> the rest of the world have easy access to.
Except for China, where TikTok is nothing like the TikTok for the rest of the world
Except for China, where TikTok is nothing like the TikTok for the rest of the world
The point is brainwashing.
This kind of narrative is actually one of the more popular forms of propaganda.
"We are the side of the revolutionaries. The status quo is wrong but only about the things we want to change and not the things we want to stay the same. Powerful people are our opponents."
All politics is about opposing powerful people, because if they weren't powerful then it would be easy to defeat them. But there are different groups of powerful people, with different interests, and then it rather matters which ones you align yourself with on a given issue. And if it's always the same ones then you're doing partisanship rather than reasoning.
Authoritarianism has been starting to become normalized because China and Russia are increasingly able to mess with our society in the same way our leaders always messed with theirs.
Don’t worry, everything will return to normal one day. Pinky swear.
An interesting thought I read a couple days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/opinion/trump-carney-chin...:
> Finally, and most controversially, I suspect the same “if not America, then China” logic applies to political ordering as well. The United States under Trumpian conditions has allowed populism to come to power, bringing chaos and authoritarian behavior in its train. Recoil from that by all means — but recognize that it happened through democratic mechanisms, under freewheeling political conditions.
> Meanwhile, the modes through which Europe and Canada have sought to suppress populism involve harsh restrictions on speech, elite collusion and other expression of managerial illiberalism. And what is China’s dictatorship if not managerial illiberalism in full flower? When European elites talk about China as a potentially more stable partner than the whipsawing United States, when they talk admiringly about its environmental goals and technocratic capacity, they aren’t defending a liberal alternative to Trumpian populism. They are letting the magnet of Chinese power draw them away from their own democratic traditions.
It would be efficient for China to have Russia undermine the US while Russia also weakens itself.
China has made huge inroads in Africa, which gives it access to essential metals and other raw materials, and also puts it in a strong position diplomatically.
Taiwan and where else?
I suppose you could also make the argument that they already did invade Tibet and Hong Kong, though that's splitting hairs.
It’s certainly not a given that donating it to China was the right call.
The right call for who?
For the people there? Not good.
For a contracting British empire facing a clearly growing-in-power China it was a graceful exit without military conflict.
But I have a feeling your position is basically "Except for all the cases where they're threatening their neighbors, they're not threatening their neighbors at all."
No, not at all. I don't follow China closely, and was genuinely asking.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna245797
Tibet and Xinjiang already conquered and we have forgotten about them.
As a person whose country is being threatened by China, I support the US.
If China were as developed as the US, a lot of China’s threats would have been reality.
I think that's definitely a thing. What's the term? The narcissism of small differences? That contempt is there, and I've long felt it, and (unusually) I think it's also mirrored by some Americans.
There are a lot of internal contradictions and tensions that Trump is bringing to the surface.
Certain political parties (typically leftwing) in these countries will often leverage, if not outright foment, anti-Americanism for political gain. And then you have the external propaganda campaigns, most notably undertaken by the Soviet Union and later, the Russian Federation. The USSR also funded violent separatist movements, like the IRA and ETA, and propped up "pacifist" protest movements that curiously only ever protested the US and other NATO countries' militaries, disregarding the Eastern Block's military buildup.
Today, Code Pink and other organizations run by power couple Neville Roy Singham (ThoughtWorks) and Jodie Evans do this on behalf of the CCP. Name-dropping them now is contentious, because FOXNews and other rightwing outlets have alleged a link to anti-ICE protests. But there was a lengthy NYT piece covering them and their pro-CCP activism back in 2023: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-...
> I think it's also mirrored by some Americans.
It's surely reciprocated, but usually only by Americans who been exposed to enough anti-Americanism from these countries to wise up. The default attitude of Americans towards our allies is overwhelmingly positive: https://news.gallup.com/poll/472421/canada-britain-favored-r...
Oceania has always gotten tech tips from Eastasia.
Commentators: What are we, some kind of Asians?
The US has traditionally had at least some counterweight to the state, in the form of a free press, free speech, opposition parties, checks and balances in branches of government, and an armed populace. The effectiveness of these measures has varied over time but there has never been a point when any single institution had control over the United States to the point that the CPC has control over mainland China.
People are concerned that the US is taking an authoritarian bent under Trump, and many of the tactics being used would lead to a state far more similar to the PRC than the historical US.
that is a common mistake. it is called the "If China can do it, I can do it too" symptom, which has been discussed like a million times on Chinese social media. interestingly, the biggest obstacle for other countries to repeat it is the fact that there is a country called China.
China isn't to blame, but they are a frightening example of where things are headed and they're giving the robber barons screwing us a blueprint to follow.
It used to be marketed as that by "China evil" people. Western politicians have always seen this as an arms race. They claim infinite brutal censorship and suppression in China in order to claim that not having it here is a strategic disadvantage. Meanwhile, China's "social credit" is just like a US credit score, which in most countries is an illegal thing to do.
This is completely bipartisan, both US parties take turns shitting on their two greatest enemies: the Bill of Rights and (almost completely defeated at this point) antitrust law. Those are painted as China's advantages: that they don't have to respect anyone's rights and that their government directly runs companies. 1) Neither of those things are true, and 2) they just ignore that China manufactures things and invests in infrastructure (which US politicians as individuals have no idea how to do because they are lawyers and marketers), and pretend that everything can be reduced to gamified finance and propaganda tricks.
It's the "missile gap" again. The US pretended and marketed that Russia had an enormous amount of nuclear weapons in order to fool us into allowing US politicians to dedicate the economy to producing an enormous amount of nuclear weapons.
The result, the child of the Oracle guy owns half the media, and uses it for explicitly political purposes that align with the administration (whichever it may be.)
I'd like to see evidence of that. A third of the country voted to burn the bill of rights, and another third voted they don't care but they'd be ok with it happening.
Ignoring the magnitude to draw a false equivalence is a great way to discredit your position. Neither party is perfect but only one of them is denying the full personhood of over half the population, having armed men threaten the public with lethal violence over constitutionally-protected activities, or saying that the executive should be able to direct private industries for profit. Debates about things like how much the government should ask private companies to enforce their terms of service are valid but it’s like arguing over a hangnail while you’re having a heart attack.
I guess in 90ies version of polymarket nobody would have had that result on their bingo sheet. But, well, they probably also didn't have "something like polymarket could exist in the free world" on those bingo cards, either...
"I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says.
"Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them."
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."
TikTok is known for tipping the scales on political keywords everywhere. In the past they haven’t outright censored because that’s too obvious, but uploading videos on the wrong side (according to TikTok, of course) of a political topic will result in very few views.
I wouldn’t be surprised if as part of the transition they’re struggling with the previous methods of simply burying topics, so the obvious ban was their intermediate step.
The comments claiming this is specific to the US are simply wrong. TikTok has always done this everywhere.
All social media does this. Even HN (through its users flagging articles). This article will be flagged by users and removed from the front page very soon, just as a similar one[1] was already.
I don't consider user-directed upvotes/downvotes/flags to be in the same category as company or state decided censorship.
They got the same version of the app that people in China got. I haven't seen any formal studies but my impression, at the time, was that Chinese people were far better informed about the US than Americans were about China.
As a baseline, they have experience living in about twice as many countries as the locals. They picked up their lives, often learned a second language, and established a home with minimal social support. They tend to be highly motivated people.
In many cases, they know more about the country than the locals do because they've traveled all over said country while the locals never left their home town.
edit: I just realized this might be confusing. By "foreigner" I mean someone who is from a place other than where they currently live. I'm not referring to people who only know about a country through hearsay.
In any case, I think it also applies to some degree to people who live outside the US just purely based on media diet. We all see clips of CNN and MSNBC and Fox on YouTube, but a person elsewhere will have the additional perspective of BBC, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, The Guardian, etc.
(reminded of ex-tech influencer Naomi Wu, who basically went dark with a post along the lines of "the police have told me to stop posting")
That's HSK2 being generous, if you had to plug it into Google Translate, how can you say you know more than the people who speak the language and live there?
but of course. the benchmark is minor influencer and HN darling naomi wu.
We all know that advertising and marketing is manipulation, yet even the most contrarian among us are still influenced it.
Of course not, but other stuff is.
Interestingly, my understanding is government pressure forces Douyin to be more "positive" and "encouraging" than Tiktok (i.e. outrage is an easy way drive engagement with obvious negative externalities, and that path is blocked).
"The forced US hosted tik-tok sale is all about hiding information from the US public that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to."
In the most point-missing, technical kind of way.
Saying "But China also censors!" is the one missing the point.
That's too black and white. The Tiktok sale isn't just one thing by one actor for one reason, it's more complicated. There's the Biden administration bill, there's Trump's deal implementing it, etc. I don't think the bill that forced the sale was passed "so the US can censor stuff the US government doesn't like." Before Trump got involved, it was heading for a straight blackout (which IMHO would have been better for everyone).
What are the opinions of illegal immigration over there? How do they police it? (If at all).
Does this look like normal government activity? Or are they appalled at the lack of “freedoms” in America?
I am truly naive on their culture or politics around this and how they would use it to show the US as boogeymen government and how their government is better. Is it a grass isn’t always greener type thing for them or is it a way to actually think we’re evil and should be stopped.
As well as racial profiling. There's not that much immigration to China in the first place, legal or otherwise.
My experience in China was that the police were a bit on the bureaucratic side but otherwise far less obtrusive than in the US.
They divide their police forces into civil police and armed police. The civil police tend to be bored looking middle aged guys lounging around in guard booths at museums. They don't have weapons. The only armed police I saw stood at attention at the airport except when they had a changing of the guard ceremony.
As near as I can tell, China only allows immigration if they think that will benefit China. They've been pushing hard on academic scholarships and, in recent years, they've managed to shift net visits from the US to China.
They also seem to be pushing really hard on increasing the number of visiting African scholars. That's likely straight out of the US playbook; they see China as a rising power and want to make sure that their emerging leaders were educated in China and have ties to China.
As near as I can tell, there are essentially 2 kinds of laws; laws that people agree with and laws that they don't.
For the second type, governments often have trouble enforcing them consistently so they often try to compensate by making the punishments harsher (eg mandatory minimum sentencing). As near as I can tell, that tends to fail miserably.
Our government here has been shooting people in the streets and that hasn't stopped protesters from pouring out.
When you see a bunch of people peacefully following laws the most likely explanation is that they just think those laws are reasonable.