[HN Gopher] As TikTok grows, so does suspicion ___________________________________________________________________ As TikTok grows, so does suspicion Author : samizdis Score : 190 points Date : 2022-07-10 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.economist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com) | 8bitsrule wrote: | > Users' ... viewing could be moulded by Chinese propagandists. | | Not a problem during the decades of Voice of America broadcasts, | of course. | aparticulate wrote: | Strawpoll literally any sample of people in the world if | they've heard of VoA, indeed, have ever listened to the radio. | Now do the same for TikTok... | | You could maybe make a better case for something like Western | cultural exports like music and movies. e.g. Like _The Beatles_ | with impressive centralised data gathering. Marvel movies, but | more addictive. | tonymet wrote: | they mention data harvesting and influencing public relations as | risks, and both are worrisome . another more subtle but | pernicious concern is the trivialization of entertainment (which | started from a low bar ) | | tiktok is addictive and much of the content is low bar , | slapstick and sexually suggestive thirst traps . | | there may be a good share of high quality content , but we all | know time spent is on garbage. | | our grandparents said "tv will rot your brain" and we laughed at | them, but maybe because we just didn't notice | | tiktok will finish the job | novok wrote: | Imo tiktok is a bit of a mirror. Its a thirst trap for you. For | the short time i used it, it quickly started centering around | cute/funny pets and science explainer videos. I also doubt it | would show thirst traps to the typical straight female user too | too. | gardenhedge wrote: | I hate this argument. Firstly, the content is still on the | platform and can be shown to a user at any time for any | reason. Over time it could influence what you watch in any | way TikTok wants. Secondly, it paints the user as some kind | of pervert if they fall into "thirst trap". Men like looking | at women - it's not something that needs to be swept under | the rug. | meowtimemania wrote: | I think GP's point still stands. There is good content on | TikTok, but given the time many users spend, the content | isn't a good trade for time. Same could be said for other | platforms. Tiktok/youtube worry me most since they seem to be | the most addictive for kids. | [deleted] | Avamander wrote: | > tiktok is addictive and much of the content is low bar , | slapstick and sexually suggestive thirst traps . | | Unlikely judging by the most popular videos and creators (the | disclaimer here being that I can't see the whole picture). | | More likely you are seeing that content because something | indicates to the algorithm that you like such content. Very | bluntly, you are most likely telling on yourself right now. | nindalf wrote: | This comment follows a pattern common in other comments | criticising TikTok - the person says "this content I saw isn't | very good. Why would anyone spend their time watching X?" | | > sexually suggestive thirst traps | | Not realising that only they (and people with similar tastes) | are seeing X. And it says more about them than it does about | TikTok. | | There's plenty of room for thoughtful critique of TikTok and | it's current/potential impact on society - but this ain't it. | The original article by the economist is much closer. | Drew_ wrote: | Yeah people who complain about Tik Tok being filled with X | bad thing are spending their time engaging with X bad thing. | There's A LOT of really good content on Tik Tok. | [deleted] | collegeburner wrote: | fr it's scary how i watch ppl on it, they're like zombies. and | yeah like half that shit is just girls "dancing" (shaking | jiggly parts) in short clothes, like i mean that's fine but | watching it all the time isn't healthy. look at how much is | under #fakebody which is basically all people in short clothing | trying not to get banned. and yeah probably you can make it | show interesting stuff but it plays to people's weaker natures. | | besides that literally the only reason we need to oppose tiktok | is that it's chinese. i'm fine with them manufacturing | commodity goods but they should not be providing any cutting- | edge tech to us. personally i would like to see the government | try to subpoena the tiktok algo from oracle and make it public | so anybody can knock it off. that would be some poetic justice | against china. | ravenstine wrote: | It's pretty ironic how a large swath of the public decided it | was the right thing to ban anything that's Russian, but | somehow it's a no-no to be opposed to an app because it's | from the PRC. Not saying that necessarily means that no one | should use any Chinese apps, but those against anything | Russian really ought not to come to the defense of the PRC. | trasz wrote: | Russia is being banned because of their invasion on Europe | and mass murdering civilians. It's more similar to US in | this regard than to China. | lostmsu wrote: | PRC is not quite on the same scale as long as they respect | borders. | butterfly771 wrote: | Why can you talk about stealing technology so openly? | shikoba wrote: | Why not do the same with other companies? Do you totally | assume that it's just economic war? | ravenstine wrote: | chrischen wrote: | This is not tiktok specific. This is pretty much all user | generated short form social media content. | | Tiktok has just been better at surfacing the content. Also | tiktok is more for consumption and less for socializing with | friends or acquaintences. | voisin wrote: | So here's my tinfoil hat theory. When I watch Tik Tok (and I am | fully aware my feed is different from others), I become genuinely | happy. I see people singing, creating music together via duets, | showing homesteading skills, teaching things they know, telling | funny jokes, etc. I never see dangerous challenges, though I am | not a teen. Here's the tinfoil hat theory: Tik Tok is what social | media was meant to be, but unlike American social media giants | that made their deal with the devil and drive growth via | separating and polarizing people, Tik Tok makes people feel like | the world isn't a scary awful place with "them vs us" mentality, | and so it poses a threat to our political culture which feeds off | division. | | All I know is that when I go on Facebook I just see angry boomers | being quasi political, when I go on Instagram I am filled with | envy, when I go on twitter I feel overwhelmed by the sheer flood | of information and vileness, and when I go on Tik Tok I feel | happy and a new ambition to pick up the guitar again. | rcpt wrote: | Urbanism TikTok comment sections are the absolute worst out of | all the apps. Completely made up economics on a level that | surpasses FB and I just can't believe how many tankies are in | there. The algorithm is the perfect soap to blow filter bubbles | with. | | Crazy but Twitter has better content when it comes to bike | lanes. | rossdavidh wrote: | I agree that my experience with FB/Twitter vs. TikTok is as you | describe. I'm not sure that our political leadership | understands how social media work well enough to see what | you're describing. | | I do think that they are angsty about a foreign government | having control over a major social network. Imagine if a | partially Chinese-owned company had to make the call of whether | or not to ban the account of a sitting US President, for | example. Plus, I have zero doubt that the US government | requires Microsoft, Facebook, and other US tech companies to | give them access to data in extremis, and there's no reason for | the US gov't to expect China not to. | ThalesX wrote: | TikTok is the only social media app I use anymore. I didn't | even change my default 'user12345' account nor have I linked | anything to it. I also consume it differently than I used to do | the others, by going maybe once per week or two and binge for a | couple of hours. It fills me with joy and ideas just as you | say. | skinnymuch wrote: | How is it social media then? | voisin wrote: | I just replied to a similar sister comment. | gardenhedge wrote: | So what is the social aspect if you're not connected with | anyone? | voisin wrote: | This is a valid point. I am not the poster you are | responding to but the top level poster. I too don't follow | people I know and perhaps that's the difference from the | social platforms. In that regard it is more like YouTube, | but unlike YouTube, the algorithm isn't radicalizing me | other than making me want to learn guitar again. | | So what is it about YouTube that makes people more likely | to become radical incels willing to shoot up a school, and | TikTok makes people more like to learn a new dance routine | and leave with a smile? | gardenhedge wrote: | I disagree with the premise of the question with regards | to YouTube and TikTok. | stjohnswarts wrote: | There are some very vile areas of tiktok with white supremacy | and lgbqt+ hate and those are as easy to get to as dance videos | of chinese algorithm designers see that you're watched one of | those, or just randomly throw one up in front of you and see if | you immediately kill it or watch it all the way through. This | isn't rocket science level of propaganda/and brainwashing. | gardenhedge wrote: | I get pissed off at TikTok all the time. Most of the videos are | awful. TikTok trends include all the showboating that Instagram | has. | mantas wrote: | US social media amplifies human nature which isn't pretty. | Meanwhile CCP's love to building facades of utopias produces | this... Utopias are nice till you step out of line and it | becomes dystopia, eh? | voisin wrote: | > US social media amplifies human nature which isn't pretty. | | If you only consume western media and social networks, this | is certainly the conclusion you are led to. But if you | observe your surroundings with your own eyes, my experience | is that there is a stark contrast with the above quote. I | have travelled continuously all over the west for the last | five years and I have found people to be kind, generous, and | friendly. | | There's money and power in dividing people. I don't think we | are as divided as the news media and social networks would | have us believe. | [deleted] | mantas wrote: | Majority of people ain't on social media either. Well, they | may be lurking or registered at most, but won't post or | comment much if at all. | | And then there's a portion of nice people who will befriend | you and then use for their benefit. | | And then there's one's own bias. When traveling, at a | random city in foreign country you'll probably pick a bar | accordingly, skip heated topics and distance yourself from | people that may cause trouble. Meanwhile engagement-driven | interwebs make sure you meet such people and keep | discussing. | ectopod wrote: | China passed a law a couple of years ago requiring all Chinese | companies to give the government live access to their databases. | Is TikTok exempt? If not, statements that the government hasn't | requested any data are misleading. They don't need to. | trasz wrote: | >China passed a law a couple of years ago requiring all Chinese | companies to give the government live access to their | databases. | | Yeah, just like US. TikTok isn't any different from, say, | YouTube in this regard. | ThisIsMyAltFace wrote: | This is just 100% untrue | thrown_22 wrote: | Yes, what happens is that the US asks Australia, part of 5 | eyes, to use their back doors, which need to be install by | law there https://fee.org/articles/australia-s- | unprecedented-encryptio..., for any user data US agencies | want. | | Completely different to China just having access to that | data. | meowtimemania wrote: | Is there any type of due process for when the Chinese | government accesses data? Like do they need some court order? | Or can a government official just go browse the databases for | fun? | stjohnswarts wrote: | The FCC commissioner just point out there is no firewall | between Chinese engineers from rifling through and copying all | the data from the "USA based" servers. It defies belief that | anyone thinks that the CCP isn't doing exactly that lol and | building up dossiers on every TikTok member. For example just | find all the MAGA leaning people and try to convert them over | to CCP terrorist cells. I mean I'm not a CIA analyst, but this | is global espionage 101 | micromacrofoot wrote: | bytedance is partially state owned, so there's zero chance it's | not happening | yorwba wrote: | TikTok is technically not a Chinese company, so it wouldn't be | affected by such a law. But I haven't read the law and don't | know how accurate your summary of it is. Do you have a link? | ectopod wrote: | https://harrisbricken.com/chinalawblog/chinas-new- | cybersecur... | dqpb wrote: | > TikTok is technically not a Chinese company | | I guess the economist has it wrong then: | | > As the first consumer-facing app from China to take off in | the West, TikTok is a source of pride in Beijing. But the | app's Chinese ownership makes politicians elsewhere uneasy | about its tightening grip on their citizens' attention | stale2002 wrote: | The point being here is that the company ownership is setup | in a complicate way, that is different than just being | straight up controlled by china. | | As in, there are apparently sub companies, that are in the | US, not in china, that makes it different. | shbooms wrote: | > As in, there are apparently sub companies, that are in | the US, not in china, | | Sure, the US "sub companies" are located physically in | the US and managed day-to-day by US-based employees but | they are still owned by a Chinese parent company meaning | at the end of the day, they still report to | managers/executive in China and are obligated to follow | directions given to them by people working for Chinese | parent company. If the Chinese government cotrols the | Chinese parent company then they, by definition, control | the US-based company as well. | stjohnswarts wrote: | If you are a major company in China you are controlled by | the CCP. They may leave the day to day business to execs | but they are 100% at CCP beck and call. Look at what | happened to Jack when you go too far off script. CCP has | full access to US Servers (yeah I know that TikTok "US" | says all data is kept here. | dqpb wrote: | They're headquartered in Beijing. | dqpb wrote: | Besides which, it's routine for China to rip off and ban | foreign businesses. | api wrote: | Even if TikTik claims to be exempt I would not believe it. | | I would also assume that US police and intelligence have access | to Facebook, Google, etc. regardless of what anyone says. | | End to end encrypted or it is not private. No exceptions. | winternett wrote: | I don't think it's the privacy issues that will defeat TikTok, I | think it's the deception of a success economy being possible on | the platform. | | In the past few weeks I've been observing a lot of marginal | content trending on the platform which indicates to me that a lot | of the more quality posters aren't posting new content. | | The minute quality creators leave a platform is the minute it | dies. TikTok has not really been rewarding creators fairly, and | pushes the idea that organic growth is possible, and that people | have become really successful, but many creators realize after | months of working for little to no reward that it's a false | narrative. | | There are billions of accounts on these platforms yes, but the | main question is are they actively posting, engaged, and | satisfied? The answer is most likely no, and that's why Twitter | didn't sell fast too. | | I wrote about this issue just earlier today - | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046338 | jacooper wrote: | > The minute quality creators leave a platform is the minute it | dies. TikTok has not really been rewarding creators fairly, and | pushes the idea that organic growth is possible, and that | people have become really successful, but many creators realize | after months of working for little to no reward that it's a | false narrative. | | I heard the opposite story from 2 creators in my local | language. | | Their growth on Tiktok is crazy, one got a million followers in | less than a year, this is almost impossible in YouTube or Any | Facebook based social media, also the amount of interaction and | views on videos is amazing compared to YouTube. | | Its why many are going to tiktok, even if they don't like the | Platform, its actually possible to reach people, while on other | platforms such as Instagram, you have to pay to reach even half | of your followers. | quest88 wrote: | What does one million followers mean though? Who cares about | that unless you can monetize. Teens can't monetize so their | social capital is views. | throwoutway wrote: | They monetize by advertising on behalf of companies to | their viewers. And they have no idea how to price their | monetization so I presume the companies are winning here | CommitSyn wrote: | Now that YouTube has shorts I wonder how many creators are | switching. Part of the reason you can get so many followers | on TikTok is the video length. When it started you could only | post a 15-second video. Later on they allowed you to link | 15-second videos up to a minute in length. Then it was 3 | minutes, and in February they changed the maximum video time | to 10 minutes.[1] | | Viewers can watch a lot more 15-second or 1-minute videos | than 10-minute videos. If 5-10 minute videos start becoming | popular, expect the reach new creators can get to drop | drastically. | | 1. https://screenrant.com/tiktok-videos-minimum-maximum- | length-... | okasaki wrote: | "Economy"? What "economy" is ByteDance promising? | analyst74 wrote: | For successful YouTubers, the money coming from YT is actually | not their primary income, one YouTuber publically said YT | payout is ~1/4 of their total revenue. Their other main sources | of revenue includes brand deals, affiliates, product/merc sales | and direct donation. | | Tiktokers are generally following YouTuber model in how they | monetize their content, minus Ads revenue share. | winternett wrote: | If Microsoft said "Come work for us every day for free, you | may get brand deals!" | | Would anyone with talent, skills, and self respect jump to do | it? | | Working for free at a large and quite profitable company? | | The problem is that because of how perception can be | manipulated on social platforms based on that success | illusion. It makes people think that the success comes just | for creating simple content, and trumps one's ability to | prioritize making money to do real world things like paying | rent and for food. It's borderline exploitation of children, | who often over expose themselves just for likes, and that is | going to be bad for their future prospects in being taken | seriously when they want to get real world and respectable | jobs. | | It's free work with little reward. The brand deals go to | celebrity creators, NOT to normal creators, while the | platform profits massively and underpays most everyone who | does the real work. Most of the influencers on these | platforms find that even the popularity they gain fades | quickly in the real world, especially as the platforms begin | to decline in popularity as well, and the minute they stop | working hard for free. | | We need to stop fooling ourselves about it all. | bluehorseray wrote: | Umm people definitely don't consider posting on tiktok | "labor" like you're suggesting. a) It's fun, and b) they're | getting social status / minor celebrity status. Even if | there was no chance of making any money I can guarantee you | people would still try to grow a following. | | Posting tiktoks =/= working a 9-5 at Microsoft | winternett wrote: | There are quite different experiences outside of your | own. Many people and businesses work on TikTok and every | other social platform, there is a creator fund on pretty | much every major platform out there. Millions of people | work full time to find success on sites like TikTok, and | almost every trending post is an ad for some sort of | business, or for profit. Don't just lean on your own | personal understanding and experiences. | bluehorseray wrote: | Fair. I guess I just don't think TikTok is misleading | anyone into thinking once you hit x views, x likes, and x | follows, you'll see an appropriate financial return. | Maybe I'm wrong though. I figured everyone views (or at | least should view) TikTok HQ as a kind of neutral medium, | not an employer. | nemothekid wrote: | Even normal creators, on YouTube and TikTok, can get paid; | it's called the Partner Program and Creator Fund | respectfully the bar to clear it is relatively low. From | there you can earn yourself a percentage of those millions; | at roughly one dollar for everyone million views. | | It's not different than acting or professional sports; and | it's far better than Facebook/Twitter model where they | monetize your content with no path revenue at all. Among my | list of problems with YouTube/TikTok, the revenue model is | not one of them. | | Vine died because quality creators left the platform, and | they left the platform because Vine wasn't willing to pay | them to stay. The formula is remarkably simple and for | these next generations, many of them _only_ know social | media personalities. I fear that your definition of | "quality content" has been shaped by your upbringing; what | you consider "simple content" is "real content" for people | who grew up on these platforms. I'm sure you are unaware of | the thousands of creators who have millions of followers in | niches you have never even heard about. While the content | is "simpler" it is more diverse than you can even imagine; | and thats where the staying power comes from. | mjmsmith wrote: | I"m open to good-faith criticism of TikTok, but "our | authoritarians don't like an app controlled by their | authoritarians" isn't particularly compelling. | rcpt wrote: | "the US and PRC are equally authoritarian" isn't particularly | compelling either | okasaki wrote: | Indeed, abortion is legal in China[1], the last time a police | officer killed someone was in 2019[2] and their incarceration | rate is 5x lower[3]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_China | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enf | orc... | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarc | era... | lostmsu wrote: | The police in China doesn't kill with guns. It kills by | preventing people from demanding better healthcare. | | The same goes for incarceration. In US 3M people can't use | Internet due to being incarcerated, but in China more than | 1.5B have significant restrictions. (This is just an | example for the idea of total restricted freedom) | okasaki wrote: | > The police in China doesn't kill with guns. It kills by | preventing people from demanding better healthcare. | | Given the efforts that China has put in to stopping the | spread of cov19 over the past 2 years, that seems | delusional. | | Also, Chinese life expectancy has exceeded the US now[1] | | [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7vevb/us-life- | expectancy-fa... | | > The same goes for incarceration. In US 3M people can't | use Internet due to being incarcerated, but in China more | than 1.5B have significant restrictions. (This is just an | example for the idea of total restricted freedom) | | All countries have restricted interactions on the | internet. Go ahead and google how to make a pressure | cooker bomb and see how long you have a job after the | secret service starts asking your employer questions | about you, or download some songs and get sued 150k per | song by the RIAA. | | Given the head start by foreign countries and the radical | nature of the internet (totally different way to | communicate) some caution and restrictions probably | aren't out of order. | meowtimemania wrote: | It's ironic you even mention abortion, given that abortions | were forced to maintain the one child policy until 2015, | and then 3 child policy until 2021. Is not the government's | absolute power to control family size the most blaring | example of authoritarianism? | shrimp_emoji wrote: | In the West, the abortion thing is a (ideally immutable) | moral line in the sand. | | In China, it's just an instrument the state turns on and | off as needed for population control. | | The difference in approaches is so interesting. | trasz wrote: | >given that abortions were forced to maintain the one | child policy until | | [citation needed]. Various accounts I've seen claimed it | was more like a financial fine; forced abortions sound | like Zenz-type fabrication. | lmm wrote: | Officially there was only the massive financial | incentive. However local officials also had financial | incentives to keep birth rates low in their areas, and | many of them resorted to more direct coercion, which is | widely thought to have been a not entirely unintended | consequence. | stale2002 wrote: | Look if you disagree that china is more authoritarian, then | I would encourage you to go there, and make a large amount | of public statements making fun of their leaders, or saying | that Taiwan in a country, (while in china). And to do it in | a public and viral way, and see how it works out for you. | gardenhedge wrote: | Please don't do this. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > and their incarceration rate is 5x lower | | You should see our incarceration rate for Chinese | Americans. | | > abortion is legal in China | | I'd have to say, between abortions being prohibited and | abortions being mandatory, the mandatory abortions are | significantly worse. | wahnfrieden wrote: | forced births cause deaths | thaumasiotes wrote: | So does everything else. | gardenhedge wrote: | If you're an avid TikTok user, maybe the algorithm is | already working and your post is proving the skeptics | point? | drno123 wrote: | Sure, since in the last 20 years US invaded Iraq, Afganistan | and Lybia while PRC invaded 0 countries. | jjcon wrote: | "Invaded" language and situational nuance aside, that has | everything to do with superpower status and nothing to do | with being authoritarian... | foverzar wrote: | I don't really get why people imply that these two are | somehow disconnected. | | A global superpower that systematically employs military | agression to impose its will somewhere far away around | the globe is definitely authoritarian. Even if it had | managed to create a convincing brand of democracy | benifiting only, like, 5% of global population. | ALittleLight wrote: | Authoritarianism is not measured by invasion count. | sudosysgen wrote: | It can't be used alone, but invasion or not destroying | the lives of dozens of millions of people violently for | marginal gain is authoritarian and it's the essence of | the problem with authoritarianism. | aesthesia wrote: | Authoritarianism and military aggression are not the same | thing. | mjmsmith wrote: | I didn't say they were equally authoritarian. But if you're | more concerned about TikTok's corrosive effect on American | democracy than Donald Trump's and Ted Cruz's, I'm not sure | what to say. | ravenstine wrote: | No one here said that TikTok is more corrosive than Trump | or Cruz, and you're the only one who brought up democracy. | Speaking of the latter, even a purely democratic society | can be authoritarian. | mjmsmith wrote: | From the article: | | "TikTok's growing role as a news platform has sparked | fears that, in the words of Ted Cruz, an American | senator, it is "a Trojan horse the Chinese Communist | Party can use to influence what Americans see, hear and | ultimately think". | ravenstine wrote: | Maybe _you_ have the opinion that Ted Cruz 's policy is | corrosive to democracy (however you define that) and more | so than that of TikTok, but neither the article nor | anyone in the thread suggested anything contrary. The | article is remarkably neutral, considering it's from the | Economist. So what is your point? That no one should be | concerned about TikTok until the eternal evil of the | Republican party has been thoroughly addressed? | djbusby wrote: | It's been demonstrated that Facebook heavily influenced | what many Americans "see, hear and ultimately think" | jokoon wrote: | I'm not a fan of china controlling such a popular app, but at the | same time, I don't see how it could be a security risk. I guess | in the same way fake news and deceptive political advertising was | used on Facebook to elect Trump, for example? | | I'm really puzzled by how the US believes in free speech, but | when speech comes from another country, it's a security risk. Now | I totally get that China can use propaganda for "bad ideologies", | but again, isn't propaganda part of free speech? | | What this whole thing reveals, is that US likes to influence | other countries (with its long history of foreign policy), but is | afraid to be influenced by others, so it's a bit hypocritical. | | And if it's not hypocritical, it's fair game at worst. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Hard to believe that the US government just doesn't cut them off | unless they sever all ties with China. Again Trump was a garbage | President and dumpster fire of a human being, but he definitely | got that right. It's a national security matter at this point. | mrkramer wrote: | From the economic point of view TikTok's arrival is more than | welcome so Meta's and Alphabet's dominance of digital ad market | can be challenged but looking it from US national security point | of view it is a disaster. Thanks Jack Dorsey for destroying Vine, | now you can let Elon Musk destroy Twitter and your job will be | done. Adios Amigo! | joeman1000 wrote: | It's a subversive platform. It quickly profiles someone and | begins serving them mind-altering content. Content which will | change someone's perception, behaviour and world-view. Part of | its power is our new belief in the transcendental nature of 'the | algorithm'. People believe they 'should' be viewing the content | that TikTok serves to them, so the messages in the content are | more potent. | | When you put this limbic weapon in the hands of a communist | regime, incredibly bad things will happen. Facebook at least had | some backlash over manipulating their users mood using their | platform. It's not hard to imagine China attempting some fairly | subversive things with TikTok. I would never sign up for it. | mathverse wrote: | I am really annoyed at how we (EU) and the US treat chinese | companies and citizens. | | We (europeans and americans) cant do really anything in China, we | have essentially no rights and cant really conduct business. | Unlike chinese who are pretty much granted all of that when they | want to immigrate or conduct business in EU/US. | trasz wrote: | >We (europeans and americans) cant do really anything in China | | We - Europeans and pretty much anyone who's not an American - | can't do really anything in US. | wizofaus wrote: | That arrangement seems to be almost entirely to the benefit of | the EU/US, as there's little incentive for bright/ motivated | Europeans or Americans to move to China, vs significant | incentive in the opposite direction. | bgorman wrote: | Google and Meta are the best software companies the US has | produced in the last 25 years. These two companies are also | largely responsible for driving up wages for SV workers. | TikTok could destroy both companies. | wizofaus wrote: | Those two companies will be "destroyed" when they can no | longer do what they do as well as their competitors. What | the current laws are in China are unlikely to have much | impact either way. | [deleted] | lizardactivist wrote: | And so does hypocritical accusations. | neonate wrote: | https://archive.ph/f0Rkv | crmd wrote: | 85% of US teenagers use tiktok. That's 85% of the future | generation of US senators, Cabinet members, and Supreme Court | justices, of police chiefs, civil rights activists, mayors, CEOs, | etc. in their bedrooms right now consuming content curated by, | and filming their lives and that of their friends, and uploading | the video to data centers, that are controlled by a strategic | adversary of the United States. This is, to put it lightly, a | huge national security risk. | jen20 wrote: | > 85% of US teenagers use tiktok. That's 85% of the future | generation of US senators, Cabinet members, and Supreme Court | justices, of police chiefs, civil rights activists, mayors, | CEOs, etc | | Are we really sure this follows (even if the numbers are | correct)? | meowtimemania wrote: | should be edited to be: 85% of future generation will open | tiktok at least once this month | mrtksn wrote: | I do agree about the risk and that cuts both ways, it's why EU | and Russia and other countries are taking some precautions | about the US companies and govt access to their citizens data. | | On the other hand, TikTok is a result of the stagnant US-made | social media platforms. TikTok did innovate and gained its | market share fair and square. | | As I said it multiple times before, I hope US takes the EU | approach, that is, regulating the data access and not the | Chinese approach of banning. | | US is facing this issue for the first time and it is a touchy | topic. But please consider the implications, what happens if | each political block chooses the banning/blocking approach? Do | you want to live in a world with each country having its own | separate internet? | | A lot of people are quick to rise the pitchforks and believe in | the US superiority but ironically they demand government | solution upon free market failure. I was genuinely scared about | the future of the internet when the Trump admin tried to force | acquisition by US tech giant or App Store ban over TikTok. What | a relief when it failed. | BuyMyBitcoins wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TikTok essentially just a | more developed version of Vine? | | I remember Vines taking off in popularity before it being | shut down for a reason I never fully understood. | mrtksn wrote: | And where is Vine now? Nothing is blank sheet new, | everything is building on top of something and iterates and | the truth is, when the US-made social media consolidated on | politics and glamour photos TikTok came up with something | fun and creative and apparently people love it. | yieldcrv wrote: | Because having it all public and on moot's server in Virginia | is so much better | | I just can't make this different enough. I see the difference, | just not _enough_. | HaZeust wrote: | 4chan always served warrants, lol. | woodruffw wrote: | 85% of US teenagers would be debased by the poor and foreign | morals of James Joyce, if only we could get them to read | Ulysses. | shrimp_emoji wrote: | Something must be done. Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi | ki/United_States_v._One_Book_Call... | jimmytucson wrote: | It's possible that the first generations who read Ulysses | were worse off than the ones before--who thought Ulysses was | harmful--but still better than the generations now, who don't | read much at all. If today's next generation spent their time | reading literature that was considered obscene 100 years ago, | I think we'd all agree they'd be better off than spending 3 | hours a day scrolling. | airza wrote: | The invisible comparison you seem to be making here is to | Facebook or Twitter, companies which also do not seem to have | my best interests in mind. | wslh wrote: | In a scifi tone, it is interesting to extrapolate the | personality of teenagers once they take roles in future | governments. | throwaway4good wrote: | TikTok's data centers are in the US. | Quillbert182 wrote: | That doesn't mean China can't access the data, and we have no | guarantees that there aren't copies of all that data in | China. | throwaway4good wrote: | Yes. What would be a good way to regulate this; still | allowing open and fair competition while protecting the | privacy of the broad population? | | So if the EU forces Facebook to store EU's citizens data in | the EU. What would prevent Facebook copying that data to | the US? | | Or have some American (potentially working for the NSA) | remotely accessing EU data? | dijit wrote: | This might sound like a fallacious argument; but do you think | the same about Europeans who consume almost exclusively US | media and interact almost exclusively with US social media | platforms? | | The US (famously) does not have Allies, only temporary | allegiances. | | If you're discussing ties to government, Twitter and Facebook | have members on their boards publicly who are sitting and/or | former members of government including, at least in facebooks | case: Robert Kimmitt (who was United States Ambassador to | Germany from 1991 to 1993, Under Secretary of State for | Political Affairs from 1989 to 1991, General Counsel of the | U.S. Department of the Treasury from 1985 to 1987, and National | Security Council Executive Secretary and General Counsel from | 1983 to 1985). | | Is it different rules for us in Europe? or are you suggesting | that we should never have allowed this to happen? | | tl;dr: Why is US/China much different from EU/US or US/Japan | (whom also makes a resounding impact on our technology and | strongly affects our culture in the west). | NicoJuicy wrote: | US has the same stance on the Democratic world like the EU. | | As it appears, China actually supported war in Europe. As | long as it didn't happen during the games. | | So yes, China should be under suspicion a lot more than the | US from an European viewpoint. | | Ps. I'm from Belgium | jokethrowaway wrote: | The US feels too incompetent to try to manipulate other | countries and it feels more like they have a bad culture and | they export it to European countries (where kids in half | broken and sad schools dream of partying in cool | fraternities). | | China, on the other hand, sounds perfectly capable and | willing of manipulating our society to make it weak and | broken, while at the same time forbidding the same content in | their land. | | I'd argue it even predates tiktok and it could explain why | media and politicians are so much worse than 30 years ago. | The other explanation is that we got complacent, and all | great empires need generational weakness before collapsing. | | Probably there's a bit of truth in both. | OJFord wrote: | We won't really find out until there's a big European social | media platform or whatever - I agree with you it's weird, but | the obvious response (and you've received it) is along the | lines of conjecturing that they wouldn't worry about UK-Tok, | Tetebook, or Deutschezon. Maybe that's right. It'd be fun to | find out. (Also for other reasons, come on, what's going on | that there isn't really even one to name?) | meowtimemania wrote: | there is spotify which I think is winning in the us | lumost wrote: | There have been international competitors in key US | industries for decades. The most that's occurred has been | bailouts of US heavy industry such as cars. Examples | include Toyota, Ericsson, Sony, Hyundai, VW etc. | | When there are reciprocal markets between countries with | similar approaches to government and law, there isn't much | of a problem. When one country adds tariffs, the other | usually just matches them. | OJFord wrote: | Of course but I'm talking about more consumer-facing | (and.. 'interactive' in a way car manufacturers aren't) | companies, social media, etc. | | Closest I can think of are Ocado and Monzo, neither of | which (especially the latter) are big enough to compare | yet. Perhaps Just Eat (UberEats competitor) too which | recently announced US partnership with Amazon. (Veering | off-topic here but I've long been surprised that | Deliveroo hasn't massively expanded globally? That's the | dominant one in London at least, and very quickly ate | Just Eat's lunch, which long predated it.) | dijit wrote: | The majority of the time something successful comes out of | the EU, the US buys it wholesale. | | Skype, Shazam, iZettle, Mojang etc | | I'm not sure it would be different for social networks. | (similar to how the match group owns practically all the | dating sites and apps; interestingly I just found out that | the match group refused to pull out of Russia.) | threatofrain wrote: | Europeans are free to quantify the threat which the US poses | to European geopolitical concerns, and many European | countries have decided to avoid AWS for such reasons. | | The US, similarly, ought be free to feel that EU is not the | same as China, and allow a different economic relationship | with the EU than with China. The US is currently amicable | with the EU and is thus willing to treat the EU very | differently than with China. | throwaway4good wrote: | The US interference and surveillance in the EU is well- | documented and at a massive scale. The Chinese ditto is much | smaller though the media attention much bigger. | | Hopefully non-US tech finally will lead to reasonable | regulation: Storage of citizen's data on national ground and | protection against arbitrary surveillance by foreign | governments whether perceived friend or for. | | Unfortunately the push to simply ban anything Chinese is | strong as it has massive commercial interest of old US-tech | (Facebook, Google) behind it. But it is not in our | (Europeans) interest and I hope our politicians can resist. | ipython wrote: | > The US interference and surveillance in the EU is well- | documented and at a massive scale. The Chinese ditto is | much smaller though the media attention much bigger. | | Citation needed. | ConstantVigil wrote: | Not the person you are asking, but I think I have a point | that can help shed some light on the matter. I'm going to be | speaking from the Canadian side of things, and so I'll be | saying 'We' a lot due to the US and Canada tending to trade | alike in a lot of ways AFAIK. | | Ultimately, it all boils down to known trajectories. The EU | and other places in the general area such as the UK, are all | known to have histories of their own no doubt. Not just good | histories, but bad as well. We trade with Germany, despite | WWII. We trade with middle eastern countries, despite having | many beliefs and ideologies and laws that are not exactly | loved by all to put it lightly. We trade with even out | economic adversaries because why not. Cheap labor, etc. | | In all of these cases where we trade with any one of these | places that someone could make some argument or another that | they would be undesirable trade partners for; the future | trajectory of that nation is what is the key point of where | the decision is based off of to keep trading, or go with | sanctions, etc and so forth. | | The key to understanding this as I do, is the basis of Canada | still trading with China when USA decides not to, or to | restrict trade, etc and so forth. This is because our | government for the past while now has decided that they | wanted to help China get out of its economic slump from the | past decades. And so of course since America tends to be a | bit hawkish around working with communism in any form, while | Canada has more socialist roots established; we tend to be | more willing to work with such nations than America tends to. | (And this absolutely sometimes pisses them off, government | wise so to speak. And the nationalist types...) | | Now in the past, most of this would have been water under the | bridge, and nothing to be concerned about. Trade is trade, | nothing more, nothing less; usually. | | But with the advent of all of this digital revolution we are | going through, and politics being stuck into everything that | has a usable screen; the end result is stuff like this where | countries with histories of X thing that Y government doesn't | like automatically get extra scrutinized. | | Especially when those countries have active militaries that | support that kind of regime in said country. Doubly so when | that country is in support of those militaries. One might say | militia instead, but I fail to see the difference once they | own navy vessels. I think this should be a fair opinion on | the matter. | | Anyways, right or wrong on the military/militia part as I may | be, the end point is that we are seeing a rise in more | extreme behavior in that country, in this case China and | Russia lately; and so it only makes sense to be even more | scrutinizing of anything to do with them. | | Literally anything, since again; politics is in everything | now. | | Even us in Canada are starting to pull back from China, even | though we are doing it at a slower rate. Our government is | trying very hard to basically only enact these kinds of | retracting changes only when it is going to hurt their future | election outlook the least; or hurts their opponents outlook | the most. | | As for an example of this in action; Huawei 5G networks are | effectively banned in Canada now. It took a while to come | into fruition, but it finally happened. Whether or not they | were right or wrong to do so is not my hill to fight on right | now, but it is a great example of them biding their time til | the last moment. | trasz wrote: | >we are seeing a rise in more extreme behavior in that | country, in this case China | | Can you give some specifics? What exactly is this extreme | behaviour, and how does it compare to easily observable | extremes found in US, from police routinely shooting random | people, to religious fundamentalists denying woman basic | human rights? | ConstantVigil wrote: | aparticulate wrote: | You are asking whether sporadic US police abuses and a | _literal police state_ stack up comparably in terms of | human rights? | che_shirecat wrote: | what is a police state? | illiac786 wrote: | Huh, a single guy having all the power and changing the | fundamental rules of the game (aka constitution or | however it's called in China)? Not a red flag? | [deleted] | dymk wrote: | Yes, US/China relations are pretty distinct from US/EU | relations. | dijit wrote: | Why do you think that's the case? Aside from the trade-war | that's going on, which is pretty arbirary; | | The US has routinely spied on Europe, allowed backdoored | technology to make it's way into the continent including to | spy on _government officials_ from another sovereign | (allegedly _allied_ ) nation. | | It's hard for me not to draw direct comparisons, because | other than the surface level of "everything's fine, we have | a common culture and we're all white" - I don't see them as | being much different. | | Of course you're right, they're not the same, we don't see | them the same. But China has arguably done less to the US | than the US has done to the EU. | | Can you explain it to me? | ralusek wrote: | EU and US are both fundamentally liberal democracies and | not adversarial. China is an authoritarian single party | state which openly declares the US an enemy... | trasz wrote: | Because of course a two party system is fundamentally | different from one party one :-D | shrimp_emoji wrote: | ... + the liberal institutions + the non-totalitarianism | + the actual, real life democracy + historical and | political context + ... :D | ceejayoz wrote: | That's correct, yes. | illiac786 wrote: | I'm assuming there is irony and you mean 2 is not enough. | But it's still day and night compared to single party, | irony is not an argument in itself. | trasz wrote: | No, two parties representing largely the same lobbyists | and sharing largely the same views are not "night and | day" compared to one party. I'd go as far as to say they | are exactly the same, except for pretending there's some | actual, working opposition. | ceejayoz wrote: | This was an easier both sides-ism to get away a decade | ago. It stretches credulity today. | simonsarris wrote: | At enormous expense the US rebuilt Europe (Marshall | plan), protected it from Soviet Encroachment (and is | still doing so to this day, apparently), and is above all | _reciprocal_ with Europe in a way that China is not. | | Facebook is not banned in Europe. Spotify is not banned | in America. Both are banned in China. On that basis alone | both entities have ample cause to limit China's influence | in their own domestic spheres. | interactivecode wrote: | The rebuilding of Europe was all done with loans not | gifts, so it was just a money making cheme | shostack wrote: | Well for one, there's this thing called NATO. For another | there isn't constant saber rattling between the EU and | US. | raverbashing wrote: | > Why do you think that's the case? | | The whole history of the XX century | ruined wrote: | >This might sound like a fallacious argument; but do you | think the same about Europeans who consume almost exclusively | US media and interact almost exclusively with US social media | platforms? | | i'm not OP, but yes. | | >Is it different rules for us in Europe? or are you | suggesting that we should never have allowed this to happen? | | this should never have been allowed to happen. | | the mass collection and storage of video, audio, location | data, public and private messages, browsing history, topics | of interest, sentiments and mood, social graphs, menstrual | status, political leanings, and so on, is a travesty. it is | an unprecedented and powerful invasion of personal privacy, | and it's happening to every online adult and child around the | world, and there is essentially no way to opt out, and no | expectation that the collected data will ever be deleted. | | if it only scares you when china does it, something's weird. | beebmam wrote: | The Chinese government owns all of its businesses. In the | US/EU, businesses are independently owned by private | individuals. | marcosdumay wrote: | You mean to say that the US government isn't spying on data | held by large US companies? | bluepizza wrote: | > The US (famously) does not have Allies, only temporary | allegiances. | | Far from me to defend American imperialism, but this is not | true, is it? The USA has a decent list of long standing | alliances, that include a variety of countries: Japan, | Australia, Canada, UK, South Korea, among others. | deanCommie wrote: | It may be true but if it's true it's true for all | allyships. | | Look at the history of Europe and observe the shifting | trends of alliances. | c048 wrote: | You're right, and that list also includes European | countries like France. You're just quoting a bad actor, no | way that he ever opened a history book about the subject. | dijit wrote: | > America has no permanent friends or enemies, only | interests. | | https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/633024-america-has-no- | perma... | | From Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State. | CommitSyn wrote: | Am I missing where this is quoted from, or is it like | many other quotes where it could be attributed to the | person, but nobody really knows? | | Edit: if I'm reading right, it seems to be a quote from | Dinesh D'Souza's book "What's so great about America" | quoted by Henry Kissinger in his book "The White House | Years" | | https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger (Quotes | -> 1980's) | | Aside from the aforementioned countries, I'd say Israel | is quite a strong ally of the United States. | ceejayoz wrote: | By that pessimistic definition, no country can really | ever have allies. | | The US has a number of nations with which its interests | have long aligned with, and are likely to continue to, | and are formalized via treaty. I'm ok with calling those | alliances. | dijit wrote: | That might be a perspective, but it feels weird to say it | the way Kissinger does if it doesn't elude to something | deeper. | | For example: There could be war between Finland and | Sweden, but it's fair to call them allies, in this day | and age, they are friends... friends can still fall out. | I know he says _permanent_ friends, but permanence in | friendship is simply the act of not sabotaging it. | | In the same way it might be fair to call the US and | Canada allies, but given that the US has been | considerably more hostile to the EU, even spying on | politicians, I think the quote is more telling than you | believe. | bluepizza wrote: | A man who is widely reviled by a decent chunk of American | population. One of the few issues that both parties and | independents agree on is how terrible and damaging this | person was. | ardit33 wrote: | "The US (famously) does not have Allies, only temporary | allegiances." | | What? Are you a troll or just a cpp bot? | | NATO is an alliance, and also the US has many other defense | pacts. (AUS, and more). Those are not temporary allegiances | (if you call 70 years 'temporary' then you are either | trolling or just delusional). | thinkling wrote: | It's roughly a Kissinger quote, so no, GP is not a troll. | Note that a recent President was interested in possibly | withdrawing from NATO. | sharadov wrote: | The data centers are running on Oracle cloud - which last I | checked was a 100% US company, your entire argument is moot. | galaktus wrote: | > That's 85% of the future generation of US senators [...] | | That is false. Many young people who are material for such | position, don't care about tiktok. | lumost wrote: | In what world does it make sense to allow a country who blocks | access to their market unrestricted access to the US market? | | If china is a rival to the US, why do they have one of the most | favorable trade deals? | gampleman wrote: | One of these countries spent a century preaching to the world | the benefits of free trade, the other ridding itself of the | capitalist class. So the issue from the point of view of the | rest of the world is that the US should practice what they | preach even in the one case where that would mean allowing | some mild competition to their massive and insanely | profitable internet monopolies. | tchalla wrote: | In the world where US controls the petrodollar system. That | world. | SkinTaco wrote: | > If china is a rival to the US, why do they have one of the | most favorable trade deals? | | I don't have an answer for you, but when you rephrase the | point you're getting at it's easy to see there are plenty of | valid reasons, because this is not true: | | > There are no reasons for the US to give a favorable trade | deal to a country that is otherwise a rival | thrown_22 wrote: | There is a difference between letting China export low | value added products with many producers vs a literal spy | in your bedroom. | | Is this now US policy too: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 | lumost wrote: | You claim you don't have an answer, but then state that by | simple rephrasing the answer is obvious? | | Can you specify a specific reason? There are historic | examples of trade deals made for this reason such as with | the Soviet Union or communist china. However I cannot think | of an example where a country has given unilaterally | favorable trade terms to a rival except out of | fealty/tribute. | paulcole wrote: | A world where we want $29 microwaves and iPhones produced | 24/7 and delivered to our doorstep. People in America need | China in order to keep living the lives we have. | jjeaff wrote: | I'm not so sure that is really true anymore. I think that | was the case in the past, when most manufacturing was very | labor intensive. But now, so much is automated that things | could be made anywhere for almost as cheap. Unfortunately, | the US doesn't really have the infrastructure and | capabilities to do so now. | paulcole wrote: | If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a | merry christmas. | naavis wrote: | So effectively they couldn't be made just anywhere, if | they can't be made in the US? | sudosysgen wrote: | Because it's not true that they have unrestricted access to | the US market, see Huawei, ZTE, etc... | | And it's not true they have one of the most favourable trade | deals, many tariffs are still in effect. | Teever wrote: | But surely you see that there is a difference in how China | regulates American companies operating in China and vice | versa? | | Perhaps the US should adopt a tit for tat policy with | regards to China in this matter? | bigcat12345678 wrote: | What's the importance of means to an end? | | US rules the world through a liberal voting political | propaganda; a rule-based capitalism market economy; a USD | denominated financial structure. | | Sure, US blocked Huawei through rule of law; and you | think China has no laws to block FB & Google? But behind | the cloak of laws regulations, the intention of mutual | exclusion is pure and same, nothing different. | mikae1 wrote: | Or it will be the 15% that takes those positions while the 85% | stay glued to TikTok... | djantje wrote: | I think the danger is way more in the addictive part. | | It is al interessting, and the users are a nice research group. | | But here in the Netherlands, 25% of the young people have the | chance to become illiterate (yes become, | reading/writing/communication skills dropping after primary | and/or high school), part of it is the mobile phone, part of it | social status and background. | bigcat12345678 wrote: | > 85% of US teenagers use tiktok. That's 85% of the future | generation of US senators, Cabinet members, and Supreme Court | justices, of police chiefs, civil rights activists, mayors, | CEOs, etc. | | What's the basis of social elites are coming uniformly from the | population? | | I think it's obvious that the social elites in all areas are | predominantly from wealthy and affluent families. So the line | of thinking of 85% teens corresponding to 85% or some number | close elites, is baseless at best, and misleading at worst. | BuyMyBitcoins wrote: | I feel like the 15% that do not use TikTok are more likely to | be from lower class or impoverished families. Likely because | they have limited access to smartphones or electronics of | their own. | | I'm sure there are "elite" families who strictly forbid their | children from using social media, but I suspect this | population is very low. In my own anecdotal experience, the | most affluent teens had the most access to drugs and things | our parents forbade us from having. | jjeaff wrote: | Is there reason to believe that the elite use TikTok at | disproportionally lower rates than the rest of the | population? If anything, it's probably higher. | api wrote: | So say it's 50%. That's not much better. | illiac786 wrote: | Yes it is. And it's still baseless. | nonrandomstring wrote: | > huge national security risk | | National security is the sum total of the individual earned | securities of each citizen, no more or less. | | The distortion occurs when "national security" becomes the | interests of a business elite, or a political party, or the job | security of the security services themselves. We lose focus | about what "security" really is. | | I agree with your point (as I understand it), but to my | knowledge there isn't and never has been a division of national | apparatus dedicated to defence of culture, national values, and | the sanity of our children from insidious foreign propaganda. | And as for direct counter-propaganda we are not allowed to | direct psyops internally, at least not with a taxpayer's | dollar. | | The "disappearance of the perimeter", as understood through the | lens of the Huawei debacle is an example of how fast this has | materialised and ambushed us in the social media age. But to be | honest, I see the same problems with Facebook or US companies | filtering and amplifying values. | | There isn't an easy answer. There are not enough human | resources. There is very little common agreement. Nobody wants | to open that can of worms. Doing so would mean going up against | powerful businesses and I don't think the IC has the stomach | for it or can adapt to the changing threats fast enough. | | So we just keep pretending "national security" is limited to | industrial espionage by the Chinese or hacking by the Russians | and so on. | | That's why I think individual Digital Self Defence via | education is the only option. It needs baking into the | curriculum for age 6 upwards. | codemac wrote: | The "forecast" graph seems a little ... optimistic given the | market these days. | hunglee2 wrote: | excellent article, surprisingly nuanced and - I think - fair in | its analysis. | | The main fear is not that it is a foreign owned app - after all, | most people in the countries all over the world are using foreign | owned (US) apps - it is because it is the first non-US app used | by US citizens which unnerves both the US government and US | commentariat. | | Whether those fears are justified or not, I suspect US will | follow the China's vision of the internet, prioritise national | security concerns over freedom of choice, and ultimately ban | TikTok | curious_cat_163 wrote: | I hope that the US doesn't ban TikTok. That would be a very bad | outcome for the concept of an open internet. | | I do think more regulation are likely in order. There are some | very good arguments for not letting children under a certain | age to be allowed on the social media platforms. However, the | enforcement of those laws is spotty and is left to parental | controls. | | What we need is an outbreak of social media literacy among the | youngest members of society. Like, this needs to be taught at | school in first grade or something. | lumost wrote: | This is effectively demanding an impossible solution to a | present problem. | | Asking grade school children to weigh the geopolitical | consequences of their cat videos is never going to happen. | You're talking about an age group which is still learning | basic literacy. | | The solution is regulation, we already regulate children's | television programming for this exact reason. | curious_cat_163 wrote: | I don't see how we disagree. | | If by "present problem" you mean, the fact that TikTok | happens to have been built by a Chinese company, then I see | what you mean. | | Even still, for a democracy, the best protection against | any potential threat is to prepare its citizens. In this | case, the citizenry needs to be prepared cognitively. | | Arguably, it would help, if we started early -- get them | while they are young? | | I don't see what other long-term things that a democracy | can do. | | Other than starting a war in the near-term, I suppose? | aparticulate wrote: | > Even still, for a democracy, the best protection | against any potential threat is to prepare its citizens. | In this case, the citizenry needs to be prepared | cognitively. | | There's no way I would trust managers, certainly, their | managers to not simply regurgitate the most "CNN- | friendly" curriculum imaginable. Maybe pre-2015 I would | agree. US education simply isn't a trustworthy system at | the moment. The threat has already arrived and the good | teachers are leaving in droves. | nemothekid wrote: | > _In this case, the citizenry needs to be prepared | cognitively._ | | This is such a pie in the sky suggestion that I'm forced | to wonder if you even pay attention to US politics. To | give you some context some of the biggest issues in | education right now is: | | 1. Arming teachers with rifles | | 2. Dismantling the public school system and replacing | them with vouchers. | | The last federally mandated educational solution, No | Child Left Behind, was a massive failure and has soured | most future federally mandated educational policies. | Asking underfunded teachers to teach 9 year olds why they | shouldn't use the "funny cat app" because of complex | geopolitics will end up ignored at best or lead to | incredibly xenophobia at worst (Ms. Adams told me not to | use TikTok because China is evil, henceforth all asians | are out to trick me). | | > _I don 't see what other long-term things that a | democracy can do._ | | Actually enforce data privacy laws universally. Of course | this will anger the Facebook/Google trillion dollar | oligarchs so we are told there is nothing we can do. The | crux of the issue is that US wants everyone else data | (EU, Oceania, Asia) but it doesn't want other companies | to do the same. Your solutions are either you ban it for | hegemony reasons, and pray that | Europe/India/Japan/Australia doesn't enact the same law, | or you ban it for privacy reasons. | aparticulate wrote: | >What we need is an outbreak of social media literacy among | the youngest members of society. Like, this needs to be | taught at school in first grade or something. | | I use TikTok loads and I'm completely onboard with the idea | that it's extremely concerning for democracy. Nuanced | education doesn't help any more than it would for say, | healthy eating advocacy vs fast food industry. We need carrot | and stick approaches. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Imagine getting downvoted for what you just said lol. HN | people can't be so out of contact with children to think | they will make complex political decisions. All they want | to see are funny dance and cat videos. I remember when I | was a tween and early teens. All I cared about was decent | grades, baseball, my crush, and my computer side jobs. I | wouldn't have cared if tiktok was based in Iran as long as | it entertained me. | ramblenode wrote: | You are also describing most adults. | OJFord wrote: | Is that not already technically the case? It certainly is/was | in the UK. And I assure you everyone was using whatever they | wanted, including e.g. eBay which probably has more | stringently regulated rules. | | It's a _lot_ easier to lie about your age on a Facebook sign- | up form than to buy drugs or alcohol, and teens will find a | way to do the latter if they want to. | mantas wrote: | Open internet is already dead. | | Now the question is if West defends or is it up for grabs for | other countries that already built their own walled gardens. | hunglee2 wrote: | same, I think the argument for open internet can only be made | by example. However, there is no domestic political mileage | in maintaining that position, vs plenty of political mileage | in china bad policy making. He is out of office but we are in | the trump timeline | yellow_postit wrote: | Long have primary education financial and internet literacy | been proposed but the pessimist in me sees a low likelihood | of US-nationwide adoption of either given the polarization. | Ironically due to those exact same issues. | | This seems like a classic case that needs some more direct | regulatory intervention. | im3w1l wrote: | I never got the feeling that US distrusted EU software. | lmm wrote: | They definitely ignore and dismiss anything made in the EU. I | don't think there's been an overwhelmingly popular app that's | forced them to confront the idea of most US citizens using EU | software yet. | alex_smart wrote: | >The main fear is not that it is a foreign owned app - after | all, most people in the countries all over the world are using | foreign owned (US) apps - it is because it is the first non-US | app used by US citizens which unnerves both the US government | and US commentariat | | As you can imagine, citizens from other countries are observing | this development with great interest. | hunglee2 wrote: | we can anticipate - maybe even observe - countries which | retain something close to sovereignty make moves in this | direction. China obviously, but also Modi's India, and I | would also say any version of France, still have the ambition | to maintain an independent line | gravitate wrote: | dcchambers wrote: | The addictive nature of TikTok scares the shit out of me. It's | like the culmination of 20 years of social media research and | testing purposely designed to create the most addictive product | possible. Such a large percentage of young people use it...it's | absolutely terrifying. | Brybry wrote: | I wouldn't worry too much about TikTok's impact on the youth as | a population (rather than specific individuals with evidence of | actual struggles). | | Similar fears were expressed about music corrupting the youth. | And TV rotting their brains. And video games turning them into | mass murderers. | | And yet, even with all the actual addictive poisons generations | of youth have imbibed, those youth turned into us and here we | are posting on HN. | EamonnMR wrote: | Are you sure TV didn't rot our brains? | wyre wrote: | Social media addiction is a very real thing and tiktok does | it better than any of its competitors. | lmm wrote: | I've heard this but it doesn't match my experience at all. | I see far more addictive behaviour on facebook or twitter | (or, hell, HN). | davesque wrote: | I'd be in favor of banning TikTok just so I don't have to see | those mind-annihilatingly stupid ads for it on YouTube anymore. | And before people comment, I'm seeing ads because I like using | the YouTube mobile app. | Fargoan wrote: | It's been evident from the beginning what it is | mkl95 wrote: | TikTok is the most successful espionage operation of the 21st | century so far, and it is based on a simple idea - people will | happily give away their data and privacy if you consistently | entertain them. | | In my opinion the application should be shut down as soon as | possible, but there are many lessons to learn from it. And most | of them have little to do with technology. | madeofpalk wrote: | As a non-US, non-Chinese citizen, is there something that makes | TikTok espionage and Facebook not? Or is it just "china scary"? | option wrote: | under which rule would your rather live Western (US) or | China. And no, realistically you do not have "your own" | choice | EamonnMR wrote: | TikTok's format is more successful at micro targeting and | influencing people than Facebook. Other future social media | networks will probably work in a similar way and be just as | concerning. YouTube is another one that's very good at | influencing people. I wonder if video is unsafe at any speed, | so to speak... | | A spooky example of TikTok-the-emergent-system's ability to | influence people at scale. This one gave me pause. | https://www.wbur.org/endlessthread/2022/06/03/tiktok-tics | shikoba wrote: | It is because China is the enemy. When it's Facebook or | Google strangely it's never an issue. Moral is always a | facade for international economic war. And some people fall | for it. | bko wrote: | I think there's a difference between a private company | having my data and an adversarial government. The company | has a clear motive, profit. They're lawful neutral. An | adversarial government may be chaotic evil. I don't know | why this isn't obvious. | | Wasn't everyone freaking out just a few years ago when | Russian government was manipulating people with political | groups on Facebook? And that's even with Facebook's earnest | effort to prevent these things. With this company, there's | a direct tie in with an adversarial government. | | Yes, ideally I don't want anyone to have my data, but lets | not pretend Zuck and CCP are the same thing | phyrex wrote: | How are they "The Enemy"? Are they coming and killing | Americans or is it just generic xenophobia? | vinyl7 wrote: | Economic enemy | inopinatus wrote: | It's an issue with Facebook and Google as well. Kindly take | this false dichotomy off the table. | pempem wrote: | While most people on HN would agree that they would like | more regulation of their data on FB and Google, these are | largely still separate actors from the US government. You | can even indicate that something like Cambridge Analytica | is starting within a party, rather than the actual | governing body. | | There is too much sharing, IMO, without a doubt. That being | said, they are not near synonymous as TikTok is. | | Data regulation, privacy, influence through exposure are | real issues worldwide. Tiktok has a raised profile due to | its closeness with a governing state body. | Al-Khwarizmi wrote: | The thing is that "government = bad" is typical American | mindset. As another non-US, non-Chinese citizen, the fact | that those megacorporations are independent from the | government makes it worse, not better. | | At least governments respond to their people (especially | in the case of democracies, much less so for | authoritarian governments, but they still have to worry a | minimum to avoid revolution). Corporations respond to | profit only, everything else be damned. | bko wrote: | When Facebook starts opening concentration camps, I'm | likely to agree with you. | | > especially in the case of democracies, much less so for | authoritarian governments, but they still have to worry a | minimum to avoid revolution | | What do you think is more likely to still be relevant in | 100 years from now, China or Facebook? I think a | 'revolution' is more likely to affect Facebook than China | dnissley wrote: | If a security hole was found in Google and in the US | government, which do you think would respond in a way | that would make that less likely to happen in the future? | alfiedotwtf wrote: | > these are largely still separate actors from the US | government | | Yes they're separate actors, but programs like PRISM | suggest that they're still on a very short leash | Calvin02 wrote: | Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to | the world. | | It is surprisingly that simple. | | While the US and the western governments have their issues, | they are still a largely law abiding. China, however, is not. | Additionally, under Xi, it has become more authoritarian and | more willing to undo the rules based order that has someone | kept the world somewhat sane since WWII. | | I don't know why anyone would be afraid to say this. | onelovetwo wrote: | If you're looking at it from that perspective, tiktok | should be the least of your worries. Currently The U.S. is | entirely dependent on this "geopolitical threat" to | survive. At least with tiktok its as simple as shutting | down the app. | | The U.S and China are entangled in ways you cant imagine. | bool3max wrote: | You are delusional. | [deleted] | guywatershow wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_ | r... | | Rules were made to be broken! | fabianhjr wrote: | I am from latin america and at least neither China nor | Russia have participated in coup d'etat to install a | military junta to then torture and massacre anyone slightly | left of the US "Democratic" Party. | | Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI | bitlax wrote: | Yeah Russia has been totally hands off in Latin America. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#/media/File:Che | inM... | fabianhjr wrote: | Russian Federation != Union of Soviet Socialist Republics | | More so: Russian Federation != Russian Soviet Federative | Socialist Republic | ciroduran wrote: | Hi from Venezuela | fabianhjr wrote: | Ah yes, also curiously enough the US is way more prone to | completely embargo Cuba and Venezuela but neither Russia | nor China. (Due to political-economic reasons and not | moral/ethical ones) | | Edit: profile I am replying to has the following in their | about section: "about: I play music and I code | videogames. I live in Brighton, UK." so assuming the "hi | from venezuela" was sarcastic. | ciroduran wrote: | I lived there 29 years of my life, I lived the | dictatorship, and I still got family and friends. Far | from sarcastic. | fabianhjr wrote: | Ah yes, compared to the constitutional monarchy of the | United Kingdom. | lmm wrote: | > While the US and the western governments have their | issues, they are still a largely law abiding. | | Perhaps on an internal level. But for those of us in third | countries what matters is how they act outside their | borders, and the US is doing considerably more | dronestriking of their political enemies than China is. | | (And even if you just look at domestic aspects, the | relevant area is one of the exceptions. The NSA seems to be | decoupled from any oversight - its leaders lie to congress | with impunity, any attempts to hold them to account via the | courts are dismissed...) | option wrote: | you conveniently left Russia out of your "acting outside | of their borders" discussion... In case you haven't | noticed they started a bloody war in Ukraine this year. | starfallg wrote: | Or CCP troops engaging in bloody border skirmishes with | shovels. | alfiedotwtf wrote: | > they are still a largely law abiding | | Where does one even begin... | Al-Khwarizmi wrote: | You would be surprised if you polled non-US, non-China | citizens about what country is the biggest geopolitical | threat to the world. | | Wait, I don't even need to talk in conditionals. I Googled | it and apparently it has indeed been done several times, | and the results are what I expected. | | https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat- | demo... | konschubert wrote: | okay, go poll Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, ... | RONROC wrote: | What people are afraid to say is that the United States | arguably has a bad enough rap sheet as China, but still, even | with its shortcomings, it's still _not_ China. | | And yes, China bad. | pfisherman wrote: | More effective than Facebook or Google? Last I checked they | didn't have their "pixel" or SDK embedded in every web page or | mobile app, beaming data back to them. | | Not saying that TikTok is benevolent or not a surveillance | operation, just that they are not yet as big, insidious, or | effective as Facebook or Google. | madeofpalk wrote: | > Last I checked they didn't have their "pixel" or SDK | embedded in every web page or mobile app, beaming data back | to them | | Oh you might actually be surprised about that one | | https://ads.tiktok.com/help/mobile/article?aid=9663 | pfisherman wrote: | Lol! Of course they would! Thanks for this info. | jsemrau wrote: | You are likely mistaken. FB/Meta is still the leading data- | broker because | | (a) they track you even though you are not on their app [1] (b) | they own 55% of app downloads in the US [2] | | [1] | https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_... | [2] https://app.finclout.io/t/b9BbQa4 | rvz wrote: | Some naively said that it was _' The best thing to have | happened to the Internet.'_ [0] This is an example of a user | under the spell of the glorified algorithm that dictates what | is seen and unseen. | | So given that this [1] is the general capability of what the | algorithm can do, it looks like that it is the largest and the | most dystopian controlled experiment of the 21st century. Even | worse than Facebook. | | We have hit a new nadir on screwing with 'users' with this new | digital crack / cocaine invention that Bytedance has created. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28151067 | chaostheory wrote: | What data are we exactly giving Tiktok? I would agree with it | being called a propaganda platform, but I'm not sure about it | being a surveillance platform. | groffee wrote: | You can't sign up with just an email, you need third party | integration like Twitter, and surprise, you need to give | TikTok full access to your account. | | Still pretty entertaining though. | xan92 wrote: | There is lot of good content creators on TikTok apart from | (dancing/singing) ones, the TechTok community is huge , It really | depends on what interest the end users have, It's all individual | attention driven algorithm that caters to the end user needs | based on their likes/dislikes. It's faster to learn if you don't | like something it does a good job in not recommending those type | of content again. Which I believe Instagram/youtube isn't that | great at. | Avamander wrote: | It's hypertailored compared to YouTube and the likes. When | people complain about the content they see, be it terrible DIY | hacks or something more bizarre, I can't help but wonder what | they've done that TikTok recommends such content to them. After | dropping a few hints that it's very tailored a few have gotten | a bit embarrassed and stopped complaining. | | Interestingly it also separates a lot of the users from the | rest, people call them [thing]-toks and crossovers aren't very | welcome. Kinda like subreddits, but algorithmic. | birdyrooster wrote: | Eventually something China made had to stick, surprising it took | this long really. | djbusby wrote: | A lot of the other Chinese apps were clones. TikTock was a | novel improvement to the crap of Twitter and Facebook, etc. And | it's algo is(was?) very "good" | ThisIsMyAltFace wrote: | TikTok filled the void left by Vine after it was stupidly | allowed to die | meowtimemania wrote: | I would put TikTok in a different category than | Twitter/Facebook. I see it as an improvement of Vine. | Ekaros wrote: | One has to wonder why none of the big USA based players don't | have as good product? From what I have heard there isn't | really anything special with the app itself. Ofc, it has | reached the critical mass in creators, but it was there for | taking... | Avamander wrote: | Because TikTok has so far kept its strongly algorithmically | tailored content to retain users, instead of optimising for | more ad minutes like YouTube or Facebook. | | YouTube could be just as good, even without shorts, if it | actually gave people what they want instead of what makes | YT the absolute maximum amount of money over. | [deleted] | est31 wrote: | Youtube has built shorts (youtube tiktok competitor), and | according to Google it has more users now than tiktok [0] | even though it's been launched in September 2020. It | contains tons of reposts of tiktok videos, sometimes legal | ones by the original creators, sometimes uploads by third | parties. | | That being said, I would take that claim with a big grain | of salt, for multiple reasons. First you need to look at | the relevant generation where tiktok is strong, whether | youtube can break that monopoly. Also, it's fairly easy to | make existing youtube users "try out" shorts via an in app | pop up, and then mark that down as successful use of the | feature. If your app has enough users, you can reach | relevant usage counts easily, even though none of the users | are there for the shorts feature only. | | Also, what matters with social apps like these is also not | just the content consumption but whether friend groups etc. | are communicating on that app or another one. This has | extremely strong network effects that are hard to break. | | [0]: https://www.investors.com/news/technology/google- | stock-rises... | ok123456 wrote: | Yeah they stuck "shorts" on the homepage so that anyone | who visits "youtube.com" has to see them. That's not | actual engagement. | HaZeust wrote: | Well the real slimy thing they did was make posts under a | minute on YouTube default to a Short. | Ekaros wrote: | And the browser UI is quite pointless for them... Why | even have that? Is it only there to increase the metrics? | est31 wrote: | The shorts browser UI is a clone of the tiktok UI. I | don't really like either, they could have innovated at | least a little by introducing more powerful video | controls like the seeking shortkeys that work on youtube | for example. | | But it wasn't built to appeal me (or you), but other | parts of the population, people who prefer tiktok like | experiences. | | For me personally, the reason to use shorts every now and | then is because tiktok is authwalled while shorts is not. | But I don't know what other users of shorts would say why | they prefer it. | ok123456 wrote: | They prefer tiktok's content and recommendation system. | | Just trying to recreate some of the UI aspects of it is | just cargo culting. | charcircuit wrote: | That's only if it's a vertical video. Most videos on | YouTube are horizontal. | HaZeust wrote: | Sortaaaa. I've seen horizontal videos that, in the past | were standard videos but under 60 seconds, and they were | cropped down to Shorts compatibility. | unixhero wrote: | TikTok is an AMAZING platform for original content on just about | everything. | preommr wrote: | really? | | So many videos are just reaction videos, or doing trends which | are the same concept (e.g. a dance, or challenge) just by | different people. There's so much reptition, lots of creators | that keep doing the same shtick because that's what gets them | views. But it's so much worse than something like youtube where | it's something that has to be condensed into a few seconds so | it's all very superficial. | rasz wrote: | for reposting copies of original content? | Avamander wrote: | There's a significant amount of original content on TikTok, | so I'm not sure what you've seen exactly, but you might want | to scroll past those to see less of them. | unixhero wrote: | No, wrong. I have never seen any reposted content. | ok123456 wrote: | Most of the content I get is original. | | The reality is, Facebook is where content goes to die. | OJFord wrote: | How can you possibly know that? | | I'm not even saying it isn't, I just think it's basically | unknowable. | wahnfrieden wrote: | you can simply look at the blatant content copying which | does not attempt to hide it, across these platforms, and | for that category see it easily | ok123456 wrote: | And that's the reason people use it. | | It eats into the consent manufacturing pipeline that the US has | carved out and that's the reason they're really worried. | | "Military recruitment is down because of TikTok!" No. There are | just service members who are showing what it's really like | there. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-10 23:00 UTC)