[HN Gopher] South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices
___________________________________________________________________
South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices
Author : KomoD
Score : 210 points
Date : 2022-12-02 20:48 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
| ffgh wrote:
| What about Snapchat, twitter, Facebook/Instagram?
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| Those applications are banned within China and on CCP owned
| devices, I don't see why a U.S. state can't ban TikTok.
| [deleted]
| andrewstuart wrote:
| It matters which country controls the platform.
|
| The recent protests in China have been suppressed by the CCP.
|
| No doubt there are close to zero protest videos on TikTok.
|
| There are protest videos on YouTube - though anecdotally YouTube
| management is attempting to suppress them because Google is
| tightly bound to China.
|
| The question is, does it matter if protest videos are shown or
| hidden on social media? Can the videos shown on social media
| influence world affairs?
| Kreutzer wrote:
| The actual amount of protests in China were laughably small in
| comparison to how the state depart... I mean 'free press' in
| the US portrayed it. Yes, there were reasonable protests
| against zero-Covid measures, no there was no revolution in
| progress.
| juve1996 wrote:
| Are there examples of US media saying it was a revolution?
| eternalban wrote:
| This could be interesting reading for you and others in
| context of what some Chinese think of Xi regime.
|
| https://www.readingthechinadream.com/deng-yuwen-on-xi-
| jinpin...
|
| This is not your usual "'free press'" fare and it is
| noteworthy for the both the designation of China under Xi as
| "totalitarian" and also its optimistic prediction of a new
| wave of democratization globally.
|
| What excited the press (...and those whom you imply) was
| probably that _anything_ happened in Xi 's China, and that it
| happened in multiple places, and that CPC was not entirely
| successful in suppressing it even while having near total
| control.
|
| So what is extraordinary about these protests -- something
| apparently very new in China -- is that they are directed at
| the cult of personality directly. I just did a google search
| to see if there ever were demonstrations in China against Mao
| during his reign. Xi's political game is role-playing some
| sort of Maoist / Stalinist state with him as maximum leader.
| He even publicly dismisses former grandees in front of
| foreign press. How did these Chinese dare to directly call
| for his removal in protests?
|
| > Yes, there were reasonable protests against zero-Covid
| measures, no there was no revolution in progress.
|
| _" Finally, to borrow an image from Liu Cixin's novel The
| Three Body Problem, we should be psychologically prepared for
| Xi's totalitarian rule to enter a dark forest. Xi will rule
| China for at least another five years. But we should not be
| too pessimistic. No matter how long Xi stays in power, as I
| argued above, it is unlikely that another Xi Jinping will
| emerge after Xi steps down. The good news is that the hassle
| of fighting the pandemic with the zero-tolerance policy has
| awakened even more people. When social discontent reaches a
| tipping point and everyone believes in regime change, then
| change will come soon." _
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Anecdata: I have seen what appears to be a couple on my Tiktok,
| but not a large number. Edit: Seems searching "China lockdown
| 2022" brings some up I think.
| kredd wrote:
| They're probably hidden in Chinese TikTok, but I've seen a lot
| of Shanghai protests on TikTok since like mid November. You're
| definitely right though, I recall I had to search for it myself
| before algo started showing it to me automatically. Could be
| because of TikTok's default behaviour of hiding violence-
| adjacent behaviour, which I find quite awful as it hides the
| current events.
| hello_friendos wrote:
| IncRnd wrote:
| This is not about IT or device security, otherwise no non-work
| related apps would be allowed on work devices.
| desireco42 wrote:
| Definitely shouldn't be on corporate devices, not because of
| anything but it has no place there.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Hmm... Shouldn't they have already done this? Why would you allow
| garbage apps on state-owned devices?
| autotune wrote:
| You've never worked for a gov office have you? Getting any kind
| of new policies or tools added or updated when it comes to
| infra and IT can take years, if not decades. I would not be
| surprised if the one I volunteered at 10 years ago when I got
| my start is still on Lotus Notes.
| Kye wrote:
| Why not? It's still developed.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Domino
| autotune wrote:
| There is a reason there are no screen shots on that page
| showing what the GUI actually looks like.
| MrMan wrote:
| free speech I think
| dang wrote:
| Url changed from
| https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/12/south-dakota-...,
| which points to this.
| purpleblue wrote:
| I have a fairly large position in Meta because I'm sure that the
| US government is going to ban TikTok. I think once it spikes from
| that announcement, it will at least make it back up to over $200,
| for the time being.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| But even if you got in sub $200, a tiktok ban would be a very
| generous layer of icing on the cake. Same with the metaverse.
| The core business is still attractive and it's a good stock.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| Why are users of state-owned devices allowed to install apps?
| zamadatix wrote:
| Someone in any organization is allowed to install apps or have
| them installed. More relevantly though this also bans use of
| the website on the devices too.
| soared wrote:
| Many of us don't even have admin privileges on our laptops!
| somid3 wrote:
| On that topic, they should ban all not state-relevant apps.
| tinglymintyfrsh wrote:
| To be fair, most organizations should have a list of allowed and
| forbidden apps and require a third-party security assessment
| before any cloud, SaaS, or network-enabled/social app is allowed
| on organization-owned device.
| elmerfud wrote:
| I would think they would ban lots of apps on state owned devices.
| There's a lot of trash apps out there that are nothing but
| spyware.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Exactly. Most state governments have competent enough IT that
| they use a corporate AppStore to deploy software to phones.
|
| This is just a way to get the governor's name out there as a VP
| candidate. Taking an anti-China stance sounds tough and
| decisive. She was pretty good getting her name out during
| COVID.
| technion wrote:
| My wife worked for the government.
|
| When they deployed wfh, they used mfa. They banned Google
| authenticator out of the view Google can't be trusted. But told
| people to search the app store for any other mfa app. They one
| my wife found makes you wait for an ad run before it displays
| the code. It sometimes crashes and is generally terrible.
|
| The point being banning certain apps seems far more political
| than well thought out.
| vlunkr wrote:
| Authy is good, or freeotp if you want to go full FOSS.
| ketzo wrote:
| Sorry, their _official_ MFA policy was "just go find a
| random one"? How would that even work? Do they have a
| contract with _every_ MFA service?
| nthn_g wrote:
| I would presume a random TOTP app. Incredibly stupid policy
| nonetheless.
| technion wrote:
| Yes that was the official policy. I was in such disbelief I
| made her show me the official guide she was given. Of
| course im sure they had no contracts anywhere, it looked
| like someone simply said "google will sell your data" and
| someone senior bought it and banned one app.
| cesarb wrote:
| > How would that even work?
|
| TOTP is a standard (https://www.rfc-
| editor.org/rfc/rfc6238), so I don't see how that _wouldn
| 't_ work.
| CivBase wrote:
| I would think they would implement a whitelist rather than a
| blacklist.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I am not sure why tiktok would be on a state owned device in
| the first place. Why not grindr!
| hammock wrote:
| The bigger deal (bigger than the tracking that people usually
| focus on) might be how the algorithm is specifically tuned to
| reward dumb content in the US, compared to rewarding STEM and
| other educational content in China.
|
| One minute video that explains:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hus9fWz0RRk
|
| Further reading: https://www.opindia.com/2022/07/tiktok-china-
| engineering-oth...
| seper8 wrote:
| It's a cultural war. I'm personally convinced they are also
| trolling many different ways on platforms such as 4chan and
| reddit. When the Ukraine war started I noticed so many sleeper
| accounts suddenly wanting to defend Russia's side...
| onetimeusename wrote:
| I think this is a serious issue but underestimated. People in
| the US believe that the top science and engineering roles
| should be filled by immigrants which I don't think is
| sustainable or even a healthy view of education. I am basing
| this on the huge foreign population of our top schools and the
| push for H1-B visas. It can be a self fulfilling prophecy if
| people remove themselves from the running for STEM in earlier
| childhood.
|
| This survey showed a growing number of people who want to be
| social media stars[1] as fewer want to pursue STEM. I can't
| picture a healthy society that makes this decision. You can't
| shun important roles of society collectively and then hope
| everything works out.
|
| [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/american-kids-youtube-
| star-a...
| nradov wrote:
| It's not so much _people_ in the US who believe that top
| science and engineering roles should be filled by immigrants,
| but rather employers who want cheap labor and can control the
| immigration laws indirectly via lobbying and campaign
| contributions. US work visa laws give preference to foreign
| students who earn advanced degrees in US universities. Those
| students are thus more willing to tolerate low wages and poor
| treatment in PhD programs because it still beats returning to
| their home countries.
|
| I don't blame the foreign students for this, but it's
| important to understand what's really driving the current
| situation.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| >People in the US believe that the top science and
| engineering roles should be filled by immigrants
|
| Huh? Anecdotally, I have never heard this sentiment before.
| bena wrote:
| Because he is basing this claim off of his interpretation
| of his perception.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| Ya I wrote the reasoning following that. Look at these
| statistics[1]. It shows the ever growing number of foreign
| people earning both undergraduate and graduate STEM degrees
| in the US.
|
| _foreign students accounted for 54% of master's degrees
| and 44% of doctorate degrees issued in STEM fields in the
| United States in SY2016-2017._
|
| We rely on tens of thousands of H1-B visas per year to fill
| STEM roles which has been debated for years. We have
| accepted we have to import people to sustain our economy. I
| am questioning the merits and sustainability of these views
| and whether Americans have a unhealthy view of education.
| We certainly hold these visa holders to higher standards
| than ourselves. Why?
|
| [1]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11347
| emodendroket wrote:
| People who hold this view are mostly employers as far as
| I'm aware, unless we're conflating having a generally
| sympathetic view to skilled immigrants with not wanting
| Americans to learn engineering.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Those graphs are weird as fuck. Look at the actual
| percentages in China vs the other places: 37% want to be a
| professional athlete, which is more than youtuber in the
| UK/US.
| htag wrote:
| The linked study is for children aged 8-12. How does a 12
| year old "remove themselves from the running for STEM"? A six
| grader taking average math/science classes and getting
| average grades is on track for qualifying for a
| science/engineering/math undergraduate program. There's even
| opportunities later in life for those struggling in school to
| join STEM.
|
| When I was 12 all my friends wanted to be rock stars or
| professional skateboarders. I seriously doubt the causation
| between what children want to be in the age group of 8-12 and
| what they grow up to become.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| People often try to get into top tier high schools to help
| them in their STEM careers starting at ages 8-12. At elite
| universities, most students have already seen calculus by
| the time they get there. A student doing average at age 12
| probably won't see calculus by then.
|
| I think in reality, preparation for STEM takes years. It
| helps to have an education that fosters interest at a young
| age as well. I am specifically questioning the priorities
| of the US's view of education. As I said, we rely heavily
| on H1-B and have very large foreign populations in STEM
| degrees. Social media may not be the cause. What matters is
| that there clearly isn't early interest. Early interest
| translates to having more graduates. As I posted elsewhere,
| there is a clear difference in what degrees foreign
| students pursue in the US (more STEM) versus what US
| students pursue. This seems like a difference in values
| that I think we should examine.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I agree that this feels a bit like a moral panic and
| wanting to be a YouTuber doesn't seem that different from
| wanting to be an actor, singer, or pro sports player, all
| dreams many more children have nursed in the past than have
| pursued in adulthood.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The US doesn't reward factual programming, that's why the
| History Channel turned into the Ancient Aliens Channel.
| Spivak wrote:
| That's nothing to do with the US and more to do with non-
| sports cable viewership drying up. All the good educational
| content moved to YouTube and streaming for the larger
| viewerbase.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| As opposed to what other part of the world?
|
| Interest in drier, more educational content is less for every
| human society I know of.
| leereeves wrote:
| I found that European TV is a lot drier and more
| educational than US TV, but I don't know if that's because
| of interest, regulation, a smaller market (in each
| language), or ?
| nescioquid wrote:
| In the U.S. we have no non-commercial media free of
| commercial influence. Our "public" broadcasting services
| rely on commercial advertisements.
|
| Is the European programming you're impressed with
| publicly funded by any chance?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Cable TV is hardly relevant at this point. Its about
| streaming services, social media, and other internet
| media.
| [deleted]
| lzooz wrote:
| I've only watched European TV but if you say US TV is
| even worse... it must be like in that movie Idiocracy
| leereeves wrote:
| Worse. In the next hour, the History Channel has a show
| about UFOs, the Travel Channel about ghosts, National
| Geographic about drugs, TLC (formerly The Learning
| Channel) has a dating show, and about 10 channels have
| shows about murders.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| That's not fair. I saw a history of Las Vegas too.
| Dig1t wrote:
| This made me laugh, it's so true! Growing up I absolutely
| loved the History Channel, once they became the ancient
| aliens and Pawn Stars channel, I was so sad.
|
| Similar thing happened to G4 tech TV.
| nerdix wrote:
| It was my favorite channel too. You could see the change
| start to happen around the mid-00s.
|
| By the late 00s/early 10s it was all Pawn Stars and
| American Pickers.
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| Actually I think what happened to G4 was Frosk
| pasquinelli wrote:
| sounds like china has the right idea. it takes me (in america)
| constantly weeding the garden of my youtube (also american) to
| minimize the dumb shit it shows me. so does america want stupid
| americans? is that not the biggest deal?
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| What are you proposing exactly? That the US government
| moderate YouTube content?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The FCC has the authority to ban swearing and nudity on
| public television. States can ban nudity, profanity, and
| (in my state) adult video-store ads from highway signage.
| States can control what teachers instruct students with
| (who wants a flat-earth teacher?) I don't see why a law,
| which generically states that recommendation algorithms
| operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards
| intellectually stimulating content, would necessarily be a
| violation of the First Amendment without undermining
| earlier accepted laws.
| kelnos wrote:
| FCC rules are in place because those things you mention
| are a part of the commons. Publicly-viewable by anyone,
| and also exclusionary: someone broadcasting on particular
| airwaves or putting up advertisements takes up physical
| space that no one else can use.
|
| That's... not the same as a service on the internet, at
| all.
|
| You're also talking about a completely different
| regulation regime. The FCC rules prohibit certain (fairly
| narrow?) things, largely "obscenity". A regulation that
| requires a company to actively promote certain things
| is... not even remotely the same.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I have seen and heard way too many dumb things by people
| in suits in the finest language, so I do not think
| focusing on this is helping much.
|
| "recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned
| company must bias towards intellectually stimulating
| content"
|
| How would you even define "intellectually stimulating
| content" in juristical clear terms?
|
| If I would want to increase the general level of science
| education (I strongly do), I would increase funding to
| schools and enable them to have fun experiments with the
| students of all sorts.
|
| I love science, ever have and my teachers did the best
| they could, but even to me school was booring as hell.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > I don't see why a law, which generically states that
| recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned
| company must bias towards intellectually stimulating
| content, would necessarily be a violation of the First
| Amendment without undermining earlier accepted laws.
|
| This is an extremely misleading line of reasoning.
|
| Publicly traded companies are not 'public' in the same
| sense as publicly owned airwaves, public (that is,
| government) employees, and public property. They don't
| cede any constitutional rights simply by offering equity
| for sale in the capital markets.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| I don't like the idea that the First (or any other)
| Amendment should be violated because there is already so
| much precedent for it.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _That the US government moderate YouTube content?_
|
| But that's what everyone is asking for when they talk about
| TikTok. Either
|
| 1. You are concerned about the content exposed to
| Americans, in which case you cannot single out TikTok, you
| must also address Instagram and YouTube and prevent them
| from shoveling the incredibly stick tiktok garbage
|
| 2. You are just sinophobic and using this issue as a wedge
| to ban TikTok. Maybe you also work for Facebook and need to
| crush a competitior.
| krapp wrote:
| > so does america want stupid americans?
|
| Given how many Americans mistrust "academia," "liberal
| education" and "mainstream science," I'm gonna go with yes,
| given some disturbingly large value of yes.
|
| It would be nice if Youtube and other algorithmically driven
| platforms preferred to surface educational and factual
| content but as soon as they tried, of course, Americans would
| scream bloody murder about the Ministry of Truth trying to
| indoctrinate them with wokeist propaganda, censor alternative
| facts and placate the masses with MKULTRA mind control. And
| we'd have to have another futile conversation about who
| watches the watchers and what even "facts" are.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| I think you are too focused on one side of the bubble. The
| most popular desired career in the US is
| Youtuber/influencer and before that it was actor. This is
| just how American culture always was.
|
| [1]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3617062/children-turn-
| backs-on...
|
| (I get the irony of pushing a gossip blog to prove the
| point)
|
| As others have mentioned, before the rise of Youtube, the
| learning based channels on TV weren't doing so well in
| terms of popularity.
|
| On a positive note though, our late stage capitalism
| era(plus half the millenial generation failing) has beaten
| any idea of "follow your dreams" out of young peoples
| souls. As a result, Gen-Z (and I suspect Gan Alpha) seem to
| be very pragmatic when they come of age and realize that
| the only real viable career is to hide in a closet/cube and
| be a coder or (surprisingly) enter the trades. Great for
| the US economy, terrible for the generation's self-esteem.
| (Gen-Z has one of the highest suicide rate of any
| generation in American history).
|
| [2]:https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-teenage-gen-z-
| american-s...
| _mway wrote:
| I don't think America (as a collective) "wants stupid
| Americans", I think people are generally of the mind that
| "intelligence is good". Unfortunately, I think what that
| means is largely subjective in many cases, and tends to be
| aligned with their own interests/preferences.
|
| My suspicion, which is mostly just me thinking out loud and
| is based on no real evidence, is that folks are (a) largely
| desensitized to stimulation due to aggressive "marketing" (in
| the loosest sense of the word - whether ads, click/viewbait,
| or other quasi-exploitative attention-grabbing things);
| and/or (b) have observed that, culturally, a lot of "dumb
| shit" is mainstream enough (in terms of critical mass within
| their social microcosm) to warrant conformity, and thus may
| be a preference that is adopted for identity or inclusivity
| purposes. Similarly, it may be seen as a pathway to some form
| of success or recognition (see: IG/YT influencers, tiktok
| fads, etc).
|
| I'm sure other, much smarter folks have actual evidence or
| have performed studies (and I would be interested in learning
| more), but based on my personal experience, the above seems
| to hold true, generally speaking.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Freedumb baby.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Opindia citing Tucker Carlson, Stephen Crowder, and using
| "alleged" videos of non gender normative people as examples of
| bad content is pretty revolting.
|
| I'll also say that Instagram is just as much trash as TikTok,
| but it's _our_ trash instead of china 's.
|
| Infinite-scroll short form trash content is this generation's
| trash TV, yet more addictive.
| ebzlo wrote:
| This makes absolutely no sense to me and even as an American,
| often times reads like anti-China propaganda. If the algorithms
| are showing STEM content on the Chinese version of TikTok, it's
| likely the result of two reasons:
|
| 1. Chinese children prefer STEM content and the algorithm is
| providing that to them.
|
| 2. It's enforced by the Chinese government or someone who
| believes this kind of content will benefit the Chinese future.
|
| In the case of #1, this is a cultural issue and we have no one
| to blame but ourselves.
|
| In the case of #2, which I believe is what most folks who say
| this are suggesting, I can't imagine why children would then
| proceed to download the app, use it for hours a day, only to
| learn science and math. Sure, some may enjoy it (as some in the
| US would as well), but a vast majority of that market is going
| to reject this and delete it from their phone. In fact, we have
| this in the US -- we have educational TV shows, you can visit a
| library on your free time, etc, but kids don't do it-- because
| they're kids.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's more than dumb content. Tiktok is pushing political
| agendas.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/11/30/tik...
| Barrin92 wrote:
| that's because Americans want that content, and that precedes
| TikTok by a few decades. Literally every American media channel
| reflects that.
|
| I've seen China blamed for a lot of things, some legitimate,
| but they didn't force Americans to pick the Kardashians over
| engineering degrees. American public discourse is becoming that
| Eric Andre show meme except it's "why did China make me do
| this"
| blopker wrote:
| I'm not sure if this claim is true or not, but the person in
| your first reference is Andrew Schulz. He's a comedian who has
| already come out to say that he made all that up, and the media
| just ran with it [0].
|
| [0]: https://youtube.com/shorts/tAV3QkzHC5E
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| So he made it up thinking it was fake - but now it has been
| independently shown to be likely true. In which case he made
| up a conspiracy theory then demonstrated to be accurate when
| he thought it was a joke.
|
| https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-passes-sweeping-
| re...
|
| https://www.deseret.com/2022/11/24/23467181/difference-
| betwe...
|
| CBS 60 Minutes Interview with an IT expert just 3 weeks ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY
| nemothekid wrote:
| The claim isn't fake. But the idea that this is some TikTok
| plot to poison America is ridiculous and sinophobic. Douyin
| is happy show low brow garbage to Chinese netizens, just
| like chinese gaming companies were happy to let teens play
| video games 24/7. The difference is the Chinese government
| won't let them.
|
| America could easily do what China did here: enforce
| regulations on what kind of content social media companies
| can show minors. Just banning TikTok won't prevent
| Instagram from running the same playbook on Reels, it's not
| like Instagram has been the standard for teen mental health
| in the past 10 years. Douyin isn't educational in China due
| to the goodness of their hearts, it came from regulation.
|
| The issue is, good luck trying to enforce any sort of
| corporate regulation in the US.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > sinophobic
|
| How?
| nemothekid wrote:
| If you are concerned about the content that American's
| consume, there is no reason to single out TikTok.
| Instagram has been shoving the same garbage into the
| feeds of teenagers for nearly a decade and Reels is
| nearly exact clone of TikTok. There is little
| "educational" content on Instagram Reels. The solution
| would be regulate _all_ the social media companies, like
| how China does.
|
| If the problem is _solely_ TikTok, then it most likely
| stems from the fact you don 't like TikTok is owned by
| the Chinese (and you are more likely to believe nefarious
| claims that Xi Jinping personally told the TikTok CEO to
| make America dumber) which is sinophobic. You don't like
| TikTok just because it's a chinese company serving you
| the same garbage as an American one.
|
| I believe there are valid reasons to ban TikTok,
| especially on state-owned devices, given the amount of
| data they exfiltrate, but "they are poisoning the
| American youth" is not a good one.
| dmix wrote:
| So in China the algorithm is partially regulated, but in
| the rest of the world the algorithm (asia, europe, africa,
| americas) is just showing people what they want? Instead of
| what they government thinks is best for them?
|
| I used Tiktok as a STEM nerd and it quickly started showing
| me STEM videos. The fact it shows teenage girls dancing
| videos is probably heavily correlated to the videos they
| watch from beginning to end, or directly opt-in follow.
| It's still concerning that kids are fed content that taps
| into cheap desires regardless.
| eternalban wrote:
| Somewhere in the back of your mind neon lights should be
| flashing Oh no, we're too late!
| emodendroket wrote:
| As US confrontation with China has become more open, the
| evidentiary standard for any stories about China has headed
| toward North Korea levels, where we constantly read about
| people being executed in baroque ways before a couple months
| before they make new public appearances, apparently risen
| from the dead.
| throwawayhx wrote:
| Oh come on. China has basically been getting a pass from
| Western media for their concentration camps for Muslims.
| Probably because nobody on the west wants to look "racist"
| emodendroket wrote:
| They've gotten nothing like a "pass;" the issue has
| received a lot of coverage.
| protoc wrote:
| you are brainwashed if you think that is true and/or never used
| (tiktok AND douyin)
| cauthon wrote:
| The primary source of your "further reading" article is Tucker
| Carlson. Not saying the claim is incorrect, but are there any
| trustworthy sources supporting it?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Yes. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-passes-
| sweeping-re...
|
| If you want to verify it yourself, go to China, open Douyin.
| Plus, the story makes internal sense - for example,
| pornography and the kind of soft-core porn, heavily revealing
| clothing, and so forth that appears on TikTok is actually
| illegal in China. Post it, you'd get it censored and removed.
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| You should see the porn on Reddit. This is an American
| consumer issue not a foreign nation issue.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Given that the source is corroborated, looks like the Tucker
| Carlson source can be trusted.
|
| Your opinion on reputation is just that.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Liars are capable of telling the truth, but that doesn't
| mean you should assume what they say is true without
| corroboration.
|
| https://www.politifact.com/personalities/tucker-carlson/
| mcculley wrote:
| How would a skeptic confirm this? Can one get a VPN inside
| China?
| ipaddr wrote:
| You would visit in person if you were a true skeptic. It
| seems to come from this policy.
|
| https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-passes-sweeping-
| re...
| mcculley wrote:
| I am aware of these claims. The document to which you
| linked says, "If enforced as intended..."
|
| It is not clear to me how universally these regulations are
| enforced.
|
| My skepticism requires that I go there? This is a different
| definition of skepticism than I was previously aware of.
| During the Cold War, I was skeptical of many of the claims
| about the evil Soviets. I did not have the opportunity then
| to visit. Was I not a proper skeptic?
| chucksta wrote:
| It's open policy, from the link; https://www.china-
| briefing.com/news/china-passes-sweeping-re...
| http://www.cac.gov.cn/2022-01/04/c_1642894606364259.htm
| mcculley wrote:
| I am aware of these policies. It is not clear to me that
| they are having the claimed effect.
| protoc wrote:
| you can download the douyin app or goto
| https://www.douyin.com/
|
| The more stupid things you look for, the more stupid things
| you see. Its the same in the us as it is in china.
| fasthands9 wrote:
| I would be personally happy if TikTok disappeared but this
| seems a bit silly? Is it not equivalent to pointing out that a
| production making documentaries for both PBS and Netflix would
| make their PBS content more educational but less sensational
| than Netflix?
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| And if you'd like both educational _and_ sensational, I
| highly recommend watching PBS Spacetime with Dr. Matt O 'Dowd
| on YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/pbsspacetime
| pasquinelli wrote:
| good channel, but i can't agree that it's sensational.
| Miner49er wrote:
| This isn't a choice being made by TikTok, this is due to
| regulations/laws in China. If the US passed laws requiring
| TikTok to do the same in the US, they would obviously comply.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| No, it is almost certainly deliberate.
|
| In China, all companies with more than 50 employees are
| _legally obligated_ to have dedicated Chinese Communist Party
| representatives overseeing, according to Harvard Business
| Publishing (https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/R1403J-HCB-ENG).
| Social media companies? They probably have tons of mandatory
| representatives guiding the system. ByteDance also had a
| "nominal" 1% ownership taken by the Chinese government, which
| then got 1 of 3 board seats supposedly from that investment (
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/17/chinese.
| ..).
|
| So you have a company which is absolutely at the size where
| dedicated CCP representatives are mandatory, with a board
| seat possessed by a representative of a state-owned
| enterprise. How much separation is there, really? Add to
| that, TikTok has been censoring the Uighur genocide,
| Tiananmen Square riots, Falun Gong, so forth _despite not
| operating in China_ , as well documented (https://www.theguar
| dian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...) and
| (https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/xinjiang-
| china-...). If you censor things in non-Chinese nations to
| please the Chinese government, plus the earlier facts, you're
| controlled.
|
| Finally... putting that together, it is safe to say TikTok is
| under substantial control of the CCP. What does every Chinese
| student, and almost every Communist Party leader, learn in
| their schools (for being a communist leader has mandatory
| education in many things, including lessons taken from the
| fall of the USSR, to avoid such a fate)?
|
| "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without
| fighting." - Sun Tzu
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| This is a paranoid vision of how China works.
|
| TikTok is a private company that wants to make money. If it
| could make more money by showing Chinese audiences more
| trashy content, it absolutely would. And in fact, it does
| show a great deal of mindless content in China.
|
| However, as is well known, China has recently been trying
| to regulate children's use of the internet (e.g., time
| limits on internet gaming). If companies were already
| willingly doing what the Communist Party wants, the Chinese
| government wouldn't have to pass these new regulations in
| the first place. And guess what happens when the government
| passes these sorts of regulations? Companies immediately
| start looking for ways to skirt them.
|
| > legally obligated to have dedicated Chinese Communist
| Party representatives overseeing
|
| No, at least legally, these committees have no oversight
| role in private companies. Companies with over 50 employees
| are required to allow a Party committee to organize and
| meet, but it doesn't have a role in management.
|
| There are far too many grand statements nowadays about how
| China works, coming from sources that don't actually seem
| to be very familiar with the country. There is a very
| strong tendency in the West now to view everything about
| China through a paranoid lens. The truth is usually much
| more boring.
|
| In this case, the truth is that Douyin (TikTok in China)
| has plenty of trashy content, but that there's more
| government regulation than before.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > This is a paranoid vision of how China works.
|
| The more I read about China the more paranoid I get. I
| don't think they haven't earned it.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| I recommend going to China and seeing for yourself.
|
| What you read from afar and what you see on the ground
| are very different. Imagine if all you heard about the US
| were constant stories about gun violence, drone strikes
| and homelessness. You'd have a very distorted view of
| life in America. That's basically the situation with
| China, if your only point of reference is what you read
| in the English-language media.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| So... do you deny that 1.8 million Muslims are held
| within "re-education" camps in Xinjang, and claim that I
| have no need to fear the government even if that be the
| case, and that the United Nations is pulling it out of
| their rear with their allegations of forced confessions
| and torture on a broad systemic scale?
|
| And I'm the one to blame for being paranoid? If you were
| one of those Muslims, would your paranoia be unjustified?
| dv_dt wrote:
| I'm not sure it's so different from the club being a
| political party or the club being from the Ivy League for
| top end business and political roles.
|
| I think a narrow set of outlooks is bad for the general
| population.
|
| If you think TikTok deliberately prioritizes dumbed down
| content then why does Facebook or Fox news also do it?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Because sex sells. Need I say more?
|
| I'm dead serious. Go on Facebook, Twitter, even Fox News,
| how many images can you find without revealing clothing,
| suggestive poses, suggestive dances, etc.? Not far.
|
| For them, it's a financial motive. For TikTok, because it
| is _so_ bottom of the barrel, I think it has both
| financial and strategic motive.
| hello_friendos wrote:
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| Your point would be stronger if YouTube, Facebook,
| Instagram, and every streaming service in the country was
| showing the same kind of content. TikTok getting bashed for
| serving American consumers American content is one of the
| silliest trends on Hacker News.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| And the CCP doesn't have ties or influence with them...
| hammock wrote:
| >This isn't a choice being made by TikTok, this is...China
|
| Perhaps a distinction without a difference
| patrickthebold wrote:
| I actually think it's a good point. There's no way in the
| US we'd tolerate the government regulating the content on
| the platform.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| It is a difference, if TikTok would activly try to make the
| west dumber and china smarter vs. just different rules of
| those states.
|
| The first could be viewed as a attack vs. the latter is a
| mere choice of the states involved.
| kelnos wrote:
| Right, and I think it depends on what the intent is. If
| TikTok's default would be to just promote "dumb" content
| everywhere (because that's what increases engagement and
| sells ads or whatever), but the Chinese government is
| like "no, you're making our citizens dumber; you have to
| promote 'smart' content in the China market", then that's
| totally fine. I mean, I don't agree with the level of
| interference the Chinese government has empowered itself
| with, but that's their business.
|
| If the Chinese government were forcing TikTok to promote
| "dumb" content to citizens of adversary countries, then
| that would be a bit more nefarious.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _If TikTok 's default would be to just promote "dumb"
| content everywhere (because that's what increases
| engagement and sells ads or whatever), but the Chinese
| government is like "no, you're making our citizens
| dumber; you have to promote 'smart' content in the China
| market", then that's totally fine._
|
| But that is what happened. The CCP went on a huge
| clampdown on the newer internet companies around that
| time that Jack Ma was abducted and passed numerous laws
| censoring and limiting what people could do online, such
| as how long teenagers could play video games.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _If the US passed laws requiring TikTok to do the same in
| the US, they would obviously comply._
|
| Except for the part where that law would end up being
| declared unconstitutional, and rightly so. Then again, if
| TikTok has no US ownership, perhaps it would pass
| constitutional muster. 1A doesn't specifically mention US
| citizens or US-owned corporations, though, just that that
| government shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of
| speech, so maybe not.
| safog wrote:
| Curious - why would it be unconstitutional?
|
| There are plenty of laws forcing companies to engage in
| certain kinds of behavior. The latest I've seen is the beer
| manufacturing / distribution / sales breakup as a result of
| the post-prohibition policies. Manufacturers can't
| distribute, distributors can't sell to consumers and so-on.
|
| I think people might not tolerate such govt interference,
| but assuming it's law I don't think it'll be
| unconstitutional.
| nradov wrote:
| The Constitutional bar is pretty high for requiring
| anyone to engage in forced speech, even if it's purely
| commercial. Laws requiring broadcasters to transmit a
| certain amount of public interest or educational
| programming were generally upheld by the courts because
| spectrum is a limited public resource, and radio waves
| reach into everyone's home whether they want it or not.
| But cable TV and streaming video services have
| effectively unlimited capacity, so those old rules never
| applied to them.
|
| Alcohol is a separate issue entirely. The 21st Amendment
| gives states broad authority to control distribution.
| xmprt wrote:
| It's really hard to prove that this is a result of deliberate
| algorithms and not simply that Chinese culture promotes things
| like science and technology whereas the US promotes more dumb
| things. For example, someone like Logan Paul would have never
| gained popularity in China but he's one of the biggest creators
| in the US.
| vlunkr wrote:
| > someone like Logan Paul would have never gained popularity
| in China
|
| You can't really prove that. They have their own influencer
| culture that looks just as vapid as ours.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Unless I'm missing something, there is no penalty for using
| TikTok on an SD device, and there's no initiative for SD tech
| support to institute a ban. So basically, it's a pointless PR
| move for Noem.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| How on earth is it a blacklist not a whitelist? You should only
| be allowed to install approved applications on state owned
| devices.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Whitelists are probably agency specific. A statewide blacklist
| prevents an app from being on agency whitelists.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Where South Dakota goes literally no one goes (including to South
| Dakota)
| dontbenebby wrote:
| To be fair, they're all on Facebook, and Russia shares
| intelligence with China :-)
| dicomdan wrote:
| Whataboutists have arrived.
| pessimizer wrote:
| With their inconvenient, completely factual statements.
| dontbenebby wrote:
| Thanks parent.
|
| Whataboutism would be saying it's ok to abuse users on
| behalf of totalitarians not equally criticizing anyone who
| does so.
|
| (At least with Twitter they had to bribe a Saudi lol)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-02 23:00 UTC)