[HN Gopher] FCC commissioner wants TikTok removed from app store...
___________________________________________________________________
FCC commissioner wants TikTok removed from app stores over spying
concerns
Author : breitling
Score : 328 points
Date : 2022-06-29 17:49 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| This could end up being an interesting case study for the "that
| app is so simple, I could build it in a weekend" crowd.
|
| People ask why Elon Musk is willing to pay so much for Twitter
| when the software could be replicated at much less expense - the
| software isn't the point, the network effect is. It doesn't
| matter how good your Twitter clone is, if no one is using it,
| then no one will use it.
|
| If TikTok is banned (or can't grow in the US due to being removed
| from app stores), there's actually an opening for a clone. I
| wonder what sort of TikTok clone would succeed - one backed by
| existing social media companies? One that's just like TikTok, or
| one that introduces some killer new feature?
| jareklupinski wrote:
| What data? Which videos I watched for how long :P
| LegitShady wrote:
| biometrics including face and voice prints, your phone
| contacts, your location etc
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| Is location actually considered biometric? I'd have thought
| that's PII, but not biometric.
| LegitShady wrote:
| there are commas separating items - the first item is
| biometrics. Your phone contacts aren't biometrics either.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| good thing I keep a piece of tape over my camera :)
| chimeracoder wrote:
| TikTok's privacy policies include the ability to store
| biometric information. They have been caught bypassing privacy
| controls on iOS and Android before to collect data that they're
| not supposed to have access to, and they even settled a lawsuit
| a couple of years ago for illegally storing data of minors.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| what biometric information? I don't remember tiktok asking me
| for my fingerprint before I could start watching videos...
| does it do that now?
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| They could produce some very high-quality facial
| recognition data, thats biometric as well
| jareklupinski wrote:
| that's fair, I denied the app permission to access my
| camera since I just watch videos on it
|
| it would be really helpful for the FCC to explain to
| content creators why and how their biometric information
| can be used against them, tiktok is just one of the
| companies scanning their faces in that regard
| chimeracoder wrote:
| TikTok has access to your camera and microphone, and facial
| recognition and voiceprinting are considered biometric
| information.
|
| You can block the permission in settings, but as explained
| in the FCC letter, TikTok has a documented pattern of
| bypassing system permissions and accessing data that they
| shouldn't actually be able to access (which is malware-like
| behavior).
| jaywalk wrote:
| If TikTok can actually access the camera and microphone
| after permission has been denied, then Apple and Google
| have a much bigger issue on their hands and need to fix
| that ASAP.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| Read the letter. It's talking about past issues. Yes,
| security exploits are a problem for the platform, but
| that's no excuse for apps to exploit them maliciously,
| against the user's knowledge or wishes.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| maybe which profiles or link trees people are looking at. Any
| questionable content anyone likes. They might be able to use it
| to deploy 0 days to specified users they might be interested
| in. Maybe users who work for the gov, or companies they're
| interested in getting information about.
|
| Hard to know without having them spell out their specific
| security concerns.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| you can do all of those things without a billion dollar
| company... seems like a waste to just use it for breaking
| into teenagers' phones...
| filesystem wrote:
| TikTok is mostly adults now.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| idk if you can do all of that. Having one app that is just
| kind of a general purpose offensive option against any
| given US target seems handy.
| ars wrote:
| Don't the security permissions of TickTick give it full access
| to the device storage? Doesn't it have access to device
| location?
|
| Seems to me it's able to copy almost anything it wants out of
| the phone.
| acchow wrote:
| > Seems to me it's able to copy almost anything it wants out
| of the phone.
|
| On Android? Probably.
|
| On iPhone? That's not how iPhones work
| dylan604 wrote:
| This info is extremely telling in more ways that you are giving
| it credit for, and if maybe you really don't do anything more
| than watch cat videos, other people are watching more than
| that. Lot's of data can be inferred based on your browsing
| history.
| adultSwim wrote:
| I just don't see the issue. This isn't how US companies want to
| be treated, even when the US govt is acting badly. TikTok doesn't
| appear to be uniquely different.
|
| I also struggle to view China as an adversary. US and China are
| each other's number one trading partners. We are allies. Why not
| try to build on that productive relationship?
| AdamH12113 wrote:
| Is this actually an official request from the FCC? The letter[1]
| makes it sound like personal grandstanding on the part of the
| Trump-appointed commissioner rather than an official action by a
| regulatory agency. If it's the former, the headline is
| misleading.
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/154182358595770777...
| che_shirecat wrote:
| Brendan Carr is also notably anti Net Neutrality. Reading the
| screeds of the supposed cypherpunks of hacker news begging the
| federal government to BAN access to an app by private
| individuals is hilarious.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Seriously. And I can't figure out how the CCP having
| information about me is worse than the US government having
| that same information when I'm likely to interact with the
| latter but not the former. I'd love for the FCC/FTC to
| enforce some kind of privacy standards on _all_ apps, but
| that 's not what's happening here.
| [deleted]
| jhallenworld wrote:
| As a USA resident, which is more likely to adversely affect you:
| CCP collecting data on you, or US government collecting data on
| you?
| loudmax wrote:
| The US government, imperfect as it is, is democratically
| elected by US citizens.
|
| The Chinese Communist Party is not democratically elected by
| anyone, citizens of US or China. This makes all the difference.
|
| The Chinese Communist Party would like people to believe that
| democracy is a joke and we should give up on democratic ideals.
| Don't give into their lies.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Survey says most Americans don't think they live in a
| democracy, while vast majority of Chinese think they do. It's
| easy to see why when you think about how little the average
| Americans' interests are represented by their government. Not
| to mention the totally gerrymandered districts, voter
| suppression and absurd legalized corruption that says
| money=speech. https://www.newsweek.com/most-china-call-their-
| nation-democr...
| tatrajim wrote:
| >while vast majority of Chinese think they do
|
| What anonymous public opinion polls are EVER permitted in
| China? Where are polls on the popularity of various state
| leaders? On the Shanghai covid lockdown? On the
| investigation of the imprisoned Anhui woman? On continual
| WeChat censorship? Etc.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >The US government, imperfect as it is, is democratically
| elected by US citizens.
|
| Because of so much social media influencing, this is very
| much up for debate at this time from those that have been
| heavily influenced. That's just one example of how all of the
| social influence is just not good for society at large.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > The US government, imperfect as it is, is democratically
| elected by US citizens.
|
| The US president is elected by electors from the electoral
| college; the number of electors per state was influenced by
| the pro-slavery states. (Research the three-fifths-clause: ht
| tps://www.wikiwand.com/en/United_States_Electoral_College#...
| )
|
| Even soviet democracy is way more democratic than the US
| democracy: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Soviet_democracy
| koolba wrote:
| That's like asking if you should be more worried about the
| common cold or Hepatitis B?
|
| Just because one is more likely doesn't mean the damage from
| the other won't be so catastrophic that it's the greater risk.
| cj wrote:
| If Cambridge Analytica has taught us anything, we should be
| thinking from the perspective of what's in the best interest of
| society rather than best interest of an individual.
|
| I don't think CCCP data collection from TikTok would be very
| useful at targeting specific individuals. But the data set as a
| whole could be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb if exploited in
| pursuit of some nefarious goal (e.g. an outside country
| influencing the results of another country's political
| election)
| ok123456 wrote:
| The Cambridge Analytica "scandal" was just marketing by
| Facebook. It's no different than a billboard company putting
| something outrageous (e.g., advertising bull fighting) to
| prove that people actually pay attention to their ads.
| noirbot wrote:
| I'd imagine most people happy about this would also be happy
| about the same thing happening to the US tech companies too. I
| don't see what your point is?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| This is false choice. Why did you present it?
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Well I think in general you have more personally to worry
| about from your own government (which can legally apply
| coercive force against you), vs. any foreign government,
| particularly an adversarial one, with no extradition treaty.
|
| Which is not to say that your own government shouldn't worry
| about national security- maybe the ban on TikTok could be
| more targeted, for example members of the government and
| military should not use it.
|
| Anyway I was thinking more about the spying, and not so much
| about the influencing.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Nit, the CCCP, or Soiuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh
| Respublik, is the Soviet Union. You probably meant the CCP, the
| Chinese Communist Party.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Oops, yes. Fixed.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Ideally, neither would have much data on me.
|
| But in terms of potential harm, unquestionably China, unless
| I'm actively breaking US law.
|
| My hostilities with the United States government are an edge
| case, a risk to be managed. The government, for 9 in 10 people,
| is a good actor.
|
| China is a foreign actor. Unlike the US government it has zero
| checks and balances which I control, and should it use this
| data to compromise our government or fool the people I live
| with I expect the consequences to be far more damaging.
|
| They were caught not too long ago actually spreading
| environmental causes in Texas against rare earth mining. They
| were trying to leverage our political process to make us
| dependent on them. Tools like TikTok make them far more
| effective at these sorts of operations, and it would be
| incredibly foolish to trust them.
| ceh123 wrote:
| > They were caught not too long ago actually spreading
| environmental causes in Texas against rare earth mining. They
| were trying to leverage our political process to make us
| dependent on them.
|
| Do you have a source for this? I did some quick searching but
| couldn't find anything concrete. Super curious to learn more
| about this case if it's true.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Here you go:
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/china-is-
| trolling-...
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Google and Apple are both deeply connected to China, so I'm
| guessing the answer will be, in an indirect way:
|
| "No thanks, we won't be doing that"
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| How is Google deeply connected to China? I know they have an
| office there, but aren't most of its service blocked there?
| can16358p wrote:
| Hardware of Google's own Pixel and many many Android phones.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Other android phones are also other companies, wouldn't
| exactly call that deep connection, but a connection
| nonetheless. Re pixel, that's a pretty small business
| relatively speaking.
|
| If anything Google probably has more to gain as TikTok is
| eating an increasing part of the ads & entertainment pie, a
| business which is much more crucial to Google as of now.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Google and Apple are both deeply connected to China, so I'm
| guessing the answer will be, in an indirect way:
|
| Apple is utterly dependent on China, but what about Google? It
| famously pulled out of that market years ago.
| sneak wrote:
| The phones that run the Google OS are approximately 100%
| manufactured in China, just like the phones that run the
| Apple OS.
| lostmsu wrote:
| While you might be right, I can't really find data to
| support that claim:
|
| https://blucellphones.us/where-are-samsung-phones-made/
| claims Samsung is 50/50 India/Vietnam
|
| Pixel 5 and 6 are made in Taiwan.
| joebob42 wrote:
| Sure, but
|
| 1. Google benefits from Android, but ios _is_ apple. Google
| has other games.
|
| 2. Google doesn't make most androids. China would have to
| ban any company from making hardware designed to run
| android, not just ban Google from operating in the country,
| which would affect a bunch of non-google (even non-us)
| companies at least as much as it would affect Google
| itself.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Utterly? They've been moving away from China. It's better now
| than it was.
| 30944836 wrote:
| That's a two way street. It's not that China has Apple over a
| barrel. There is a MAD aspect to the relationship. Apple is
| definitely trying to get out of China as a manufacturing
| dependency. They'd rather not be banned from the market, but
| they are preparing for that. Let's rip the band-aid off, I
| say.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > There is a MAD aspect to the relationship.
|
| No there isn't. China can _destroy_ Apple [1], Apple can
| probably only bruise China.
|
| [1] e.g. how would Apple fare if iPhone sales dropped to
| <10% of current levels for _years_ due to lack
| manufacturing capacity?
| cryptonector wrote:
| <insert joke about removing the platforms in question over spying
| concerns>
| throwaway123989 wrote:
| Why is China an adversary of US?
|
| Can someone put into succinct evidences of this statement?
|
| To the typical talking point:
|
| * IP infringement: there is not much unusual rate of IP stealing
| from China. Considering the size of Chinese economy and foreign
| trade ties between China and the rest of world, absolute number
| of IP infringement cases are not a good indicator of the
| government's policy.
|
| * Coercion of South East Asian nations: This one is a natural
| demand of a rising super power. Putting it in the perspective of
| any historical rising of superpower, China has been relatively
| much more peaceful. Again, the sheer size of China make the
| absolute number terrifying, but please stay rationale, and don't
| try to paint China as some sort of arch evil of the west
| Civilization. After all, the West has been nourished by the
| Oriental civilization, among them China particularly contributed
| to the advancement of knowledge and inventions (gun powder,
| magnet etc.).
|
| * Confrontation with US over Taiwan: If you are OK with Texas
| leaving the union, then you are entitled to support Taiwan
| independence. Enough said. Pick your side, and stick with it.
|
| PS: I am Chinese living in US. And I support the peaceful
| cooperation between China and US. The 2 nations are the most
| refined examples of the oriental and western civilizations. It's
| indeed a tragedy that the finest human civilizations cannot work
| together. We Chinese living in US, as well as the US people
| having good exposure in China, are in a good position to amplify
| the cooperative ties between China and US.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| > * Confrontation with US over Taiwan: If you are OK with Texas
| leaving the union, then you are entitled to support Taiwan
| independence. Enough said. Pick your side, and stick with it.
|
| I'm sad that you don't realize Taiwan is _already_ functionally
| autonomous, and wants to _remain_ that way.
|
| It's also telling how you imagine that a typical American
| wouldn't "let" Texas leave the union.
|
| As far as I (or anyone else I know) cares, if Puerto Rico or
| Guam or Texas wanted to leave the U.S. (which they don't), and
| they held a vote, and a supermajority voted to leave, why
| wouldn't we let them leave? It isn't the 1860s anymore. The
| world is much more democratic now, imperialism is over, and if
| a group of people want to go it alone, we should let them.
|
| Scotland had a vote to leave the U.K., and they decided to
| stay, so they stayed. If they had voted to leave, they would
| have left.
|
| The U.K. had a vote to leave the E.U., and they decided to
| leave, so they did.
|
| Would China recognize Taiwan's independence if Taiwan held a
| vote? Of course not. The reason for this is not merely because
| China doesn't sympathize with the desires of the Taiwanese
| people, but because China doesn't even believe in democracy in
| the first place.
| krapp wrote:
| > if Puerto Rico or Guam or Texas wanted to leave the U.S.
| (which they don't), and they held a vote, and a supermajority
| voted to leave, why wouldn't we let them leave?
|
| Texas has a 2 trillion dollar economy with shipping,
| electronics, manufacturing, oil, electronics, etc, 28 million
| taxpayers, a lot of military bases and assets and miles of
| coastline and ports. You don't just let that leave.
|
| We're not the UK or EU - if Texas tried to secede they would
| just learn what it's like to be on the business end of an
| American military "liberation."
| mkoubaa wrote:
| If Texas wanted to leave they could easily. This specific
| provision was in the treaty to bring Texas into the USA
| krapp wrote:
| No, they really couldn't, It isn't 1845. And no, there
| isn't a special provision allowing Texas to secede from
| the union, this is a popular myth[0]. And as much as
| Texas likes to believe in its fierce independence, the
| state is politically, culturally and economically
| enmeshed in the rest of the Union and without the
| resources, finances and status of the US (much less the
| USD,) Texas would be better off rejoining Mexico than
| trying to survive on its own[1].
|
| [0]https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-
| secession/
|
| [1]https://www.reformaustin.org/national/texas-seceding-
| would-b...
| Jack000 wrote:
| - the IP infringement is very real (see Nortel vs Huawei), but
| it's more the actions of individual companies than industrial
| policy.
|
| - Taiwan is technically the legitimate government of China, so
| it's really more appropriate to say that the mainland broke
| away from China instead of the other way around. Realistically
| though, they've been defacto independent for decades during
| which there has been peace. The KMT is no longer the dominant
| party in Taiwan and the CCP has moved on from Mao, the two
| sides should drop the charade and normalize relations, but it's
| unlikely to happen with Xi at the helm stoking Chinese
| nationalism.
|
| That said, I don't think any of this should automatically make
| the US and China adversaries. The US has a number of allies
| that are worse on the human rights front, and has historically
| propped up dictatorships as long as they were aligned against
| communism.
|
| imo the real reason for the conflict is that there is a
| resurgence of nationalism in every major country. Both the US
| and China has become more fascist compared to 20 years ago, and
| this trend is likely to continue.
| adultSwim wrote:
| Despite areas of friction, China and US are each other's #1
| trading partners. We are literally allies. I suggest we try to
| build upon that already productive relationship.
| sdfhdhjdw3 wrote:
| These days, conflating being each other's #1 trading partners
| with being allies sounds like Chinese propaganda.
| robonerd wrote:
| Trading partners is not the same as "literally allies".
| Germany was trading partners with the rest of Europe before
| both world wars, that doesn't mean Germany was allied with
| France and the UK. There is no mutual defense pact between
| America and China, nor will there be in any foreseeable
| future. America and China are not allies.
| throwaway932423 wrote:
| Trading is of a mutual benefit. Sea creatures do this as well
| with hygiene.
|
| In case it wasn't obvious, Western influence (individualism
| and democracy) is an existential threat to the CCP -- This is
| why see western media censored and/or outright banned in
| China. Tiananmen Square Massacre is another example of CCP's
| response to western influence in China.
| sdfhdhjdw3 wrote:
| > If you are OK with Texas leaving the union, then you are
| entitled to support Taiwan independence.
|
| Are these similar? Texas is part of the union and WANTS to stay
| in the union. Taiwan is independent does NOT want to be part of
| China. They don't seem similar to me.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _then you are entitled_
|
| Nobody is obliged to tailor their beliefs to your whims. It
| doesn't matter how logical you think you are. It doesn't matter
| if you think other people are being hypocritical or illogical.
| The simple fact of the matter is that I support American
| interests and oppose Chinese interests, and I don't care if you
| think that makes me hypocritical.
| tomerv wrote:
| > If you are OK with Texas leaving the union, then you are
| entitled to support Taiwan independence.
|
| That just doesn't make any sense.
| baby wrote:
| I think you have a good point except for Taiwan.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| If Texas had been functionally an independent country for 70
| years, I'd be pretty OK with it staying that way.
|
| Maybe the Philippines is a better example. They've been
| independent of the US since 1946. I'm perfectly OK with it
| staying that way!
| CameronNemo wrote:
| _Confrontation with US over Taiwan: If you are OK with Texas
| leaving the union, then you are entitled to support Taiwan
| independence. Enough said. Pick your side, and stick with it._
|
| 1. Those are not even close to equivalent. For so many reasons.
|
| 2. Sure, Texas can leave if they want. Florida and California
| too. Definitely Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
| aranelsurion wrote:
| asks them to [consider] removing TikTok, according to the article
| itself.
| bdcravens wrote:
| I believe that was implied by the title, otherwise it would
| have said "tells", "orders", or "instructs"
| Melatonic wrote:
| Is this the FCC itself as an org or just the guy they mention in
| the article who works for the FCC? It is not entirely clear
| [deleted]
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| It's a letter from one particular FCC commissioner (there are
| multiple) on official FCC letterhead with his job title printed
| on it. You can view it at
| https://mobile.twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/15418235859...
| or https://nitter.net/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1541823585957707776
| .
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'm conflicted.
|
| TikTok collects data for an adversary at scale. Many complain
| that the US does the same but that doesn't change the fact that I
| live in the US. The Chinese government is an adversary of the
| West whether we like it or not.
|
| With that said- It's pretty telling that the FCC only needs to go
| to Apple and Google. It would be really nice to have some
| antitrust regulation so that the FCC doesn't have this power.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I think it's really important to note this isn't "THE" FCC
| making the request. It's _one_ FCC Commissioner expressing
| their opinion. It has no legal authority. It's basically
| meaningless. Nothing will come of it. It's just complicated air
| flow that will briefly spark internet outrage on "both sides"
| of a debate over an issue that doesn't even actually exist
| because the FCC hasn't even done anything.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| True. I speculated that it's somebody asking nicely before
| more explicit orders are issued.
| elliekelly wrote:
| No, it's just politicking.
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| They have a PWA -- nobody else to go to. web apps, baby.
| pretdl wrote:
| If their native apps would respect the privacy of their users
| as the pwa does we wouldn't even have this discussion.
| dantondwa wrote:
| However, one could argue that geopolitical matters are a lot
| less interesting for you, private citizen. If you're not a
| world leader or someone involved in said geopolitical events,
| you will live the consequences of "the enemies of the West"
| from a mostly economic perspective.
|
| On the other hand, the same cannot be said about your own
| government. They collect data on you and your fellow citizens
| and they use it. And they can mess up your life much more than
| what China will ever do. One recent example: the worry over
| period tracking apps and the recent decisions of the US Supreme
| Court. Those apps are a weapon against citizens who, until
| yesterday, were not doing anything illegal.
|
| All tracking is bad, and the FCC should do something about it
| all.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| China does a lot more than the US government in terms of
| tracking and surveillance. Most tracking in the US is likely
| done via Google/Facebook/etc which makes it _technically_
| opt-in.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000008314175/chi.
| ..
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It's done by telcos and data brokers. Every US citizen has
| a detailed profile compiled about their personal lives that
| the US government can access at will. Google and Meta are
| the new kids at the table of a long running game.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > US citizen has a detailed profile compiled
|
| partially true but fodder for schizophrenics and
| compulsive obsessions.. A truer picture is harder to
| convey in a few sentences.. however as a US citizen I
| believe that an uneasy truce has been established via law
| in the USA since inception, between those casually
| referred to as "Law and Order" who genuinely believe that
| governance means record keeping and monitoring, and
| others who do not. Unfortunately for the "others" that
| includes genuinely bad actors who seek to use rights to
| evade detection, or those too stupid or simple to think
| about these things at all. Meanwhile, the Net has given
| magnificent, grandiose power to build and use
| surveillance, which they have done. ill wind blows
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > the US government can access at will
|
| Warrants are at will? Nope.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| You don't need a warrant to get data from a third party.
| The government just asks and if the they enjoy receiving
| special treatment and other favors in the future they
| comply. That's why the USG likes to have this collection
| devolved to private entities.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > You don't need a warrant to get data from a third
| party.
|
| https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests
|
| "In all cases: Issue a subpoena to compel disclosure of
| basic subscriber registration information and certain IP
| addresses
|
| In criminal cases:
|
| Get a court order to compel disclosure of non-content
| records, such as the To, From, CC, BCC, and Timestamp
| fields in emails
|
| Get a search warrant to compel disclosure of the content
| of communications, such as email messages, documents, and
| photos"
|
| Some 3rd parties require warrants. I tend to think that
| this is the rule rather than the exception.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Google isn't the one holding the keys to the castle. Data
| brokers predate them by decades. The primary reason why
| the US has weak data protection laws is because the
| government doesn't want their activities to be
| encumbered.
| cde-v wrote:
| A lot of people in the US currently find the US government
| their adversary.
| elldoubleyew wrote:
| > The Chinese government is an adversary of the West whether we
| like it or not.
|
| I'd like to se a source on this. I don't think different
| political ideologies imply adversarial intentions. China has
| been as friendly to the west as it can be while still
| protecting its own cultural and economic interests.
|
| If western leaders would stop seeing China as the enemy and
| instead as a partner we would see a rise in infrastructure and
| economic opportunity globally.
|
| China is not trying to do global charity work, they have their
| own motives as well. They are also not the devil incarnate. I
| would argue that their intentions in foreign policy are still
| _generally_ more morally palpable than most western nations.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > I'd like to see a source on this.
|
| Get real. It's a worldview, not a scientific fact.
|
| You can agree or disagree, but finding one source that
| supports or opposes that worldview is not going to make any
| difference.
| PKop wrote:
| >I don't think different political ideologies imply
| adversarial intentions
|
| Your source could be human conflict for all of recorded
| history.
|
| It's not primarily ideological, it's geopolitical realism.
| They are a growing economic and military power in a different
| geographic sphere, competing over global influence and power.
| The history of civilization is conflict over scarce
| resources, space, and power. China is a cohesive ethnic and
| political collective and nation that exists separate from the
| US, it's government and citizens.
|
| Of course there is and will always be room for co-operation
| in many areas; economic trade is a big one. But conflict over
| competing interests is a fact of life and where that comes
| into conflict global adversaries and enemies are created.
|
| "Morality" is not a good metric to guide geopolitics, where
| material national interests and power dictate more than
| anything.
| xdennis wrote:
| > China has been as friendly to the west as it can be while
| still protecting its own cultural and economic interests.
|
| I'm not implying you're doing it, but whenever I hear people
| defend China, they always use the word "culture" to defend
| totalitarianism/communism, as if they're part of Chinese
| culture.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I didn't say enemy, you did. I said adversary.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| There's literally a category of diplomacy called 'wolf
| warrior diplomacy' because of the recently aggressive nature
| of China towards foreign nations. I'm not sure they have been
| "as friendly to the west as it can be while still
| protecting..." unless you believe that to protect their
| cultural and economic interests they need to expand.
|
| Can you help me understand the logic of "generally more
| morally palpable than most western nations?" When I look at
| China's global activities, I see lots of IP theft, aggressive
| trade deals, debt diplomacy, investing in infrastructure
| yes... but then bringing in their own people to staff the
| projects (I saw this firsthand last year doing work in both
| Kenya and Cameroon and traveling through Uganda), bullying
| governments and organizations to toe the CCP party line (e.g.
| Houston Rockets), taking over Hong Kong and shutting down the
| free media there, basically paying off Muslim nations to keep
| them quiet regarding the Uyghur genocide.... and this is just
| off the top of my head!
| alonsonic wrote:
| I would recommend you to read the article below that explores
| why TikTok could prove a real danger to West citizens.
|
| https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/
|
| China has stated in multiple occasions that the ideologies of
| the west are a threat to the country and that they will
| actively work against them.
| leephillips wrote:
| I'm not sure if "palpable" is the word you want, but in any
| case: China's foreign policy intentions include making
| independent, sovereign nations part of China against their
| wishes and asserting military control over a huge part of the
| oceans far beyond any internationally recognized limits. The
| former is a done deal with Tibet, because the world grew
| weary of complaining about it, and Taiwan is next. The South
| China Sea is also basically a done deal. I can't think of a
| Western nation right now that's behaving in this way, or
| anything close to it. This is not even to mention the ongoing
| genocide of at least one population within China.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| There's likewise a conflict for Google, which runs a TikTok
| competitor/clone in the form of YouTube Shorts. "Well, if we
| have to ban our competition... I guess..."
| psyc wrote:
| I just want to reiterate this point because I feel like people
| of a certain level of sophistication miss it all the time.
| Knowing which side of a conflict you're on isn't hypocrisy. I
| don't want my adversary to have weapons. I don't mind me having
| weapons. I like it in fact. There is ultimately no referee to
| cry foul to in geopolitics.
| cmroanirgo wrote:
| Well, there was this guy a couple of thousand years ago who
| made some remarks contrary to your point: turning the cheek
| and loving your neighbor. He also went as far as saying to
| resolve conflicts before you're put in front of the judge.
|
| Many millions of people follow his words & think it still
| relevant today.
|
| He also had a special way of recognizing & calling out
| hyprocrisy.
| psyc wrote:
| And which nation has ever turned its other national cheek
| when aggrieved? (Don't say France)
| loudmax wrote:
| > It would be really nice to have some antitrust regulation so
| that the FCC doesn't have this power.
|
| Antitrust regulation is to prevent an Apple+Google duopoly (or
| cartel) from having this power. This is nothing about the FCC.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I meant there would be a more diverse cast of characters and
| sources of software for mobile devices so that the FCCs power
| would be diluted. In theory.
| igneo676 wrote:
| That's not the point
|
| The point is, without antitrust regulation, the FCC only has
| to go through two giant corporations.
|
| After trust busting Apple and Google, we would theoretically
| have many more competing stores. The FCC would have to then
| ask each individual store for a takedown, perhaps even across
| different legal jurisdictions (read: outside of the USA) and
| therefore be unable to take down TikTok in such a centralized
| fashion
| dylan604 wrote:
| But in this case, it's working in society's favor. Banning
| TikTock is a good thing. We should then turn around and ban
| all of the social media platforms regardless of nationality
| that does any sort of harvesting/manipulation of the data
| that their users are sharing in any other form than to
| display that information in the expected ways for the site
| to have purpose. Any social platform doing things in the
| shadows with user's info directly input by them or
| scraped,tracked,inferred,gathered,etc should be banned from
| existence.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| That's why I'm conflicted. To quote my favorite college
| professor, "there is always a catch."
| deckard1 wrote:
| the FCC regulates every single electronic device in the US.
| I'm sure they can handle it.
| hackernewds wrote:
| You could argue the FCC has less power since both Apple and
| Google need to comply to make a meaningful difference. And
| the FCC can't just ban iphones tomorrow, given the impact to
| the populace - and that's the basis of the duopoly
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| While I agree Apple & Google have a near perfect duopoly on the
| mobile space, the addition of more companies wouldn't give the
| FCC any less power. The "Federal" part of FCC still gives them
| jurisdiction over electronic communication happening in the US
| federation; whether they have to enforce it through 2 entities
| or 2000 doesn't really make a difference
| igneo676 wrote:
| Trust busting would open up a larger ecosystem of stores
| and/or phone companies, which may even be in other countries
| and outside of the FCC's reach
|
| Though, fair, that's a glorious and highly theoretical future
| :P
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| How would you enforce it though? It's like in the 90s when
| PGP was export controlled. It was a total unenforceable joke.
| tjoff wrote:
| Depends on the goal, PGP sure. Anyone who wanted could get
| it but it was still a hurdle. A hurdle that for sure would
| kill tiktok, or at least enough for it to be irrelevant.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| It seems odd to me that the FCC should be doing things
| regarding trade and geopolitics. If they've got a need to
| create regulations based on technology or other matters
| relating to, you know, Communications, that's one thing. But
| trying to get a seat at the table for international diplomacy
| seems quite a stretch.
|
| It's kinda like the FDA earlier this year declining to approve
| a covid-19 vaccine not because it was ineffective (it wasn't!)
| or because it was dangerous (it wasn't!) but because they
| thought that saying that one brand was OK for kids but the
| other wasn't (yet) would be confusing and send a bad "message".
| The FDA's job is to help us identify what pharmaceuticals are
| safe and effective, not to worry about messaging.
| [deleted]
| throwaway123989 wrote:
| > an adversary at scale.
|
| TikTok stores data on US soil. That's part of the deal brokered
| by the self-claimed best deal maker Mr. Trump.
|
| If there is unauthorized data access from inside China, then
| that's an issue to be investigated.
|
| So, where is the evidence of the large-scale data access from
| inside China to TikTok data?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-.
| ..
|
| > "Everything is seen in China," said a member of TikTok's
| Trust and Safety department in a September 2021 meeting. In
| another September meeting, a director referred to one
| Beijing-based engineer as a "Master Admin" who "has access to
| everything." (While many employees introduced themselves by
| name and title in the recordings, BuzzFeed News is not naming
| anyone to protect their privacy.)
| bergenty wrote:
| Yeah as a naturalized citizen, I've picked a side and it's the
| US. Whataboutism on this issue has very little effect on me.
|
| Now if you bring up US political spectrums, whataboutism is
| highly effective.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I would prefer we focus on making real data privacy possible.
| Instead of singling our foreign companies that collect the same
| data domestic companies are collecting, I advocate that we make
| data collection harder for everyone. That would mean passing
| real privacy laws with teeth in the USA that make data
| collection much harder, and interoperability laws that require
| Facebook and others to interoperate with other providers which
| may have a better security profile.
|
| Instead of being xenophobic we can be privacy focused.
| baisq wrote:
| >The Chinese government is an adversary of the West whether we
| like it or not.
|
| Is it? I feel like it is an adversary of the Western
| governments. I don't feel like they are my adversaries. We
| could be friends if our governments wanted to.
| john_yaya wrote:
| The CCP at a minimum abets the shipment of fentanyl to the
| US. It aggressively collects personal information on every US
| citizen and resident. It relentlessly steals private and
| corporate intellectual property from the West and provides it
| to its own state-owned enterprises.
|
| If you're a citizen of the US or Europe, the Chinese
| government is most definitely your enemy.
| braingenious wrote:
| It would be ideal if the FCC didn't have the power to ask
| politely? This situation sounds like it lacks power.
| rhacker wrote:
| It's not actually a "lot" of power - it's just enough. If there
| is evidence that an actor is doing something bad, we shouldn't
| have months in court to stop it. It should be immediate. It's
| better to have it stopped and then spend months in court trying
| to get it back.
| reset-password wrote:
| > "At its core, TikTok functions as a sophisticated surveillance
| tool that harvests extensive amounts of personal and sensitive
| data."
|
| Smells like jealousy to me.
| adventured wrote:
| Not likely. It's rational superpower competition behavior in
| action.
|
| The US Government isn't lacking in harvesting extensive amounts
| of personal and sensitive data.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| winternett wrote:
| I've used TikTok for the past year, it's really not as smart or
| brilliant as all the hypemasters would have you think.
|
| The data it gathers (outside of location, facial recognition, and
| speech capture) has been really off target for being matched to
| content. The algorithms across most of these sites are really not
| useful in building a valid service from what I can gather... Most
| of the people that use social apps wear out quickly once they
| realize the level of free work they are doing, and how it goes
| unrewarded.
|
| I personally can do without it, because youtube and other things
| still exist to host the same exact type of video content, but the
| entire social app landscape is frought with platforms that are
| too big to really reward creators with any real growth, and it's
| overrun with deceptive advertising. I know I sound like I'm
| jaded, but I've learned some valuable skills in film and editing,
| so I'm really not.
|
| Apps that will win from this point forward will realize that they
| need to be more niche based, while also integrating into a larger
| eco system that allows for content to be shared across the
| Internet, the way the Internet was meant to work... The common
| tactics of limiting content reach and squeezing creators for ad
| money are short lived, most of these apps have a huge amount of
| inactive and outright abandoned user accounts...
|
| TikTok is in essence just another video "doom scroller" app, that
| allows pretty much useless likes follows and shares, it's really
| put a bunch of suggestive psychology on top of that, but in
| essence it's the same thing other platforms have been doing just
| with vertical video and a different UI. It's not replaceable,
| especially when it takes it's user base for granted and works
| hard to gather data on users and to manipulate the majority into
| doing lots of work for them for free (with a really weak creator
| fund). We can live without it.
|
| If there are a hand full of people on the platform that have
| millions of followers on the same platforms where most of the
| user base has only hundreds of followers, it's pretty telling
| that it's a free work exploitation scheme, and it's really the
| first indication that it's really not going to survive the long
| haul.
|
| As far as the data gathering debacle goes, there is also nothing
| different happening with many other major social app platforms we
| all use, instead though, our data is being collected and used
| against us by private companies across the world instead of by
| foreign governments. Removing one app won't solve the problem of
| personal privacy violation. We each need to be a lot more careful
| about the level of information we share online, and we need to
| stop being so eager to work online for these greedy and abusive
| operations for free or it's our own damn fault.
| JordanRomanoff wrote:
| >TikTok is in essence just another video "doom scroller" app,
| that allows pretty much useless likes follows and shares
|
| Absolutely this. When I finally bit the bullet and downloaded
| TikTok, I was on it for maybe half a day before I gave up
| because content discoverability on the app is absolute garbage.
|
| One of the reasons I've stuck around on Twitter so long is that
| their search features are incredibly useful compared to most
| modern social media sites. They allow users to get a much
| broader picture of what's actually happening as opposed to
| feeling like you're just silo'ed in your own little bubble. I
| think that has further effects on the ways that community is
| created and content is gamed. I've noticed the same thing
| happened on Instagram as it grew more popular. The explore feed
| is full of content that is obviously designed to play the
| algorithm rather than being actually useful to users.
| winternett wrote:
| Agreed, I did notice though that Twitter can adjust, and even
| skew search results and even trending topics any time they
| want to reflect any ideal they want.
|
| We think of algorithms just being tailored towards our needs,
| but algorithms now are also tailored towards generating
| company profit, to limiting negative topics, towards
| censorship, and towards many other things that protect
| platforms first...
|
| When bitcoin crashed for example, on Twitter there weren't a
| lot of people prominently screaming and cursing trending
| online, even though many lost their shirts, and were upset
| ant irate over the crash... They WERE cursing and screaming
| at a brick wall on Twitter though, the algorithms and
| moderation surgically muted and ratio'ed many of those users
| in order to "temper and quell" public outrage from developing
| against the crypto world, which Twitter is invested heavily
| into (rather coincidentally)....
|
| This is the kind of modern world we live in now... We had a
| few years where apps were truly "social" but now, most things
| are carefully monitored and curated by the time we see them.
| This is also why you often don't directly (and consistently)
| see content posted from the people you follow now, on a
| consistently ordered time line, as well.
| [deleted]
| ok123456 wrote:
| Can we also ban Facebook and Instagram while we're at it?
| numair wrote:
| The headline is misleading. They've been asked by a Trump-
| appointed commissioner to "consider removing" TikTok.
|
| I think TikTok is a giant human rights violation for being
| utterly stupid, but that doesn't mean the arguments presented
| here make much sense. This comment is going to be fed as training
| data to some stupid AI to spit out comments that sound like I
| wrote them, which I find much more troubling from an intelligence
| community perspective. I never agreed to this when I joined
| Hacker News. TikTok users, on the other hand...
| fspeech wrote:
| The headline is inaccurate. This is not an official action of the
| FCC. NYT phrased it more honestly: "An F.C.C. commissioner pushed
| Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores."
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/technology/apple-google-t...
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| Agreed. The CBC story actually gets it right too: "A
| commissioner with the U.S. communications regulator is asking
| Apple and Google to consider banning TikTok from their app
| stores over data security concerns related to the Chinese-owned
| company."
|
| But the headline misleadingly refers to Commissioner Carr as
| "U.S. communications regulator." One would normally think that
| this referred to the FCC (THE U.S. communications regulator),
| not just one of its commissioners.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've reworded it now. Thanks!
|
| (Submitted title was "FCC asks Google, Apple to remove
| TikTok".)
| 4oh9do wrote:
| What are the actual privacy/security issues with TikTok,
| concretely?
|
| Citizen Lab published a report last year -
| https://citizenlab.ca/2021/03/tiktok-vs-douyin-security-priv... -
| which found that the app does not engage in any overtly malicious
| behavior:
|
| > TikTok and Douyin do not appear to exhibit overtly malicious
| behavior similar to those exhibited by malware. We did not
| observe either app collecting contact lists, recording and
| sending photos, audio, videos or geolocation coordinates without
| user permission.
|
| And if there's any organization I trust about this sort of thing,
| it's Citizen lab, owing to their groundbreaking work around
| Pegasus and other APTs.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Even if they are not doing anything bad now, they are
| controlled by the CCP and could push propaganda or other
| material to demoralize the West.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > could push propaganda or other material to demoralize the
| West.
|
| Not necessary. Our governments are doing a great job of this
| already.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Our governments don't want our societies to collapse. I'm
| not sure China has the same care for our societies.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Not all malware is the same. If there was a malware bit of code
| that did nothing that brought attention to itself as it
| silently sat there retransmitting every piece of data you
| entered, every interaction with every website, every document
| created, etc, the owner of that malware would have access to so
| much information that they could so so many things with that
| data that may or may not directly affect the user of that
| device. That would not make that malware any less vile just
| because it didn't encrypt user data or something obviously
| hostile to the user like that attracting attention to itself.
| That type of malware is _almost_ there with social media SDKs
| used in websites, apps, etc.
|
| There are ways that I can't even imagine that other people
| _can_ imagine how to use that data for nefarious means.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Did you even read the parents link before spewing that?
| gman83 wrote:
| https://www.pcmag.com/news/leaked-audio-reveals-china-repeat...
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| We'll find out if China invades Taiwan and American youth
| overwhelmingly think America needs to stay out of it.
| lettergram wrote:
| The spying worries me less than the influence to be honest. China
| doesn't allow the same things on tiktok that tiktok _promotes_ in
| other countries.
|
| There's a reason for that.
| robonerd wrote:
| Exactly this. China doesn't allow TikTok as it exists in
| America to also exist in China, because they believe American
| TikTok is harmful to America and would be harmful to China as
| well.
| baby wrote:
| ^ this, do we want to be like China?
| pphysch wrote:
| (looks at QoL of bottom 25%)
|
| Yes
| lettergram wrote:
| Have you seen the bottom 70% of China? Many just
| disappear.
|
| The QoL of the bottom 25% of the US is well above the
| majority of the world. They also have the opportunity to
| rise, unlike most places.
| pphysch wrote:
| Sorry, what? Bottom of America can't afford (actual)
| education nor nutrition nor healthcare nor housing. And
| upward mobility? What an outdated concept. This is
| unprecedented for "developed" countries that aren't
| wartorn.
| distrill wrote:
| yeah, i use tiktok a lot and i think about this all the time.
| it's so odd that this isn't the first thing people are
| discussing. imagine if the russian government sponsored a
| social media application, all we would be talking about was
| political meddling. it's almost exactly the same thing here.
| nivenkos wrote:
| Imagine if the US did...
| Kye wrote:
| Kind of like how Russian hackers are careful to avoid Russian
| systems.
| jacooper wrote:
| This also applies to the U.S. too, we see it today how the US
| influences the entire world using its Tech hands, an example
| would be how Facebook always try to silence any activists in
| Palestine against the Apartheid state.
| jmpman wrote:
| I spend way too much time on TikTok, and have noticed that the
| Chinese propaganda is about 2-5% of my feed. It should be removed
| for that reason alone.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Ah yes more neo-mercantilism / protectionism in the pro-"free
| market" country.
|
| - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Neomercantilism
|
| - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Protectionism
| lesstyzing wrote:
| Curious what people think the consequences would be if the US was
| the only western country locked out of TikTok. Is it a big enough
| market that the app would lose its influence? Or is the app so
| popular globally that US entertainers would lose out on the
| opportunity to build their careers (thinking of the various
| TikTok "celebs" who have built businesses of varying sizes around
| the app)?
| IYasha wrote:
| Wooow! A rare case of FCC actually doing something to benefit
| people.
| est wrote:
| ... by copying chinese style government-led appstore
| censorship.
| can16358p wrote:
| I think the appropriate action is to force them to fix their
| privacy policies if there's something incorrect there, and to be
| clear about what data is collected.
|
| After that anyone should be free to know what data is collected
| and decide to use or delete the app. I mean, if someone wants to
| use the service, just let them use, it's their personal choice.
| xbar wrote:
| It is a mistake for people in the EU and US to think of
| Chinese-based data collection companies as the same as EU- and
| US-based companies.
|
| TikTok in the US is not the same as Google in France, and even
| they were recently fined for signifcant privacy concerns.
|
| It is important to protect citizens. People often don't have
| enough information about sharing their data to make the best
| privacy decisions without legislation to protect them.
| can16358p wrote:
| Well, education is the key then. Instead of banning people
| from using it, they should educate the public about potential
| followups of sharing on/using TikTok.
|
| Banning use is never an answer. If I want to share my data,
| it should be my choice, not the government's.
| gernb wrote:
| Curious what this app does that other apps don't. In other words,
| applying the same criteria to other apps what other apps should
| be removed from the store because they do the same things?
|
| You post video in it so the app gets camera and mic access,
| assuming you give it permission. Can you use it without giving
| permission? IIRC Apple requires apps to work without permissions?
|
| I tried installing it and it requires an account so uninstalled.
| Not really into TikTok but was able to view in a browser without
| an account.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I would say that their recommendation algorithm and speed of
| delivering content is so good that it's almost dangerously
| addicting. I can't trust myself to have the app installed on my
| phone because I'll scroll it endlessly. I wouldn't be surprised
| if you could measurably impact the behavior of American
| teenagers with some clever content weighting... though one
| might be able to say the same of Facebook with the middle-aged.
|
| The psychological profiling that can be done with the data is
| likely somewhat scary, and the feds are going to be doubly
| terrified considering Beijing is ingesting all that data. The
| latter is probably the primary motivator of a ban.
| zwkrt wrote:
| The way I see it is that TikTok is basically a psyops app. We
| can argue all day whether it is controlled by the Chinese
| government, by advertisers, by both, whether it is intentional,
| what its purpose is, etc. But anything that is free and funded
| by ads is at the end of the day trying to sway the mind and
| behavior of its users, that is the name of the game.
|
| So to answer your question, it doesn't /do/ anything that other
| apps don't. But what it does it does rather effectively, and it
| isn't controlled by a company that is ultimately beholden to
| the US government. So from the gov's perspective, TikTok
| somewhere between a nuisance and a threat to national security.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| >So to answer your question, it doesn't /do/ anything that
| other apps don't.
|
| I was under the impression it did quite a lot of spyware
| behavior that is rivaled by few if any apps on the store.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| That's kind of the value add. TikTok's recommendation
| system is miles ahead, I mean incomparably better than any
| social media competitors. This is largely responsible for
| its market growth and staying power, but ultimately it
| relies on extraordinarily in-depth understanding of user
| behavior.
| loudmax wrote:
| > it isn't controlled by a company that is ultimately
| beholden to the US government.
|
| The issue isn't so much that TikTok _isn 't_ beholden to the
| US government. The issue is that TikTok _is_ beholden to the
| Chinese Communist Party. If TikTok were Japanese or Korean or
| something, this wouldn 't be a problem.
| honkler wrote:
| remember toyota? Remember what happened to alstom?
| gadflyinyoureye wrote:
| No. What happened?
| izacus wrote:
| I think the only thing this app really does is upload all the
| data to Chinese owned company instead of an US owned one.
|
| And that can be enough to trigger national interest concerns
| from US.
| ashwagary wrote:
| The US supports free market capitalism for everyone+.
|
| + ~7.9 billion people may be excluded.
| cm2012 wrote:
| China banned almost all US social networks, this is fair
| play
| est wrote:
| Well, at least China didn't ban MySpace
| whyenot wrote:
| For the sake of clarity, shouldn't the title really be "One FCC
| _commissioner_ _requests_ Google, Apple remove TikTok
|
| As written, the title makes in look like the whole commission is
| asking for this, and "ask" isn't always a request, sometimes it
| can be a command (for example a police officer asking for your
| license and registration when they pull you over).
| dylan604 wrote:
| Personally, I've never had an officer ask for license and
| registration. It is always phrased as a demand. It's never been
| "may I see your license and registration?". It's always
| "license and registration". No please added either.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| Carr is against net-neutrality. [1] He's a Trump appointee.
|
| It's clear that this is not a principles-based ask to remove a
| data-hungry application. Carr isn't saying that applications
| shouldn't harvest this data. He's saying a Chinese company
| shouldn't be playing the same game that American companies do.
|
| Thus, the logical conclusion to "why is Carr making this
| statement?" isn't necessarily "it's because TikTok does something
| abnormally bad," but rather political: it's anti-China
| propaganda.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Carr_(lawyer)
| car_analogy wrote:
| > He's saying a Chinese company shouldn't be playing the same
| game that American companies do.
|
| In _America_ , yes (just like Facebook is banned in China).
| Will you next complain that Carr is okay with American troops
| marching in Washington, but doesn't like it if Chinese troops
| do the same?
|
| While Facebook and surveillance in general are anything but a
| boon for common Americans, it's understandable that those
| pulling the strings would get worried when a foreign country
| moves in on their turf.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| > it's understandable that those pulling the strings would
| get worried when a foreign country moves in on their turf
|
| So you and I are in an agreement then!
|
| His motivation is only that the collection is done by a
| Chinese company. Not that data collection is bad, but rather
| that he wants the US government to have the authority to
| access the data via a National Security Letter or through the
| opaque, secretive FISA court system. [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intel
| lig...
| car_analogy wrote:
| > So you and I are in an agreement then!
|
| Perhaps not fully. I _meant_ my analogy with troops -
| though it is not to American 's benefit, they should be
| even _more_ worried when a foreign power is spying on them.
| viktorcode wrote:
| I disagree with the premise. Supposedly, Carr continues to run
| Trump's agenda, but then it would banning TikTok for the reason
| that the social network was used to organise anti-Trump
| activities during the last elections.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| > Supposedly, Carr continues to run Trump's agenda,
|
| Trump's most clever political tactic is to be a hypocrite and
| exceptionally effective liar: his agenda is always a
| superposition of contradictory claims. Even the GOP couldn't
| keep up and decided to forgo any semblance of a political
| platform for 2020 [1].
|
| Despite the lies, there's a few consistent policy themes that
| emerged from his presidency. Notably, is a broad, across-the-
| board, blanket opposition to everything China. This includes
| decidedly not Chinese things, such as racism and condoning
| violence against Asian Americans [2] It also extends to
| economic opposition at all costs.
|
| *Here* is the central truth behind Carr's statement. It's a
| continuation of the Republican party's current strong anti-
| Chinese policy.
|
| [1] https://prod-cdn-
| static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_202...
|
| [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/un-report-trump-
| seemingly-le...
| andrewstuart wrote:
| In thinking about it, it's actually an opportunity for Google to
| battle with Apple.
|
| Apple has been applying huge pressure to Google on the "privacy"
| front.
|
| Google could ban TikTok and portray itself as caring about your
| privacy whilst Apple doesn't.
| neilalexander wrote:
| Who would fall for it?
| ddtaylor wrote:
| I'm not a TikTok "apologist" but I think these kinds of concerns
| about data privacy aren't very useful. At best you're just
| picking which terrible relationship to be in and which company
| you're okay with harvesting your data - for whatever purposes.
|
| IMO a better use of time and effort would be to create mechanisms
| that make these kinds of tracking less impactful. We have avenues
| for technical solutions to these kinds of problems and
| decentralized systems. Whenever we attempt to spread adoption to
| them we are often met with the argument that "just using X big
| company platform is easier".
| paulcole wrote:
| The idea of China as adversary as logic for nixing TikTok is
| funny to me. But when we want a microwave for $29, well there are
| some things that we can live with.
| cwkoss wrote:
| What data is tiktok collecting that google isnt?
|
| Is there a fairly applied rule here, or is sinophobia driving
| this?
| xdennis wrote:
| > Is there a fairly applied rule here, or is sinophobia driving
| this?
|
| Don't hide behind sinophobia to defend China's communism. This
| has nothing to do with ethnicity.
|
| China is using its laws to effectively ban competition from
| foreign companies which don't want to cooperate with its
| totalitarian form of government. The US should do the same and
| not allow competition from totalitarian countries.
| cwkoss wrote:
| nah, i'm a freedom of information maximalist.
|
| restricting the free flow of information between citizens of
| countries whose corrupt leaders are engaged in a dick
| measuring contest only benefits the corrupt leaders.
|
| advocating that we need to impose blinders on ourselves as
| well to punish them is just short sighted self-punishment
| dirtyid wrote:
| >effectively ban
|
| How so? Western platfroms bailed PRC after they were
| unwilling to handle PRC legal requirements that every PRC
| company has to deal with. Reasonable requirements like media
| filtering that western companies were eventually forced to
| adopt a few years later because it's obvious PRC was precient
| that attention driven platforms caused violence/destability
| if left unchecked.
|
| Ergo both FB and Google had internal initiatives to re-enter
| PRC market after domestic pressures to improve moderation
| capabilities enabled them to comply with PRC laws. Until
| internal FB/Google drama killed the effort. It has very
| little to do with "totalitarianism" because FAANG + co. was
| eager to compete in PRC market, until they realized they
| couldn't, or their employees wouldn't let them. Meanwhile
| Bytedance/TikTok keeps operating in US because they don't
| mind working around bullshit like Trump's EO. At the end of
| the day, it's US corporate incompentence and broader
| political culture that thinks US companies should operate in
| other markets with impunity that flunked them out of PRC
| market while dealing with regulatory push back else where.
|
| If US wants to pull national security card to keep down PRC
| platforms, they have a right to. But don't pretend it's about
| competition. Bytedance/TikTok flourished in the west for the
| same reason FB/Google/Twitter failed in PRC - Chinese
| platforms know how to put up with regulatory/political
| bullshit and become more competitive because of it. Like
| TikTok isn't huge in US because domestic US laws is keeping
| FB down. It's huge because the kind of content that survives
| Chinese censorship designed to mitigiate political divisness
| is the kind of opiate that most people would rather consume.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > What data is tiktok collecting that google isnt? Is there a
| fairly applied rule here, or is sinophobia driving this?
|
| While I agree that sinophobia plays into discourse around
| TikTok, TikTok has an established pattern of collecting data
| against the user's wishes (even bypassing system permissions),
| and of collecting and storing data about minors in direct
| violation of the law[0].
|
| They are not an unknown entity; they are an established bad
| actor when it comes to Dara collection and storage.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56815480
| cwkoss wrote:
| The only concrete claim in that article that I see is
| insufficient age verification. How does youtube age verify
| users who are under 13 and trying to create an account? Does
| google search/ad tracking have a mechanism to avoid tracking
| < 13yos?
|
| I suspect they just say "its against terms" but allow it to
| happen, because to verify children they'd need to collect
| information on them...
| mbgerring wrote:
| We should start with banning TikTok, and then move on to banning
| all forms of algorithmic content feeds and behavior tracking for
| advertising.
|
| The reason we know that manipulation via algorithmic content
| feeds is effective and harmful is that numerous bad actors
| exploiting the Facebook algorithm have used it to cause real harm
| worldwide.
|
| For the sake of argument, let's take Facebook at their word that
| they are merely optimizing for engagement, and the well-
| documented radicalization spirals that manifest on its platform
| are the result of clever exploitation.
|
| Now imagine that the bad actor wanting to manipulate large
| numbers of people also had control of the algorithm and all the
| data.
|
| The risk here is blindingly obvious, and we should do something
| about it before it becomes an even bigger problem.
| atwood22 wrote:
| There are two issues:
|
| 1) Data collection and algorithmic manipulation. This has been
| discussed to death, but why you'd let an adversary control the
| information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond
| me. This is obviously a national security issue.
|
| 2) Fairness in the marketplace. No, I'm not talking about the
| U.S. marketplace. U.S. tech companies have had their IP stolen
| and unfair regulations placed on them in China. Why should the
| U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the U.S. marketplace
| when China doesn't let U.S tech companies compete in their
| marketplace?
|
| I'm not going to feel pity for TikTok.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Don't complain when the rest of the world starts doing the same
| with American companies.
| pretdl wrote:
| You know that other countries do just that especially China.
| throwaway123989 wrote:
| What are the cases of such events?
| pretdl wrote:
| Banned in china: Google Gmail Google Play Google Maps
| Google Drive Google News Facebook Facebook Messenger
| Instagram Twitter Reddit Tumblr Pinterest WhatsApp
| Snapchat Slack Viber Line Discord Telegram Signal
| Wikipedia Dropbox OneDrive Blogger WordPress Medium Quora
| BBC The New York Times The Guardian The Washington Post
| Daily Mail CBC (Canada) ABC (Australia) Spotify
| SoundCloud Amazon Music Pandora Tinder Pornhub XVideos
| Chaturbate Twitch PlayStation Coinbase Binance
| thisarticle wrote:
| How many Google businesses operate in China?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Good. US dominance and oligopolies, at least in the tech
| sector, have stifled competition and innovation in the global
| economy. Everyone, including people in the US, would benefit
| from increased competition that monopolies have snuffed out
| for years, now.
| creato wrote:
| At least in this case, China is already doing the same and
| worse, some reciprocal response is decades overdue. This is
| barely a start.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I encourage the rest of the world to do everything they can
| to weaken the grip of social media companies with >100M
| users. All companies that big, really.
| gruturo wrote:
| You just made OP's point. China is already doing exactly
| that.
| jeromegv wrote:
| It's not OP's point at all. Americans want sovereignty over
| their own social media but gladly benefit from pushing
| Facebook and google dominance over the world. Big tech /
| Silicon Valley wouldn't be the same if it would just be US
| only
|
| It's one way direction and it's hypocrisy.
| malandrew wrote:
| There exists a policy that avoids hypocrisy: reciprocity.
|
| Treat the EU companies the way the EU treats American
| companies and treat Chinese companies the way China
| treats American companies.
|
| China doesn't give American social media companies access
| to China, so we shouldn't give Chinese social media
| companies access to America.
|
| The EU imposes all sorts of privacy requirements and data
| locality restrictions on American companies. Impose those
| same restrictions but only on companies from the EU.
| cmelbye wrote:
| This doesn't make much sense. At the highest level,
| America imports more than it exports. I struggle to look
| at that and call it a one way street.
|
| It's a simple case of reciprocity. If China wants to ban
| American social media networks then America should
| obviously respond in kind.
| robonerd wrote:
| Dear Europeans; _Please_ stop threatening that and start
| _actually doing it._ Please. Americans taking these American
| companies down a peg seems completely intractable. Please
| Europeans, you are the best hope we have. Ban American tech
| companies!
| nivenkos wrote:
| The EU is just an American puppet though - there is no
| investment or support for European alternatives or FOSS
| projects, etc.
| john_yaya wrote:
| Huh? The EU's GDP and population are significantly
| greater than the US.
| mwint wrote:
| And yet Europe is more or less dependent on the US for
| defense. That's probably the bigger lever.
| yorwba wrote:
| US GDP is bigger than the EU's https://data.worldbank.org
| /indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...
| mpalmer wrote:
| Any company in any country that over-collects and/or misuses
| the personal information of its users (or anyone) should be
| penalized in the same way.
|
| Where are the Americans claiming otherwise? It's perplexing
| to see all this shadowboxing with a made-up argument that we
| shouldn't hold FB to the same standard as Tiktok.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in
| the U.S. marketplace when China doesn 't let U.S tech companies
| compete in their marketplace?_
|
| The final purpose of the market is not to serve producers. It
| is, rather, to serve consumers through producers. You might
| protect U.S. companies by preventing U.S. consumers from
| choosing the best and cheapest products they can find abroad,
| but you are not protecting U.S. consumers by expecting them to
| use inferior products. Because TikTok is in a leisure market,
| neither a self-consistent imperialist philosophy, nor one
| focused on the happiness of US citizens, can justify favoring
| it over domestic competitors. Of course, it is in our interest
| to ban the importation of all products of the labor that we
| ourselves perform, but let's not pretend there is anything but
| self-interest behind the desire to do so.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| > IP stolen
|
| The notion that imaginary property can be "stolen" is so
| ridiculous and dystopian to me. Information isn't ownable, and
| the assertion that it can be was dreamt up by and for lawyers.
| We finally invent something - The Internet - that lets
| information be free and available to everyone, and computers
| that let people share copies of thing at effectively no cost,
| and rent seeking lawyers go and invent some bullshit to fuck it
| all up by bribing congress to make it law that benefits them
| immensely to everyone else's net detriment.
|
| China doesn't recognize dystopian American copyright laws. Why
| should they? They're not China's laws, and they're detrimental
| to China.
|
| Asserting "fairness in the marketplace" and copyright
| infringement (and calling it theft) in the same paragraph is
| absurd. In a fair marketplace, copyright infringement isn't a
| thing, and neither is "Imaginary Property" law. And don't get
| me started on software patents.
|
| That said, I also feel no pity for TikTok and I'll never
| install it. I don't have the facebook app either.
| biztos wrote:
| I wish there were no software patents, and I can even
| understand why someone might cheer on countries that don't
| respect their IP treaty commitments[0] as a sort of anarchist
| burn-it-down position.
|
| But as long as IP is a thing in the world economy we
| shouldn't be surprised that the countries where it's
| protected take issue with the countries where it's not.
|
| The original "imaginary property" is land. There are people
| who make the same argument against the legal fiction of
| "owning" a piece of the ground. I'm not sure they're wrong,
| but I'm happy to "own" my house (subject to the continued
| good graces of the government in the country in which it's
| located, etc, YMMV).
|
| [0]: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv//eng/bjzl/t176937.htm
| baby wrote:
| FYI: these kind of patriotic comments is why we are in such a
| divided world.
|
| First, if we saw China as another state that was part of the
| US, 1 would sound like a ridiculous claim. 2 would still be an
| issue, but this is why we have international regulations, trade
| agreements, and so on.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > _Data collection and algorithmic manipulation. This has been
| discussed to death, but why you 'd let an adversary control the
| information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond
| me. This is obviously a national security issue._
|
| I understand your concern, I honestly do, but Americans are
| always the first to cry foul when others, such as the EU, put
| measures in place to curtail the amount of data collection that
| happens by US firms (you even made that complaint about China
| yourself). At least in the EU we're not advocating the complete
| removal of access to foreign social networks. And that's the
| real crux of the issue here. You want a borderless internet but
| only when it's US companies in control. And you don't want
| government intervention just so long as it's only US companies
| abusing their position. From an outsider looking in, it all
| looks a little hypocritical. Which is why I Personally feel the
| EU approach is a lot smarter: allow other nations to operate
| equally but put legislation in place to protect consumer
| rights.
| ericmay wrote:
| Which Americans are crying foul? I don't think many everyday
| people really care about how the EU regulates tech companies.
| Ask your parents how they feel, or the bartender next time
| you're out.
|
| Also the US isn't an adversary, so it's different. The stakes
| are different.
|
| The main issue with the EU approach is that they only view
| surface level compliance.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _Which Americans are crying foul?_
|
| On this website, many of those with FAANG in their
| financial portfolio or on their CV. More generally?
| Virtually nobody.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| The problem though, is that that kind of thing doesn't solve
| problems like those with Reddit and Twitter-- bots,
| algorithmic manipulation as you mention, hand-picked
| moderators for critical subforums, or just generally hand-
| picked moderators can be a tremendous tool for political
| manipulation.
|
| I've heard the unsubstantiated claim that /r/india is
| covertly run by Pakistanis, which of course, would be a
| pretty big problem considering the relations between those
| countries-- but whether or not it's true it's a claim that
| people can make because it's entirely possible for it to in
| fact be the case.
|
| The problem is that solutions that are in accordance with
| security needs would interfere with free speech. I see the
| only path where both free speech and security needs are
| maintained as some kind of genuinely distributed social
| network with no central control facilities.
| TurningCanadian wrote:
| > I see the only path where both free speech and security
| needs are maintained as some kind of genuinely distributed
| social network with no central control facilities.
|
| You need some central control, otherwise the malicious take
| over. There are all sorts of malicious behavior that need
| to be dealt with: spammers, libelers, disinformation
| spreaders, hackers. You can't expect to offload the
| responsibility of neutralizing all of that to the users.
| (We already do enough of that with our centralized
| networks) The only thing users seem to be able to do is
| identify out-groups and segment themselves into echo
| chambers.
|
| I'm not thinking of you specifically when I say that I
| don't understand the fetishization of lawlessness among the
| tech crowd. You see that with anonymity too: perfectly
| anonymous systems also give the attackers an advantage. You
| can go too far in the other direction too though. Nobody
| wants some bureaucrat approving everything and giving
| advantage to the well-connected or persecuting based on the
| opinions expressed.
|
| I just wish more thought went into thinking of what rules
| we actually want than continuously rediscovering why we had
| rules in the first place.
| thisarticle wrote:
| Let me know when the EU stops extract bullshit tolls from US
| tech companies via fines.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| > Americans are always the first to cry foul
|
| Perhaps an unjust over-generalisation?
| [deleted]
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| EU has much more concerns about China than about the US fyi.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >Americans are always the first to cry foul when others, such
| as the EU, put measures in place to curtail the amount of
| data collection that happens by US firms
|
| I think Americans cry foul at how feckless the regulations
| are. Is forcing me to accept cookies really making my life
| better or the Internet worse?
| parkingrift wrote:
| > I understand your concern, I honestly do, but Americans are
| always the first to cry foul when others, such as the EU, put
| measures in place to curtail the amount of data collection
| that happens by US firms (you even made that complaint about
| China yourself).
|
| What? Why do you think American people care that Europeans
| have better digital privacy laws? And why do you think that
| those that do care are angry at Europe??
| threatofrain wrote:
| I don't think Americans would have the same complaints about
| national security for the EU, nor do Americans have the same
| level of concern with regards to market fairness in the EU.
| American relations with China is very different from the EU.
|
| Also, I'm not sure the public at large cares much about the
| competitiveness concerns that big tech companies have with
| the EU. It's not really a story in the sphere of public
| conversation.
| sha256sum wrote:
| Yes, good for the EU. It's good to approach new problems with
| new solutions. Americans worship a decrepit ~250 year old
| document that was never meant to last that long, and will be
| left behind because of it.
| FreqSep wrote:
| > and will be left behind because of it.
|
| EU vs US GDP growth over the past 15 years, and in fact vs
| most countries, would strongly suggest Europe is being left
| behind due to overregulation during an aging crisis.
|
| But hey, why argue in the internet. Let's let things play
| out and see where the cards fall
| aeternum wrote:
| Please no more internet laws from the EU. At least that 250
| year old document doesn't require us to click a cookie
| popup on every site visit.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| GDPR isn't the only set of data privacy laws in the
| world.
|
| On top of that, many companies are doing a fantastic job
| at procuring PII through these consent notices. Some of
| them are downright predatory and give hundreds of
| companies around the world a mandate to process, store,
| enrich and sell your private information, including but
| not limited to things you buy anywhere offline or online,
| your web history, your location history, your health
| records, all your social media posts, all your instant
| messages, everything you've ever typed on any of your
| phones or other mobile devices (except laptops -- maybe),
| and of course any leaked information about you that may
| be gathered or bought online.
|
| All with a single click, in effect permanently.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| The cookie popups are caused by lazy companies who choose
| not to comply with the law. It's not caused by the EU.
| FreqSep wrote:
| No, it's absolutely caused by the EU. What you're seeing,
| as many have seen in the past, is idealistic laws meeting
| reality
| gedy wrote:
| That decrepit document has at least partly enabled the US
| to eclipse and be the defender of Europe in past century. I
| wouldn't be so dismissive.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > Americans are always the first to cry foul when others,
| such as the EU, put measures in place to curtail the amount
| of data collection that happens by US firms
|
| Who complains? FAANG shills? I haven't heard anybody outside
| of this site complain about such a thing.
| user_7832 wrote:
| It depends on which social media you use but reddit and
| twitter both have such comments. But of course it also
| depends on whom you're following/which subreddit you're in.
| fragmede wrote:
| Privacy nhilists, mostly. If Facebook has all my data, and
| I want to keep using Gacebook, I'm forced into some
| position about their information policies. I've heard if
| from a lot of guilty-pleasure Tiktok users, many of who are
| also Facebook users.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Politicians, diplomats and legislators, as that affects USA
| economy.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| > I understand your concern, I honestly do, but Americans are
| always the first to cry foul when others, such as the EU
|
| Even if this statement is true(likely isn't based on the
| support at least seen online), aren't you supporting the GP?
| If EU blocks data transfer to US, US would cry and not EU. It
| is a positive outcome for EU. Similarly, here China could cry
| and it would be no harm to US.
| ConstantVigil wrote:
| 3rd reason: It reinforces the low attention span, quick reward
| impulses of the users much like twitter also does this.
|
| I'm all for banning TikTok on that front alone. Twitter too,
| but good luck.
| walleeee wrote:
| An all-American clone of an app like TikTok is not much better
| than TikTok itself imo, all things considered
|
| There are deeper and farther-reaching issues here than
| competition between nation-states for information supremacy
|
| Effects of regular use on cognition and attention span, data
| harvesting, pervasive advertising, etc
|
| This affects humanity at large and the US particularly
| profoundly, as the US is friendlier to the most pernicious
| media business models than nearly anywhere else, and we are
| among the world's most addicted to new media
|
| National sovereignty/security concerns are understandable and
| legitimate. This is a criticism many outside the US have been
| leveling at relentless American cultural export for decades
| est wrote:
| > An all-American clone of an app like TikTok is little
| better than the Chinese version imo
|
| Tiktok is _the_ all-American clone of Chinese version Douyin.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Douyin was a clone of Music.ly , an American developed app.
| walleeee wrote:
| An all-American clone would presumably not be built by a
| Chinese company
| est wrote:
| > all-American clone
|
| Except every US tech company has some Chinese personals,
| H-1B or not?
|
| Suppose there is a US company that builds and runs a
| Tiktok alternative. Should the staff be screened by race
| and birth certificates to make the company "pure
| American"?
| walleeee wrote:
| Can you help me understand the point you're making with
| regard to my original comment?
| est wrote:
| The point is what defines "all-american"? all-American
| funds? all-American CEOs? all-American staff?
| maccolgan wrote:
| "American" is a granfalloon.
| boredumb wrote:
| Agreed, but I will miss the unbridled level of insane people I
| get to watch filming themselves in short intervals throughout
| my week though.
| wavesounds wrote:
| There's so many good alternatives now: YouTube's shorts,
| Instagram's Reels, Snapchat's Spotlight
| unclebucknasty wrote:
| > _let an adversary control the information flow to a huge
| portion of the population_
|
| It is mind-numbing that we made it this far without very
| serious consideration of this point. I've frankly just never
| understood it, especially given what we know about the power of
| algorithms to define reality at scale.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > It is mind-numbing that we made it this far without very
| serious consideration of this point.
|
| Simple: because no one want(s/ed) to piss off China too much.
|
| Effectively, the West has been at war with Russia and China
| for _years_ now. Industrial espionage, rampant IP theft,
| frauds and forgery in supply chains that yield no
| intervention by the Chinese government, cyber attacks by
| actors at least supported if not outright financed and
| ordered by the governments, holding people hostage [1],
| undermining of democracy by financing and supporting far-
| right and separatist movements, undermining of free speech by
| extortion [2] or by threat campaigns [3], threatening and
| following through with sanctions on anyone willing to support
| Taiwan [4], the list is long and doesn 't even include the
| crimes both nations have committed against humanity both
| domestically and on foreign soil.
|
| But since China has managed to grab up _a lot_ of the world
| 's cheap production and the politically extremely well
| connected automotive industry has their largest growing
| market in China, politicians have long been _way_ too silent
| on even calling China (and Russia) out, much less actually
| punish them in return or declare the official state of war
| that both countries completely deserve.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58687071
|
| [2] https://globalnews.ca/news/7734158/china-pressure-
| activists-...
|
| [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57647418
|
| [4] https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1612407/latvian-
| mp-...
| unclebucknasty wrote:
| > _no one want(s /ed) to piss off China too much._
|
| Agreed. See also NBA retractions, John Cena hostage-video
| apology, influence on Hollywood messaging, etc.
|
| All of these are products of companies wanting access to
| Chinese markets, and it's a nauseating sellout of values
| for profit.
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| Aside from Taiwan, and Xi, are there other formal
| restrictions to placate Chinese government?
|
| Of course, commercial companies always need to please
| their customers, so that's an entirely different topic.
| You cannot blame the firms who avoid stereotyping Chinese
| people. Because the customers are going to be mad.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| This is one of the absolutely terrible results of orange man
| bad syndrome.
|
| Trump was right on TikTok. Just because he brought it up
| shouldn't have meant it was all dismissed once he was out of
| office.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| It's because if we start critically examining this, even from
| perspectives of foreign adversaries, we might also look,
| similarly, inwards.
|
| Trillion dollar companies and economies exist today because
| of our aversion to looking inwards when it comes to
| information flow and privacy.
| debacle wrote:
| I do believe it is because of e.g. Twitters TPP program and
| other programs that allow the US govt to exert control over
| "our" social networks.
| user_named wrote:
| Conversely the EU needs to ban the FAANG companies
| robonerd wrote:
| Absolutely. Any country that doesn't ban foreign social
| media is behaving foolishly. This is true whether it's
| American social media in Europe, Chinese social media in
| America, or American social media in China (actually,
| they're ahead of the curve in this regard.)
| unclebucknasty wrote:
| I'm not naive with regard to even friendly nations
| jockeying for control of the information space.
|
| But there is something uniquely irresponsible about letting
| foreign adversaries run algorithms on your populace.
| xdennis wrote:
| The EU is partially reining in the abuses of those
| companies (and more should be done), but this shouldn't be
| equated to TikTok and what China is doing.
|
| FAANGs aren't state-controlled and Europeans do have access
| to the American market.
| paganel wrote:
| > FAANGs aren't state-controlled and Europeans do have
| access to the American market.
|
| When it comes to war-related issues they might as well be
| controlled by the US Government, the "private entity"
| thing is just a cover. Yes, in essence, Putin was right a
| few years ago when he said something like "the Internet
| is a CIA project".
| AngryData wrote:
| Personally I think whether something is state controlled
| or not matters less and less the larger corporations get.
| At the end of the day it still comes down to a large
| power imbalance between these entities and average
| consumers and citizens.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Personally I think whether something is state
| controlled or not matters less and less the larger
| corporations get.
|
| Except in China where the CCP (the only party that can
| control the government) has seats on the governance
| boards of every large company or outright owns others.
| Companies only exist there with the approval of the CCP
| (the government). There's no court in China that can
| overrule the CCP's leadership so effectively the CCP is
| the final arbiter of what is legal or not.
|
| The US government doesn't sit on the board of Apple or
| Google. If Apple sued the government over something they
| could actually win their case and the government would be
| bound by the court's decision and both parties could
| appeal that decision.
|
| I'm not saying the system in the US or EU is perfect but
| it is a very far cry from the system in China. Large
| companies are literally state controlled no matter how
| big they are.
| angio wrote:
| FAANGS took part in illegal surveillance programmes in
| the past and they are required to share data with the
| american government. It doesn't make any difference if
| they're state owned or not, their complicit.
| maccolgan wrote:
| I think the CLOUD Acts essentially make them proxies of
| the state.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I could see an argument for social media co's but Apple?
| Why?
| angio wrote:
| As a US business, they are required by law to share any
| data they have with the us governement. They were also
| part of PRISM so they have 0 credibility about protecting
| EU citizens' data.
| jonnybgood wrote:
| What law are you referring to? I'm pretty sure no such
| law exists. The US government can't request any data as
| they please. EU governments can and do request data as
| well since US companies operate in EU countries.
| angio wrote:
| It's the CLOUD ACT. An EU entity's data stored in the EU
| can be requested without going through an EU court, which
| is insane.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| Tax evasion? Not made in the EU? Not made within EU human
| rights standards?
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| On the first point, EU courts overturned the ruling on
| the landmark apple tax decision (that said, I also agree
| the global tax system is awful and favors bigco's). What
| phone is made in the EU? When I lived there the most
| popular devices were Apple and a variety of Chinese and
| Korean brands, none of which were produced in the EU.
| Which are made within EU human rights standards? I've
| never heard this claim before about Apple products.
| throwaway123989 wrote:
| sct202 wrote:
| I do see risk with the algorithm being manipulated in the
| future, but right now it seems like I have the most personal
| control over the Tiktok feed than any other social media app.
|
| If I click the not interested button, it stops sending me
| videos of content similar to that. Youtube, Facebook, Google
| News, and Twitter all seem to ignore me when I click their
| equivalent buttons. I have been attempting for years to get
| Google News to stop showing me Meghan Markle drama, and have
| blocked half of the news outlets in the UK.
| winternett wrote:
| The videos are attached to the sounds used in them.
|
| Anyone can literally stick a totally false political
| statement or whatever they want over "OhNo" by Creeper and
| it's highly likely to trend. It's also why the song OhNo, and
| many variations of it played so often on the platform. There
| is always a limited and interchangeable pool of songs
| designated by the platforms to trend, in order to make the
| ruse less obvious. The designated sounds can also be muted so
| that uploaded video sound can only be heard as well, but
| plays of the original sound still get the royalties.
|
| On the back-end of that, Creeper makes royalties from each
| stream, and gives a cut to sponsors and TikTok... Literally
| millions of dollars each day are generated by any associated
| video plays... The entire music industry is looted by this
| too.
|
| This is the BS involved with the algorithm on TikTok, it's
| not mostly AI driven recommendations, it's driven by a pre-
| designated sounds that make a lot of money because of royalty
| plays. TikTok gains popularity and money each time these
| trending sounds play picks the songs that trend. Other
| musicians, thinking they have a chance (without being
| endorsed by the platform) struggle fruitlessly to get their
| sounds to trend, but undercover they can't because they are
| not aligned with the right brand partnerships that lobby
| TikTok and pay heavily for advertising.
|
| It's primarily not the algorithm in charge based on my
| observations as a developer, and the idea of content "choice"
| on TikTok is mostly a fallacy, though taxonomy does play a
| minor role in the mix, user accounts also manipulate their
| taxonomy to insert their content regularly into your feed.
| robbomacrae wrote:
| This seems very much like a tangential side rant but I one
| hundred percent agree with you. I was even thinking of
| writing an extension to block any links and mentions of the
| royal family. I'm British and I can't stand the amount of
| media coverage they get.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Why should the U.S. let Chinese tech companies compete in the
| U.S. marketplace when China doesn't let U.S tech companies
| compete in their marketplace?
|
| That is a point that very few people grasp. I've found that
| it's a bit easier to explain how the policies impact the
| technical side. You can extrapolate other facets from there
| (say, sales, for which I don't have direct expertise, although
| from what I hear, it's worse).
|
| Let's say you want to sell stuff over there. Given that it's
| 2022, maybe you want a website to go with that? Possibly using
| some AWS services?
|
| Ok let's do this.
|
| Maybe you just want to translate your stuff and continue
| hosting from the US(or anywhere else really). Well, even if the
| traffic was allowed(it probably will be, at least initially),
| the firewall will make the experience miserable (ranges wildly,
| down to single digit bytes per second). The first request to
| anywhere is usually blocked. Geographical distance doesn't
| matter. Cross the border and the experience is terrible. So,
| that's not really an option. You really need to host from
| there.
|
| First of all, your website needs a license. Even if all it says
| is "coming soon". Doesn't matter. Port 80(and 443) will be
| blocked until you get your ICP license. If you check wikipedia
| it talks about a 'grace period'. I'm not sure that is accurate.
| Traffic is usually blocked by providers regardless.
|
| As a foreign company, you can't get one. You will need boots on
| the ground. And _a lot of documentation_. You cannot have non-
| Chinese DNS servers pointing to IPs in China. Yes this is
| scanned for and flagged and you better fix it otherwise you can
| lose your license. No it does not matter that these are
| automation /internal use domains.
|
| This license thing takes at least a month in a happy day
| scenario. Potentially more.
|
| You also need your 'AWS' account. It's in quotes because it's
| not really AWS. And no, it's not like "Amazon", the parent
| company, has an overseas "branch" or "affiliate" which, even
| though it's registered locally with the host country, it is
| effectively also Amazon and controlled by Amazon. No. The
| Beijing region is operated by Sinnet, Nginxia is operated by
| NWCDD. They are not Amazon, they are third parties. One wonders
| why Amazon went that route, since it seems suboptimal.
|
| The process to get this account may take months.
|
| Once you get your account, _you do not get the root
| credentials_. Those companies have it. They will tell you
| "there's no root user concept". That's not true(even though
| this is in the documentation now!). It's still basically the
| same AWS software, it has a root account. But they hold it,
| then use it to create an IAM user for you, and hand off that
| one to you instead. Over email.
|
| Ok you have signed off on all those things. Now let's import
| some AMIs like we do everywhere else on the planet and start
| the services? No, you cannot do that. AWS China is a different
| 'partition'. Just like GovCloud. So they cannot be transferred.
| Same goes for just about everything else. Even S3 buckets. The
| one silver lining is that you can reuse the same bucket names.
| So let's just rebuild those images right? Well, remember the
| firewall thing? It's going to hit you here too. You will be
| using unbearably slow links that barely compete with dialup
| _unless_ everything you need is already mirrored over there.
|
| Containers for the rescue. Or not? Your k8s cluster takes 5
| minutes to download all containers in the US? It's going to
| take hours or days for you. Assuming it's not blocked - I hope
| none of your stuff uses gcr.io, for example (like K8s own
| components like to do). If they do, better mirror everything.
|
| Money can help some of these link issues. You can pay companies
| to get around the firewall(but not around the regulations - if
| a destination is blocked it will stay blocked). If you do so,
| you will also have to provide a list of IPs that you will be
| talking to and what their purpose is. They will be vetted. If
| you have anything serious there, go that route(but be prepared
| to pay 5 digits for a link that's slower than your average
| Comcast business DSL).
|
| "AWS" to AWS connections also seem to have some special rules,
| because the bandwidth is consistently better(not amazing, but
| better). So maybe setup your command and control that way.
| Can't do that via IPSEC tunnels though, that's not allowed.
| Unless done by "approved" vendors, to approved destinations. If
| try to do that by yourself, you risk your services getting
| shutdown, if not your entire account. SSH may or may not work.
|
| Some of that affects local companies too (they all have to get
| the ICP thing) and can be, charitably, be blamed on excessive
| bureaucracy. Some of that may be due to decisions made
| specifically by AWS. But not everything can be explained that
| way.
|
| And all you wanted to do was to setup a website.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| Wow. Comment of the week. What the hell do you do to know all
| this?
| zeruch wrote:
| Anyone who has had to do business in China will be familiar
| to one degree or another. When I worked anti-piracy, we had
| to secretly operate in-country servers to track video
| websites and certain bit-torrent traffic originating there.
|
| Getting everything stood up, and staying functional was a
| truly abysmal experience.
| oogali wrote:
| If you go through the process of standing up assets in AWS
| China regions _and_ using them, you will run into
| everything the OP has stated: local affiliate, ICP license,
| GFW, constrained bandwidth, IP escrow agreements, etc.
| blep_ wrote:
| > You cannot have non-Chinese DNS servers pointing to IPs in
| China.
|
| Does this mean one can harass companies one doesn't like by
| pointing DNS entries at them?
| omginternets wrote:
| I'd assume so. How would one discover their IPs? Also, I
| wonder if there are technical countermeasures, similar to
| how sites like Reddit and HN can detect upvote rings.
| TIPSIO wrote:
| > Data collection and algorithmic manipulation
|
| These to me are separate issues that should be discussed
| independently.
|
| So for your post: Data Collection, Algorithmic Manipulation,
| and Fairness in the Marketplace
| sneak wrote:
| > _but why you 'd let an adversary control the information flow
| to a huge portion of the population is beyond me._
|
| Because the US has freedom of expression and free publishing,
| regardless of nationality of the publisher.
|
| Once you start doing the same "foreigners can't publish here
| [and the local ones are under our influence]" nonsense that
| China does, it becomes indistinguishable from the adversary.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| A state controlled data harvesting and algorithm propaganda
| machine is not the equivalent of a private market app.
|
| You could easily even argue this doesn't come under any first
| amendments rights because it's obvious TikTok is an
| adversarial foreign government controlled entity.
| bombcar wrote:
| > let an adversary control the information flow to a huge
| portion of the population is beyond me.
|
| Because most of the possible responses are various forms of
| censorship.
| new_stranger wrote:
| Wait, censorship or reduction in choices? They are different
| concepts with some overlap.
|
| China has the most draconian censorship in the world: lethal
| censorship. Nothing like the "de-platformed" or "down-voted"
| censorship Americans face.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| And what, you think the chinese government never censors
| anything in their black-box algorithmic-feed app?
|
| Censorship is going to happen, on all platforms, no matter
| what. Call it "moderation" or "upvoting" or "algorithmic
| recommendation", doesn't matter, the censorship is there,
| like it or not.
|
| Instead of knee-jerk opposition to anything that reminds you
| explicitly of the abstract idea of "censorship", consider
| instead what forms censorship can take on any particular
| platform and whether you trust the people with the ability to
| leverage those forms to use it responsibly.
| aasasd wrote:
| Ah, so the US govt can't stop people from saying something, but
| can decide what they can't read and watch? Is that how it works?
|
| If not, then no one at government agencies should be making such
| suggestions.
| TMWNN wrote:
| mhh__ wrote:
| Trump did apparently want to withdraw the US from NATO entirely
| so what does right mean?
|
| That German buying of Russian gas is a problem, of course, but
| what is Stoltenberg supposed to do about that.
|
| Also German gas imports are something like 30% Russian which in
| turn makes up I think 13% of power generation, since the
| information trump states is vague.
| ok123456 wrote:
| It's time for the daily moment of hate and yellow peril on
| hackernews.
|
| Facebook GOOD! TikTok BAD!
| tatrajim wrote:
| And Apple? More like China invoking a variety of "white peril"
| in 2016.
|
| I have yet to see a single China defender on Hacker News
| explain the treatment of the iBooks and iTunes stores in China
| after they were suddenly ordered shut after six months of
| operation, given no legal recourse at all. The Obama
| administration did nothing about it while Silicon Valley
| grandees kept conspicuously silent as well as all my Chinese
| friends here in the US. The were afraid of Xi Jinping and the
| Gonganju and still are.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-longe...
| johnwheeler wrote:
| I'm not sure why we don't do this; not just the privacy is an
| issue but the fact that China bans so much US internet like
| Facebook.
| viktorcode wrote:
| You either operating on an open market, or in the government-
| controlled market.
| [deleted]
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| My understanding is that Chinese bans on US technology have
| reasons clearly codified in law and would not be banned if they
| followed the regulations.
|
| That being said, what US laws does TikTok not follow?
| xdennis wrote:
| The regulations include being completely subservient to the
| state.
|
| The US could make something similar to eliminate Chinese
| companies in terms of democracy vs dictatorship: pass a law
| saying that social media websites can only operate if their
| employees have the right to vote in their own countries.
|
| Then TikTok would be banned because it does not (/could not)
| follow the law.
| Shared404 wrote:
| This is a good point.
|
| I would much rather we codify data protections, and then ban
| TikTok (and domestic) apps that do not comply.
| xbar wrote:
| I think you're right. I'd love to see a BRICS-oriented data
| protection law for the US, for example.
| angio wrote:
| That's what the EU is doing and it's a great approach.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > My understanding is that Chinese bans on US technology have
| reasons clearly codified in law and would not be banned if
| they followed the regulations.
|
| My understanding is that Chinese law is usually pretty vague
| and unclear, especially in areas like this, and in any case
| doesn't actually bind the government.
| connicpu wrote:
| Yeah, my understanding is a lot of Chinese laws are vague
| on purpose so that they can be interpreted to benefit
| companies the state likes, while punishing those the state
| does not like
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law." -
| General Oscar Benavides
| workingon wrote:
| Sounds like America. Didn't we just ban Juuls while
| countless other electronic fruity vapes are on the
| market?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Didn't a judge just stop the ban?
| izacus wrote:
| Is there a reason why you want to model yourself after China?
| dirtyid wrote:
| Because China doesn't ban US internet platforms, US internet
| platforms choose not to comply to PRC laws, which domestic PRC
| companies has to abide. Facebook/Twitter left because they
| couldn't/wouldn't censor calls of revenge killings during 2009
| minority riots in PRC. It wasn't until NZ shooting and FB role
| in Rohigya genocide years later that political culture changed
| globally/domestically in US enough for FB to up the moderation
| game, around the time they wanted to re-enter PRC market.
| Except their employees protested and killed the initiative.
|
| Flip side is Bytedance/TikTok bending backwards to follow US
| laws, because Douyin is used to dealing with PRC regulatory
| bullshit, meanwhile their employees just want to make money
| instead of undermine company expansion plans with geopolitical
| culture wars. Like it's not hard, follow the law in the country
| you operate in and be competitive. TBH that really leaves some
| Google services, a lot of western platforms simply can't hack
| it against PRC competitors for domestic PRC market.
| john_yaya wrote:
| Bytedance/TikTok are ignoring US law, as we saw in the news
| last week.
| dirtyid wrote:
| >ignoring US law,
|
| They didn't. The entire Project Texas / Oracle / CFIUS
| agreement is in process of implementation. The drama is
| over China-based staff accessing data while working on
| Project Texas (to silo US data/traffic), even though
| Chinese nationals were not on the United States Technical
| Services team. The ultimate concern is China-based staff
| will have access to protected US data/traffic after and the
| effectiveness of implementation. No laws were broken, but
| doubt whether Bytedance efforts would effectively prevent
| access. No laws were broken.
| tatrajim wrote:
| And when US companies attempt to obey Chinese law and are
| banned anyway? Nice to know that Apple was given "equal legal
| consideration" in China in 2016 when its iBooks store and
| iTunes movie store were suddenly ordered shut after six
| months of operation. Oh, wait. . . they weren't given any
| legal recourse at all and the Obama administration did
| nothing about it while Silicon Valley grandees kept
| conspicuously silent.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/apple-no-
| longe...
| dirtyid wrote:
| And? Laws change... PRC updates law to ban foreign
| publishers, ergo ibooks/itunes got killed. US also has
| national security negative lists that they use to kill
| China Telecom in US.. who followed US laws until it got
| updated. But Apple rolled with the punches are still doing
| great in PRC. If US laws wants to mandate TikTok to remove
| some service segement, Bytedance will also comply. Like
| they're doing with Oracle data siloing under CIFIUS. TikTok
| is rolling with the punches like Apple did in PRC because
| you know... they understand following local laws is
| business 101.
| tatrajim wrote:
| >But Apple rolled with the punches are still doing great
| in PRC.<
|
| But not allowed to sell books or films, apparently too
| corrupting of the delicate moral sensibilities of the
| Chinese people.
|
| You make a good point about how laws might and should
| change. A return to the wisdom of the Ming period trade
| with Japan seems in order: a strict tally-trade quota
| system, based on transparent reciprocity.
|
| One university student for one university student. One
| streaming service for one streaming service. One telecom
| for one telecom. One chip for one chip. Disruptive at
| first, perhaps, but eventually both fair and salutary.
|
| The days of casual forbearance of Pian Lao Wai attitudes
| belong to a halcyon past for China.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _but the fact that China bans so much US internet like
| Facebook_
|
| This seems like a poor reason to ban an
| application/website/whatever. Reminds me of elementary school
| drama. Find a legitimate and/or legal reason (e.g. the mass
| harvesting of biometric data, unbeknownst to the users, being
| fed into some opaque government-ran database) or it should not
| be banned.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > This seems like a poor reason to ban an
| application/website/whatever. Reminds me of elementary school
| drama. Find a legitimate and/or legal reason (e.g. the mass
| harvesting of biometric data, unbeknownst to the users, being
| fed into some opaque government-ran database) or it should
| not be banned.
|
| Um, no. Reciprocity is a pretty key concept in international
| relations, and a legitimate reason to take retaliatory
| measures. Also "we would rather not grant our adversary this
| advantage" is another legitimate reason to take action.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _Um, no._
|
| Um, yes?
|
| > _Reciprocity is a pretty key concept in international
| relations_
|
| This makes much more sense in the context of physical goods
| and materials and international trade. It makes much less
| sense (I argue near-zero sense) in the context of some
| random non-lawbreaking, legitimate application or website.
|
| Edit to clarify:
|
| Refusing to export X to country Y hurts country Y, assuming
| they want X.
|
| Banning legitimate application X developed in country Y
| does not hurt country Y (unless the majoity/all revenue is
| from your country), it just hurts your own citizens who may
| rely on application X. "Cut off your nose to spite your
| face"
| xdennis wrote:
| It's quite the opposite. Reciprocity hurts more with
| physical goods.
|
| In a trade war, if a country bans export X in
| retaliation, the citizens of the country also hurt
| because they have to pay more to buy from other sources.
|
| But with a social web site, citizens lose nothing by
| having to switch to another data-sucking web site,
| especially since their contacts are now less fragmented
| across social media sites due to the ban.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > This makes much more sense in the context of physical
| goods and materials and international trade. It makes
| much less sense (I argue near-zero sense) in the context
| of some random non-lawbreaking, legitimate application or
| website.
|
| I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the difference. Even if the
| context was _only business /trade_ (which it isn't), the
| American company is not able to operate in or make money
| from the Chinese market, while the Chinese company is
| currently has free reign to make money in the American
| one. The obvious thing to do is to reciprocally restrict
| the Chinese company to incentivize the removal of
| restrictions from the American company.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _the American company is not able to operate in or make
| money from the Chinese market, while the Chinese company
| is currently has free reign to make money in the American
| one_
|
| I think this is our disconnect. I don't care if some
| random American company can't make money in China. Nor do
| I care if a _legitimate_ application that happened to be
| developed in China is able to make money in America. Why
| should I care?
|
| And assuming I use that application or website, why
| should I be the one to be punished? Just so some other
| company can gain some market segment? The context here
| isn't war or something else severe like that, my point is
| and has been only in the strict context of legitimate
| websites and applications (i.e. they aren't breaking
| American laws, they aren't siphoning American data,
| etc.).
|
| But hey, maybe this is why I'm not a foreign policy
| expert and instead I'm just some guy on the internet,
| enjoying what people all over the world have developed
| and hoping that my government doesn't ban them because of
| spite.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I think this is our disconnect. I don't care if some
| random American company can't make money in China. Nor do
| I care if a legitimate application that happened to be
| developed in China is able to make money in America. Why
| should I care?
|
| You or I might not care personally about the specific
| case, but I was speaking from the perspective of the
| government. They certainly care because they have
| responsibilities for the economy. I care too, indirectly,
| because I have interest in the economy doing well (e.g.
| if Facebook hires a bunch of American developers because
| they're making bank in China, that's a better for me
| because the increased demand makes some things a little
| better for me).
|
| But the trade/economics thing here is a distant second to
| the national security concerns at play. It's significant
| that TikTok is under the control of a geopolitical rival,
| not an ally.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _I care too, indirectly, because I have interest in the
| economy doing well (e.g. if Facebook hires a bunch of
| American developers because they 're making bank in
| China, that's a better for me because the increased
| demand makes some things a little better for me)._
|
| Valid point, although I still think that banning a non-
| related, legitimate application that is used by Americans
| is a poor way of approaching the issue. But I concede
| that there is more variables at play than I had in my
| head during my initial comment.
|
| > _It 's significant that TikTok is under the control of
| a geopolitical rival, not an ally._
|
| I never disagreed with this point, and tried to make that
| clear in my initial comment where I specifically used the
| mass harvesting of biometric data as an example of a
| reason I would consider legitimate.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| The reason China bans Facebook, I think, is about stifling
| competition because they know these internet platforms are
| about creating global monopolies and they want to win or at
| least not lose.
|
| Edit: this was meant for the parent thread
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Because as Milton Friedman pointed out, don't do to yourself
| what you do to an enemy in war. China banning American services
| is to the detriment of Chinese users and competition in China,
| there's no reason to emulate censorship.
|
| If data harvesting was a genuine concern you might as well ban
| Facebook and every other social media app while you're at it.
| It's just hysteria and nationalism.
| throwaway932423 wrote:
| There's no hysteria here, and surprise, most nation's act out
| of self-preservation or with interests of their citizens, or
| what you call nationalism.
|
| > If data harvesting was a genuine concern ...
|
| It is, and that is what is going on here, with TikTok the
| beginning. EU is also helping here, so kudos to them.
| Hopefully Discord next.
| 30944836 wrote:
| >China banning American services is to the detriment of
| Chinese users and competition in China, there's no reason to
| emulate censorship.
|
| This is not true. China financializes everything, and pumps
| capital into projects at rates unseen and unmatched in the
| history of the world. There is plenty of competition, as
| evidenced by the fact that China has apps that are fare more
| efficient and feature rich than anything in the US. See:
| WeChat.
| stefan_ wrote:
| If there is so much competition, why does it all end up in
| WeChat, the fucking AOL of apps?
| adventured wrote:
| > as evidenced by the fact that China has apps that are
| fare more efficient and feature rich than anything in the
| US. See: WeChat
|
| You just confused a claim of fact with a personal opinion.
|
| "Efficient" and "feature rich" are close to meaningless
| when thrown around like that. You can't actually support
| what you said because it's very heavy on being subjective.
|
| Feature rich is corporate speak for: bloated with garbage
| that's unnecessary.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| But China already bans tons of American services from Google
| to Twitter, no? And otherwise makes the regulatory burden so
| incredibly onerous it's very difficult to operate (e.g.
| LinkedIn) for some tech companies when they want to build up
| domestic champions
| kennywinker wrote:
| This is dumb. Don't "remove it from app stores" these are
| companies doing business is the US and Canada - pass privacy laws
| that protect people, and then fine the living crap out of them
| until they comply.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Take formal action or don't, but public intimidation is a bizarre
| action for a government to take. We can't get them to regulate
| when there _are_ rules, but when there _aren 't_, and US
| diplomacy has decided to punish a country for some episode of
| disobedience, a media blitz of press releases.
| viktorcode wrote:
| As I get it Carr haven't presented any hard evidence, instead
| linking to the open publications with various levels of research.
|
| Privacy breaking apps must be thrown out. However, this mustn't
| be decided on the basis of hearsay.
| izacus wrote:
| It'd be great if this could be codified in a proper regulation
| (that also has to be obeyed by US companies, not just Chinese
| ones).
|
| But that's hard - it's easier to demand that private corpos
| play the enforcer (and corpos themselves were dumb to even get
| themselves into a situation of playing the moral and political
| arbiter).
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| This is the result of a request in 2020 by two senators to the
| FTC to investigate TikTok for collecting MAC addresses on mobile
| computers with corporate OS, e.g., iOS and Android. (Another
| reason these OS are inferior, IMHO. We cannot chose our own MAC
| address. Randomisation of MAC address for WiFi is a poor
| substitute for being able to set MAC address to whatever value we
| choose.)
|
| The senators were alerted to the issue by the WSJ:
|
| http://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/tiktok-tracked-user-data-usi...
|
| TikTok (Musica.ly) was caught violating COPPA rules in 2019 and
| fined more than double the amount that Disney was fined in 2011,
| which was the highest fine ever issued for COPPA violations:
|
| http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/musical.ly_p...
|
| There were allegations after 2019 that TikTok was violating the
| terms of the 2019 injunction and were still violating COPPA.
|
| Like Google and Facebook have done in their communications after
| being caught acting unethically and/or illegally, TikTok rolled
| out the cosequent changes to their website/app with the
| accompanying phrase "You are in control".
|
| Nothing could be further from the truth. If you were in control,
| you would disable advertising, for starters. :)
|
| When you thought you were controlling tracking by changing your
| advertiser ID in Android, you were being misled. TikTok had
| stored your MAC address and could link it to the prior advertiser
| ID. MAC addresses are PII under COPPA.
| NoPicklez wrote:
| I know that in the iOS 14 beta Apple implemented MAC address
| randomization to help prevent organisations identifying you in
| places like retail stores where your MAC address could be
| obtained when left on.
|
| For the average user and I'd say the absolutely majority of
| users, this is a better alternative than being able to set your
| own. Only hardcare security enthusiasts would have an appetite
| for setting their own MAC addresses and knowing what to do with
| it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-29 23:00 UTC)