This can't be a serious question.
US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.
They don't want an adversary to have control. Is the distinction not obvious??
US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.
They don't want an adversary to have control. Is the distinction not obvious??
> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.
I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective.
> They don't want an adversary to have control.
Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?
>> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.
> I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective.
Why is it less of a concern to you if you control your bank account than if I do?
If we're not making obvious distinctions today, you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same.
>> They don't want an adversary to have control.
> Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?
It is not. I have difficulty imagining your question is not founded on feigned ignorance.
China is an adversary of the US. Some optimistic and naive Western politicians in the 90s thought making them a "primary trade partner" would cause political changes that would eliminate the rivalry. They were wrong, and weakened their countries in the process. That's been clear for like ten years. Now their mistake needs to be dealt with.
How is this comparable to the media you're consuming?
If you can't see the point without tedious hand-holding, I can't help you.
I'll just copypaste what I said in another thread to be as direct as possible:
I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?
I made a pretty simple and straightforward analogy, which you didn't get. Maybe you don't get the geopolitical relevance of media control, but I'd really hope you'd understand bank account control. You = the US polity, Me = China, Bank account = something an adversary could harm you by controlling.
> I'm actually being genuine here...but I would like my questions to be answered....
> I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?
If you're being truthful, I think you might be at the point where you have to do some basic reading first, because you seem to need more hand-holding and explanation than it's reasonable to expect. You may also have some conceptual deficits that are so basic they come off as feigned.
You are making the claim, you should be able to back the claim up. You're actually writing very many words to avoid a direct explanation, which is even more confusing.
I remain unconvinced that people aren't shaping their own opinions by continuing to pursue similar content to what they typically agree with already. And as we all know, at this current time TikTok's algo is indistinguishable from US competitors in the obvious way it buckets people into like-minded feeds + comments.
At minimum we should be consistent in what we claim is the bad behavior. If the algo is really the problem, start regulating all of them and do it now. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.
> who knows how that might be used in the context of an AI-driven future
I'm not sure we want to legislate and set rules based on a "who knows". If the outcome is bad you need to define that bad outcome.
You have not the slightest clue whether this is true or not.
Why does China block all foreign social media access within its own borders?
Wouldnt it be wonderful if we in the West could advocate for our own interests inside China the way the Chinese can participate in our conversations.
Absolutely not. Japan was a primary trade partner going into WW2. The US is actively preparing for wars over Taiwan.
No, because there's more nuance in the world than you seem to suggest.
trade partner does not exclude adversary. Look at US-Japan trade in the 30s up until just before WW2 when the US decision to embargo exports to Japan (to try to force Japan to stop its occupation of China) led to WW2. It was a pretty quick flip from major trading partner to war.