes are good or that tobacco companies are anything other than evil. If the cigarette was invented now, would we have allowed them to proliferate?
Drawing the line is hard, and I don't like others making decisions for me, but I also don't like society forcing you to join an abusive platform as you'd otherwise miss out on whatever basic societal functions people put there, so enforcing that platforms play nice seems fair.
Requiring every company to prove why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to. That's some seriously distopian shit in my opinion.
they dont require every company. Just the largest in this segment.
Short of that its just a current norm for how the law is enforced. Nothing stops the next regulator from expanding that power.
That said, this app, like so many other social media apps, is trash. People should be choosing not to use it regardless of regulations.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
1. Providers of online platforms accessible to minors shall put in place appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security of minors, on their service.
That's a heavy burden that we enforce on many other consumer products. That's why we have certification processes in place, quality testing and compliance testing. From airplanes, to cars, to bikes, to helmets, to food, to medication, to toys, to appliances, to paints and chemicals, etc.
Regulations evolve because societies evolve.
In this case, it would appear that enforcement is evolving while regulations aren't being changed.
That said, this app and so many other social media apps are trash. People should be choosing not to use them regardless of regulations.
We have just sent a request for information regarding the launch of #TikTokLite.
We will spare no effort to protect minors under the #DSA.
'Is social media "lite" as addictive and toxic as cigarettes "light"?
We have just sent a request for information regarding the launch of #TikTokLite.
We will spare no effort to protect minors under the #DSA.'
My reading of the DSA is that is is primarily about disclosure of how content algorithms work, not the impact on users. I could very well be wrong there, but a tweet claiming they want to use the DSA as enforcement there doesn't really clarify anything unfortunately.
Isn't it what the CE marking means on physical products though? It means the manufacturer claims the product is conform to regulation, which presumably includes "not harmful to the intended users".
While CE marking can be a self-declaration depending on the type of product (some products require third-party control) at any moment each EU state can check it, and in any case a control process has to be documented.
The parent comment just wishes to apply the same to non-physical products, which doesn't strike me as extremely heavy or unreasonable.
It's so dystopian that people can't access weapons or poison from their local shop, with no limitations.
We absolutely have regulations like this already. I’d almost argue there are more consumer products subject to regulation than not.
For a more specific example, teens are not allowed to use gambling apps. I don’t see many people arguing that is tyrannical government overreach. Here, TikTok is creating an addictive app that offers you monetary rewards for watching videos and completing menial tasks. It sounds more like employment than leisure activity, why shouldn’t we interrogate the suitability of something like that? Why give these social media companies, which have proven themselves untrustworthy time and time again, the benefit of the doubt?
We can always add more regulations, though there's an official process to it. There is a line though, and while I absolutely see value in some regulations given how complex we've made society, a government with full authority to deem what is and is not appropriate for any specific group of people is extremely heavy handed.
I don't actually want to give social media companies the benefit of the doubt. People shouldn't use that trash and parents should be helping their kids decide if those apps are actually something they want to use. If people really see the value in that kind if app, though, we only avoid the problem rather than fix it by banning apps or limiting access from the top down.
Right, I feel like ultimately this is a debate about what happens in that window.
“There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, companies should be free to do what they wish while we craft regulation”
vs
“There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, we should heavily limit what companies can do while we craft regulation”
In this case, it seems like having regulations is a horse and pony show if the government can enforce regulations that don't yet exist. In the most kind view, writing regulations is helpful so we at least know what they already plan to enforce. In a pessimistic view, writing regulations is only done to help the public think that everything is above board and that power isn't, and won't, be abused.
Data collection is bad, and I wish I could raise kids without the need for smartphones, but it does feel a bit overkill now all this hysteria.
But I can’t shake the thought that the impact of social media and addictive games for some kids can’t be written off as just a phase they are going through. I worry so much that they will carry the negative impacts into adulthood.
Also rock music.
And homosexuality.
If you can actually give ones that are, I'll concede the strawman but until you can, naw.
This has nothing to do with being exposed to the same content as their peers (which is indeed often needed to grow up). Give them pocket money and/or chores and not this bollocks.
But if it's going to lead to the complete downfall of society and lethargic adults who cannot deal with life, I doubt it.
I'm playing devil's advocate here because I truly believe that kids should not have smartphones at all. But that's because I was raised without them.
And also I've seen in practice a great example of a relative who raised his first child (male) with no screens, and his second child (female) allowing screen time. The son is now 15 and the girl 9 and the difference is shocking. Most well behaved, calm, focused young man I've ever seen. Compared to a little animal who snarls at you for taking away her phone at dinner time.
Just because we have been mistaken in the past doesn't mean that every instance of "hysteria" is irrational. There is a wealth of research demonstrating the bad and detrimental effects of social media.
Exactly, same with the hysteria about teenage sex, smoking, drinking, bullying, or recreational use of opiates. The kids are alright.
That said I'd prefer for parents to keep their children off Tiktok and the like or - better still - keep them smartphone-free until they're at an age where this is no longer feasible or legally possible (~16). If they do have phones make sure you have control over which apps they run and for how long they can use these, on Android that can be accomplished using something like Timelimit [1]. This is what I use (server and clients), to good effect.
With the exception that none of these is proven to fry the teenager mind.
Ever spoken to a Gen Z? Attention span is minuscule
The precautionary principle has destroyed the EU.
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-designat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#Criteria_d...
Small players can't make a lot of damage, and the cost of regulation in an entire market (millions of apps) is huge compared to regulating maybe a dozen apps with a half billion users.
No wonder when dark patterns become norm.
Every day I'm asked to do tasks for rewards. It's gotten to the point that if I don't, I can't survive.
Your comment reeks of whataboutism. If we need to apply the same scrutiny to everything at the same time we wouldn't be able to do anything at all.
Upholding democracy, protecting human rights, etc all of this is very useful to maintain mental health of the subjects.
EU is a much more active regulator when it comes to pretty much everything.
> The EU is applying similar scrutiny to other social networks as well.
I have sat through many a French meals.
Your terms are acceptable.
If an App would be developed in Europe or in the US, it would have no chance against CCP in China, and possibly get copied and offered in China by a Chinese player.
The West stance against China is laughable, we can't play democratic games against an autocracy, when we do, it happens what happened with Ukraine, it gets invaded.
Much of the world has spent the last 80 years chasing globalization as the solution to avoiding nuclear war. I'm actually surprised it lasted this long, but that strategy was never going to be sustainable and we're seeing cracks really start to erode these days.
To be clear though, China isn't going to invade the US. Invading your neighbor is hard enough, invading another super power on the other side of an ocean is impossible.