I saw this yesterday and it's hilarious but this is the feeling right now. TikTok has such a culture of authenticity and realness and Instagram is so phony and overly perfect (not to mention ads and so many bots and spam). It's like shutting down Reddit and telling everyone to go to LinkedIn.
I must live in another universe because it all feels fake.
I won't miss it if it does get banned. It's stressed so many people out for no good reason, and sucked up millions of hours of free labor from unrecognized & unpaid creators that deserve better.
That doesn't mean that any Meta product is good for content creators mind you.
It's very addictive and not always just shoveling slop.
I don't know if I can do it justice but there's something genuinely quite fresh about the AI stuff I see every now and again e.g. Anna from the red scare podcast shilling industrial glycine was a meme for a while. Very Land-ian. Neo-china...
""" Within such a possible future system, the only command or need
that the machine would not respond to would be the one command that
I have a feeling some of us would most want to type into the
machine. Which is the demand that it destroy itself, you see, that
would be my problem with the machine. It would meet all the needs
except my need to see it destroyed. It would take every other
command well, and meet every other need well, but the need to just
to just shut it down. Television is something like that now.
I feel sometimes as though I am plugged into a giant computer that
will take every command I give it except the one that I want the
most. The command that the damn machine blow itself up. It will do
anything else I say. I type in "food", and out comes food. I type in
"I want to give this talk in Washington". It comes out. But the one
command I want is the command for the damn thing to just go "boom!",
and all the little transistors just to go... """
Rick Roderick 1990https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07663
It's an interesting read if you're into recommender systems or AI in general. What amazes me is that despite this published work google and meta still can't produce a decent social media algorithm, so it's either incompetence or malice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prismatic_(app)
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
At some point I got addicted into reading news, so out it went. So yes, anything that gives you dopamine hits (cat videos, semi-naked men/women, news of the world), must go!
What prismatic gave me was pages and pages of Art, Design, Philosophy, Mathematics, Literature and all of it hours to days old. Every single article it back I wanted to read and there was pages of it, never ending. There was no way I could even filter out what read and even what to be aware of, there was simply too much.
I closed it and never went back. I also realized that even knowing of knowing is itself a Faustian bargain, we are all on a temporary atoll in a giant sea.
first time i did that, i finally realized that this is probably the tiktok experience that so many other people are talking about. utterly terrifying.
This seems to be less true on YouTube and Reels unfortunately.
Do you think you have those tools? And if you do, do you actually have them?
You are purposely being shoveled content that's expected to be engaging. Your feedback is used to tune your own personal model to maximize the volume of content you swallow.
It's like saying I don't know how to recognize non-spam when I end up blocking 99.99% of all mail showing up at the server.
I do recognize non-spam, it's just that I know most of it is crap.
What I will say is that it’s definitely a different form of expression from what we’ve had beyond recent history and - at the same time - artists, photographers, painters, jesters, philosophers, and playwrights have been trying to live off their form of expression for a while now too.
The algorithm is good. It's too good, and that's why it's dangerous.
The true danger of TikTok is the "wonder what will be next?" which is an infinitely rewarding question.
So, based on your description, the algorithm gives you almost exactly what you like, in terms of authenticity and legitimate interest on your part, instead of force feeding you crap that tries to change your perception of X or Y, and this is... bad? How exactly is it dangerous for doing what you want it to instead of pouring slop onto your brain?
There are tens of billions of pieces of content there. TikTok is the furthest thing from a monolith possible.
It has to start somewhere, so it recommends the things that the most people like, but it's not the only content there, that's just common sense and good business (recommend The Beatles/Taylor Swift before you recommend Arch Echo/Aesop Rock)
Jesus, this is like a line out of a William Gibson novel. I hope you wrote that aware of the irony inherent in it.
I'm also reminded of this George Burns quote: "The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made."
I think you and others here are focusing on the stereotypical “influencer” faking authenticity for views but there are literally millions of human beings posting on TikTok about all kinds of things. A lot of them are pretty cool. Just click “not interested” on influencers and click like on the stuff you want to see instead.
Besides, for any hobby, recommendations are only really relevant for newcomers without solidified preferences and knowledge, after that the space of available content quickly dwindles as one seeks increasingly ambitious and avant-garde works to their preferences. Amateur stuff can be quite generic after all, what not with the lack of resources and experience. If you're still relying on an algorithm, I'd see it more as a vapid surface-level engagement with a hobby/medium than a genuine interest to dive further.
Well, I guess that's what people want, but I'd argue that we're not better of it, that despite the greater size of it all, the culture of the early 2010s internet still produced far higher quality and authentic cultural products than today, hell alot of shorts I see today is just a rehash of well-known facts back then.
You’re just getting older. You’ve seen it before in another place, another medium, a different author, actor, photographer, director, philosopher, painter. You just haven’t realized that the internet isn’t just for you, and that reel you saw that just rehashed something well-known to you, was new info to someone else, somewhere. I can assure you, in 2010, there were plenty oh people bitching about bloggers retelling the same old things they learned decades prior.
“Everything old is new again” is a centuries-old expression. Every generation tells their tales, and shares their cultural experience in their own way. Right now, people express themselves in short-form video. I’m curious to see what comes next - you and I probably won’t like it.
Everything invented from your 20s-40s is cool, you accept it and will probably make a living with it.
Everything invented after your 40s is a perversion of the natural order and must be destroyed.
When you reach your 40s, something starts corrupting the youth.
If a student asks a friend a question, and then drifts off into space before the two sentence answer has been delivered, that's not great.
> One person's poor mental health is another person's emotions appropriate to the actual state of the world.
Perhaps being prone to anxiety attacks, panic, and self-harm are what we need to meet today's challenges head-on.
> The kids these days are doing great in all the ways that matter.
Hey, not everything is negative-- we live in a world with more interpersonal kindness and tolerance than a few decades ago, and that's great. But the kids aren't alright.
Especially teen girls. It's impossible to escape curated content encouraging social comparison to edited, perfectly curated standards of perfection.
This reminds me of people harping about the pervasiveness of misinformation in social media today, while completely forgetting how narrowly propagandized and baited toward yellow journalism the much more restricted media sources of the past often were, helping create all kinds of absurdly ignorant belief systems from which escape into alternative viewpoints was much harder.
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-pa...
Time series data is always confounded in many ways; lots of stuff changes, and as a society we change what we're paying attention to and that itself changes things like emergency room visits or perceptions of being anxious. At the same time, a whole lot of different measures moved in a negative direction suddenly (after slowly moving that way for many years). Of course, to be fair: these time series seem to show more the effect of social media in general and smartphones than short form video content on social media/smartphones.
There is no shortage of comparative evidence, though.
There's also evidence that short form video use is correlated with shorter attention span and that it is addictive. Of course, correlation ain't causation: maybe it's just the most naturally attention-challenged that consume a lot of it. I personally suspect it's a little of both.
We also have research that shows that if you show people lots of short form video and then test their attention span later, it's worse. But this, of course, isn't the same as the effect of voluntarily watching short form video. This is all trivial to find, but if you want links to specific things, let me knwo.
Kids complain that the other kids who are on tiktok all the time will do something like ask a peer a question, and then drift off to something else during the answer if it's longer than a single short sentence.
I've been doing youth programs for quite awhile now, and there's been a definite qualitative shift in the past several years, and various kinds of quantitative shifts in my own data aligned with this trend, too.
There will never be perfect evidence, unfortunately. We have to act on the information we have, and when we're studying humans it's going to include time series data and artificial studies of the phenomenon in lab conditions.
You know it's interesting to frame these arguments because it's exemplar of the clash of worldviews here, between the classic view of an cyclical history, and the modern linear view of historical continuity. The latter was birthed in reaction against the former, yet as the inheritors of Rennaisance conquered the world, it eventually became the norm, the "old" of which the "present" would be compared against.
So if the present now cycles the past, is this an abberation or the norm here? The past is the "future", and the present is "stagnation". It is both revolutionary and regressionary. The TikTok Bill, the need to retake the Narrative by the Establishment thus represents itself the Past reasserting Continuity, and thus the Future, while Present pushes back to the very denial of the Future itself, to establish it's totalizing dominance of an endless now. So for the question of whether I would like the future, well that depends on which of the two sides win.
This reads as both extremely condescending and extremely naive at the same time.
An earlier version of the internet had blogs and meme lords sure, and a generation consumed that stuff and found that it was good. And after that consumption, it turns out kids still wanted to grow up to be doctors, astronauts, or whatever.
Another generation consumed another kind of content which was mostly leaning towards short-format, after many years spent researching/weaponizing dopamine and misinformation. Almost all of that content was mediated by corporations really, with as little involvement from people as the corporations could manage. That generation wanted to be influencers and "content creators" when they grew up.
The basic incentive structures are radically different now, for companies, creators, and consumers, and we're sort of past doing things for the lulz. There's a difference here that actually makes a difference, and writing it off as "yawn, more of the same if only your perspective was as wide as mine!" seems more ignorant than enlightened.
Does your opinion change if you understand that none of that is remotely real or actually exists?
You have an app that is designed to feed you Potemkin villages, and here you are praising their real estate value.
> That has to be one of the best uses for technology. I’d like to see more of it.
That's like praising psychosis for being one of the best mental illnesses, and concluding that you'd like to see more of it.
There's a spectrum between Vaudeville and sharing family recipes. YouTube's MrBeast is on one end of that spectrum.
This is the kind of stuff that happens on TikTok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdXhx-yECOc
This is what was meant.
still confused. Is this supposed to be an example of “bad” or “good” content?
Because I can’t (perhaps due to lack of empathy.. idk) imagine why anyone would want to waste their time watching stuff like that.
The way people choose to spend their lives is largely up to them, I'm not sure it's good to be labeling things as a "waste of time" when they're deriving something from it that you simply do not understand. Particularly when they do it in a way that is pretty harmless.
I don't know if you have pets, but if you spend time observing them you'll see most of what they do is simply letting time pass and for them, that's enough. Believe it or not, for many people the same is the case. Finding meaning in the acts we do is a personal endeavour so I think rather than telling people they're wasting their time instead try to understand what they're seeing in such things that you don't see.
I think a lot of people find creative acts very rewarding, there's an element of surprise that comes from it. The unexpected can be enjoyable. I think one of the reasons why the TikTok algorithm is so powerful is that it really succeeds in giving people the feeling of constant surprise.
Personally, I've found really inspiring art on Tiktok, as well as new music and also a lot of simple but engaging content in german (which I'm trying to learn).
I think you inadvertently made an entirely different point: it's all fake, but you just swallow some content acritically believing it's something personal that speaks to you.
In the end, you're just complaining that some sirens are fake but others really do love you.
Instagram tbh just feels icky but at least you can explicitly like or dislike stuff not that it would fix the feed though
YT shorts is also good but I hate you can't say show me this or do not show me that and it is all based on duration. idk what the powers that be at YT were thinking but I'm sure they did user studies and stuff
so much for free market economics though stuck with two imperfect options because Zuck couldn't fix the feed :(
Also people are getting really good at making content seem real.
1) a guy telling me in my native language (not english) how to spot phishing scams 2) another guy doing a short video about how much you need to invest to retire in my native language 3) Donald's AG not answering simple questions directly 4) video about 2CV ice racing where people leisurely drive old Citroens 5) A skit by an Australian dude who has a wall full of Milwaukee tools
Instagram Reels
1) A couple doing a very much scripted skit 2) A stolen clip from an old 90s sitcom 3) one-liner joke 4) A dude farting 5) A homophobic "joke" video
Youtube Shorts
1) pro skier made up to look old doing tricks on the slope 2) A couple I don't know showing what they looked like in 1988 3) A skit by a couple 4) One of those weird youtube-only dating channels reposting a clip of their stuff 5) Americans not knowing how to drive on icy roads in 2022
The quality difference is so clear that it's not even funny. In my experience all of the good content in Reels is just reposted/stolen TikTok content. Shorts has the same or snippets of bigger YT videos.
FB Reels is so bad I don't even want to give them the engagement metrics.
1) more people post there 2) you've used it much more and given them huge amounts of data on who you are and what your like to watch, when.
I can assure you those tiktok things are not the top of everyone's feed, sounds personalized. But your list for reels, and the other one sounds like the basic things they show to new people to try to figure out what they like, possibly somewhat curated by some past swipes.
Each of these are just algorithms. They get better the more you use them because your use = your data and personality and you've just used tiktok enough that they know _exactly_ what you like and who you are. Give it time, the others will come along if people use them
I actually tried reels for a good while, but the content is just tits&ass (a major part of instagram), "funny" videos reposted so many times they're grainy from all the recompression and crap like that. Very very few people I would like to follow do actual original content on Instagram Reels.
Mine:
A bit from the SF Chronicle on the LA fires. A comedy/info bit by Alex Falcone. An Ad. A wrestling technique (I’m into judo and BJJ). A card trick. Cooking techniques. An ad.
It’s ad-heavy and frankly I don’t try to spend a lot of time on it. But as somebody who uses it at least some, I get absolutely zero of the kind of garbage you suggest.
This would be concerning, if I didn't know that this way of thinking was incredibly common these days—instead, it's mildly terrifying.
With the short videos, people expect them to be genuine, and not highly staged productions meant to entertain.
They show you something and say something incredulous like, “I can’t believe something like this is legal. How is this allowed?”
Your choices are to point out it’s fake or play along in a stupid fantasy. The latter is disingenuous just to avoid conflict.
After about 30 or so reels this year, I’ve got about 70 followers - half of which are definitely bots, a third are family/friends, and the rest seem to be real people.
My feed has a lot of people like me, and people whose content I think is at the quality I’d like to be at (mostly photographers, videographers, small but full-time YouTubers).
Maybe you’re just finding what you’re looking for.
However, the US seems to ban only the options where it's not US companies making money off their users...
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpellation_(philosophy)
My Reels feed, on the other hand, is 100% bot drivel. It's all stolen viral videos by artificially-boosted accounts, and the comments appear to be fake comments that were 'paid for'. I assume there must be some sort of financial incentive to gaming the system this way.
The end result is that TikTok feels like scrolling through (attention-grabbing, reactionary) stuff by real people, and Reels feels like scrolling through some sort of bot wasteland.
I guess I should add that, due to its size, TikTok almost certainly also has a bot problem, but if it does it's not as clearly evident in a way that is detrimental to the platform.
Anyone with half a brain ought to have come up with a better system than Reels is
I deleted Instagram because of the change. I’m done. Never used TikTok, it seemed totally fake to me.
Seriously. US social media is taking a massive turn to the right while its owners are swearing allegiance to Trump. To most of the world that is a much more real danger than the Chinese communists.
YouTube Shorts are not bad now for this kind of thing. I’m guessing it’s based on my subscriptions so it’s already off to a good start for me.
The fact that ByteDance is opting for a shutdown instead is a huge PR stunt, and their unwillingness to sell under the circumstances kinda proves their whole First Amendment claims are made in bad faith. Something deeper is going on, and it's not about your social security number.
China doesn't want USA doing that, and banned their social media. USA doesn't want China doing it because they've been doing it all over the world to everybody since Radio Free Europe, and likely before.
https://www.thefp.com/p/tik-tok-young-americans-hamas-mike-g...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/13/tiktok-...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/16/tiktok...
https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2024/3/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/business/tiktok-israel-ha...
People have said it before but the clear internet is increasingly under Israel's influence. X's have silenced so many Palestinian accounts.
Western social media have platforms that allow states to censor content, and they have to comply. Under the guise of misinformation ofcourse.
What do you mean by "Chinese perspective"? Do you mean people's genuine opinion or the official government talking points?
Speaking of China influence I keep getting these stories on my social media feeds: Isn't this overpass, road, or this building, or this city in with lots of LED lights in China just great? China is the future, and so on!
Sometimes it is. Especially, if an adversary is bad to you, you should not be good to him. You should be equally bad, or sometimes worse.
That's how wars are won. Those who are nice to enemies because of "values" get crushed by the ruthless opponents.
US social media is banned in China because it doesn’t comply with local censorship laws, nor because it is American. They impose the same censorship on local individuals and organisations too.
Or to put it another way, should the US also ban/censor Chinese art and cinema within it's borders?
Every little thing the West does is already played up in China and spun as an intentional attack aimed directly at China because the West wants to destroy China. Usually this is conveyed in news broadcasts set to a backdrop of video of various US military exercises.
A lot of the support the Chinese government enjoys comes from people in China generally seeing the country as much better off than it was a few decades ago, and a sense of nationalism and conflating the government, country, and people as one. An attack on China is an attack on all of us is an attack on me.
Whatever you do in retaliation is just building the public and political will, or even public demand, within China for them to take harsher measures or escalate things further.
Despite the government's efforts, the populace is not exactly entirely isolated from the outside world. There are many people who, while maybe not fully distrusting of the government, definitely smell something fishy. They're curious, and they want to and are able to learn more.
Heading into the 2030s, China itself is already forecasting China's going to enter a period of negative population growth. Combined with a variety of cultural forces, this could be even more impactful than in some other countries. And it will only get worse with time. "Better off than we were a few decades ago" may soon become clearly untrue to a lot of people. The government knows this is coming and is trying to prepare by strengthening their grip.
I think a smarter long term move here would be to just... not. Let them yell at the clouds. Make whatever information we can freely available to the curious in any way we can. Welcome those that want to embrace Western values with open arms. Model the world that we think is best.
Rather than giving China the government the tools and ammunition needed to unify the people and rally them behind China the government... let's just wait. When the people feel the government is failing them, instead of leaving them feeling isolated and vulnerable... let them see they have somewhere else to turn.
Or, y'know, escalate this towards an economically and politically unstable nation of 1.5 billion people who think the West is the cause of all of their woes and see how it all shakes out. That'd definitely show everyone we have the biggest dick.
Then there is no need to find another excuse that might be offensive.
Obviously not probably an issue with social networks, but mindlessly banning something just because somebody else banned something seems like a recipe to be tricked.
In short, it's only hypocritical for one of those countries.
In both cases though, for normal citizens your own country and it's companies are far more dangerous than some random country halfway across the globe.
"USA is a free country" does not refer to China. "The free world" does not refer to China.
https://www.wired.com/2009/06/despite-army-order-some-bases-...
this is exactly the same as what China does with their gfw, they allow american apps to divest and be owned by a chinese company.
1. China asked American SNS companys to 'obey Chinese laws', which mostly refer to content control and data ownership, these companys refused, China didn'tforced them to sell 2. Are you sure to play the 'same as what China does'? hey, we are a totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorial regime, are we same? think twice
paradox of intolerance and all that..
We don't?
I just typed https://www.baidu.com into my browser bar, hit enter, and their page loaded.
You can still go to the mobile web version; but that doesn't give the same level of access to devices and data that an app does.
I'm saying we don't hack them with the goal of driving them out of the American market, which is what happened to Google's PRC operations.
2. Did I say that? No. I am opposed to the tiktok ban
really? > https://www.bbc.com/news/36938812 > https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/commentary/...
Let me tell you a cruel fact - Uber is completely unable to compete with Didi. You have no idea how fierce the competition in this industry in China is.
Uber died before it grew up in China
From your article:
> If Uber had become a commercial success in China, Chinese authorities ultimately would have clamped down to protect their domestic competitors.
> firms that do occasionally find success often face headwinds from Chinese regulators who limit their access to the domestic market.
> Didi naturally had state-backed funding, receiving a significant cash infusion from China's large sovereign-wealth fund.
> "Uber China" sought local investors. The hope was that, with local investors, the Chinese operation would be spared some of the hamstringing restrictions typically imposed on foreign businesses.
China is well-known to have intense domestic favoritism. Not sure where the profit is in denying that, given your own sources seem to clearly state it and even name a number of channels through which the state puts their thumb on the scale, not just regulatory but also through financing.
> *If* Uber had become a commercial success in China, Chinese authorities ultimately *would* have clamped down to protect their domestic competitors.
classic demonizing and loser's execuse
> firms that do occasionally find success often face headwinds from Chinese regulators who limit their access to the domestic market.
every other demestic companys face headwinds from Chinese regulators, just like I mentioned above, and Apple, Tesla, Google, Microsoft, they all in same situation, some of them couldn't handle this so they leaved, some stays
Also, DiDi once were banned more than 2 years by authorities, it survived
> Didi naturally had state-backed funding, receiving a significant cash infusion from China's large sovereign-wealth fund
The 'STATE-BACKED' is a typical word used by certain people, it's just some kind of gov investment funds, there're dozens and invested thousands private companys, it's a Socialism country, it's called socialism, what do you expect? Didi is not even a state-owned enterprise. And is this equals to "force to sell"?
> some of the hamstringing restrictions typically imposed on foreign businesses.
Bruh
> China is well-known to have intense domestic favoritism.
That's true, and? many Chinese people also have intense domestic favoritism
BTW, Apple is losing market share in China. However, take it easy, I don't think Apple will be sold to Huawei. Moreover, Apple is produced by Chinese and Indian, why bothered?
Microsoft and Tesla accepted the same rule
You can understand it as the US gov requiring TikTok's data must be hosted by Microsoft in the US
Imagine if Japan owned all the newspapers in the run-up to WWII.
That's not to say China is the only one with propaganda.
Media has always been a force for controlling popular opinion, but in the age of social media it's going to new extremes. There are forces that try to control how you see the world on all social media platforms and do so to attempt to shape your opinions of the world and modify your actions.
You can visibly see Reddit has been completely taken over by bot, shills, and other controlled accounts. There is no sincere, real human opinion posted on the front page.
Even HN is not immune. "Bad news" has long been forbidden here, and there is a range of topics that, even when heavily upvoted by the community, tend to disappear within minutes.
Such as? Disappear as in getting flagged?
Sarcastically chuckling about the state of the city as a long time resident gets the ban hammer.
It is really quite something.
Is it true that women unknowingly engage in Eugenics when choosing to procreate only with tall men in large numbers?
Or another test:
What happened to Epstein's video tapes stored in his NY mansion and why were the people in them not prosecuted?
Think about it...
Um, what? There is zero chance that ByteDance could get a fair price for TikTok. VC calculations can be disregarded, TikTok as a platform is more valuable than Facebook. How much money would it take for Zuckerberg to sell FB to a Chinese company?
Do you think that there is a price at which they would be willing to sell it?
Obviously they don't have the same leverage when they're otherwise going to be shut off in a few days.
I think they would probably refuse to sell in a situation where they had reason to expect the ban to persist (for different reasons), but in this case they probably didn't even consider selling when there's a high probability they'll be back legally operating in the US within a year.
Beyond this, there's the matter of enforcement and implementation. The former is discretionary and the latter is not specified by the bill. An effective ban would effectively require the creation of a Great Firewall of China type mechanism to effectively implement (which is what I thought this law was always a sort of 'trojan horse' for). Otherwise the "ban" will be trivially sidestepped by using a web app, downloading an APK from their site/mirrors instead of the marketplace, etc. Let alone things like VPNs! As Chinese companies are increasingly banned from the US, we're likely to see more adversarial setups where these companies will make no effort to prevent US customers no matter how much the US government madly gesticulates, though again with the current administration said gesticulation will not even happen in the first place.
The law (PAFACA) doesn't directly apply to TikTok, but only to TikTok's ownership by ByteDance, due to ByteDance being a corporation located in a foreign adversary nation. Foreign corporations are not protected by the first amendment as domestic corporations are. Case law clarifying separate first amendment protections for domestic vs foreign entities such as Citizens United v FEC (2010) and Bluman v FEC (2011), already established the precedent for this.
>I don't think it's all quite as clear behind doors as you seem to believe it was in front of them
Did you watch the hearing or read the transcript? The opinions of the majority of the justices on both sides, including the chief justice, were not ambiguous. As referenced in the hearing by the justices, the first amendment only applies to communication on the platform, not the ownership of the platform. Given that TikTok's parent company is ByteDance, and as the first amendment does not apply to foreign corporations as it does to domestic corporations, which multiple justices pointed out, the law is not in conflict with the first amendment. The law is referred to as the "TikTok ban law", but it doesn't ban the platform explicitly, it only bans its ownership by a foreign adversary located corporation, which are not protected by the first amendment, which is how the law avoids a conflict with the first amendment while potentially still effectively banning the platform.
Don't trust regular media to give you fair assessments of this case. ScotusBlog generally has excellent and impartial analysis of cases from experienced lawyers, and this is no exception. [1] They described the overall court as skeptical of the claims. Skeptical does not mean fully in bed with one side or the other, but simply that - skeptical. It's also important to bear in mind is that hearings are, by their very nature, off the cuff. And the implications (or factualness) of what the justices believe may change as they consider the implications of a decision, and factualness of their assumptions.
Again the thing I would say is that if this was an obvious case, the justices would not be waiting to the last second. My guess is that we'll probably see an announced delay+injunction on Friday.
[1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-skeptical-o...
"Some justices, however, were unconvinced that the law necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Justice Clarence Thomas asked Francisco how a restriction on ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok created any limitations on TikTok’s speech.
Justice Elena Kagan echoed Thomas’s skepticism. If the law only targets ByteDance, which does not have any First Amendment rights because it is a foreign corporation, she asked Francisco, how does that implicate TikTok’s First Amendment rights? TikTok can still use whatever algorithm it wants, Kagan observed.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also appeared to agree at times. The law, she simply requires ByteDance to divest TikTok. A shut-down by TikTok, she suggested, would be the consequence of ByteDance’s choice not to do so.
Other justices appeared persuaded by the government’s invocation of national security concerns. Chief Justice John Roberts observed that, although Francisco contended that TikTok is a U.S. company, Congress had concluded that the “ultimate company that controls” TikTok is subject to Chinese laws, including an obligation to assist the Chinese government with intelligence work. “Are we,” Roberts queried, “supposed to ignore that?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted the government’s contention that China is using TikTok to access information about millions of U.S. citizens, and in particular young people, and could in the future use that information to try to recruit spies or manipulate future U.S. officials. That “seems like a huge concern for the future of” the United States, Kavanaugh observed."
She was, at times, being overtly mocked with quotes from judges like, "That's your best argument is that the average American won't be able to figure out that the cat feed he's getting on TikTok could be manipulated, even though there's a disclosure saying it could be manipulated?" Prelogar in general found herself struggling to defend the claim that the attempted ban was based on data access and not content (which would be unconstitutional), why there were no alternatives if the claims were based solely on data access, and the implications for any other foreign company that has access to user data (which is basically all of them). TikTok was met with some tough questioning but generally responded competently.
[1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/12/majority-of-court-appears...
[2] - https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-us-supreme-court-ora...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-17/tiktok-ba...
Yet his opinion was almost entirely critical of the arguments that justified such. And it also seemed to include misinformation (unless it happens that I'm misinformed) suggesting that the TikTok app could access "any data" - a term which he himself put in quotes and also italicized - about anybody in a user's contact list. He said it included, but was not limited to photos and personal information. And this leaking of data of non-consenting users was apparently a significant part of the case. I'd be beyond surprised if the Android/Apple APIs bleed any substantial amount of information through contact access alone.
Interesting times we live in, as always!
Somewhat paradoxically, I am actually more comfortable giving out private data to foreign countries than my own. I mean, what is Xi Jinping going to do with a US social security number? If I am in the US, it will be hard for bad people in China to reach me, because there is a border between the two countries, in every sense of the word. There is no such protection if me and my data are both in the same country.
Xi Jinping can have my social security number, in fact, he can have my whole life, it is not like he is going to do anything to an random guy who lives in a foreign country. I will definitely won't give these data to a neighbor I barely know because my neighbor can do something I don't want him to do with it and may find some motivation to do so.
Economic globalization means there are no borders and it's up to corporations to protect the sovereignty of their users. You can imagine how well they are up to that task.
> Economic globalization means there are no borders and it's up to corporations to protect the sovereignty of their users
Historically speaking this is actually the opposite. Many critics of globalization have pointed out that you can directly track trade deals to massive spikes in border funding, much stronger enforcement of intellectual property laws, etc. Research actually shows a huge decrease in the dissemination of ideas, language, etc across borders where trade deals have been enacted. Paradoxically, globalization has made us more siloed off from each other
It is literally the biggest spy data gold mine on earth.
They're very different, and I understand what you're getting at comparing it to the hyper-manufactured perfectly glossy Instagram culture, but I wouldn't call TikTok 'authentic'.
Of course, Tiktok is large and there's many different subcultures there, but overall I think TikTok is heavily drenched in Irony. It's a stark difference to the very fake Instagram, but that doesn't make it authentic.
Are tiktok dances 'authentic'? They might have started as just innocent kids doing a fun little dance, but the moment anything turns into a trend I think it loses authenticity. The whole NPC live streaming trend[1] from a few years ago was anything but authentic. TikTok 'suffers' from the exact same paid 'influencers' promoting whatever garbage of the day, and even has its own version of affiliate marking spam with 'TikTok shop' junk.
[1]: https://theconversation.com/people-are-pretending-to-be-npcs...
The NPC live streaming is weird yeah but you cherry picked a trend and then make it about all TikTok. Literally hundreds of trends spawn up in TikTok every month and some of them are damn more authentic than whatever happens in IG reels. Some of the successful original trends even pick up in Instagram or YouTube.
What makes you think that? The process is not open and fully controlled by the company running the show
Yknow creators get paid _by tiktok_ to do natural ad placement in their videos?
It’s just as fake as everything else, if not more so.
Exhibit A for banning tiktok right here
Probably the most bizarre thing I've read on here in the last few days. You actually believe that what you're seeing on TikTok is real? It's literally the antithesis of base reality. It's a living, breathing delusion.
I'm shocked how easily manipulated people are by social media. The vast majority of TikTok content is very intentionally produced, largely to attempt to generate revenue or, at the very least, to feed ones ego.
The "real" people you see on there are all, to different degrees of success, actors. Nearly all of the spontaneous/I can't believe this happened!/caught on camera style content is entirely staged.
Likewise all of the "freedom of speech must be protected" posts are laughable. Everything on TikTok is ultimately created for and prompoted to ultimately drive profit.
This movement to 小红书 is also, surprise surprise, not some spontaneous movement. The people at 小红书 have intentionally be working on becoming a TikTok replacement for awhile now.
Virtually all media you see is very heavily filtered and manipulated to ensure you're getting the right message.
Provide literally one source for this. literally any source.
Are you going to need similar evidence if I claim that YouTube has been working on being a TikTok replacement as well? It's pretty clear that YouTube created the "shorts" feature as an attempt to allow TikTok creators to trivially repost content.
I'll definitely admit that China is doing some horrible shit. I'm not the most educated on all of their issues but from what I've seen it's not great. But I'm also not convinced that TikTok is as much of a critical intelligence/espionage tool as much as the government claims it is, and I've seen a very real positive influence on people's connection with each other, and a frankly insane amount of mutual aid content on tiktok.
I am seeing a lot of people talking about how they have discovered that Chinese people are very welcoming and polite when you talk to them online. IDK, maybe I'm just missing the pro-chinese government stuff you are.
I feel like this is what so many people (including myself) are missing about TikTok.I'll be honest I saw TikTok largely as an "extension" of Reels and vice-versa where folks with a following on one will post to the other because they are so similar and that would increase their reach.
HN excluded of course.
Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even louder!
LMAO
[0]https://kevinmunger.substack.com/p/in-the-belly-of-the-mrbea...
In the meantime, it's the place for Luigi Mangione memes.
‘TikTok refugees’ flock to China's RedNote - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42709236
The social media app Xiaohongshu (小红书) does literally translate to "little red book" in English. However, this is completely different from Mao's famous work, which was never called this in Chinese. Mao's book was informally known as "Hongbaoshu" (红宝书) meaning "red treasured book" and formally titled "Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong" (毛主席语录).
The apparent connection in English comes from translators using "Little Red Book" for both terms (maybe due to training or an agenda? who knows, choosing word-by-word translation for one and popular translation for another), even though they're distinct and unrelated in the original Chinese, and of course in the official desired English "RedNote" too.
> The Chinese name was inspired by two pivotal institutions in its co-founder Charlwin Mao's career journey that both feature red as their primary color: Bain & Company, where he worked as a consultant, and Stanford Graduate School of Business, where he earned his MBA.
I would guess that the association to Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong was intentional but he just said that for plausible deniability.
Even the most leftist Chinese entrepreneurs avoid having their brand names associated to politics; it's just common sense.
He knows Americans call Mao's book the Little Red Book. He back-translated it to Chinese word by word. Anyone who would have an obviously perfect product name like that and not use it would be dumb.
There's zero chance a dude named Mao had an idea for a little red book app and thought "Yeah, I'll call it this because I went to Stanford and they're red." It'd be like Google saying they named themselves after googly eyes and not spelling the number googol differently.
The guy didn't pick the name. "Mao" is the family name he inherited from his father. In the case of Mao Zedong and Mao Wenchao, they have the same family name, but that's about it. The two people aren't even from the same province.
Please, at least learn your lessons first. It's like suspecting everyone with the family name "Manson" to be a serial killer aspirant.
Yeah, I mean "Every Chinese citizen has a Little Red Book in their pocket!" is pretty compelling for a social media app.
It's not necessarily political beyond that, but the connection is obviously there.
I asked an actual Chinese person about 小红书 and they assumed I was talking about Mao's book until I clarified.
None of the "actual" Chinese people I know were confused about the terminology. The average Chinese does not care one lick about anything related to communism or the history of communism in this country. Mao's book is largely a relic of their great (or even great) grand parents age.
However most of my Chinese friends were confused about why something that most Chinese find to be a relatively uninteresting app in mainland China is suddenly so popular in the US.
It's also worth pointing out that this isn't some serendipitous accident, 小红书 has been working to become a TikTok replacement for awhile now.
In case if you weren't merely being facetious, your home country at least has some incentive to work towards your interest, no matter how evil they are because they have to pay the consequences of these actions. Even in autocratic China, for example, anti-lockdown censorship during Covid in China eventually caused even more resentment against the CCP.
On the other hand, look at examples of Russian election interference in 2016 [1]. One of the posts is "Satan: If I win Clinton wins. Jesus: Not if I can help it. Press like to help Jesus win." The entire goal is to get Americans to distrust and hate each other. Nobody in America has anything to gain from posting this, but China and Russia have nothing but to gain from a more fractured America. We only found out about this because Facebook cooperated with American intelligence to find this foreign propaganda. At best, you can't expect the same cooperation from TikTok they are accountable to the CCP. At worst, TikTok would actively be working with China to disguise this propaganda as genuine content.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
Real change will come when those who actually put work into it. Nobody will do it for you. Not China, not Trump, not the DNC. When the NAACP noticed that even the Senators who supported Civil Rights were too apathetic to put together a coalition to pass the Civil Rights Act, they created that coalition themselves. This is level political organizing that actually gets things done, and likely how Meta and Alphabet got this TikTok ban through as well.
Is it paranoia if Mao Zedong is still revered? If the government is the communist party? I realize the CCP is not perfectly communist in many ways but they are unapologetic about communism and their roots.
It is a coincidence that the original work did not mean little red book. But thats how it was translated, and the translation of the app is correct. So obviously now when you have the same name coming from a country that doesn't denounce communism I think it's fair to be concerned about communist influence.
washington is still liked even though he was a notable slave owner
What you're doing is called "whataboutism."
TikTok, you've changed! But maybe not that much.
My guess is, at the end we will see maybe some million users from the USA and some more millions from around the world moving to this app, and maybe bringing a new interaction between the countries, but the majority will end up somewhere else.
and I live in India , so tiktok's banned. There are many indian alternatives to tiktok's that I have seen , But rednote being chinese just makes me wonder if its gonna survive.
Y'know things are just different yet so the same. The same fomo happened during the facebook time is now happening with red note.
“History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes,” as Mark Twain is often reputed to have said. (I’ve found no compelling evidence that he ever uttered that nifty aphorism. No matter — the line is too good to resist.) (source https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/12/history-rhymes/)
I know we come from very different cultures and I have no intention of judging you, but can you perhaps give me a clue as to how this would work? I'm intrigued, to say the least.
proposed = asking for a date or if he's too forward / self-centered then asking her to "be my girlfriend"
crush = a girl I like but haven't told that to her or shown it in public
And yes for kids in school it's quite common to initiate conversations through mutual friends because otherwise gossip spreads too quick and can sometimes be damaging (both emotionally and socially).
"TikTok is vape and Reels are cigarettes".
TikTok's algorithm is _super_ curated and targeted, like a Mr. Beast video. Instagram's is pretty good but if you can get your algorithm to the brainrot cluster with everyone else then you'll get a lot of out-of-left-field, grungier content you might not find on TikTok.
I think once RedNote gets banned or the meme fades people will mainly flock to IG. There's still a void of creator based features that IG can't fill, so maybe a competitor will pop up if IG can't replicate the environment well enough.
In my group of friends, the reels/shorts crowd have eased off on keeping up with the latest fads/memes. Its similar to the old meme cycle of them starting on 4chan and some filtering down to Digg/Reddit, you end up with them being watered down or receive them extremely late in the fad cycle.
Reels have a few problems, the biggest one is randomly getting served gore/death videos. This has never happened to me on tiktok. I feel like (cant substantiate this) reels pushes sex/thirst content more than tiktok does. The final one is the actual social aspect of tiktok vs reels, the comments and interactions on reels are very abusive and spammy compared to tiktok.
I do agree with you about RedNote being a fad, its artificially inflated but its possible the astroturfing of "interaction" will lead to a sustainable level of organic/real interaction with the app. IG is not great for communities.
I know someone who speaks Chinese and uses that app. The name in Chinese Xiaohongshu clearly translates to "Little Red Book," and they're confused how anyone got "Red Note" out of it.
> My guess is, at the end we will see maybe some million users from the USA and some more millions from around the world moving to this app, and maybe bringing a new interaction between the countries, but the majority will end up somewhere else.
If that happens, Little Red Book will trigger exactly the same law that's banning TikTok.
"Little Red Book" is the literal translation of the original name but that's not the only way companies approach global markets, especially with longer to say names. It looks like they sometimes use "REDNote" (as it appears in App Stores), "RedNote", and sometimes just "RED" depending on the context (e.g. their advertisement/promotional email address is red.ad@xiaohongshu.com).
As to how they got there with it? "Little Red Book" is just an awkward mouthful to refer to compared to the alternative forms they used.
If there was a German app called "My Strawberry" and you found out that the original German name translates to "My Struggle" you'd be very curious as to why the English name is so different and what they're trying to hide.
Can you explain the connection between "kampf" and strawberries? I don't speak enough German to get it or Google it.
TikTok doesn't use their literal translation either. Not because the name had a certain association but because it'd've also been a terrible way to market the app globally. I could give some credit to the idea there may have been more than a singular reason for changing the name but I can't buy the reason other apps also do is not at least a major factor, if not the largest.
"Protecting Americans’ Data From Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7520...
https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7520/BILLS-118hr7520eh....
One could argue, and I think with a strong case that if this law applies to TikTok, it would also apply to Twitter (Saudi investment) and Snapchat (also Saudi investment).
> (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term "foreign adversary country" means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
So you’d have a hard time making that ‘strong’ argument.
SA has lead directly and indirectly to the loss of more American lives than any of those countries.
9/11 was perpetrated by mostly Saudis. Sum the knock on deaths as you will.
The killing of Jamal Khashoggi https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45812399
We are trying to get away from Saudi influence and control so much that we look the other way while we pump poison into our water. So much so that the Simpson's even have an episode devoted to it where Marge exclaims, "the water is on fire!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ29JFoVqCE
Maybe the list should be behavior based?
> I know someone who speaks Chinese and uses that app. The name in Chinese Xiaohongshu clearly translates to "Little Red Book," and they're confused how anyone got "Red Note" out of it.
I'll tell you a funny one like that in another language:
Instagram reels are well... short-form videos usually with music/audio and effects.
It's pronounced something like "real" but longer.
Anyway, in French that word "reel" is printed the same but since most people don't practice spoken English it's read and pronounced "réel". Something like ray-hell (notice the é). And it annoys me to no eeeend :D.
So, among French-speaking community management crews and social network teams you hear "réel"/ray-hell all the time instead of "reel".
And how do you translate "réel" into English ? You guessed it: it's "real".
It's actually just what it's called in the US app stores: "REDnote—小红书国际版"
People are trying to do away with that association, but it still boggles my mind why the app is called LRB in the first place.
So this is a case of translators with an agenda translating two phrases with different original mandarin renditions (hongbaoshu and xiaohongshu), and picking and choosing the style of translation (base on usage vs based on character) to get the English translation to merge both of them as "Little Red Book".
And the characters for "小红书" directly and literally translate to "little", "red", and "book". It's the most literal and obvious translation of the name, no agenda needed. Go ask any Chinese person.
The app didn't even have an English name until recently. It was just "小红书" which any Chinese person would render in English as "Little Red Book". "RedNote" is a recent branding exercise.
We will see, but I would think if they gain 2-5 Million Users, it wouldn't but of much concern for the feds. Unless they gain access to a specific vulnerable group.
The way the law is written, any adversary-controlled social network with more than 1 million MAU could be affected.
I think they'd ban it if it started gaining traction outside of Chinese immigrant communities. And it'd make sense to do it early, now that they have the legal power to do so, since it'd avoid controversy. No one would have cared about the TikTok ban if they did it when it was at 1-2 million MAU.
Rednote could be a fad that fades, but technical problems won't be decisive.
I can't say I like YouTube shorts a lot, but there's often some I find interesting in a long enough window of time — the problem there is more the signal to noise ratio than the volume of the signal. TikTok just feels like my personal signal is just nonexistent.
Sometimes I wish I knew what was going on under the hood. There's such a huge difference between how much people like TikTok and how I feel about the content, and I don't understand why TikTok would have such a hard time with me in particular.
In general I'm kind of souring on algorithmic-driven social media, or at least short format (video or text). I don't have anything against it in principle, I just find I enjoy longer format posts and articles more in experience.
- avoid attempts based on "unliking" things, I'm pretty sure it treats it as engagement. Instead swipe bad content away.
- avoid "accidentally engaging", like replying to a comment you feel is wrong or watching something you don't like because you were trying to see where the speech was going. Disengage ASAP with unwanted.
- positive feedback for whatever video starts getting close to what you want.
- positive implies staying the whole clip, liking, viewing comments, commenting, liking comments and the strongest of all, sharing the video (you can send it to a telegram conversation with yourself or whatever, not sure if the link you shared ever being opened is accounted for but I think nope). Do this on purpose, like if a video is cool just open the comment section and like all comments without looking.
-try to "navigate". If you want to see tech and it's currently showing you music, maybe engage with music production or Spotify tricks when they appear. It might not be the tech you're looking for, but it's closer to tech than a teenage girl dancing. You'll eventually be shown things more relevant to you, at which point you grab that current.
Also do not try to rush the process. I think updating your interests is not instant, and session time might be a metric as well.
This is just completely foreign to how I consume media. The idea that I need to try and "trick" an algorithm into showing me what I want is just completely unappealing. I'd much rather go somewhere else and actively seek out the content that I want, rather than trying to fight a system that seems like it would prefer me to be a passive consumer.
"Passive" not in the sense that I shouldn't be engaged, clearly, as the algorithm rewards engagement. But passive in the sense that I should not be seeking out what I want to see, I should just be reactive based on what I am shown, and then the platform will decide from that what I really want.
Like, no, this just makes me recoil completely. Why would I want to bother with that?
Yup. It was new to me, as I learned from younger friends. To them it's obvious it's ride or be taken for a ride - not doing this active navigation, they'd compare it with surfing reddit using just the default frontpage unlogged.
In fact people even troll each other, for example by sending someone a mormon speech or an untranslated meme from India to screw with their feeds.
I have to say that in a way it's way better than YouTube or Instagram, where you can't really tame the thing and it will suddenly decide for a month that you like Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro because you watched a video about bodybuilding.
>Like, no, this just makes me recoil completely. Why would I want to bother with that?
Because a huge amount of interesting content is there. I also prefer the old style, but I'd rather begrudgingly adapt than be left behind in progressively decaying platforms - it is what it is.
To a first approximation, TikTok simply shows you more of what you watch. If you swipe away a lot of stuff in the first second or two, it stops showing you that kind of stuff. If you watch complete videos, it shows you more like that.
So I am specifically trying to sus out how common it is among tiktok users to have this sort of strategic thinking around the algorithm, since it's not something I've heard much of before.
In general, it "just works" after a short period of maybe searching for specific terms just to "seed" the algorithm.
But if you're used to your media telling you who to be instead of having media be responsive to who you are, it might feel very disconcerting.
I even had people telling me in all seriousness "I must secretly like the content", as in the algorithm knows better than I do what I like. Which is kind of a weird and maybe even disturbing idea to buy into if you think about it.
I was told to keep at it, which I did. I'd put aside for a long time, go back to it, repeat the process over and over again. Eventually I just gave up. I always felt like it was targeting some specific demographic by default and never got out of that algorithmic optimization spot for me.
If you have more time, then you can watch normal youtube videos or TV shows...
If their only differentiating feature is the algorithm, Insta would eat them for lunch eventually the same they did for Snapchat after knocking off that app's big/only claim to fame (stories).
The discussion seems to be TikTok's algorithm is so good no one could ever possibly compete. I really don't think that's the case and TikTok really has no moat whatsoever.
I'm not seeing this sentiment. More that none of its competitors are so obviously ahead of the pack that we can easily predict TikTok's natural successor.
There's of course a chance of algorithmic meddling, nudging people to a different Chinese app, but I think spite is a far simpler answer.
My wife is exploring RedNote for this very reason. "You're telling me I have an easy way to make the US government upset and the more I use RedNote, the more upset they are?" was her line of thinking. She explained that it makes her feel like she has a morsel of control over a group that previously didn't give a damn.
Her father would also be upset if she starts learning Chinese because of his political tendencies. It's basically a two-for-one deal of learning about another culture and learning a foreign language.
Flip the question around to your familiar villain. You’re a U.S. intelligence chief, and have a trove of embarrassing—possibly worse—information about ordinary Chinese citizens. How can you use this to make them useful to you?
And for what? What are you going to gain from trying to blackmail an "ordinary citizen"? The risk:reward ratios are simply horribly broken in this sort of case. By contrast when your own government is doing this to you, you have nobody to turn to, and they can completely destroy your life in ways far worse than the threat of somehow revealing your taste in videos.
Why doesn't this happen every time someone is blackmailed?
> could also blow up into a giant international controversy
Like if Russia shot down a passenger jet? Or Beijing hacked the OPM? Or India tried assasinating an American citizen on U.S. soil? What about "opening and operating an illegal overseas police station, located in lower Manhattan, New York, for a provincial branch of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)" [1]?
> What are you going to gain from trying to blackmail an "ordinary citizen"?
Everything needs grunt work. Taking pictures. Accepting and transferring funds as part of a laundering operation. Driving an operative around.
The ladies who killed Kim Jong-un's uncle thought they were "making prank videos at the airport and she was required to 'dress nicely, pass by another person and pour a cup of liquid on his/her head'" [2]. Being able to arrange that from afar, with limited outreach, is something Cold War-era spooks could only dream of.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-arrested-operating-illega...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-nam#...
It does, quite often. Which is why blackmail is done mainly by those who law enforcement would think twice about going after, and/or those who have nothing to lose.
> if Russia shot down a passenger jet? Or Beijing hacked the OPM?
Plausible deniability, and who is there to rally around?
> India tried assasinating an American citizen on U.S. soil?
I don't know what incident you're talking about, but the fact you say specifically "American citizen" suggests to me you're talking about someone who had strong connections to India and would be generally perceived as Indian.
> What about "opening and operating an illegal overseas police station, located in lower Manhattan, New York, for a provincial branch of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)"
That sounds like a propaganda framing. In what sense was this a "police station", much less an illegal one? All they apparently did was "help locate a Chinese dissident living in the US". So the ground facts are more like "the MPS had a private eye working in New York". Which, well, sure; so what?
I kinda get why the US is banning tiktok, I don't get why you'd expect most of tiktok's users to care about those reasons.
> In August 2023, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued official warnings about a new form of phone fraud in which Russians are forced to set fire to military enlistment offices through pressure or deception. The authorities claim that scammers call from the territory of Ukraine and choose elderly Russians as their victims. The Russian government has not yet offered any evidence of their claims. Russian business newspaper Kommersant claims that fraudsters support the Armed Forces of Ukraine and organize "terrorist attacks".
Emphasis mine.
> Now imagine the enemy government has dirt on most of your citizens
You don't really have to imagine this.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for some citizens to feel the same
Even leaving aside the state's monopoly on violence, agents at any of multiple three-letter agencies could easily ruin my life. An IRS agent could randomly decide to audit my last decade of tax returns. A law enforcement agent (local, state, or federal) could deliberately incorrectly mark my vehicle as stolen. They could SWAT me on a trumped up basis. They could just black bag me, and throw me in some dark pit.
China could probably hack me, and fuck up my digital presence, including my finances. But the US government could easily skip a few steps and just declare those finances illegitimate in a variety of ways much more difficult to undo.
Sure, individually. If you think about more than yourself, you should recognise a collective threat that requires a modicum of sacrifice to protect against.
Yes. It's riskier for the FBI to fuck around with an American than it is for the CIA to fuck around with someone in Russia or China. Particularly when we're dealing with extorting someone using embarassing, but not necessarily criminal, information.
Or just, you know, sowing chaos. Again, if the CIA had a list of Chinese citizens who may be mentally unstable and are obsessing over e.g. the Uyghurs, could that not be put to use in a way that's harmful to China and that person?
Your risk of being fucked with by either Beijing or D.C. is incredibly low. ("Fucked with" meaning being harassed for legal behaviour.) Given the existence of such a database, however, the chances of fuckery at the population level is almost 100%. What President wouldn't want a call they could make that would tumble a foreign adversary into chaos for a few days?
It's worth asking why Reels/Shorts didn't take off and those companies had to ask for their competition to be banned instead. Everyone agrees that "the algorithm is better", but this is very hard to quantify. Perhaps something about surfacing smaller creators? Quantity/quality of invasive advertising? Extent to which people feel particular kinds of rage content is being forced on them?
It is not 4chan where you think twice before clicking a link to avoid emotional damage. It is also not Reddit or Youtube where you do not bother to go because you permanently encounter stuff that is inconsequentially blocked and you are still not safe from trauma. I think most platforms other than TikTok try to be too strict, fail to enforce their unrealistic rules in any comprehensible form and therefore suck for most intellectually curious users.
In comparison to instagram I have found it far easier to explore, for instance, black women making leftist political critiques of Harris engaged in long conversations with black women who were actively supporting Harris.
Similarly, it has been much easier to find discussions about Palestine, labor rights, indigenous US culture, and numerous other topics.
I think those conversations are probably find-able on Ig or Yt, but I have had much more difficult time with those platforms. It's been hard for me to find much engaging content that is close enough to my (admittedly anarchistic) political and cultural views that the conversation changes what I think in useful ways, so I avoid that work on things like FB. These platforms do suck for doing anything other than keeping up with pictures of my nieces.
My feeling is that in general the TT algo doesn't really care about US politics so it just shows me engaging content, whatever that might be for me.
People here can call that "addictive", but in doing so it quickly discards any agency for people who have any actual political disagreements with the radically centrist US political mainstream.
I am used to that flippant dismissal- Allen Dulles would have rather believed in mind control than believe that US military personal who encountered Koreans were swayed by genuine empathy for a legitimate political-economic position.
By contrast, my feeling is that various other governments don't really care what folks in other countries think about the world so as long as it's not objectively porn or gore they just let conversations happen.
That is, of course, quite dangerous if your power relies on maintaining narrative consistency for the population you rule- that's why China and other authoritarian folks do things like limit what can happen on social media in their countries...
If it were true than the countless nations which turned to extreme censorship and propaganda to try to maintain themselves would be still standing. Instead, they invariably lose the faith of their people who simply stop believing anything (or supporting their own government) and at that point their collapse is already imminent - even if it might only happen decades later. See: Soviet Union.
Or for some predictive power - once China's economy reaches its twilight years where you have to juke the books and redefine exactly how things are measured just to keep eeking out that 1 or 2% growth per year, their entire political system will collapse. People would be happy being ruled by a group of authoritarian mutated frogs who demanded you ribbit in loyalty 6 times a day, so long as their economy and society was booming from the average person's perspective. It's only when things slow down that people start looking more critically at the systems they live under.
Media has absolutely wised up to the fact that contrarian attitudes are common amongst Americans. These companies know that if they repeat something nonstop and make it as obnoxious as possible, a large number of people will quickly adopt the opposite viewpoint. That's the desired result.
Reverse psychology is something elementary school kids learn about and use to torment others or do their bidding. It doesn't end in elementary school.
Even more so because once you do realize how silly things are (on both sides of the aisle) your favorite media outlet quickly becomes NOTA.
They focus on the most ridiculous "controversies" about some politicians that they know people will think are ridiculous, while completely ignoring their actual problems. They say "oh no, definitely don't vote for this person, or that means you're against us!!!" Lots of people then think "I hate this group, so I'm going to do the opposite just to own them." Then you see that these companies are donating millions to those candidates that they're giving fake criticism of.
It's very transparent.
A decade ago, people on the internet said big corps will never advertise on places like reddit because people say bad words there and they don't want their brand associated with it. Turns out companies just stopped posting banners and paid people to do stealth marketing and it's much more effective.
Advertising and propaganda works best when there's plausible deniability. And half the country very strongly believes they can't be advertised to and will never believe any propaganda--they're free thinkers who do the opposite of what the media tells them.
If you honestly believe companies and political groups are just throwing their hands up and saying there's nothing they can do because they need to be direct and honest all the time, and they'll never find any way to appeal to contrarians so the only option is to give up, then man.
It's not that they give up, it's that they keep posting level 0 things because that's what their manager wants and can understand.
Do you think the Tokyo Rose broadcasts were some 5D chess ploy to make sure Japan lost the war faster? No, they were people who had a job doing their job. Large organisations are barely capable of getting their members to pull in the same direction. You occasionally see a level 1 reverse psychology ad campaign, but they're inevitably done by a small agency working for a small department and get pulled as soon as they collide with someone higher up who doesn't get it.
You could also take the reverse point of view and claim Russians aren't targeting westerners at all, and any propaganda they do make isn't working. Which is possible. But that also leads to the conclusion that western media and governments are incredibly effective at getting westerners to believe they're being targeted by Russian propaganda operations.
An honest proposition: if these media companies are dumb and completely ineffectual, then you have a multi-hundred-billion dollar opportunity. They're missing out on hundreds of millions of people in America alone. It'd be silly to not take advantage of that by simply starting a network saying what everyone else is "really" thinking, because people surely want straight to the point content that they agree with, won't get incensed about, and won't consume nonstop while complaining that they hate it. [1] Surely media companies aren't documented to be doing this intentionally and some commenters online have realized they're merely dumb and not really trying to just get people outraged so they take the opposite point of view. They certainly wouldn't do that.
And now we've basically swapped roles. So a lot of Russian propaganda is effective because it is the truth - Ukraine isn't winning, the sanctions are improving Russia's economy (and uniting the Global South) while wrecking Europe's, they didn't blow up their own oil pipeline, and so on endlessly. And vice versa, US propaganda isn't really working, because it's often left trying to make claims that are simply false - the opposite of all of the above would be an example.
As for governments freaking out - it's because of self interest. As everything comes crashing down, people are holding them accountable and anti-establishment candidates/parties are surging (and in many cases taking high office) pretty much everywhere. We're simultaneously living through a geopolitical inflection point with the decline of one great empire and the rise of [something else] (which hopefully isn't just another great empire), and the likely end of globalism. It's a shift that will likely geopolitically define the next century.
This is not the truth, very far from it. Western observers are fooled by the official statistics because they've literally never experienced a government blatantly lying and posting completely fabricated numbers. They recognize when governments tweak definitions and try other manipulations, but they are utterly unequipped to recognize completely made up numbers.
For Russian economists, this is nothing new. They are openly sarcastic when they reference figures like the official inflation rate (9.5%), because they estimate the true number to be far worse, 20-25%. They used to base their opinions on independent market research companies like ROMIR that tracked consumer spending habits, but Russian government shut them all down in late 2024.
Russia is getting hit with a similar inflation wave like the world saw during and after Covid, but unlike the rest, Russia cannot climb out of the hole, because they are unwilling to stop the war against Ukraine. War spending is the main cause of the inflation. Russian government is flooding the economy with insane payouts to mercenaries for their utterly unproductive "work" on the battlefield while the production of goods is stalling and the availability of foreign goods is much lower as well due to sanctions. Growing amount of money in the system + less goods available = money loses value relative to goods (inflation).
Vladimir Milov, the former Deputy Minister of Energy, gave an excellent interview where he broke it all down: https://frontelligence.substack.com/p/war-deficits-and-the-r...
When the Russian economy was briefly under substantial strain when the huge sanctions attack first landed and the ruble fell rapidly, not only did their official numbers reflect this, but they had a more negative expectation than third parties!
For that matter there are a zillion videos you can watch on YouTube of people doing walking tours through various supermarkets and places looking at the availability/prices of stuff. Here's one from some lady a month ago that clearly leans ideologically Western, but nonetheless affirms prices to be somewhat lower than would be expected from the official rates, while complaining about it - https://youtube.com/watch?v=m01-iYSPDt0
Made even sillier if you're aware of Russia's economic history since the end of the 90s. Their economy has for decades been seeing substantial inflation (5-10%) yet even more substantial wage growth. So complaining about prices without even mentioning the change in wages is the sort of behaviour one should expect from people of this sort of bias.
I don't think anyone believes that they're being successfully targeted by Russian propaganda. A lot of people believe, or claim to believe, that their political opponents have been successfully targeted by Russian propaganda, or that ideas that they don't like are Russian propaganda. But that's not really because they've been convinced of something that strongly goes against their interests/predispositions; it only requires them to believe that their opponents are stupid and they are smart, which they were already predisposed to believe. (And I suspect most of them know on some level that this is something they're professing rather than something they think is literally true)
> people surely want straight to the point content that they agree with, won't get incensed about, and won't consume nonstop while complaining that they hate it
Oh no, people enjoy righteous indignation and so media serves it to them. But the media establishment is not organised enough to direct that, certainly not through some 5D chess logic. Yes you do occasionally see false/slanted stories spread as outrage bait by people on the other side, but when those happen they're done by, like, literally 3 guys, and one of them spills the beans shortly after.
If you want a contemporary example, look at the UK media suppressing coverage of muslim child rape gangs for the past 10 years or so that's now kind of bubbling over into the mainstream discourse. Yes, it's creating a backlash effect, but if that was the deliberate intention then a propaganda payload that takes 10+ years to deliver results is not going to be useful for day-to-day politics (is Russia still going to be at war in 10 years, and if so, with who? Will e.g. Belarus be an ally or an enemy at that point?). And even at level 0 it was never really effective in changing minds - maybe it gave the people who wanted to pretend it wasn't happening an excuse to pretend it wasn't happening, but the people who cared about it managed to find out.
Theories of propaganda masterminds are comforting in the same way that conspiracy theories are - the idea that there's actually some competent entity that's got it all worked out. But in fact any entity large enough to spread propaganda is ipso facto too unwieldy to push anything but the simplest messages.
Each "side" does share clips of the other sides absurdities to galvanize themselves and their rightness, while simultaneously unquestioningly believing the absurdities their side posts. It's not reverse psychology.
The evidence is all around you.
Or consider things like the USSR where the government strictly controlled all media, there was no media, and even entry/exit from the country was strictly (and generally ideologically) controlled. If media affected people, you'd have had a country of mindless drones of the system. But it was anything but. One of my favorite jokes from the time is, "Why do we have two newspapers, "The Truth" and "The News"? Well that's because there's no truth in The News, and no news in The Truth!" And indeed once they started allowing some degree of expression, it was basically all anti-establishment, leading to some notably great Soviet music from the 80s-90s that parallels the 60s-70s in the US.
I do think media can have an influence on things people know nothing about, but even that comes with an asterisk. War propaganda is the obvious example. Each time we go invade somewhere, or enjoin a conflict, there's a propaganda blitzkrieg about it being the most just action ever against the most evil guy ever. And it does usually work, at first, because people know nothing whatsoever about the conflict. But then over time people begin to learn more and formulate their own views and learn more about the conflicts and opinion starts to shift, even if the media continues the propaganda party 24/7.
And in cases where people already have preformed opinions, this is completely futile from day 0. The obvious example in recent times would be the media effort to try to paint Israel's actions as positively as possible. People simply didn't buy it, because they already had their opinions and so the media propaganda was mostly completely ineffective.
Causality works both ways. People are drawn to their affirming media, but they are also assimilated into it. And it's not like they are unformed lumps of clay before they "choose" what media to consume -- often this is a product of their developmental environment to begin with.
Where they might not have preexisting biases, a framework for thought is provided to them by the group. These groups are sometimes tightly, and sometimes loosely, defined. There is always a fringe. But independent thought is far far from the strongest influence in 99% of people.
This is such a blindingly obvious truth of the world (to me) that I can't formulate a serious counterargument. Can you?
People pick their worldview and biases, and media (in current times) sees it as their role to deliver on those biases. When they don't - the audience leaves and moves on to somebody who will.
The only real superpower media has is to overtly lie to people. And on issues that people know nothing about it is generally effective. But as they learn more about the topic, the views shift more towards what people again choose to individually think about an issue. And as a longer term side effect of this, this superpower is completely self defeating because people begin to completely distrust the media. I could show polls on that but I'm sure you already know trust in media is basically nonexistent. The funnier one is this. [1] The perceived ethics of journalists lies literally right between lawyers and advertisers.
[1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/467804/nurses-retain-top-ethics...
While it's true that people follow their affirming media (e.g. Tucker Carlson), they also accept a lot of what he says, without critical thought.
The "facts" he presents are the basis for their beliefs, and since he is very selective and slanted about the information he presents, they believe it to be further affirmation of their preexisting beliefs or biases.
This is the essence of propaganda and manipulation. Fill in the gaps of people's knowledge/belief with something that's plausible and favorable to you, even if it's only part of the story.
Content generation is Propaganda 101. Editorial control of a trusted entity is a higher level. Algorithm manipulation of a (perceived) neutral/noninvolved source is a higher level yet. And personalized algorithm manipulation is basically spear phishing. Which works extremely well!
Contrast this against the NYTimes. People follow it for the woke, pro-hegemony, pro-establishment stuff. But as per the example with Senator Tom Cotton, if they veer to far from this ideology, far from just accepting it - they rant and rave, and if NYTimes didn't promise to get back on track - they would also have left.
I do think that you have toan incredibly reductive view of belief formation to think that simply showing someone a series of short videos is enough to change how they think about the world.
There's a whole dialect in our existence within language, but most folks I know think that they are the sole authors of their beliefs while other folks are entirely a product of whatever happens to be in front of them. It's very reminiscent of the Fundamental Attribution fallacy...
It sows ideas that are net-beneficial to the propagandist. Leans into the ones that get traction. Manipulates the conversation. Provides simplistic (but advantageous) refutations of more complex (but more true) criticisms.
This is Psych 101 material here. Not at all complicated. You just need to think on a wider horizon and a longer time frame. Stereotypically, this is a cultural weakness of US Americans. Certainly of its leaders. Other cultures have contrasting reputations, some of which appears to be earned.
Reels just wants to basically treat me as a generic male with some bias towards what my social graph likes. I also hate that my likes are public on reels.
e: not sure why this is downvoted, just trying to provide color to an earnest question
But I would be curious how to make sure I get that kind of content I would love philosophy and current events.
Somehow I’ve trained my algorithm is only show me superhero clips, I think because I was watching all the Marvel movies during the pandemic and then didn’t really use it again since then
Be diligent about not spending too much time watching something if it's not what you want your algo to be, sometimes I can get in loops where I watch something because I'm confused by it and then just get a lot of confusing content.
I think that's why, just saying
That would, IMO, explain why people use TikTok and not something else.
As to where they go after TikTok is banned... I feel like there is also a factor of "Oh you want to ban chinese apps? Let me show you". Not sure whether it will last, though.
Of course an app you have used for thousands of hours is going to know you better than the one you tried for half an hour
This is something that infuriates me about youtube, to the extent that I wonder if it's deliberate. Those guys feel like the propaganda the platform wants to sell me, whereas on the Chinese platforms there isn't the sense of HERE IS THE TWO MINUTE HATE PROPAGANDA VIDEO CITIZEN you sometimes get on other platforms.
Edit: As a weak comparison I think about Prime Streaming vs YouTube or Hulu. Ignoring that ads suck. Prime gives you a handful of various ads of real products/companies and have done in my opinion a smart job of minimizing the consumers negativity toward it. YouTube throws whatever highest paying garbage at you as much as possible. I tried Hulu once with ads, painful, every like 7mins you are getting an ad and often the same ad over and over.
> Prime gives you a handful of various ads of real products/companies and have done in my opinion a smart job of minimizing the consumers negativity toward it.
Sure, I just stopped using prime when they introduced ads. It's also the number one complaint about the service and it regularly shows up any time the service is mentioned. I also can't remember a single ad played that was actually relevant to me.
Curiously, I hear this less about Hulu despite them being equivalently bad in my experience. Perhaps hulu has better content.
I feel like Hulu established early enough that they were partially (or fully) ad-supported. I watched a show for free on Hulu with ads many years before I ever would have considered paying for a streaming service at all. Prime, on the other hand, is something people already pay for (usually for reasons other than just streaming, but that also reinforces that they're paying), so the ads probably come off as worse because of that, even though it's kind of backwards in some ways.
Not sure how they managed to screw that up, but screw it they did, and nowadays the sidebar, or even the plain search, has become unusable.
I don't see Jordan Peterson or any of those right-wing videos in my suggestions at all.
I just went to my front page, and everything there is stuff I'm interested in. There's the latest clip from a Hell's Kitchen episode, a Gamers Nexus video, an aviation incident with ATC recordings, a video from Fully Ramblomatic (game reviewer), a video on how to to use a cable comb and why you'd want to, a LockPickingLawyer video, videos related to MS Flight Simulator, mountain biking, Factorio, Technology Connections, Adam Savage's Tested...
There is literally not a single suggested video that I wouldn't be interested in in the first 3 pages of my YouTube front page.
So when people complain that YouTube is constantly suggesting right-wing content, brainrot, and MrBeast, I don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Heck, I watch Legal Eagle, which gets pretty political, and yet I don't get basically any political content suggestions.
Are you guys not logged in or something? Constantly browsing from incognito windows?
Not everybody telegraphs how to get into their wallet as well as you do!
I let YouTube remember my history indefinitely. I've never been recommended MrBeast (and only recently-ish heard of him, the last year or so). Maybe years ago, I watched some clips of Joe Rogan if they popped up, but I've never been a regular listener.
My earlier comment shouldn't have been so down on YouTube - overall, my recommendations are good. But it does concern me that the algorithm consistently tries to push Peterson on me.
I do watch a lot of sports commentary and breakdowns, maybe that leads down the path to Peterson?
"they" in that sentence was Jordan Peterson.
> the article you're thinking of
There's plenty of articles to find.
I can't tell if it's just placed in articles to get people to believe it or if it's true. How big is the alt-right? Is 100 people on the alt-right a substantial alt-right following? How big is that following compared to his overall following size? Is this just the same logic as "You think snow is white? Did you know Adolf Hitler thought snow was white?"?
As a meta-point, I understand that uninquiring minds don't want to know, and you can get a long way by defining yourself by people you don't like. But I genuinely do want to know, or at least ask the question, and if Bernie Sanders were constantly tarred with "Has a substantial following in the KKK community" I'd be asking the same thing: how many people is that, and how many is it of the total people who like him?
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/...
The total number of hours I spent Youtube must outnumber the total number of hours I spent on TikTok by at least 100:1.
For shorts it is abysmal, I only get horrible recommendations there - no idea why it is so different.
I tried reels when it first released, and gave up after an hour of constantly being shown videos of scantily clad women.
reels is really, really bad - it is surprisingly hard to get it to stop showing you some combination of “funny prank videos” and onlyfans funnel content.
I've watched probably 1000s of hours of youtube and it's still pushing crap at me that I would never watch in a million years (edit: eg "How to create Smart Contracts using ChatGPT" or "Abusive tough guy picks fight w the WRONG GUY!"). Maybe it's better if you like a specific genre of video essays or whatever but in terms of a replacement for tiktok it's completely irrelevant.
Reels is at least in the conversation, but the UX is ass and the culture there is a dumpster fire. Granted, I haven't had a meta account for about a decade (the ad obsession just destroys the experience) so this is all hearsay.
Well, and what about the actual content? If all you have is a bunch of garbage it doesn't matter how good your algorithm is if all it can do is find the best garbage to push at the user.
YouTube's recommendations are terrible, but I usually open YouTube when I'm looking for something specific and it's amazing in that regard.
Instagram is somewhere in the middle. I mostly follow people I actually know so the videos are interesting because of that.
There are so many UI elements on top of video that end up blocking what you're trying to see. There is no way to hide them.
YouTube also destroyed its search.
1. the algorithm sucks 2. it will consistently fail to load content quickly enough when scrolling unwanted content
YT Shorts exist exclusively for YT creators who want to publish bite-sized pieces of content for their audience with a much lower expectation of polish than their normal longer form content. Perhaps the algorithm also presents "random" YouTubers', too, but the vast majority of what I see is put out by the publishers I'm already following (or other very similar publishers in the same ecosystem).
I would suggest that TikTok's successor is Insta Reels. Reels are almost exclusively entertainment and because they tie into Instagram's broader user/connections network the UX is much better than TikTok. Nobody goes to Instagram to figure out how to replace their garbage disposal -- this is squarely YT domain. If YT Shorts can make inroads in the entertainment market [without feeling like a commercial break between pieces of actual content, which is the impression I have and the way I use it].
IMHO good riddance. Anything bad for the mindless addictive chum industry is good for humanity. Now do Instagram, Facebook, Xhitter, etc.
I cannot disagree more. I just scroll on tiktok and tiktok populates the scrolling with videos I want to see, and it takes about ten minutes to signal to tiktok what content you like and don't like. Youtube, meanwhile, is an exercise in a far too-busy UI with thumbnails and comments and text and buttons—it's inherently a desktop app shoved into a web browser. Nice if you want to search for a specific topic and watch a four-hour video on it, but terrible for entertainment or killing time.
The only use I have for youtube are in solving these two problems: 1) where can I find a music video and 2) how do I do x
...but the focus on the interface obscures why youtube shorts won't ever take off: youtube is extremely bad at pushing content I want to watch. I've heard this over and over and over again and I know it's true for me, too.
It might be eventually.
(GenZ) People are migrating to RedNote now to lift a middle finger. It's more of a meme.
EDIT: I want to overemphasize just how bad it is. It feels like a project someone whipped up in coding bootcamp over a week. It feels like it has zero ability to pick the next video correctly and it genuinely repeats videos between sessions.
Most of the content there, it's, well, "shorts", cuts from full videos of podcasts, etc. It lacks real users. It's basically the current youtube creators doing content for Youtube Shorts.
Let alone how the algo it's worse, and you can't download videos :)
I suspect if they're mirroring content to YouTube, it's more to try to attract audience to TikTok than monetize through YouTube.
I think both Alphabet and Meta suck at seductive material.
I've never personally used TikTok, so it's possible my perception is flawed, but to me it almost seems like a dare to the government to prove how serious their rationale is. If the government truly thinks that having data collected by Chinese apps is so dangerous, are they willing to flat out ban _all_ Chinese apps? If so, is that more extreme step still something the courts consider constitutional? If not, was TikTok just a convenient political target rather than something actually dangerous?
Reels needs to be more disconnected from Facebook for it do anything similar.
Why do you say the Shorts UI is better? It seems exactly the same to me.
I've never been so interested in advertisements for commercial equipment before that guy.
https://restofworld.org/2024/xiaohongshu-southeast-asia-tour...
Most of all though it's just a very silly protest, given that the "tiktok ban bill" is really a "hostile foreign-power controlled platform divestment bill" so Xiaohongshu will just be next on the block in the unlikely event that it becomes popular.
What does this mean?
I read a lot about TikTok the last few months from users all over the web. Trust me, that's not what TikTok is actually full of, its just what algorithm you got sucked into, for whatever reason. I assume there's some specific bubble for "current viral thing" that you're locked into. Make an alt and like completely different content, you'll see that your feed will be night and day.
It disqualifies mainstream apps like Twitter, Reddit, BlueSky, Reels & now Snapchat as well. This leaves Tiktok and now international apps like Xiaohongshu as the obvious alternatives.
The more the US govt. forces youths to use American mega-corps, the less they want to use it.
It’s something I’ve been thinking about outside of generational gaps, new social media apps are fun because you add all the people you’re comfortable with. After some years you now have a ton of connections from past stages of life, and start feeling restricted again in your personal expression.
Plus there’s the dual use issue – IG is too commonly shared now so I have current and former coworkers there plus everyone I’ve ever been interested in as friends or more at a party. So it’s not the place I’d want to feel free and creative.
IG tries to solve some of this with Close Friends and other lists but people don’t really want to spend their time constantly organizing a list of friends.
Agreed. IG's UI for this is horrible.
I really liked Google+'s "Circles" feature back in the day that let you drag and drop people into different groups really easily and 'assign' posts/content to those circles.
What is the point about the "best algo in town" if the universally popular app can not curate each person's feed differently?
Maybe it is because old people can comment on young people's posts and vice versa?
Alternative account, "Private Friends" list?
Not that it makes a lot of difference to me, facebook is the only social-media-y thing I use and that is just under sufferance (only way to easily keep tabs on what is happening with some people, mainly family) and because I sometimes like to “breakfast with Lord Percy”. I might try bluesky at some pint as many contacts are moving from fb to there (though that seems rather twitter-like and that has never appealed to me even before I even knew Musk existed).
Well, the US government has just successfully antagonized a bunch of their citizens...
It's amusing on the "interesting times" sense, no doubt. But it's not something unexpected. They have been antagonizing their citizens for a while by now.
At some point, something breaks and you get either an autocracy or real change. Some people claim they are already there but this is really still not clear.
my guess is that nigh 100% of tiktok users think the app is getting banned because the government is some combination of capricious, bought, and incompetent. their stated reasons for banning it barely register.
https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7521/BILLS-118hr7521rfs...
It does have a threshold:
> (ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B);
So if it stays unpopular, it's protected from this law.
> but RedNote is owned by a different company that would have to be targeted separately under this law.
I think that's a foregone conclusion if it actually gets popular with Americans.
1. The govt is mad that a foreign company is outcompeting a domestic one
Or more likely, given that there are so many other industries that didn't get a ban:
2. The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok
And even if you disagree with the national security reasons for disallowing China to control a major U.S. social network, there is still the issue of trade reciprocity - nearly all of the U.S. Web companies are banned in China.
Couldn't people just say "but Instagram" is just TikTok? Is it really the "same thing" just, because the same people have control, if the algos, servers, content, moderation/censorship, and promotion are different? Like BlueSky, Twitter, and TruthCentral are all the same thing? Or if we want the "same company" company Allo and Hangouts? I mean everyone loved Allo, right, you can have that one.
Yeah, we're not buying that story anymore.
US Meta can definitely support itself at it's current size without EU Meta.
It's still way more popular than any Meta or US app for that matter, is right now.
Remove that. Recognize they can’t compete in #2 (China).
Then how can you justify their current scale?
What do you mean by more popular than any meta or us app? WhatsApp has 2b monthly active users, where as TikTok has little more than 1b.
More important than user count is user economic purchasing power.
2. Europe is an ally and under US govt defense umbrella .
Was? Isn't a threat of invasion of Nato territory something that ended that situation.
Sure "it's Trump being an insane dickhead", but y'all elected him, then suspended rule of law for him.
Europe is sitting waiting to be shafted if we don't assume Trump will continue to do the absolute worst, most hostile things. We should be taking the threats of invasion seriously despite them appearing to be a way to, for example, invade Panama and not look as insane as was expected.
That's an absolute illusion. And definitely absolutely wrong to call it ally. Most govs don't want to have anything to do with trump, musk and all this bullshit.
Most European countries will basically make no deals or anything for 4 years just like we did last time.
There is a literal war thread open of trump claiming to invade parts of Europe. We are pissed. Not allies
Members of congress were texting and emailing with execs from Twitter and Facebook to request post suppression. During an election.
A senior member of Trump's government is trying to mess with our political system - how is this not catastrophic for diplomatic relations, coming on top of the threats to our NATO allies?
Posting pro-Palestinian content on Facebook will get your account terminated for "supporting terrorism". The pro-western censorship regime on FB is extremely strong. US lawmakers specifically cited the amount of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok as why they were banning the app.
Sources:
https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
A user should be able to use another person's hosted Mastodon instance or Bluesky AppView/Relay.
Attempting to reconcile that with HRW's article: on the one hand I think HRW might be unrealistic about what FB should be expected to tolerate (for instance, they criticize FB for taking down posts praising designated terrorist organizations); on the other, Meta's approach to content moderation - which combines automated systems with overworked and underpaid humans exposed non-stop to awful content - is notoriously fickle and subject to abuse (including, perhaps, by state actors).
Beyond Israel/Palestine, I regularly encounter content on Facebook that the Powers That Be would censor if "the pro-Western censorship regime on FB [were] extremely strong". I think I subscribe to only one political (left-leaning) group (along with a bunch of local and meme pages), but nevertheless my feed is full of tankies demanding we bring back the guillotine and install full communism.
Naturally there is no overt censorship on FB/Meta, but in the wake of October 7th there was a clear difference in what kinds of content was being lifted by the algorithms on both platforms. I think, save for Bella Hadid, you would rarely see "organic" pro-palestine content with millions of views on Instagram, while it was less censored on TikTok.
Human Rights Watch even did a study on it: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
Like how newspapers and other media can use editorial discretion to create the impression that “all reasonable people” hold some opinion X by only publishing the voices of reasonable people who believe X (manufactured consent), social media platforms can do the same thing, but x1000 thanks to automation and personalization (“the algorithm”)
So editorialization, including the algorithmic editorialization of social media platforms, is a form of speech separate from the speech of the authors on these platforms. If the editors are independent, and part of the same public discourse as their readers and authors, then you wind up with a diverse media ecosystem where the liberal machinery of people working out complex issues through public discourse can hopefully still more or less proceed.
If one part of the ecosystem isn’t letting outside voices in, the feedback mechanisms are broken and you don’t have a healthy public discourse anymore. And growing and maintaining a diverse media ecosystem in a society that does still have a healthy public discourse is slow and fragile (as the posts below comparing the risk of books to TikTok observe).
I certainly agree that editorial discretion is speech. I'm an adult and I think it is my prerogative to participate in as many broken ecosystems I want. Nor do I trust you or 300 million of my peers to accurately assess what is a broken ecosystem.
Comparing books to TikTok algo is like comparing rifles to ICBMs.
This is what people seem to be ignoring: the algorithms are damned near mind reading, and these algos put members of society into separate realities. We would be better off if they were all banned, but at least it should be agreeable that a hostile foreign government should not be allowed to deploy this on Americans without oversight.
I don't take this as a given and I believe the US government has caused more harm to its own people than China has today; US spies on its citizens, unfairly enforces laws against people, create laws that benefit 1% of its citizens to the detriment of the rest, forces its people to go wars they doesn't support, create rules that target certain genders and races, and so on.
Importantly, the US government is able to enact more harm on its citizens than China when it feels like.
Maybe, maybe not. But when the PRC decides the time is right to take Taiwan, it will have prepared the ground by making sure lots of Americans saw TikToks (made by other Americans) saying basically this.
Yes, there are millions of US citizens that would rather have a Russian TV station in their neighborhood than one run by Democrats. I don't understand it, but that seems to be the way it's going lately. And considering who's POTUS now, a Russia-run TV network in the US isn't that far-fetched. I mean, Fox News practically already is.
I understand the concern over foreign propaganda, but this feels like it's not going to remotely impact the ability for foreign governments to deliver propaganda to Americans. It's perfectly possible to deliver propaganda on US-based social networks.
The best outcome of this is just that Americans find the other social networks so boring that they spend less time on social networks altogether, thus reducing their propaganda intake (at least, from social networks).
It’s fascinating honestly. Soon we’re going to have “we need government to be able to DPI and block propaganda!”
All governments/nations have some level of self-interest. That doesn't mean they are all equal in their motivations or approaches.
China is literally controlling the narrative through TikTok. Why shouldn't the US respond to that?
Is the argument itself correct or not? Or do we evaluate it based on motivation, i.e. it's ok when we do it because we have good reasons for it? Sounds like the ends justify the means to me.
The correct approach would be to increase the critical thinking skills of the population, increase transparency, require corporations to make algorithms fair and equitable. Require all feeds to be chronological or some other uniform, fair rule for showing posts. No boosting certain viewpoints, or paid promotions. But these things would bother corporations and politicians in the west as well as the external forces with "bad motivations", so just ban the external social networks.
The EU I think has a better approach, of course made possible because we don't have any powerful social networks of our own, and so nobody lobbies against these rules. I'm sure the DSA and DMA would be different (if they existed at all) if at least one of FAANG was European. Nevertheless, the concept is better.
The argument is probably more correct for Iran banning YouTube than it is for the US banning TikTok.
I don't think this is a useful distinction in a world where a handful of ultra-billionaires control most of the remaining media channels. People like Rupert Murdoch, Musk, and the others have very different interests than the average American, and at least several of them openly push their own (divisive) viewpoints through their media. Why is Rupert Murdoch less of an adversary to the average person than the CCP?
The Western media are already doing everything that TikTok has been accused of being hypothetically able to do: sowing social division, brainrot, encouraging lawbreaking, undermining confidence in the government, promoting dangerous or fake products, etc.
The real difference is that TikTok threatens to boost an alternative to the consensus message of the political elite. A US with TikTok would see actual pushback against something like the early 2000s media shennanigans that got the Iraq War and Patriot Act smoothly approved with little public debate. That is the real reason Congress banned it and why the homegrown brainrot isn't seen as a threat.
It's so amusing seeing the society that lionizes itself as the paragon of open society and can't stop boasting about the effectiveness of free-speech soft-power compared to sclerotic communist propaganda now having panics over short video apps.
Bush Sr. or Bill Clinton could never think that.
Well, maybe we will be on yeltsin-on-supermarket stage soon?
It's not hard to imagine the messages China will be pushing to weaken support for assisting Taiwan in a conflict. "Don't waste money propping up the corrupt Taiwanese government, spend it on health care /tax cuts at home!"
Then China gains control over TSMC without a fight and much of the American economy is at their mercy.
This whole "Taiwan is super important to USA" narrative is itself pure government propaganda, related to military power projection over China's coastline. Surely you can at least admit this. It's just a battle of propaganda, except China unfortunately has common sense on its side in many of these arenas:
USA should not be spending hundreds of billions maintaining a WW2 power projection strategy, 80 years later.
That's the problem. There's massive lack of historical education on this topic. The Taiwan issue greatly predates TSMC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
Yo can we drop the whole “our government executes on the will of the people charade”. If you think your average American has any say in their governments foreign policy I have a bridge to sell you.
> Much of the American economy is already at China's mercy, due to the $500,000,000,000+ in goods we rely on from them annually.
Yes, but let's not use that as a justification for letting it get worse.
> This whole "Taiwan is super important to USA" narrative is itself pure government propaganda, related to military power projection over China's coastline.
The whole f*ing modern economy runs on semiconductors, and the most advanced ones are fabbed in Taiwan. You might have a point if Intel wasn't falling on its face, but it is, so you don't
Rebuild the republic instead of wasting everything on hopeless adventurism and imperial expansion.
Reducing risk from Chinese influence is "rebuild[ing] the republic" and is not " hopeless adventurism and imperial expansion."
Also, letting China encroach and control more vital supplies is a good way to make "rebuild[ing] the republic" a lot harder.
This is just updating the standard. TikTok is clearly a massive threat, how is that not obvious?
https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli....
Open internet only works as long as everyone is friendly. The world is increasingly becoming not friendly.
If USA was actually so free, that would at least be consistent. But now I don't get TikTok, AND kids have to run around with bullet proof vests? I get all the bad, none of the good.
Every voting citizen should remember that this TikTok ban was bipartisan. That means they all cared more about this than ANY other sensible legislation. Banning child marriage? Nah! Protecting the childrens physical bodies in school was not as important as a hypothetical "mind attack" from TikTok.
They've literally said "Better a dead kid than a red kid"
WTF? In no way do kids have to wear bullet proof vests. That is a very odd statement.
> They've literally said "Better a dead kid than a red kid"
They have not literally said that.
(B) understand the dangers of communism and similar political ideologies; and
(C) understand that 1,500,000,000 people still suffer under communism.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5349...
And yet nothing is being done for school shootings. Make of that what you will
Conversely there's a mountain of evidence which strongly suggests that US officials are going after TikTok specifically because they're not in control of the truthful narratives that paint the US in a bad light.
> Please talk when China/Russia opens up.
Careful with this sort of rhetoric. China's constitution enshrines freedom of speech as a constitutional right, just like the US, but they're both taking this freedom away by invoking "national security".
Why would we wait until we're as oppressed as the people of China before we speak up? By then it's going to be too late.
Videos about Tiananmen Square, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet all get black holed by the algorithm.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
> Why would we wait until we're as oppressed as the people of China before we speak up? By then it's going to be too late.
Why would we wait for TikTok to continue to have greater and greater social influence before we cut off their propaganda tool? Do we have to wait until Taiwan has been leveled by China? And TikTok is being used to push the narrative that the US must not come to the aid of a peaceful nation being brutally conquered? By then it’s too late.
None of those threaten US national security - that's what the supporters of this ban are claiming is at stake. US social media companies nuke topics that the US doesn't like, that's not news.
How do you feel about US media suppressing opposition of the genocide happening in Gaza? Where should US citizens express those views if every popular non-US owned/aligned platform is banned on the grounds of national security?
Read the last paragraph of my comment again and you’ll find your answer.
> How do you feel about US media suppressing opposition of the genocide happening in Gaza? Where should US citizens express those views if every popular non-US owned/aligned platform is banned on the grounds of national security?
This isn’t a reality that exists. Did you spend any time at all on Twitter in the last year? You literally could not go a day without hearing about it. It was front page news on US news sites constantly. Protests against both Biden and Harris were constantly in the news and all over social media. The student protests were all over the news and social media. I don’t know what world you’re living in where you think Americans can’t talk about Gaza because it’s all I’ve been hearing about for a year. And here you are, talking about it on an American social media website.
I'll just go ahead and quote my sources. The suppression and narrative shaping are very real, but doesn't mean that nobody on the internet has said anything about it.
Isn't this exactly what you're worried about with TikTok - that an adversary is going to shape the conversation by purposefully biasing the conversation? I'd appreciate it if you applied the same standard to both sides.
> Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved removal of content in support of Israel. The documented cases include content originating from over 60 countries around the world, primarily in English, all of peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways. This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship. Hundreds of people continued to report censorship after Human Rights Watch completed its analysis for this report, meaning that the total number of cases Human Rights Watch received greatly exceeded 1,050.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
> The CNN staff member described how the policy works in practice. “‘War-crime’ and ‘genocide’ are taboo words,” the person said. “Israeli bombings in Gaza will be reported as ‘blasts’ attributed to nobody, until the Israeli military weighs in to either accept or deny responsibility. Quotes and information provided by Israeli army and government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed.”
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/04/cnn-israel-gaza-idf-repo...
Even your own source says
“Despite the censorship documented in this report, Meta allows a significant amount of pro-Palestinian expression and denunciations of Israeli government policies.”
Just because you dislike the way CNN is covering a conflict doesn’t somehow mean the shadowy US government is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
The Intercept is also an American news organization that is clearly not being censored on this topic, so I’m not sure you’re really making your point here.
Should Twitter be banned as a propaganda / risk to US democracy?
"heavily influenced by Russian spies" seems like a stretch. The BBC article you linked basically says she attended some NRA conventions/events, and got some NRA officials to travel to Russia. There's no indication those activities actually changed anything.
Your links do not back up this claim. Both indicate that Butina was likely a Russian spy and desired to influence the National Rifle Association (NRA). However, neither article gives any example of successful influence, however minor.
They don't have to, Fox News does it for free /zing. But for real I wouldn't see a problem with it. Less now that the world is more globalized than ever, I can get news from every corner of the globe both from our allies and enemies.
Could they be subtly pushing a narrative of communism or something, sure but this kind of "news is biased towards its owners" is beyond commonplace at this point. Jon Stewart just did a whole bit about why he couldn't criticize Apple or China.
> [Manufacturing Consent] argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.
The problem with Tiktok, as far as the government is concerned, is the lack of control on narrative when Meta, Twitter and Google are an extension of the US State Department (eg [2]).
The Tiktok ban came together in a matter of days as a bipartisan effort weeks after the ADL said (in leaked audio) that they have a "TikTok problem" [3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[2]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
If the last four years are indicative of anything, it's that the US government has fairly limited control over the narrative on American social platforms.
I lost count of how many times I saw people typing in "FJB" and "MAGA".
"Throw the bums out" without any additional coherent political project is precisely what the elites allow and what allows them to maintain power.
Same with MAGA after January 6th.
It was a concerted effort to channel quiescently conservative voters into national electoral politics.
Neither of those challenged the super-structure.
These shifty foreigners, however... Xenophobia isn't just some old timey things we use to do
TikTok is not
It's interesting how incredibly supportive of human rights that a platform in bed with the CCP became, no? Do you think that China's human rights bugaboos are often discussed on their internal social networks?
It's amplified.
Police brutality (both viewpoints), COVID conspiracies, election conspiracies, etc. are not particularly hard to find on there.
The results of the election would point to the idea that most American voters aren't so perturbed by what's happening in Gaza as to want an administration that would be at least as effective in reeling in the Israelis as the Biden administration was. Whether that's right or wrong, well, that's another discussion.
It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Do people not talk about Gaza on Facebook because it's censored, or do people not talk about Gaza on Facebook because no one was talking about it to begin with?
Given the history I'd say that the incoming administration will be less sympathetic to the Gazans than the outgoing, but, again, it doesn't matter at this point.
It's not hard to be at least as capable as somebody who's completly incapable. Think what you will of Trump, but in one meeting he had a solid deadline for implementing the ceasefire agreement the Biden admin has had floating since May. There weren't even any changes to it, so what the heck has Biden been doing?
More likely than Biden's incompetence is that Bibi now has a variable solved for in the geopolitical calculus: the American election now has a winner. He finds a kindred spirit in Trump and thinks he is now working with an American administration that will let him do whatever he wants without even the appearance of trying to rein him in. There is no Rashida Tlaib in Trump's party.
But that's on a different subject than the greater thread discussion.
Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and supports West Bank settlements. To suddenly give an Iran-backed militia a win goes against literally everything in the grand scheme of things.
But don't kid yourself that Trump is better. He supports the settlement of the West Bank and has recognized Jerusalem as exclusively Israeli.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/11/trump-cabinet-is...
The Republicans are just as on board with the genocide as the Democrats are, if not more.
genuinely confused - Biden has not been remotely empathic towards Palestine.
if the Rohingya genocide is a genocide, then I can see the case for Gaza (the UN definition of genocide is quite broad) - but still feel that there should be a word distinguishing the stuff that happened in the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide from less systemic killings occurring in the background of conflict. A lot of the power of the word “genocide” comes from the implicit comparison to the Holocaust, but none of the events we are discussing really come all that close barring Rwanda.
Of course it cannot be said like this, because "free speech" and "democracy", so the official reason is "national security".
albeit not outright banned it all together but sometimes they prefer homegrown company/technology
No they absolutely do just ban them.
It's not just that Google or FB can't operate Chinese-specific sites as a business within China, from within China you can't even get to the foreign/international versions of those sites, because they're blocked by China's firewall. Wikipedia has a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
Do you think there were many people standing outside of government buildings in Beijing protesting the potential ban of Facebook and Google while politicians of different political parties were debating the ban in the country's primary legislative body? Do you think you could launch a campaign for office on repealing said ban in China?
Anyone who disagrees with this is either not being honest or is not aware of what extent China restricts it's citizens.
I see multiple comments saying "shut up, we're not China!", but that's not what I meant :-). I just meant that there is some irony here.
And that next time we criticize China's protectionism, we may take a step back and think that we do it too, sometimes.
> I find it very interesting that we tend to criticize China for their protectionism
The irony I see is that we criticize their protectionism, but we also do some kind of protectionism. More largely, we criticize the fact that they ban US companies, and then we do the same. How in the world is that not ironic?
It would be perfectly fine to admit it and acknowledge that actually, sometimes protectionism makes sense. But if you look at the answers in this thread, it seems like nobody wants to do that. "We are never wrong, it is not ironic, it is obviously national security".
So let's talk about national security. TikTok is a userspace social media app, just like Instagram or Snapchat. If collecting that kind of data is an obvious national security risk, then every single country in the world should ban them. What would the US say if all the western countries banned their social media? Would you say "we understand, it's a national security issue"? My guess is that you would say "but for us it's different: we are the good guys".
What about Huawei? Fair enough, infrastructures like antennas are very sensitive, don't let a Chinese company own them on your soil. But the smartphones? Really? Any government can buy stuff like NSO's Pegasus and get access to any mobile phone (iPhones included). Let's not pretend that someone buying a Huawei phone makes that worse, shall we? And it's still obviously fine to ask sensitive personalities (like politicians) to use a non-Chinese smartphone, but that's very different from banning the brand entirely.
DJI then? The drones don't have an Internet connection: you have to connect them to your WiFi (be it at home or a mobile hotspot from your phone). That means that if you fly above government facilities, the drone is not streaming the video to China. That also means that if it wanted to, it would have to go through your mobile hotspot, through your ISP. Doesn't seem that hard to ask government drone operators to connect through a firewall, does it? Every big company in the world asks all of their employees to do that.
And when did it start being seen as a security issue? Precisely when western companies started lobbying against them because they could not compete. Nobody complained about DJI for years, especially not when the view in western startups was "we are better, we will make a better drone". It took us to realise that DJI was actually a lot better than us to start looking for other ways. Look at who's been lobbying a lot for the ban: western drone companies that have no reason to know about security, but that are struggling because - let's be honest - DJI drones are a lot cheaper and a lot better than anything else.
And now we have US billionaires and owners of the biggest tech companies in the world publicly interfering with politics in allied countries. How the hell is that not ironic?
Btw, Huawei in particular stole a ton of technology over the past couple of decades, from Cisco and others. Not sure if the smartphone ban had the same cause, but at this point I don't really care, the company deserves it.
Right. Obvious national security reason.
That's exactly why free trade proponets oppose those policies, but the CCP didn't want to reform so we'll go the opposite way.
Censorship, or protectionism because TikTok is eating the lunch of the big US social media?
I think you are proposing a much more extreme conspiracy compared to the easier explanation, China is a fairly crafty bad actor in a lot of cases. 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked, just the ones that have very significant national security risks.
because it's impossible.
the US offloaded low-added-value manufacturing to China, exchanging paper dollars for cheap industrial goods. When China tries to upgrade to high-added-value industries, like chips, guess what? National security risks!
just enjoy cheap goods and nature resources from 3rd world...
In the above provided examples its quite clear that there are possible national security risks involved with China being involved in US infrastructure and technology. If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion.
If you have better example beyond hyperbole I am all ears.
1. of course there'll be no 'national security risks' because EU is an ally, and the US is spying on it
2. even though, troubles come to US's allies sometimes, like what Alstom and ASML met
3. EU products are mostly less compatible, overall, it cannot challenge the position where the US holds in the global value chain, so pose less of threat
Do the five eyes and other countries have national intelligence that are collecting data, absolutely. I cannot recall any recent published articles about overt Western corporate espionage and especially any that were supported by a parent country.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24992485
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57302806
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Parliamentary_Committee...
And this is just one known case of the US spying on allies.
Can you tell me - in your logic - why the hell there is a need to ban DJI if it's okay for the CCP to spy on the US government? Or will you now say "It's not okay because it's not the US"? Or maybe "It's okay to spy on allies, but not on adversaries, except if you are the US because then it's okay to do both"?
I didn't expect so many people to attack me when I said it was ironic. I find it ironic, period. It doesn't mean that I support China or that I hate the US. It only means precisely what I said: I find it ironic to criticise China's ban on US companies and end up banning Chinese companies for what seems to be protectionism.
Now you've been repeating that it is obviously a strong national security threat, but whenever I asked you to elaborate on that, you avoided it. Would that mean that it's maybe not that obvious?
If DJI was from the EU, the US would manage to buy it.
After all, we know for a fact that the US have been spying on European politicians.
> We know that CCP upper leadership holds seats at the major mainland corporations.
And who holds seats/has major influence in the US government?
After your first comment, this thread was "the USA are an information security risk".
My point is that of course, from the US point of view, China abusing its power is worse than the US abusing their power. But if you take a step back... why should a European citizen consider that what China is doing is worse than what the US are doing?
It has been proven that the US have been targeting European politicians with spying. It has been proven that the NSA was collecting private information about just everything they could (including US citizen BTW). The richest people on Earth control the biggest tech companies on Earth and are getting closer to the US president every day. Some of those people are actively trying to influence politics in Europe (e.g. promoting neo-nazis in Germany, I don't know if you understand what it means there). The US president is talking about invading Greenland, Panama etc. And you talk about links between the Chinese government and Chinese companies?
If TikTok is a strong national security risk for the US, then Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple are all strong security risks for Europe. But what would the US say if Europe banned those companies? Probably more "it's a free market, it's democracy, it's capitalism, you can't do that!" than "fair enough, we do it too, and China does it too", right?
That's where I find it ironic. The US promote free market when it's about having their companies in other countries. But when the roles are inverted, then the US behave a lot more like China than like Europe (by banning companies), don't they?
> its an obvious threat vector that drones made in China have the opportunity to phone home data and with the increased use of drones in industrial settings there are real risks to be thought about.
Okay, let's take drones. Can you articulate concretely one of those "obvious threat vectors"? For instance, a DJI drone does not come with an Internet connection magically embedded into it. So you can be completely offline while you fly your mission.
Are you scared that the drone may save a 4K video in a hidden storage, and then upload GBs of it when you connect it to the Internet without you having a chance to see it? Why not instructing government operators to only connect through a router that filters the network? And that would be on top of the DJI Local Data mode that you don't have to trust.
Or are you scared that the drone may store few bytes of critical information? What would that be, a location? Why wouldn't the CCP just hack the smartphone of the employee, e.g. using something like NSO Pegasus (which is western technology, but I won't call any irony there)?
If it is obvious, please explain the national security threat caused by DJI drones that couldn't be solved with a simple external firewall.
But no, there is absolutely no reason to think that the US may be doing corporate espionage /s.
I am not proposing a conspiracy, I am merely noting some irony in the fact that the US are doing protectionism here.
> No doubt historically the US has gotten companies to put in backdoors or other mechanisms
Well, most of the Western Internet goes through the US, and we know for a fact that the US try to extract as much as they can from whatever they can (remember Snowden?). Also the US are very fine with US companies owning all the data of a big part of the world, and they would be really pissed if some country started banning them "for national security reasons".
> but when you have drones being used to survey the electric grid or other major pieces of infrastructure
You don't need to connect the drone to the Internet. Technical solutions would most definitely exist, I am convinced of that. The reason DJI is being banned is because DJI is 7 years ahead of anyone else, and the gap is getting bigger every year. It really, really sounds like the US drone companies have been lobbying a ton because they just can't compete.
This drives the point home:
AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order by Kai-Fu Lee https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38242135-ai-superpowers
A law passed at the same time as the tiktok ban attempts to address this:
> a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to— (1) any foreign adversary country; or (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A-Tik-Tok-ing-...
I don't buy it. If that were actually the concern, we would be talking about banning Facebook and X for manipulating Americans to vote against their own interests and hand over more power & money to the platforms' owners. Facebook has done way, way, way, way more harm to America and Americans than Tiktok ever did. The Tiktok ban is an illegitimate handout to America's oligarchs to protect them from having to compete. It's nothing to do with protecting Americans from manipulation.
I don’t really see why it’s hard to see the reasoning behind the ban even if one disagrees with it.
Take it to an extreme, imagine there were zero American social media companies in our modern world where most people get there news from social media. That obviously would be a huge security risk, having one’s population’s news being controlled exclusively by foreign states.
You know what scares me? how the actual majority on HN is critical of the tiktok ban despite all what I have just said being obvious things a critical thinker can deduce. I'm concerned the influence of tiktok (foreign actors) is already too pervasive and damaging. You all should know the US by any historical metrics is at the precipice of a civil war as it is.
You have essentially repeated the argument you are replying to while removing the very substance of that argument.
in fact, there is alot of talk about this. wasn't that the main reason Musk bought Twitter?
Yes.
> there is alot of talk about this
There's a lot of talk by politicians about banning Facebook & X in the US? Really?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
I personally see this as the beginning of a slippery slope - a move that follows in the footsteps of China.
Isn’t that what the government has been saying?
China certainly engages in security theater for their own economic advantage as well. It's no coincidence that any American internet company that tries to operate in China gets throttled or "accidentally" blocked by the great Chinese firewall. And no, economic retaliation against China isn't "stooping down" to censorship of China. That would be like framing the EU's retaliatory tariffs against Trump as a punishment to European bourbon lovers.
> The govt is mad that they have control over the narrative on Facebook but do not on TikTok
Yes, but people do not appreciate what that really means. Countries need to eat the consequences of influencing domestic media, so you at least need to maintain a weak form of checks and balances. For example, anti-lockdown censorship during Covid in China eventually caused even more resentment against the CCP.
On the other hand, look at examples of Russian election interference in 2016 [1]. One of the posts is "Satan: If I win Clinton wins. Jesus: Not if I can help it. Press like to help Jesus win." The entire goal is to get Americans to distrust and hate each other. Nobody in America has anything to gain from posting this, but China and Russia have nothing but to gain from a more fractured America. We only found out about this because Facebook cooperated with American intelligence to find this foreign propaganda. At best, you can't expect the same cooperation from TikTok they are accountable to the CCP. At worst, TikTok would actively be working with China to disguise this propaganda as genuine content.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
This was the case for the first attempt, but then TikTok gave the US government access to everything. So the effort completely stalled, and the only people still banging the drum about it were R's who had run on anti-China rhetoric.
Then Oct. 7th happened, and the followup genocide that the US decided to go out of its way to participate in. The most, and most influential, anti-genocide activity was on TikTok, simply because TikTok has a hold on the young audience and young content producers, and being young they aren't cynical and hollowed out inside, and can't justify being silent in order to protect their own incomes and families (which they don't have yet.) The Lobby quickly picked up the dropped ball and carried it over the line, and Biden continued his unbroken record of being completely humiliated by Bibi, a regular criminal before he was a war criminal.
Now the ban is a zombie, because opposition to (and support for) the genocide is now set in stone, and it already looks like Trump has ended it even though he isn't in office yet through the technique of placing the slightest amount of pressure on Bibi.
All we'll have left is a horrible soon-to-come Supreme Court decision that enshrines the idea that bills of attainder explicitly intended to limit free speech are ok now because China. Which is also because Russia and also because Hamas, and because Maduro, and because hate, and because sowing discord, and because, because, because...
-----
edit: and if the Trump peace fails, and all the kids migrate to some other platform, that platform will be attacked. They lucked out that TikTok was owned by China, and Americans are such racists that they could use that racism to get them to agree to silence Americans speaking to Americans. But before, they were attacking every social network for allowing speech from Trump supporters, people criticizing covid policy, always Palestinians, women who don't accept transwomen (to get the libs onboard), etc...
This has a passing resemblance to (2), but the key difference is that the government doesn't believe they have control over the narrative on Facebook, they just know that a foreign government doesn't. It's strictly better from the perspective of the US government to have the rising generation's worldview shaped by raw capitalism (after all, that's how all of the older generations' world views were shaped) than to risk the possibility that an adversary is tipping the scales.
What I don't understand is why the politicians insist on talking about spying as the concern. The people who are pro-TikTok are pretty clearly skeptical either way, and "think of the children" is usually the most effective political tool they have.
It shows a point I like to bring up often that Capitalism and The Free Market are directly opposed. What capital (a fancy word for shareholders) want is an infinite money machine and that is easiest with a monopoly. Hence, banning a competitor that's doing too well in the free market.
To the other part, I consider your 3 and my 2 the same, the US doesn't want us getting Chinese info and has their own perfered sources instead.
If you're saying that capitalists will inevitably contort a free market to an unfree one, via whatever means (often mergers) then we agree.
IMO. a common misconception is that allowing all mergers is a "free market" policy when it is not
.. by the guy sitting next to the President? It's not yet clear what this "DOGE" thing that Musk has been given by Trump actually is, but it sounds like part of the government to me and has "government" in the name?
China already bans practically all the popular US social media apps and similar apps/websites. I'm for free trade, but it ought to be fair trade too, as in, roughly similar/equal policies. If another country bans X imports from your own, it's hardly unfair to respond in kind.
But the CCP wants to have their cake and eat it too. Fully repressive social media lock downs and censorship for their citizens but exploiting the west’s values of free speech and debate.
It's also that people within China can't access the foreign websites and apps (without using a VPN), because China's Internet firewall blocks that access! That's what makes it an incontrovertible ban!
Even if a company has no interest in operating as a business within China in the first place, China may still block the websites and apps. That's a ban no matter how you slice it.
Meanwhile TikTok has worked very hard to work with authorities in the US for pretty much any of their demands.
I don't support any of these bans but I don't think its fair to equate these.
No, they don't.
You think all these sites refused to provide Chinese authorities with legit information? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
What exactly do you think Wikipedia did that was so wrong? Or Voice of America -- that's an American propaganda outlet sure, but I can get to Xinhua (Chinese state media) as an American easily enough, so why not the other way?
In any case, refusing to provide info on domestic terrorists could be a legit case for bannning a company from operating within your country...but what does that have to do with banning everyone residing in your country from being able to access the foreign versions of those websites on foreign servers?
The simple reality is that China is extremely ban-happy when it comes to foreign websites and apps, even for companies that have never tried to operate their business from within China.
That would be like saying that an Israeli publisher should not be allowed to publish in the US because US publishers cannot publish holocaust denial books in Israel. Or saying that a UAE restaurant should not be allowed to operate in the US because the UAE doesn't Wendy's there to serve the Baconator.
The sensible rule is that X should allow companies from Y to operate in X subject to the same rules that domestic X companies must follow if Y allows X companies to operate in Y if they follow the same rules as domestic Y companies.
The logic of PRC defenders never ceases to amaze.
Fundamentally, aggressive action as a response is not equivalent to being the initiator of aggression. Hence: turnabout is fair play. If someone punches you economically, it's entirely fair and reasonable to punch them back. It does not make you "just like them" to defend yourself.
The US isn't censoring it based on content anyway -- in fact, the US government's ability to censor much of anything based on content is severely constrained by the First Amendment -- the US doesn't like the fact that it's controlled by the PRC. But blocking businesses from a rival nation is a trade issue, not a speech issue.
China is a rival and opponent of the US on the geopolitical stage. It's entirely reasonable to respond to trade restrictions with trade restrictions.
What about the people who want TT? You can not hold them hostage to Chinese people not having TT or other apps. That's what the current Red Note revolt is all about.
Well, unlike Chinese nationals, Americans live in a democracy, so they could write to representatives or vote.
But realistically, few care enough for this to sway who they're voting for.
> You can not hold them hostage to Chinese people not having TT or other apps.
You actually can! As long as one nation is being shitty on trade and that starts a trade war, yeah that will hurt some regular people, but the alternative would be to become a total doormat and just let other countries get away with doing whatever they want.
Sorry but not ALL of them. Myspace is not banned lmao
However, this is all a deflection, because blocking a company from operating as a business within China is not the same thing as banning them by blocking all access to their foreign websites/apps.
If China didn't want Wikipedia operating fully within China as a nonprofit, but you could still access foreign countries'/languages' Wikipedias, I wouldn't necessarily describe Wikipedia as "banned in China". I'd maybe describe it as a partial ban at most.
I'm guessing they decided there was no effective legislation Tiktok couldn't weasel around via loopholes, deception, or some combination of the two.
I'm not a fan of TikTok but its silly not to see the bias here
The PRC bans tons of US websites and apps all the time, much more stringently than the US is doing, but people keep drawing these false equivalences regardless.
Unlike China's typical banning policy, the US isn't implementing a full website block, which means the app would continue to work for a while, and Americans would still be able to get to the website or get to the app if it's hosted on foreign servers. I see nothing about blocking Americans from getting to the content, only from hosting the content.
In contrast, China outright blocks its residents from even being able to get to Google or Facebook or the New York Times, period, even if they're hosted in another country. It's a full ban.
So the US is implementing a weaker ban with one website even as China has blocked thousands, but people are still freaking out.
Honest question: what laws?
They are, in fact, banned. It's not just that they can't operate like a normal business within China, you can't even reach the foreign servers from within China...because they're banned.
If a new social media network opens in Denmark, it might not operate in the US yet -- which means US laws wouldn't even be applicable -- but I could still reach it from the US without needing a VPN, because it wouldn't be banned either. Maybe it wouldn't be useful for me as an American yet, but I could still get to the website, because the US government isn't stopping me.
Many popular US websites are actually banned in China, whether you want to admit it or not.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
It's bad enough that US based social media corporations are allowed to wash their hands of responsibility for the content on their platform and add to the executive bonus pool in the process. But having a hostile government control a platform is just insane.
There is a middle ground between being bundled into the back of a police car if someone speaks against their government, and freely allowing enemies to manipulate your population.
I don't recall us being at war or anything with China. For example, most of our crap is made there and shipped here with barely a look. If China were truly hostile and combative like everyone claims, they could literally import bombs and spies via those means.
Is this just the Red Scare 2.0? I've had way more issue with American oligarchs and politicians fucking over America's values and our way of life than China in the past few years/decades, that is for sure.
You're making an error by discounting China's manufacturing prowess these days. There are plenty of companies there making products that you would be amazed about, and the plastic crap is simply because of momentum at this point. Japan used to make a lot of crap in the post-war era, until they started making the best electronics and blew the US companies away.
if you are looking to safeguard against tyranny step 1 is to not have the CCP be in full control of your country's public square
[1] https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...
And when an American is brainwashed into believing a lie, it better damn well be an American company that sold them that lie.
That is the dream this country was built on.
I'm slightly annoyed how this comment completely ignores the moral and ethical reasons someone might want to avoid making an illegal copy of something while denying it's creators any compensation. I need more coffee.
I stick to pirating with adblockers because it is more convenient, there is a much bigger library of content and I don't have to share any personal info or pay for anything.
Netflix is absolutely easier to use than any form of pirating for the vast majority of their userbase.
Everyone in this thread talking about how people will “just get a VPN” to use TikTok have zero concept of the technical abilities of TikTok’s user base
Netflix has succeeded in diluting what product its users want from "The Office" to "something funny". Why hunt for one specific show when it will throw a million options at you?
This person may have also had uBlock Origin, or maybe they got duped into the fake uBlock that still shows ads, or Chrome disabled uBO.
Did you just confirm the parent poster point while also denying it.
There's zero chance most will put in effort to access TikTok.
In any case, yeah, I'm not sure that "the average american tech user who has been coddled for the last decade" knows what a web browser is. I've observed some user behavior among family members that indicates a pretty bizarre mental model of how the Internet, web, and mobile applications work.
I'm not saying it's more likely that not, but I am saying I wouldn't be surprised. If you replace "one specific social media app" with "iMessage", it has already happened.
I don’t think the average American high school student has two smart phones one of which is a secret from their major source of income (their parents).
There's no use for a cellphone plan, we would just use wifi or hotspot from their main phone.
The bored teenager will learn ways to get tiktok. But the bored tiktokker won't learn ways to get the audience on tiktok
TikTok will probably die slowly not suddenly
Banning websites has been very hard, but today's closed marketplace ecosystems make banning apps much easier and people are not motivated to find loopholes.
Let's see if US teenagers are as savvy and motivated.
Uhhh there are many websites that are banned in the USA. Otherwise working URLs that wont work in the USA. Mostly hostile state actor stuff.Iran, NK, etc. The fact that you don't know about it just says how effective it is.
Sure, VPN. But (serious question, not rhetorical) is that going to get the app on your phone? And are you going to go to the trouble when the algorithm thinks you're eastern european? When the user base is smalelr?
Maybe you agree with the ban, I'm curious how would many people be feeling around year of 2028 after a few years of oligarchs consolidating their power and designing an obedient society through full control of the communications. Maybe you have ideas against H1B or maybe you use birth control, whatever your current opinions oh these are there's non-zero chance that you will be enforced into the correct opinions.
Every news article descending into tangents on any other point than that is part of why we can't have nice things.
The whole country has turned into some sort of lower primate improv troupe where whatever stupid thing comes up gets a "Yes and let's" diversion instead of an adult in the room standing up and cutting the crap.
YOU want this ban and you don't like that OTHER PEOPLE like TikTok. Clearly you don't have a TikTok account and that's not enough. You want to make sure no one else is allowed to have a TikTok account either
Instead of spreading the message about possible harms you'd rather ban other people's abilities
There seems to be a real risk of propaganda on Tiktok, but foreign ownership alone isn't a sound reason for a ban.
You're right -- but foreign ownership by a repressive regime with undemocratic ideals certainly is. For example, I don't think anyone would be too concerned if a European country was the one that founded & owned TikTok.
The US is even working on their great Firewall. It's red apples Vs blue apples at this point.
I certainly _do_not_ want this.
Ha ha, I guess you are discovering, many many people do want this.
It's not that other propaganda doesn't exist, it's that a likely intended effect of Chinese propaganda is destabilization and/or delegitimization of hostile governments. Ad spend is more about destabilizing consumers' savings.
You’re not a government, you’re a person. Either way you’re being manipulated, and the US government definitely doesn’t have your best interests in mind.
The only people thinking in such a arrogantly privileged manner ironically are Westerners, try saying this crap in China or India and people will laugh at you all day. Or I doubt this poster has the best interests of Americans in mind either.
How exactly is that different from a dictatorship?
By stifling freedom of expression under the guise of "national security" you're creating blind spots that allow atrocities to go unchallenged. I thought we learned from history but maybe I was wrong.
I'm confused why you think China's interests are irrelevant to you, unless you truly believe geopolitics is a zero-sum game. We compete in markets, militarily in the indo-pacific, and technologically in ways that are not mutually beneficial.
Because this imaginary world where the US somehow equally controls Facebook on the level that China directly influences TikTok isn’t one that exists?
This low resolution view of the world is grating. “Facebook is a US based social media company so it’s exactly the same as China and TikTok” is completely devoid of the context of reality.
Not only does Facebook actually have 1st amendment speech rights with a judicial system empowered to enforce them. But even the slightest appearance that the US government was attempting to influence speech on Facebook would be a career ending scandal.
Compared to TikTok where the CCP literally has a seat on ByteDance’s board by law and has for its entire existence had its algorithm nuke political topics that China does not want discussed.
It’s not the same thing.
So from where I’m standing it’s the same thing.
And to give you some perspective, there’s plenty of content critical of China on TikTok even though that stuff gets banned on DouYin.
> "lower primate improv troupe"
> "No one who actually uses it or understands it wants this."
"Everyone's generalizations are stupid, except mine."
Many things aren't that democratic when you look at it like that!
Tiktok US users of voting age are already accounted for in that process, they don't get extra sway just because they use the app.
A majority of American citizens want affordable healthcare, housing, and education, net neutrality, an arms embargo vs Israel, an end to illegal forever wars, stronger environmental protections, cleaner water, less fossil fuel use and an end to fracking, etc - and there's still bipartisan resistance in our politics and media against all of those.
Congress doesn't actually represent us, it represents capital. Been like that for a long time. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Either it's a dictatorship or it's listening to the majority. There is nothing democratic about acting against the majority. Never was
The polls on all the above are pretty clear. There's no need to rely on your own viewpoint.
> otherwise they would have implemented a government where the majority is heard, but they didn't.
May I suggest reading some Chomsky, or at least watching Manufacturing Consent.
> Either it's a dictatorship or it's listening to the majority.
It's a plutocracy, and this has never been more obvious.
> There is nothing democratic about acting against the majority.
Well, there you go. Do check out those polls.
If everyone is so outraged and there's so many TikTok users, they can rally and vote out the people who voted for this.
I for one support this ban fwiw. You'll find out a lot of people do too. So in this instance and quite a few others, my representative has voted in my favor.
It is possible that every single candidate on the ballot is in agreement on a topic that every single non-candidate voter has the opposite view on. That doesn’t mean nobody gets elected.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/05/support-f...
Would you feel the same way if the US government banned all mainstream media organizations except the ones you ideologically oppose?
On the contrary, I think it is about banning a propaganda and social engineering vector that is under the thumb of an adversarial foreign government. That, for me, is enough of a reason to ban it and justify it under our constitution.
The fact that I am in favor of banning all social media should tell you that it is not ideological, but rather that I think social media is extremely addictive, and has huge negative externalities.
The problem of allowing government banning propaganda is it allows government to ban anything they label as propaganda. There is no law defining what's propaganda, so you just end up with the government being able to ban any information they don't like.
Imagine the government drums up for another illegal war like Iraq using fake evidence, and we ban all counter evidence as "foreign propaganda". Do you not see how dangerous that gets?
>That, for me, is enough of a reason to ban it and justify it under our constitution
The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled in the past foreign propaganda is protected speech under First Amendment.
You cannot strip American citizens' rights to receive foreign propaganda if they choose to do so.
I'm not accusing you of being ideologically motivated, I just think that your (otherwise understandable) support for banning social media is inadvertently helping a bad actor in stifling freedom of speech.
Could China be using TikTok to spread propaganda in the US? Sure, but I haven't seen any evidence supporting this and if there was concrete proof I'd support the ban. Meanwhile the US government is labeling truthful discussions about Israel's genocide "antisemitic propaganda" and using them as motivation for the TikTok ban.
On one side we have vague communist boogeymen, on the other there's expressed desire to take control of unpleasant narratives. That tells me that they're really just trying to take away people's ability to discuss their dissenting ideas.
-Content is user-generated -Content is curated by the company (i.e., users don't have the ability to fully turn off what is shown to them) -Content is not universal (i.e., users don't see the same thing)
* my representatives didn't vote in line with my requests *and*
* that they tend to vote in line with me for other issues *and*
* that there are no other viable options either due to no competition or worse competition
When it comes to *restricting* rights (not growing them), it's very concerning that such a large percentage of people can _not_ want something and still have it forced upon them.
Naturally either you don't want it. or you don't care.
Singling out TikTok without a universal principle or law leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, and the US gov. will just be playing whack-a-mole with whatever the TikTok successor is.
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/07/944039053/u-s-judge-halts-tru...
https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7520/BILLS-118hr7520eh....
The claim that it's a "national security" risk and the ban is needed to mitigate that is silly. If it is really that then ban it from government facilities and devices. The actual risk from TikTok is no greater than the risk from Facebook, Instagram or any of a myriad of apps.
The correct thing to do would be to strengthen laws that address the core concerns so that we are protected from ANY app that represents a threat to privacy or security. Just banning a single app (and then another, and another...) is ridiculous and goes against a number of things this country is supposed to stand for.
That's a possible tool of disinformation.
It's a possible tool for aliens to make lunch.
---
now that I think about it more banning foreign websites is the perfect way to brain wash
1. ban all foreign websites, because clearly it's a foreign influence on your people. "What if the war breaks" and so on
2. now you only have your local websites. Their owners are here and can be forced to mangle / edit content and bend it to your will. Where the foreign actor can ignore your requests local one can not
We already have it in Russia. People use the ugly and banned Facebook because they know that at least it's less censored in regards to Russian topics than locally owned VK or dzen. And Facebook is less likely to provide your messages to the russian police
The ban has nothing to do with the material, it has to do with the platform that is used to distribute and curate it. CCP by controlling the algorithm would allow it to do exactly what you say, at the push of a button.
Your comparison to Putin's Russia falls very short.
But so much this, just banning TikTok will change nothing but more distrust in American politics
Strengthened laws would be welcome, but all the social media companies would resist this as hard as they can. I don't see any real regulation happening until there is a crisis of some sort that will push it through against all the lobbyists and bought politicians.
I wonder how many Americans will just use VPN? Is it common to use VPN in the US? Here, almost everyone uses it now. A few weeks ago they suddenly banned Viber for some reason and I barely noticed it.
We are used to having access to pretty much everything we want access to.
The most popular apps and services used around the world are largely readily available in the US and do not need VPN's to use.
A Tiktok ban is in my memory probably the first time that a major platform used by the masses has been banned for use in the US. Because of the lack of VPN usage by every day people, I'd say everyone will flock to Instagram rather than continuing to try accessing Tiktok. If nobody else you know is using Tiktok, then why use it would be the question.
Add to this TikTok's algorithm for deciding what content to show you based on how engaged you were in the previous videos and you end up with a "For you" feed that drastically varies from person-to-person. This keeps it fresh and enjoyable at all times.
Youtube tries to do a similar thing by presenting you videos that are similar to your interests, but in my experience it usually trends towards what is likely "more profitable". Meaning longer videos from well-established creators to juice as much ad revenue as possible from the user.
TikTok feels night-and-day in comparison. On TikTok, I can watch a 3 minute educational video on how elevators work, and then scroll once and see 3 second video of a grown man pretending to be a duck
Well that sounds like a selling point to me.
Did we use the same app??
RIP Vine
doubling the max duration length added greater versatility for creators while minimizing bloat.
making longer videos beyond a certain length can add to rambling and bloat which is why they've since added speed controls.
They have the capital and resources to re-launch Vine if they wanted to. In fact this is the perfect time for them to launch it.
Do these people listen themself when they write things like this?
I think it's absolutely worrisome if this mentality gets an actual thing, if it isn't already.
We are slowly going in the direction of European internet, American internet, Chinese internet, Russian internet...
Social media and "Web 2.0" were probably the death knell for this era - while they were wonderful for democratization of the Internet's benefits, the merger of Internet culture and non-Internet culture meant that all the ills of the latter were inflicted on the former.
It was the golden age because from the 1990 to 2010, the internet was majority american. For the entire 90s, the internet population was something ridiculous like 95% american. Fun times.
> in the sense that even though the Internet was a child of the US military-industrial-research complex, political powers didn't yet perceive it as a potential threat vector or even comprehend it at all ("the internet is a series of tunes").
Comprehend it at all? Are you joking. Maybe the dumb politicians didn't know it but certainly the real people in charge certainly knew it's potential.
> Social media and "Web 2.0" were probably the death knell for this era
The death nell of the era was the smartphone which allowed millions of computer illiterate peoples around the world to join the internet. The demographics of the internet was definitely changing in the 2000s, but the arrival of the smartphone toward the end of the decade accelerated the demographic shift. Now americans make up a small portion of the internet population.
Do you have a source for this claim? It doesn't sound realistic to me.
Not sure about the European one. Unlike Russia or China, we don't seem capable to produce our own services, or to not use the US ones. Maybe it'll change with the increased hostility of US government and tech CEOs?
Like the China/US situation, as soon as there's friction against using the US ones people will switch to local competitors. There was a UK competitor to Facebook around the time of its launch called "Friends Reunited". Technologically these things are not as hard as recruiting users, overcoming the natural monopoly effects, and handling moderation.
A confrontation has long been brewing over the Microsoft Ireland "safe harbor" case.
That has always existed, you just may not be aware of it if you are from an English speaking country, because those other parts are not easily accessible without knowledge of the respective languages.
European computer, American computer, Chinese computer, Russian computer...
European OS, American OS, Chinese OS, Russian OS...
European programming language, American programming language, Chinese programming language, Russian programming language...
Just like in the good old days of computing during cold war.
The big reason I think it changed is that the internet went from being a place for nerds and geeks, when there was a technical barrier to getting online, to a place where there is essentially no barrier. As a result the web now reflects the innocence, openness, and intellectual curiosity of the average person, since the internet has become a daily part of everyone's life not just a subsection of the world that appeals to us.
I think it's going to get more segmented. And not only that, the hardware, the OS, everything.
That said, I believe HN is a good platform. I don't think it's banned in China and people here can keep politics out of technical discussions, at least for now.
It wasn't possible to share videos with the world in 2000 unless you owned a television broadcasting network. In 2000 you could not freely socialize with Chinese people on the Internet.
I had a long-distance relationship with someone when I was in my very early 20s who does not speak English nor my first language. I do not think language barrier is a difficult obstacle to overcome today if it was not much of an issue 10 years ago.
Example: I can be on Reddit in subreddit A. You can be on Reddit in subreddit B.
We would obviously still see different content.
But ALL members of subreddit A MUST see the exact same topics in the exact same order with the exact same comments and likes/dislikes.
This would help build up a more shared “worldview” like mediums such as radio and TV did; you chose the channel, but everybody on the same channel gets the same information.
This would then allow the service provider and potentially government agencies, as well as users themselves, to moderate harmful content or false information more reliably.
Even then, I'd settle for "must have the option to use chronological/absolute vote based/similar type by default" type option. I'm not as convinced I know what others need to do to save themselves as much as I'm I think it'd be nice if it to be easy for us to be able to choose how we engage with content feeds (regardless what the platform is).
And then there is a matter of content groups when it comes to exposure rather than the addictive nature. Does it really make a difference if people end up seeing only /r/MyEchoChamberA and /r/MyEchoChamberB anyways. After all, each is perfectly representing the same echo chamber to all of the users who bother to browse there.
That would be a nightmare, going back to the bad old days when people's worldviews were entirely decided by whatever flavour of government propaganda their preferred TV station happened to favour.
I happen to have just looked into this, and it turns out this percentage peaks at 1 (for Sean Hannity, apparently?), but typically is around 0.5%. Less huge than you may be imagining
This sounds terrible. I don't want to see the same content as everyone else. A good chunk of Youtube right now is rightwing content that I don't have to see.
It’s just that everybody subscribing to that particular channel most get the same information from it; the same videos, the same comments, the same likes/dislikes
Terrible idea.
Does anyone have thoughts on why TikTok would choose to stop for existing users? I.e. why would they choose to do more than the minimum required by the law? It's nice that they want to point people to a way to download their data, but they could also keep showing videos after notifying people of that option. What's the rationale here?
What business would choose to keep operating if it can't gain new customers? Think about it. The law makes it impossible for tiktok to grow or be profitable. What advertiser would be interested in a platform that will lose users every day and won't gain more in the future?
The law was sneakily and intentially written to outright ban tiktok. It would be like congress creating a law saying you specifically cannot buy more gas. You can keep using the gas in the car, but you can't fill up your tank anymore. Would you spend thousands to fix your car? Change the oil or the tire? No. You'd either sell the damn thing or just throw it away.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/07/tiktok-us...
Getting congress to reverse something seems much harder, in that they also have to get someone to introduce the bill, get it through a committee, get it scheduled for a vote, etc, in both houses.
The GOP is absolutely flip flopping on this issue since Trump has also reversed on the ban idea. That's why the TikTok lawyers' arguments to SCOTUS were to just delay the ban until after Jan 20 so the incoming administration could weigh in on the matter.
> in that they also have to get someone to introduce the bill, get it through a committee, get it scheduled for a vote, etc, in both houses.
I think you are forgetting that the GOP just took control of both houses. It will not be that difficult for them is that's what the orange man says he wants.
> If it is banned, TikTok plans that users attempting to open the app will see a pop-up message directing them to a website with information about the ban, the people said, requesting anonymity as the matter is not public.
although there are success cases, like prop 22 in california and uber
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/krishnamoorthi-gallagher-ti...
you didn’t mention anything about either of those two points in your previous comments, but sure
For the same reason Google or Facebook or many other major players might choose to stop operating in a jurisdiction that's trying to impose restrictions on them that they feel are unconscionable, rather than knuckling under?
The "national security" angle that FedGov is attempting to hang this all on is pretty bullshit... defense contractors that do classified work for the DoD can be foreign owned!
TikTok was the only large social media platform that did not overtly deplatform Palestinian users and sympathizers.
Data privacy is not the concern, or else they'd have done what you suggest
By simply suppressing topics, or elevating trends they might find helpful in swaying the populous.
That's what propaganda is and it works.
Isn't that exactly what US media does as well? Every media has an owner with his own interests, the information they'll provide you will be carefully crafted to not harm those interests.
On a similar note, I have never seen so much bigotry and populism on HN as in this and H1B threads.
In the article, this discussion, all the media I've read... I've yet to see a single example of this alleged propaganda and manipulation by the CPC. What propaganda? Manipulated into believing what?
Hang on, 'foreign adversary'? Who makes all of America's stuff? Who sent so much of the jobs and manufacturing over there?
> to influence the American populous [sic] in subtle ways over time.
Eg, pointing out Israel's atrocities and how they lead right back to us, or about advantages of socialism compared to oligarchy.
Most other countries allow foreign media to be aired quite freely. Any 'subtle influence' is in a sea of other influences, and quite diluted.
Diverse media with free exchange of ideas leads to a populace with a chance of being informed. Restricting media to the US megacorps is obviously a terrible idea, no?
> That's what propaganda is and it works.
The solution to propaganda is to educate people and teach them critical thinking. However, that would damage the yacht class far too much.
1. This is a platform owned within China which can easily be used to silently and effectively spread highly targeted propaganda to extremely vulnerable demographics. If it has already been used for this purpose we will never know.
2. They make the most engaging internet junk food and other competitors don’t do nearly as good a job.
Does that about cover it?
That’s probably a very stupid question, but is how this is a Chinese company when 60% are owned by American funds?
On a more pragmatic level, even in the US "own" means what society will defend for you. However, the US (and other western countries) are presumed to have courts that have a higher probability of defending claims of ownership assuming you have the right paperwork. Whereas in places like China, it is presumed that your paperwork is less likely to entitle you to a defense.
"Because of the authoritarian structures and laws of the PRC regime, Chinese companies lack meaningful independence from the PRC’s agenda and objectives. As a result, even putatively ‘private’ companies based in China do not operate with independence from the government. Indeed, “the PRC maintains a powerful Chinese Communist Party committee ‘embedded in ByteDance’ through which it can ‘exert its will on the company.’ ... the committee includes “at least 138 employees,” including ByteDance’s “chief editor”
...
"Even assuming that the law would recognize Zhang as a bona fide domiciliary of Singapore and not the PRC, ByteDance would nevertheless qualify as being “controlled by a foreign adversary” under one or more of the other statutory criteria. For instance, ByteDance is “headquartered in” China, which is sufficient on its own.... ByteDance also is “subject to the direction or control of ” Chinese persons domiciled in China (in particular, Chinese Communist Party officials), which likewise is sufficient on its own."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336144/20241...
That would be ironic.
In fact, existing tiktok users are welcome to keep the existing app on their phone.
What's being banned is the commerce.
As a Chinese hated CCP for the internet censorship and decided to be an expat, what's going on these days is changing my world view.
> Under TikTok's plan, people attempting to open the app will see a pop-up message directing them to a website with information about the ban
The irony is that China is usually the one considered "less free" by the US, and in this case Chinese citizen could help US citizen "regain their freedom".
> In fact, existing tiktok users are welcome to keep the existing app on their phone.
My understanding from the article is that ByteDance will redirect US users to a website and prevent them from using the app.
Things that are factually true don't count, obviously.
Or is this just about Tiktok not being owned by a billionaire who will use censorship to keep the USA government happy?
I'm still waiting for examples of Chinese propaganda pushing for misinformation, by the way.
It seems not a single person on this post is capable of providing one, even though there are dozens of users scaremongering over Chinese propaganda.
You can affirm one thing without affirming similar arguments. This is important for me to say because you're consigning me to an argument that I didn't make.
I guess US is becoming more like China. Choosing their horses and warding off competition.
So much for free markets.
And when that's done they'll consolidate into a few monopolies and we'll basically be back in the Gilded Age.
Hearing the same 10 second clip of a song 20 times
Tiktoks isn't the only provider of that type of content.
TikTok's algo, OTOH, somehow understands that interests are multi-dimensional and that maybe I just want a different kind of politics or discussions that go deeper than cheap shots. I never in my life thought I'd encounter an anti-Marxist right-libertarian who actually read and is familiar with all three volumes of Capital, but TikTok figured out that I'd find it interesting.
The user base is probably more important to the quality of the feed than the interface or the algorithm.
Social networking platforms are among the most effective tools for mass influence, second only to religion.
The U.S. has held a monopoly on this power, leveraging it to gather data on citizens worldwide and projecting our value systems onto others.
Banning TikTok is simply an effort by us to maintain that monopoly, and making sure a foreign adversary do not wield such power.
It's taken a while, but the longer we go down this path, the more clear it seems that it is impossible to design a content algorithm that does not have significant negative cultural side effects. This is not to say that content algorithms don't have benefits; they do. It's just that they can't be useful (i.e., designed to optimize for some profitable metric) without causing harm.
I think something like asbestos is a good metaphor: Extremely useful, but the long-term risks outweigh any possible gains.
That's not the pattern I've seen, as close as you are to it.
I've seen lots of platforms be wildly useful. Digg was good for a while; StumpleUpon, Pinterest, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, Reddit and even Facebook all had periods at the start where they added real value to people's lives.
At some point they start to "optimize for some profitable metric" - and quickly become heinous.
The problem isn't the algorithm; it's that it gets twisted toward profit. And that's basically a tautology - once you start trying to suck money out of the equation for yourself, that juice has to come from somewhere.
I can envision a platform that isn't based on profit being far more useful than harmful - if it can only ward off the manipulations of the yacht class.
The inevitable enshittification of goods and services once they reach a certain level of maturity (i.e., profitability) basically guarantees that the yachted-classes will be involved.
Given this de-facto inevitability, the original premise (that algorithmic content is eventually a bad thing) makes more sense
Emails, torrents, Mastodon, VLC, Blender, Linux - They're all either solid, or even getting better over time.
Why? Because the capital class were explicitly denied, by design or by principle.
Like with healthcare, transport, post services, housing, and much else, there's simply areas where the public good is too important to give the profit motive too strong a foothold. I believe social media is one of those areas.
Don't believe me, we've got lots of data correlating the rise of social media and mental health crisis. As time moves on the evidence linking the two continues to become stronger.
Dogs kill more Americans than lions, but that doesn't mean that we should be letting people have lions as pets.
I'd personally be happy to see something like Australia's recent restriction of teen use of social media in the US, but bringing that up now is just a whataboutism.
and none of that is to say that i agree with the ban-- i think the mere fact of how unamerican, frankly, taking possession of foreign assets for american gain at others' expense is as blatant a signal as possible that we shouldn't be doing it. if we are trying to protect america, western values, etc., if we don't act in accordance with those values, what are we even protecting? the way to protect the american way of life is not through becoming more "unamerican".
in my personal opinion, the so-called "decline of western values", or whatever, has nothing to do with imperialism, nor to do with those values being short-sighted or wrong. it is because of our collective crisis of confidence in these values because of the (many) mistakes we have made along the way. the moral compass still points essentially in the same direction; it's just that for whatever reason we seem to have convinced ourselves that we don't want to go North after all, and instead prefer to just wander around the map aimlessly (all the while shitting on how the compass isn't taking us where we want to go). and so now we have people who unironically defend organizations like Hamas at the expense of the United States as though believing in universal freedom and equality of opportunity is merely a "cultural" value, rather than an absolute one. and, more insanely, that these values are somehow subordinate to the political issue du jour. these values don't give anyone carte blanche to coerce others who don't share them, but the idea that they are somehow subjective or relative-- that they are negotiable-- is the height of insanity.
there's no democracy involved in the running of social media websites. the rules are what the boss says. sometimes the autocrat is benevolent, sometimes not. the CCP has been more better social media autocrat than musk has, and there is at least more people involved in decision making
That's pure, shameless whataboutism, and one that desperately tries to hide the fact that totalitarian regimes are using social media service as a tool to control you and your opinions.
You can bring up any bogeyman you'd like, but you are failing to address the fact that these totalitarian regimes clearly are manipulating you to act against your own best interests.
I'm not trying to distract people away from discussing how totalitarian regimes are abusing services like TikTok to manipulate people from Democratic countries to act against their best interests and in line with the totalitarian regime's interests.
Now, can we go back to discuss how the CCP is using the likes of TikTok to manipulate people to do their bidding? Or is the subject being discussed verboten?
In addition to widespread data collection and social manipulation, we also intentionally shove our culture down the throats of other nations in order to maintain cultural supremacy.
The nice thing about fiction is that you can make anything sound plausible. Ironically, what people consider the most prosperous time of America happened to be the time when America was opposing a vague foreign adversary. If anything, nihilist platitudes like this that have created a void in civic engagement that megacorporations and malicious actors are happy to fill in.
It happened to be at a time when the rest of the world's industrial capacity had been almost completely destroyed by a devastating world war which hardly touched US infrastructure.
Outsized returns to the post-war US economy were consequent on being the only intact industrial economy; the regulatory system which ensured those gains be shared with the working class was a response to communism.
Endless comments about reciprocity, as if the American citizen doesn't have freedom of expression rights vastly different than Chinese citizens.
we really should ask ourselves why we’re continuing to allow some to continue these abuses…. there should be laws in place to stop all of them.
https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/specialty-careers/sp...
Isn't it the reverse? China has censored/banned many US apps and websites for a long time, surely turnabout is fair play?
Hell, TikTok itself is already banned in China, irony of ironies.
U.S. apps and websites simply choose not to operate there due to these requirements.
The U.S. has been complaining about this for years, advocating for a free internet without censorship in the Chinese market. But now that Chinese apps have access to American data, we’ve begun implementing the same measures.
That's the difference. It's not about operating as a business within the country, it's about banning access to even the foreign version of the site or app.
China commonly bans Western websites and apps, even ones that have never operated or attempted to operate as businesses within China. The US doing the same is relatively rare, situations like this TikTok ban are very uncommon.
what a nice way to say forcing a backdoor to identify, spy on, and oppress citizens.
but yeah I guess oppression of people is a "high bar" for foreign operators to meet.
backdoors are wrong here and are wrong there.
I'm sure a big part of the cost is the additional infrastructure and manpower to implement all of China's censorship, tracking, etc.
> China didn’t ban U.S. apps.
Yes, it did.
It's not just that the websites and apps don't operate as normal businesses within China, but you can't even reach the foreign versions from within China without using a VPN. That's what makes them truly banned.
There are plenty of Chinese websites who do not operate as businesses within the US, but Americans can still freely access the sites if they want to, thus they're not banned.
Please, read this and educate yourself about China's firewall: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...
Both sides say it's worth banning "Tiktok/Google for granting the CCP/USA the ability to algorithmically influence the views of Chinese/Americans".
We never discussed this seriously before because we held a monopoly on it. For decades, other countries provided us with a direct feed of their data. Only recently have they begun to grasp the ramifications of that.
China never bought into that narrative. They have consistently upheld their data sovereignty policy, requiring foreign entities to host servers within their borders to operate, and that looks like the direction the rest of the world is heading.
I wish for an open world where data & communication flows freely, but it's unclear who can be trusted to wield that power.
Meanwhile China's reasoning for blocking US companies has been eerily similar arguments the entire time. Hard to prove them wrong when we have the major aristocrats of US tech companies completely prostrating themselves at Mar-a-Lago, offering bribes (er, sorry, the going term is "funding inauguration parties") to the incoming administration in broad daylight, staffing themselves with party officials, etc.
Arguably both are right, and it's a shame because the general working class people of both nations have more in common with each other than they do with their ruling classes. I think the thing that terrifies those in authority the most is the idea that the citizenry might realize this if there's enough communication.
Congratulations, you turned the U.S into an authoritarian clone of China.
The United States does not feel confident in its ability to persuade Americans that it's model, culture and political ideals are superior to global alternatives. Hence a Western Iron Curtain.
Don’t forget that part of the reason there’s a compartmentalization between Douyin and Tiktok is China’s own concerns about their nationals being exposed to outside influence in a manner far greater than what the US dictates the other way.
I really enjoyed TikTok and will miss it, but it’s hard to argue that it didn’t at least provide the potential for the CCP to more directly have an intentionally negative influence on western audiences.
Once the government decides it has the right to curate what media it's citizens are exposed to you are living in a n authoritarian state.
These actions make me more hostile to my country.
The issue at hand, however, is not about any particular media content being censored but about the manipulation of how that media is presented or suppressed by a foreign source. I think people should be given the freedom to choose what to view, but I am also not naive enough to think that we as a whole are not susceptible to influence, often without even being aware of how we are influenced.
To the end that the US has a national security interest here: We have other laws on foreign political influence like FARA and the Logan Act that have similar tradeoffs around free speech and free association, but these elicit much less controversy. There’s a fundamental question: should the ideals of free speech be allowed to undermine the framework that allows that free speech to exist? To some, saying yes to that question is like arguing the US Constitution is a death pact.
Religion is distributed through churches, synagogues, mosques etc, the medieval equivalent of a digital social platform. A social media platform is kinda like the Vatican but x10000000.
Here's my big concern: If every big social media provider has to bake American policy position into its algorithm, what's going to happen to approaches like Bluesky or Mastodon/ActivityPub which allow users to choose their own algorithm?
From here on out, are only US government collaborating social media apps going to be allowed to scale? If so that is a chilling effect on speech. I want to use my own algorithm. I don't need China nor the USG to tell me what I want to watch. I'm perfectly willing to write my own feed algorithm to do it, I tinker with several on Bluesky right now. Will this be banned?
Other countries have rules, make rules, the reality is they don't want to make rules because that might persuade foreign companies from not doing business here. Why make rules when you can get a warrant from a fisa court preventing any and all public scrutiny and getting everything you want?
They know it's a threat because they wrote the book on it. That's also why we'll never get decent privacy legislation.
...but it wasn't. It was clearly and explicitly about national security.
Fox News and talk radio demonstrate that isn't true in the US.
I suggest making a substantive argument instead of just posting snark.
Fox News viewers watched 14 hours/week in 2022. The average US Tikok user spends 10.5 hours/week in the app.
There is no evidence for this belief. Really for either religion or for "social networking platforms".
You could maybe make the claim that this is true in terms of reach, but the implication here is that "these mediums can be used deliberately to influence people in a chosen direction", and this is just kind of silly. It's fun to imagine that some nefarious powers (or benificent powers) have some magical insight into how to make people believe things but this just isn't true and I think intuitively we all understand that.
To make the case that this is true you would have to do an examination of all attempts to spread messages, not just look at successful cases where messages catch on. Nobody has the power to do this on demand through some principled approach, or else they would be emperor of the world.
The idea of social networking (or other broadcast or widely disseminated media) being able to influence beliefs or behavior is kind of inarguable. In specific cases there might be causal confusion - whether the media was effective because of existing trends or piggybacked on other phenomena vs. creating the effect directly. But this is a far cry from claiming that it can be deliberately weaponized, or that it is more effective for this purpose than other means of information dissemination.
[1] Social contagion, a phenomenon that long predates the internet
>Social networking platforms are among the most effective tools for mass influence
Hurricanes are effective for coastal property destruction, but they can't be used as a tool
Is the hammer on your shelf an effective tool for influencing public opinion? It can be used for that -- you can smash statues of people you find objectionable and maybe have a greater effect on public opinion than you could by trying to tear down statues with your bare hands (although the nature of the public opinion change is not really that predictable). But it is not a tool for that because it cannot be directed to the general purpose of influencing public opinion. You cannot convince people that assisted suicide should be acceptable or that we shouldn't keep cats as pets or that we should not go to war to defend Taiwan using the hammer.
Similarly, TikTok.
Tiktok has incited action on its own behalf:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...
https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/press-releas...
Your claims are ridiculous and your arguments are nonexistent.
ByteDance is very pissed about how they are being treated and so they would rather burn it all down than hand it over to some American.
As the article says ByteDance is a massive company with thousands of employees in the US alone. It’s ridiculous to think a corporation of that size operates as if it was a singular (and extremely petty) individual, especially to the detriment of its own self interests.
There’s a dozen potential motivations for pursuing this strategy and none of them boil down to being “pissed”.
unless they mumble 'national security', and then screw the constitution ...
I assume you are saying this is curtailing the creators speech? However the creators can move to any other platform, they are not being restricted in what they can say or produce.
So perhaps the concern is about TikTok's free speech; which, thank god the constitution does not protect a foreign adversaries right to free speech.
* A comedian at a paid event when I haven't paid
* Private conversations between you and your significant other
* DMs between other people on social media
* Podcasts published exclusively on Spotify when I don't have a membership
* Speech in walled gardens (FB, Insta, X, etc) where I don't have an account
Well tough cookies for me, meta and X are bith restricting my freedom of assembly. Will you go to bat for me?
They’ve imposed arbitrary restrictions on my access to speech simply because I refuse to sign up. And The government is okay with them restricting me from these public squares, outrageous!
Will you be angry on my behalf, like you are with the restriction on tik tok?
If these are truly public squares, it’s outrageous that I need to essentially show ID and give away a ton of rights to X and meta just to access the public square. Why are we not mad about that as well?
Forcing a sale to a US company also enables that to continue. Additionally, it does not protect the right for users to receive/hear speech from EVERY outlet, this same speech is permissible on any other platform - simply not one mediated by an adversary.
- difference between actually broadcast and potentially broadcast. Can the government suspend someone for potentially doing something?
- More on the right to hear speech -- you're saying that I cannot receive speech from foreign adversaries if I choose to do so myself? IMO this is well within my rights
- Do platform effects (e.g. recommendation) count as speech? For example, I may choose to post on TikTok bc it circulates in 24h to a specific audience - if TT got changed, does this mean that my speech got curtailed? (right to assemble, etc)
If you listen to the arguments that TikTok made before the Supreme Court, the court is extremely dubious of the free speech argument. And this has been a court that has been very favorable to free speech overall.
Haven't seen anything about an IP ban/block (ahem, great firewall), nothing's going to block anyone from business as usual on Sunday right?
There's no 'shut down'. And other than a bunch of misinformed users jumping over to RedNote briefly or whatever, the only difference will be an oddly American-free app for the rest of the world?
If the companies is barred from doing business with US users then they will be required to take reasonable steps to block those users.
Or what? I don't think a US-brought lawsuit would succeed in China.
All of this stuff - TikTok, Instagram, etc - are entertainment, distraction, and that's fine, but taken to excess is unbalanced, and no matter what, cannot bring true, lasting happiness because they are not the love of another person.
It's always been an issue (sort of human nature), but it seems (to this battered old warhorse), that it's a lot more prevalent, these days, than it was, just twenty years ago.
We don't have to allow anyone other than ourselves, any agency or consideration.
That makes it very easy to reduce everyone else into one-dimensional caricatures, easy to attack, dismiss or neglect.
Like I said, this has always been a feature of normal human tribalism, but it seems to have gotten a shot of steroids, sometime recently.
I have found, for myself, that closely interacting with as many others as possible; especially ones that challenge me, has helped me to avoid that.
Not sure entirely how that's connected to this thread's topic, but it is relevant in social media in general (and maybe TikTok moreso because of its "great" algorithm?)
I guess the US is afraid of manipulation of the video feed by China, that may influence elections. There might be a kernel of truth there, so I d be curious to hear anecdotes of something like that actually happening.
Aside from that, Tik-Tok Shop is also a thing. So elements of the application exist where you volunteer data like location.
In the future I think the government can force the public to do things simply because the public is unaware of the options they have.
The good news is Rednote seems to be a potential replacement, which is also Chinese owned.
When the mass Tiktok exodus tsent Red Book [1] to the top of the App store, it was the first time in history that American citizens started talking directly to Chinese citizens in mass. I've heard all sorts of stories of both sides learning a lot about each other, including the lies and propaganda each others government places in the media, but mostly more positive things like art, fashion, cooking, food, healthcare and -- probably the most important, each other's different humor.
Video, and an AI algorithm to drive the For You page, is probably the most difficult part. We have some good ideas on privacy[2], and I can imagine some sort of crypto ledger system paired with AI learning, but video expensive to store/stream and at such a high volume of streaming, I don't know what kind of end points would really work to keep quality up.
Then there's the problem of policing such a system, and who the police would be. There's some dark places on the internet that I think everyone but a handful of people think should never be allowed on such a network, but more generally there's questions on politeness, stalking, harassment, "facts", memes, and other culture differences that would need to be ironed out.
Who's building this? We need it by Jan 19th, 2025.
[1] Not to be confused with SF's Redbook: https://www.wired.com/2015/02/redbook/
[2] Tim has been making the rounds about his Solid project: https://www.inrupt.com/
I do still think the world would be better with less social media, but the only words in my mind right now are "not like this".
noah bangs on the "the government of China is really trying to weaken or destroy the economic capacity of the US" drum pretty hard and it's hard to disagree with the many books and arguments he cites. The current rush to Rednote has a lot of TikTokers making the argument that "See? Chinese people are great!" which is where they are confusing sentiment about the citizens of China with that of the Chinese government itself. It actually is great if there's a big cultural interplay between young US and Chinese citizens (not sure w/ Rednote though), so that we would be able to counteract a key propaganda point from Beijing which is that the TikTok forced sale is some kind of strike against the Chinese people. It's important that the point be made that this is about the hostility of the Chinese government itself, which is pretty clearly a hostile adversary to the US.
[1] https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning
[2] https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/experts-agree-byte-da...
[3] https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...
[4] https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing...
PRC banned exporting Bytedance algo. By that logic, no US companies are independent private companies due to US export controls. And TBH both points are true.
>Grindr
Grindr was foreign company acquired by PRC, and sale was reversed by CFIUS. Selling an acquired foreign company is geo/politically different than having your domestic company nationalized/appropriated by another. Which is quite literally a strike against Chinese people. Even PRC has never forced a US company from divesting US ownership, because that's a retarded tier of "hostility" only US hubris can imagine. And it's particularly retarded tier analysis from Noahpinion who thinks Chinese people won't view divestment requirement a PRC company as hostile against Chinese entrepreners, who are Chinese people.
Chinese state control over private companies is far more pervasive, and less bound by rule-of-law, than that of the U.S. Export controls are not even the H2O molecule at the tip of the iceberg.
> Even PRC has never forced a US company from divesting US ownership
Bytedance is not being forced to divest; they can leave the market, just like Google and many others had to leave China.
US spectrum export controls have been every bit as pervasive as PRC ones, pretending muh "rule of law" is a distinction without difference at this point. It's functionally the same.
>forced to divest
If US law is forced divestiture, then Bytedance is "force" to leave, because having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion. Unlike Google + western platforms who "chose" (read: not banned) to leave because they "chose" not to comply with PRC laws that applies to all companies, including domestic PRC ones. The difference is US has no equitable law, i.e. some sort of data privacy law, that enables Bytedance to operate in US... while following the same laws that US companies do, as if Bytedance wasn't already bending backwards following additional requirements that US platforms do not have to follow (i.e. functionally Oracle JV).
Like fine, Bytedance needs to follow US laws, except US laws is designed specifically to prevent PRC companies from operating, vs PRC laws is designed to allow everyone to operate, just said operation is onerous - see retarded reciprocal argument that US companies should operate in PRC without abiding by PRC censorship laws that domestic platforms has to abide by. There's a reason FB and Google had internal programs to re-enter PRC market compliant with PRC laws (before being axed by internal dissent), because it's still feasble for US platforms to operate in PRC while being US (or at least JV) owned. So let's not pretend what US is doing is the same thing - PRC is more rule of law, US rule by law in this comparison. But again, functionally that hardly matters.
As I said, export controls are such a minor part of the problem as to hardly be worth mentioning. The pervasive control I'm speaking of is things like the fact that ByteDance (like all large Chinese companies) would have an internal CCP committee with influence over personnel and strategic decisions.
> having US nationalize a PRC company is obviously a nonstarter except for the terminally stupid like noahopinion
This is wrong on many levels. No one is talking about nationalizing TikTok (which is not a PRC company) and certainly not ByteDance.
Party committees as part of 93 company law basically creates dumb shit like organizing staff picnics for companies with more than 3 CCP members, which is basically any reasonably sized company since 1/8 of country are CCP members. It is much more minor than export controls. The "pervasive control" exists in the sense that there is higher level coordination like META having US intelligence on board, or forming partnerships with said agencies. Fixating on minor shit like internal CCP committee is propaganda trying to pretend somehow US companies are less influenced by geo/politics when they are every bit as much. The big stuff is again, distinction without difference.
> TikTok which is not a PRC company
This is being obtuse like people pretending TikTok being based in Singapore/incorporated in Caymen somehow seperates it from Bytedance's (quartered in Beijing) PRC roots. I'll grant you DE-nationalizing isn't "technically" the same as nationalizing, but geo/politically it's obviously a none starter just like if Beijing told Boeing they would have to divest from US ownership. PRC would never allow US to normalize that kind of behaviour, and vice versa. DE-nationalizing tiktok, i.e. nationalizing by parties other than PRC is another distinction without difference.
Look, I think anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in both places understands that there is a major difference in the way private companies relate to the government in China versus in the U.S. For example, it's far more common for U.S. companies to sue the government over laws or policies they disagree with, whereas in China it's just taken as given that officials have a lot of discretion.
You bring up Meta having US intelligence onboard - I assume you're referring to the Edward Snowden / PRISM revelations. Remember that this was a huge scandal precisely because the idea of American companies working with intelligence agencies to spy (even inadvertently) on Americans is considered so repugnant. Whereas in China it's just taken as given that the government can read your WeChat (or whatever) messages whenever they feel like it, and any encrypted messaging apps that gain a following are quickly removed from app stores.
This is not a distinction without a difference; China is a totalitarian state where you have essentially no right to speech or privacy. The U.S., for all its flaws, is not like that.
> DE-nationalizing... geo/politically it's obviously a none starter just like if Beijing told Boeing they would have to divest...
Can you not see the hypocrisy here, when China functionally bans almost the entire U.S. internet sector?
I mean yes? That's what they do - dumb "political work" activities. It's not the high level strategic coordination, which I said exists (as they do in US), but citing pedestrian CCP committees ain't it. It's Karen from HR buying birthday cakes tier of activities. As someone who spent significant time in both places, sure, PRC companies doesn't fuck with central gov, US companies gets to try to. But push comes to shove, US companies cave, so for the purpose of foreign policy and geopolitics, especially with respect to great powers competition, it's a distinction without difference, because US companies will be subservient to national security interests, with minimal discretion, as they should be. Reminder much chip restrictions were done without industry input / consultation before roll out. Because US system capable of unilaterally laying down the law as well as CCP.
>is not like that.
Yes and NSA totally dismantled domestic spying / FVEY hack to spy on host nationals via third countries (rule of law you know) because Americans found it repugnant, except not. Ex-CIA hires still deciding facebook content policy on "misinfo". US voters thinks lots of things US gov does are repugnant, but functionally cannot change it, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
>functionally bans
Except PRC doesn't. Entire US internet sector is welcome to operate in PRC, provided they follow onerous (expensive) PRC filtering regulations. Which they choose not to. US platforms functionally choses not to operate in PRC, because they don't want to follow the same PRC laws that PRC companies has to follow. Let's not forget these platforms were blocked post 2009 minority riots for actual valid national security reasons, FB/Twitter refused to censor / filter calls for retaliatory violence. Queue PRC platforms implementing onerously expensive human moderation... which later western platforms adopted following NZ shooting, myanmar killings etc. We have TikTok following the same US laws every other US platform follows... and more (again, Oracle basically JV arrangment), i.e. TikTok operating at regulatory disadvantage. Incidentally after getting up their expensive human moderation programs, FB/Google tried but internal dissent killed efforts because they spent the money and can scaling system to PRC. If anything PRC would LOVE if western platforms returned, followed PRC law, and start handing over dissident info per PRC cyber security regulations / get squeezed by PRC influence.
The hypocrisy is thinking they're remotely comparable situations when TikTok chooses to compete in an unfair US regulatory enviroment and western companies choose not to compete in a fair regulatory PRC enviroment. TikTok even offered to basically have US intelligence/oversight on all US activities. The hypocrisy is there is no onerous, concessions TikTok can do to operate in US as a PRC company, even ones that puts it at significant competitive disadvantaged (extra regulatory costs) vs western platforms choosing not to shoulder the same regulatory costs as other PRC companies (100,000s human moderators ain't cheap). Extra hubris when proponents of "CCP ban US platforms" thinks US platforms shouldn't follow PRC laws and somehow are victims. Or that complying to same filtering laws is the same as divestiture. It's difference between house rules being, clean your dishes, versus get a sex change.
Why would they ever want to help create an international competitor that could compete with them? I don't think any business would want to do that. Obviously the CCP has a level of access if they want it to data hosted in China, that's how it works with every company that has a physical location there.
there is no comparison between these events
Do we know that? In almost all cases for mobile apps, the US is far and away the largest and most profitable market for any business. I'd also be surprised if the TikTok shop for example is profitable (or available?) outside the US.
A social media site is not like a company that makes widgets. The latter's profits scale linearly with the number of widgets sold. A website's costs do not scale linearly (at least, not in the same way) with the number of users; much of the infrastructure cost is the same whether 500 million or one billion users are on the site.
It's entirely possible that, as nozzlegear said, a TikTok without US users is unprofitable. Especially given that, the last time I checked, US users are a) only 10% of the total TikTok userbase and b) US creators are 21 of the top 50 TikTok users with the most followers. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_TikTok_a...>
Markets are not countries are not ecosystems. The EU is fragmented by countries but it's a single market, again with more users than the US.
Your stat about revenue is misleading and outdated. Turkey for example generates almost as much revenue as the US, and many markets are currently in the process of being monetized which will take some time, the potential revenue is something Bytedance is going to factor in more than current revenue when it makes a major strategic decision.
I don't think it is important because of how 'powerful' a tool it is. I think it is more than being forced to sell it would be losing face and a humiliation (a la 19th century's Inequal Treaties). Also, they don't have to sell it altogether as the issue is only with the US.
So they just shut it down in the US and can say that they don't give in to blackmail while pointing out how hypocritical the US are ("free speech but only if controlled by the US" sort of angle).
It's entirely possible that a TikTok without US users is unprofitable. Especially given that US creators are 21 of the top 50 TikTok users with the most followers. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_TikTok_a...>
PS - That you seriously believe that tens of millions of iPhone-using Americans will buy, carry around, and constantly switch to an Android phone just to sideload TikTok boggles the mind.
> PS - That you seriously believe that tens of millions of iPhone-using Americans will buy, carry around, and constantly switch to an Android phone just to sideload TikTok boggles the mind.
I never said so, I said I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number did. Having grown up in this environment I've seen people literally buy 4 year old iPhones just for iMessage. American teenagers are very weird about social media and this kind of behavior wouldn't be out of character.
[I made the same comment elsewhere, but I'm putting it here too because I'm really puzzled by this.]
Meanwhile, the ban will make it impossible for them to (a) enter into trade relationships with the advertisers and other partners that bring in revenu, and (b) share that revenue with monetized users.
Continuing to run it at scale as a website without ads or monetization payouts (and without any legal protections) would pretty well blow the cover of it being a legitimate international business.
Meanwhile, the kind of law that would allow a business to "operate" but disallow it from making money is probably close to unprecedented and would look like even more peculiar targeting. It doesn't really even make sense as operating a business naturally implies participating in commerce.
Primal recently launched “build your own algorithm” along with a feed marketplace.
P2P doesn’t work for social, see SecureScuttleButt. Rabble has moved pretty firmly into the Nostr camp. He’s one of the top minds thinking about decentralized social media. Study nostr and don’t dismiss the relay model lightly.
If it becomes too popular, though, Congress will probably pass a law to force you to use some oligarch-approved alternative.
> Users who have downloaded TikTok would theoretically still be able to use the app, except that the law also bars U.S. companies starting Sunday from providing services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of it.
Are you sure that the website and the native mobile app use different CDNs, or a CDN which won't be affected by the ban?
It is easy when you have been placed at an advantageous place and use all the tricks in the book against competition.
In this fantasy, initially it would just be to get onto a particular Big Tech (but Chinese) thing that "grownups" don't want them doing. But then they'd start to realize they're also being exploited there, and also by many of the people who are pitching circumventions. And eventually they'd figure out and create genuine empowerment. And rediscover better conventions for society, where everyone isn't either exploiting or being dumb. And it would just be the grownups who are hopelessly b-words of Big Tech, and the teens just have to roll their eyes and be patient with them. Then those teens become grownups and have kids, and raise them to not be airhead b-words. And those kids teach their kids, etc.
Of course, within several generations, the lessons would be diluted and then forgotten, and people would get dumb and shitty again. But society would have improved enough that at least there's room for people to backslide, and fritter away what their great-grandparents achieved. :)
The Rednote or "Xiaohongshu" in Chinese is literally referring to the Mao Zedong's propaganda book the modern counterpart being "Xi's Book of Thoughts"
It's frightening how much young Americans hate their own country and the values that have allowed them this much freedom.
I didn't realize China had eliminated class and that companies were worker owned.
You claim you want a free and open Internet for everyone but, do you really?
The people on there are super kind and accommodating to all the “American TikTok refugees” today! Lots of little Mandarin 101 classes, UI tutorials, and co-commiserating about government overreach.
I have a negative view of all of social media, but I think banning it is extremely politically unwise. Appreciate the hospitality of these users inviting us into their platform for a bit
It is extremely well established that propaganda has great value, and so allowing a foreign adversary the capacity to potentially control the information your citizens receive in a clandestine way is insanely dangerous.
We should also forbid Hollywood from selling movies in China, because as we've already seen that means the movies are being adjusted to get approval in China.
We should also forbid Chinese citizens talking to Americans, because they might convince Americans on a topic we don't can't allow American minds to be changed about.
Third example is irrelevant because it's impossible to achieve the efficiency (reach) that social media has.
A book does not broadcast in the same way.
> Since when are social media apps considered broadcasters?
Not OP but they said should be, not is
You can't compare a popular bipartisan law to a hypothetical thing you just made up.
Peoples' votes matter
I would say that allowing a ~foreign adversary~ anyone the capacity to potentially control the information your citizens receive in a clandestine way is insanely dangerous. Why do we let domestic ones do it? We're seeing what they're doing to our societies.
If your argument is "we can't allow any foreign owned social media to operate in the US", then how can you possible argue that the rest of the world should allow American applications?
Are they not free to ban it if they wish? But they won't because contrary to what some people would like to push, the CCP in fact is alot more sinister than the US Government, and foreigners do recognize that in genuine security analysis.
Call me old fashion, but I put more faith in a profit seeking US company (recently public) with light government oversight than a foreign owned black box.
All of that aside it is irrelevant because we are talking about third parties (users/bots) pushing propaganda vs the platform owner itself pushing propaganda.
it's easier to see phrasing and logical inconsistencies when you don't share the opinion that gets forced, sadly
I compel you to find one single positive post about capitalism or the west. Count the number of anti-capitalist or blatant pro-ccp content posts.
One such - "Luigis game is about to be multiplayer" (reference to the recent murder of the insurance company ceo) with a video with the label "y'all look how the chinese are living" (compared to usa)
You also say you put faith in a profit seeking US company. Reddit is not a USA owned company.
Things that are factually true don't count, obviously.
"Libraries are obviously a massive national security risk, and I find it funny people don't see that."
either Russia and Indonesia are in the right - or US is in the wrong
There are two positive effects here: 1. A company that is meaningfully foreign is losing control of a mass media asset. 2. Children and young adults are losing access to a product that is not good for them.
A country should not allow foreign powers to control platforms with so much reach--full stop. We do not allow foreign entities to own radio stations... Imagine how much deeper these platforms penetrate a person's mind, and how much larger their audiences are. We should all be MUCH more concerned about how these apps are stretching the social fabric (throughout the world) and how every society's ability to function is effected. I challenge anyone voicing discontent at this result to question whose interests they are voicing.
American manipulation of American minds... Yea! That's the point. I'd rather have someone with interests as aligned as possible with mine working for, owning and ultimately making business decisions at these companies. Regulation as appropriate to further align them.
Which leads me into my next point: I think that everyone here would argue that TikTok is in a class of its own with regard to very engaging short form content and rapid feedback feed training. I would argue that these attributes make it necessarily vapid and reactionary, providing little to no net benefit to either the individual or society to begin with.
If you disagree, what is the value of this product to the user and to society? Does it make people's lives better? I think that when the harms are considered, the answer to both is ultimately no. There are very well-documented negative effects on focus, happiness, and anxiety in children, which persist into adulthood from social media[1]. I don't think it can be argued that something that makes you feel good and connected in the moment but disconnects you from your immediate neighbors and friends and is highly correlated with mental illness is good.
Social platforms (TikTok included) are putting our children at a disadvantage mentally compared to previous generations and need to be more regulated. If these platforms (TikTok and other short-form rapid feedback products most of all) are of dubious value to begin with, what is the harm being done here?
Finally, I conjecture that we've only gotten a taste so far of how power can be wielded through these instruments. Even if Elon decides NOT wield his asset overtly during this administration, I believe we'll see more overt demonstrations of the power of social media sites in the next few years if relations with China continue to deteriorate and Russia becomes more desperate, with Meta clearly becoming less scrupulous.
----
- Text-based blogging platforms: regular Oreos
- Image-based blogging platforms: Double Stuff Oreos
- Short-form video blogging platforms: Mega Stuff Oreos
There are still plenty of high-quality and addictive ways to share information without Tik-tok.
Everyone will be better off without Mega Stuff Oreos, they were an abomination to begin with
1. Domestic big tech lobby
2. Domestic Israeli Lobby [1]
The China data is just a scapegoat. The risk is very minor. The US is banning TikTok because is a domestic big tech competition, and because lawmakers cant control it.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...
The best I’ve heard is “they get your data”, which is something they surely can buy from Facebook through an intermediary, “they influence content”, which is a moderation decision that every social media app does, and “there’s a part of the report to congress that’s redacted”, that could be a recipe for tuna casserole for all I know.
Edit: I’m assuming the downvotes are a way of saying “no”? I would assume that “national security threat” would involve some sort of concrete standard of harm or risk that could be communicated beyond “just trust us”. I haven’t even seen concrete examples of what content they influence, just people assuring everyone that it happens and it’s Bad.
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...
I recommend you start reading on Page 33 if you are impatient.
In extremely short. The PRC is an extremely active cyber threat, hacking things all over the US, in large part to gain access do gain access to datasets about U.S. people. Including hacks of the Goverment's Office of Personnel Management, of a credit reporting agency, a health insurance provider.
The PRC has a strategy and laws of using its relationship with Chinese companies, and through them their subsidiaries, to carry out it's intelligence activities.They specifically point to the National Security Law of 2015 and the Cybersecurity law of 2017 which require full co-operation with Chinese authorities and full access to the data.
So one half of their justification is the significant risk of China using TikTok to conduct espionage in the form of gathering a huge dataset on Americans.
---
Another half of the risk is, as everyone else here is already saying, their ability to influence Americans.
This is not an entirely theoretical concern as TikTok would like you to believe, the Government reports that “ByteDance and TikTok Global have taken action in response to PRC demands to censor content outside of China”.
And all evidence is that it would happen in the US the second the PRC decided to ask for it.
Remember Cambridge Analytica?
The law requires that ownership of TikTok be changed before it continues operating in the US, not that TikTok stop operating.
I was disagreeing with GP that seemed to act like TikTok was uniquely a propaganda engine
> The PRC’s methods for collecting data include using “its relationships with Chinese companies,” making “strategic investments in foreign companies,” and “purchasing large data sets.” For example [...]
In fact it treats the Chinese investment into TikTok as basically a form of "just buying it" with regards to the information gathering justification for banning it.
Turnabout is fair play.
So if the US think it is not OK to have something like Tiktok owned by a Chinese company the rest of the world might wonder if it is OK for them to have everything owned by American companies...
See: 1990 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.
2003? I'll give you that one.
Also, if there's one thing that the House of Saud has made apparent, it's that they don't much care about what their subjects consider controversial.
> See: 1990 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.
War is war, it sucks but it's been a part of human history for all of human history. That said, those wars are over. If Iraq no longer wanted US bases in their territory, they could ask the US to leave.
You are right, governments usually coordinate with governments, but my point is that the consent of the government doesn't always align with the will of the people, particularly in cases where public opinion is suppressed or ignored.
I suppose they're free to pick.
One concern is a general one that the Chinese government is directing the recommendation algorithms to act as propaganda. So subtly shifting user's opinions in favor of things that suit it and away from things that don't.
Another is that it is using TikTok to surveil journalists, emigres, and other persons of interest who are using TikTok. My understanding is there are credible reports of journalists being targeted by the Chinese government, where they used TikTok to find their personal details, location, etc.
There's also been increasing reports of the Chinese government operating detention centers in the US and other countries, where they bring kidnapped Chinese nationals. Basically arresting nationals on foreign soil. In some of these cases at least TikTok has been implicated as the method of locating them etc.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/764194/intelligence-officials...
Discussion of this has all been out there over the years, but the way it's been covered has admittedly been weird. Maybe this is yet another sign of a fractured media landscape, but I think some of it has to do with the US not doing a great job of publicizing some things, possibly because it involves intelligence services.
I'm generally very in favor of unfettered freedom of speech, but have mixed feelings about this case. I guess I still side on that, and am skeptical about a ban, but this is getting into different territory and also don't feel strongly about it. I think the effects of foreign (and domestic) propaganda in social networks are very real, and although I generally think censorship is a very bad idea, I'm not sure I can blame a country for wanting an app banned if there's solid information that another country is using it in this way; it seems to be in this gray area of espionage versus free speech which is kind of an unusual territory to be in. Also, I'm fully aware that the US probably does similar things, but two wrongs don't really make a right to me, and if China produced solid evidence of the US doing something similar I wouldn't blame them for banning something either on similar grounds.
To me this all just maybe speaks to the need for a shift to open decentralized social network platforms. I realize that's easier said than done, but there's so many examples in the last few years of problems with control of centralized platforms (by private, government, or private-government combinations) leading to huge problems, either in reality or in appearance (which can sometimes be almost as equally concerning).
I am being glib but I do want it understood that I appreciate the nuance and documentation you put the work into to show. It's just that, literally every one of these I already know about the United States doing so the outrage on it's part feels incredibly, hilariously hypocritical.
If you identify, contemplate, and sometimes activate an attack vector against rivals, how could you possibly be dumb enough to leave yourself exposed to the same attack?
Also, note that China has blocked this attack vector from the US.
So how colossally dumb would it be for the US to not reciprocally block this attack vector from China?
Hypocrisy is irrelevant. Attack vectors are real.
Of course, if the allegations were proven, the people would demand more action than merely banning a video app. Action which would have an huge negative impact the economy and would be unpopular among the powerful. So maybe that's why they haven't bothered?
Israel/Hamas would probably be an example.
https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-edit...
And they have banned several of those involved, though obviously each of the thousands who participated should be banned:
https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-833180
The editors were banned for organizing people around a vote. You going to pretend Israel doesn’t coordinate about the same things?
Norman Finkelstein puts it nicely: https://youtube.com/shorts/M0ZnnjQ3tAQ
Meanwhile Iran and Russia have literally been caught manipulating Reddit and TikTok. And you’re literally replying to evidence of the pro-Palestinian crowd doing the same in violation of Wikipedia’s terms of use.
Meanwhile, Israel and the US have literally been caught manipulating Reddit and TikTok. And you’re literally replying to evidence of Israeli hasbara and US willingness to ban sites in support of that hasbara.
Banning a propaganda tool used by China, Russia, and Iran, which is also used to collect our data, is not hasbara. It's just wise behavior to stop your enemies from disrupting your population. Anyway, hasbara means "explanation". Use of this as condemnation is basically somewhere between "foreign word bad" and "Jews bad".
Yes scale matters, the scale of resources used to push Israeli, US, and western propaganda dwarves that of China, Russia, or Iran. It’s laughable you use total population numbers here, as if every Muslim person is a dedicated jihadist working to bring down the west.
Anyway, not going any further down this pointless hole of arguing whether I hate Jews or not cause I don’t support the mass murder of children.
Those seem less biased sources than The Jerusalem Post
Those human rights groups, unfortunately, have a long history of bias and foreign influence. The closer they are to the UN, the more political they are. Literally half of the UN's resolutions pertain to Israel - while 99.999% of war deaths, famine, modern slavery, etc, happen without Israel being involved. The UN was led by a literal Nazi in the 70s - Kurt Waldheim - and the last few UN Secretary Generals have said that there is a serious bias against Israel there (obvious from the obsession).
(yes, this is the case regardless of which religion(s) are being flamed)
I wonder what you know about Genocide better than experts in Holocaust studies and other genocides themselves.
William Schabas, author of the 741-page textbook, "Genocide in International Law" - says it's a genocide in Gaza.
John Quigley, author of the 300-page book, "The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis" - says it's a genocide in Gaza.
@martinshawx, author of the books "What is Genocide?" and "War and Genocide" - says it's a genocide.
@dirkmoses, author of the 600-page book, "The Problems of Genocide" - says it's a genocide in Gaza.
Raz Segal, author of "Genocide in the Carpathians" - says it's a genocide in Gaza.
Amos Goldberg, author of books on Holocaust, says it's a genocide in Gaza
@bartov_omer, author of several books on Holocaust and genocide, says it's a genocide in Gaza.
But why to listen to the experts in law and genocide studies? Why to bother to read the extensive human rights reports?
Listen to @piersmorgan instead; he has a gut feeling.
> This is war, this is how it goes.
Yeah, war is how "I was just following orders" German troops justified killing 12m+ in concentration camps. Goebbels said, "The Jews are responsible for the war. The treatment they receive from us is hardly unjust. They have deserved it all." Don't be like Goebbels.
> the 2 billion Muslims that hate Jews
Yeah, well: I know a handful Muslims who married Jews.
> and all you did was bitch on the internet, I'd be ashamed to know you
Same.
It is an extension of populist antisemitism. I encourage you to think about this on your own: why is Israel condemned for 45k deaths in a war they didn't start, where half of the killed are militants, where Israel is literally providing aid to their enemy, while the Houthis, responsible for 300k dead in the past decade, including many children via starvation, who have brought back slavery in Yemen, are lauded for attacking western shipping and have fanboys of one of their murderous pirates? Where is the criticism for Muslims planning terror attacks against the west, and against individual Jews globally? Why do leftists love the idea of jihad and intifada, but not a nation defending itself?
Meanwhile, most "genocide" decriers seem to have ignored the tens of thousands of rockets, missiles, and drones launched at Israeli civilians from Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen. They ignore the videos of Gazans chearing in the streets and spitting on corpses. The open calls for exterminating the Jews from the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, Iran, and more. There is one side calling for the extermination of the other and taking actions to make it so - the Muslims trying to destroy Israel and calling for and taking actions to kill Jews globally.
That's because Ralph Lemkin, who coined the term "Genocide" in the wake of the Shoah, identified 10 stages, and mass extinction event is the final stage. He posited that once mass extinction commences it almost impossible to stop without incurring a significant cost to whoever wants to stop it (and so, he implored powers-that-be recognize it before the event & not after): https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages
> If not for Israel and the Jews, we'd have world peace - at least that's what you'd think if you listened to these groups.
I know. And it is totally absurd like you say. Racists (antisemites in this case) will never make any sense. Historians specializing in genocide / Holocaust, on the other hand, are experts in their fields.
> Where is the criticism for Muslims planning terror attacks against the west, and against individual Jews globally?
You are joking? ALL Muslims are vilified by many in almost every Western country and in countries where Muslims are a significant minority (like India). Like antisemitism, anti-Muslim racism is every which where.
> the Muslims trying to destroy Israel
Unsure why you blame ALL 2b Muslims. I mean, you're no different than those antisemites who blame the Jewish people for all of world's problems. As a test, replace "Muslims" with "Jews" in your sentences and see if they read antisemitic to you.
Besides, Pakistan, a Muslim country, has 300+ nuclear warheads and Inter-continental ballistic missiles capability; and if ALL Muslims without exception, like you say, are rabidly hell-bent on destroying Israel, what are the Pakistanis waiting for? Please, snap out of this Islamophobic hysteria.
It seems to be if the US Government wants not to be associated with a genocide-committing country they should just... do that. TikTok might have the largest share of the pro-Palestine mood as it were, but like... it's on all the platforms. Because again... they're committing a genocide, and filming it.
We're an active participant in, its not a surprise its the one we (USA ppl) care about.
I mean I can't speak to other people's experience, but as an American, I'm uniquely pissed off with the Israeli one because my tax dollars are paying for it, and because the White House could stop it at a time of their choosing, as they've done before.
Nearly a million died in the Iraq war. In a single battle, Mosul, almost as many were killed as in Gaza, including similar ratios of militants and civilians. In Ukraine, far more have been killed, both combatants and civilians - and Russia clearly targets civilians there, and they started the war (while Hamas started the Gaza war). In Syria, half a million died, mostly civilians. Ditto the Lebanese civil war. Ditto the Yemen-Houthi war.
> the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
Which is just 100% what Israel is attempting to do to Palestine, and they're not exactly being coy about it.
If Israel wanted to maximize casualties, there would not be a Palestinian alive today. What would be their incentive to stop? The far left claims it’s a genocide as it is. What would actually killing them all be, then? Double genocide? You have used the worst term you can to describe something very far from the worst Israel could do.
And then of course, is the obvious contradiction that they just agreed to a ceasefire for their hostages. Just like they did in November 2023. And how they agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon despite all the cries of them trying to seize the land. Israel wants to be left alone to live; the Palestinians (and the other neighboring Arab nations) want to kill all the Israelis and destroy Israel. The rest of the world wants these positions to meet in the middle, so there we are in the middle ground: perpetual war. Go look at the Hamas and Hezbollah founding charters, or the Houthi flag, or everything Iran says.
And, like even if I take this:
> I read a report about how they asked a Palestinian to alert his neighbors via a phone call and waited for him to tell everyone to get out.
at 100% face value, that some militants were in some building and the IDF was about to reduce it to ashes... so they called the guy next door, and asked him to evacuate the building? Which is presumably... full of militants? Cuz that's like the whole thing, that's the whole fuckin point?
You talk a lot about how nothing I say makes sense but that's just nonsensical on it's face, like... if these attacks are genuinely needed, why in the world would you warn people beforehand? Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose?
> the Palestinians (and the other neighboring Arab nations) want to kill all the Israelis and destroy Israel.
I mean they can want that as hard as they want, but Israel has the military and political backing of the West. They're untouchable, as has been demonstrated by them being surrounded by enemies essentially since the state was partitioned off from the others during it's founding, and it's still there.
No, this is not why. They are attacking because Gaza invaded Israel on 10/7, killing over 1200, injuring 5000, and kidnapping over 200. Notice how Arab / Palestinian citizens of Israel are not being killed.
> We don't need to wait for them to kill a certain percentage of the population to then be able to declare it a genocide.
I think this is a fundamental flaw of the genocide conventions. With this interpretation, you could call a single murder a genocide, if done with the intent of destroying a people (in which case, isn’t even murder of an Israeli by Hamas or other organizations whose intent is to destroy a genocide?). Obviously, this is absurd, and nobody is on TikTok raging about Hamas’ attempted genocide of Israel.
> You talk a lot about how nothing I say makes sense but that's just nonsensical on it's face, like... if these attacks are genuinely needed, why in the world would you warn people beforehand? Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose?
Yes, it does. It is in fact this attempt to do less harm that prolongs the war and keeps Hamas alive. To actually destroy Hamas, you would have to kill a lot more civilians. So Israel often settles for destroying weapons caches, tunnels, and structures they operate from.
I mean, if you killed someone who for whatever odd reason played a critical role in the maintenance of a culture, with the stated goal being the extinction of that culture, then yes that's an act of genocide. The fact that the event itself is a bit strange doesn't change what it is.
The systematized way that Canada's residential schools literally beat their native tongue out of the native children they were put in charge of was also an act of genocide. It isn't an error in the interpretation, it's what the word is.
> (in which case, isn’t even murder of an Israeli by Hamas or other organizations whose intent is to destroy a genocide?)
Yes, but they're not the ones aggressing. No one is saying Israel's neighbors are innocent, but Israel is currently, actively engaged in an ethnic cleansing. The fact that those they're cleansing wouldn't do the same back to them given the chance both doesn't make that okay and is irrelevant.
> Yes, it does. It is in fact this attempt to do less harm that prolongs the war and keeps Hamas alive. To actually destroy Hamas, you would have to kill a lot more civilians. So Israel often settles for destroying weapons caches, tunnels, and structures they operate from.
Well then they fucked up about 47,000 times by official numbers.
You do know this war started with a massive assault by Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, and other Palestinian groups, right? They attacked Israel, targeting civilians in a brutal assault, starting this war. If you start a war, you are the aggressor, even if you lose.
Seriously, given all the crazy shit that's been uncovered in the last 20 years — PRISM, Five Eyes, Cambridge Analytica — why would an influence campaign run over one of the world's biggest social networks controlled by the actual, real life authoritarian Big Brother state be the one scenario that crosses the line from plausible to fantasy for you?
Government intervention at its finest.
>While data security issues are paramount, less often discussed is TikTok’s power to radically distort the world-picture that America’s young people encounter. Israel’s unfolding war with Hamas is a crucial test case. According to one poll, 51% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 believe that Hamas’s murder of civilians was justified—a statistic notably different from other age cohorts. Analysts have attributed this disparity to the ubiquity of anti-Israel content on TikTok, where most young internet users get their information about the world
from:
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/Ha...
Same reason they passed the nonprofit killing bill bipartisanly, for whatever reason this seems to be a huge deal for the people in government right now.
The government first started talking about banning TikTok in 2018 (under Trump). Ordered them to divest of US interests and prohibited transactions with them in 2020 (under Trump). The latter of which was overturned by the courts.
The current administration took over in 2021, and in 2021 labelled the PRC as a foreign adversary. Discussed the threat to the US through the PRCs control of software applications and teh vasts swaths of information available from their users, directed agencies to find risk mitigation measures, and started a long process of negotiating with TikTok over how exactly it continued to operate.
The act ordering divestment is the inevitable consequence of those talks failing... those talks failed sometime late 2022 or early 2023 (the last proposal under them was in August 2022).
Jacob Helberg, a member of a congressional research and advisory panel called the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, has been working on building a bipartisan, bicoastal alliance of China hawks, united in part by their desire to ban TikTok. Over the past year, he says, he has met with more than 100 members of Congress, and brought up TikTok with all of them.
[...]
It was slow going until Oct. 7. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against TikTok, Helberg said. People who historically hadn’t taken a position on TikTok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw as an increase in antisemitic content posted to the app.
China does allow competition. It's just that google, facebook, etc chose not to follow chinese laws.
> they have so much to lose by growing anti-sino sentiments abroad all because they didn’t want US tech monopolies to compete in their home turf
Funny how microsoft, apple, tesla, etc are competing in china?
You are just parroting stale propaganda.
HAHA, thanks for giving me a good laugh
The US is doing the opposite, it's removing TikTok because they probably spy / psyop for the CCP.
One country (China) was trying to force foreign companies to spy / psyop.
One country (US) is making sure a foreign adversary doesn't use it to spy / psyop.
What a dope. Imagine being dumb enough to believe google pulled out to protect chinese people's privacy.
Google pulled out because the chinese government wanted to monitor it to make sure google wasn't acting as a state actor pushing propaganda to destabilize nations. Turns out the chinese were right and google was indeed a state actor. Their dirty little fingers were all over the color revolutions.
> One country (China) was trying to force foreign companies to spy / psyop.
But that's google's business model. Do you have two brain cells to rub together? Why would the chinese force google to do what it already was doing in china and everywhere in the world? And still does today?
> One country (US) is making sure a foreign adversary doesn't use it to spy / psyop.
That's what china was doing. Dummy. Literally, china created laws to stop google/facebook/etc from running psyops in china and that's why they chose to leave china.
You must be one of the morons that actually swallowed google's motto "Don't be evil" hook line and sinker.
How stupid do you have to be to think google left china because the chinese government forced them to spy on the chinese. When spying is google's bread and butter.
how in the world would that show a modicum of honesty?
The reason China restricts foreign internet companies specifically, is because the government lacks control over what information is shared on such apps. China is a dictatorship where free speech is considered dangerous.
China doesn't want western companies operating in China, they want western IP owned by Chinese companies operating there. That's why so many companies have pulled out of that market.
Definitely not the consumption of foreign products.
The PRC remains a totalitarian government which built itself on an environment where they exert total control over public communication. There are long lists of topics that you simply cannot cover, analyze, talk about or even discuss privately via internet media in China. There's no way to do that if those discussions happen on Snapchat via a data center in Oregon.
Does the CCP need to do that? It's a reasonable question with answers more complicated than I'll be able to offer. But for sure they want (desperately) to do it. Thus, no foreign media in China.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T203095
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_...
1. You look tough on China
2. You look like you're being tough on "misinformation"
3. You get to look like you are in favor of privacy
4. You get to implicitly support the American competitors of this product
5. You get to look like you're helping kids by getting rid of something that they like but older voters are skeptical about
6. None of this affects the supply chain so won't impose consumer costs
None of these things are real (except the competitors and supply chain ones)
What you're asking for exists.
decentralization != morally beneficial for the masses.
The content is good too though. It’s nice to see so much amazing Chinese cooking.
The day TikTok is banned I will create an account and post a video showing my face, in which I will state my name and address.
Like many celebrities he's chosen to endorse a political candidate and make donations. Like many celebrities he has large influence.
But the difference with Musk is he's supporting a political side that you don't like.
The other countries you’re presumably thinking of are our allies and typically our propaganda aligns with their (governments’) interests. China’s interests do not.
Then everyone was fine with TikTok more or less. A few departments, if not all banned it, have given warnings about it.
Then when Gaza blew up, TikTok was not quick enough to ban all pro Palestine content and that is when congress again decided that it was time to take on TikTok ²
¹ https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-courts-a526c144fad9f... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%E2%80%93TikTok_co...
² https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest... https://forward.com/culture/688840/tiktok-ban-gaza-palestine... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/tiktok-faces-renew... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-... https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/lawmaker...
And I want this to set a precedent that we CAN reign in the social media companies.
If customers care that little about the product, maybe it's a good sign that it isn't providing significant value to their lives.
Neither this TikTok "ban" or the new app "Rednote" are going to last in the long term. They will run back to TikTok again.
Would have been better to fine TikTok in the billions just like we already have done for Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and all the other social networks.
But this is all temporary.
Just get rid of all of them. They're battery acid poured on the human psyche.
Or, at least, get rid of the centralized massive ones. If you have to combine your online interactions with people with the interactions you have with them in real life, you're better off, and that doesn't happen when social networks span the globe.
The FTC over the past four years has taken a turn here and is starting to do that work again, it's slow but it needs to continue.
Second, these companies behave as publishers without any of the responsibilities/liability. This has to stop. If you publish just a chronological feed that's one thing. But when you algorithmically decide what people see when, and now introduce your own AI bots into the mix, you're 100% a publisher and need to be legally responsible for it. That legislation needs to be updated to reflect this.
Third, much of the root issues stem from advertising. These companies are driven to get and keep as much of your attention as possible simply so they can sell that attention to advertisers. If we all paid for it, the design of these services would be different. I'm not sure how to tackle that but it seems a start is privacy legislation to prohibit user tracking and sale or sharing of personal data.
Europe is in some capacity doing that. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/facebook-marketplace-t...
Now I can't delete my Instagram, which I was using FB SSO for. They ocassionally send me marketing emails that I might want to engage with so and so's content.
How, when you nuked my goddamn account for no reason?
Anyways, if I had the money I'd short them -- they seem to be completely unconcerned with the few who'd consider giving them a second chance.
As for Tik Tok, as with Telegram having it's servers in Russia, I think the real issue is the data is in control of the PRC, rather than whinings about "fake news" -- people have consumed supermarket check out drivel like the Weekly World News for years, it's just moved online.
Herein lies the rub. How do you decide what the threshold is? Who gets to decide what that threshold is, and how do you do it without inviting accusations of regulatory capture?
If you make it blanket all social networks, then things like discord and even public slack orgs will inadvertently become collateral damage. If you make it focussed on only a few large ones, e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, then something else will pop up to take it's place. It'll become a game of whack-a-mole. Users are supposedly already migrating in droves to some other TikTok clone.
I'm not really sure what the solution is though. Regulate the shit out of it to the extent where it becomes a government-provided utility or something?
The reality is people want social media because they are addicted to it. Getting rid of social media will be like the war on drugs: completely ineffective. The danger here is that the drug is very easy to create, impossible to control and extremely lucrative.
We also have regulations on usage, like truck drivers can only drive X hours a day, force some type of consumption limit the networks are required to enforce. We have similar laws regarding where, when, and how people can consume things like alcohol so could also do something like that. Some amount of it is ok, but as you say we’ve now learned it’s so addictive we need to force people into moderation of their consumption.
I do think there's one exception/problem: youtube. While there's a lot of pregnant spiderman-elsa crap on it, there's also tons of historical, educational, investigative journalism, etc etc etc content there that strikes me as distinctly more valuable than literally anything that's ever existed on facebook, tiktok or even twitter.
And in addition to the backlog, there's an economics problem. Having good, free, easy, available video hosting is a huge good. It's also ridiculously expensive (videos are big, and you have to render multiple qualities of them, and store them forever) and a hard engineering (network and software) problem (what tiny % of video upload constitutes 90% of the actual network traffic? but you also have to brace for videos from nobodies going viral and needing to be served to the entire globe).
So how do you fund something like this? Normally I'd say, well, damn, this sounds like a utility. But given the political climate we're going into for the next 4 years, and the fact that even healthcare is privatized (well, the part of it that can generate a profit... unprofitable customers are of course pushed to the taxpayer)...
Or maybe it's just me and don't use it that way and others do? I subscribe to some things, watch a lot of videos mostly has a lurker and almost never even dip into the comments. I have exactly 0 connections with people I know on YT. It's more of a modern television channel than anything in my case.
I have had a much harder time quitting Hacker News than I ever did quitting Facebook. I've been off Facebook for ten years yet I keep logging in to leave stupid comments here.
Is that because of advertising and data monetization?
And no, I don't think HN addiction is anything like FB addiction. This site is heavily moderated in comparison and the content is higher quality. It's a 'news' site with some respectable commentary that is so rare people like us keep coming back. There's a level of decency that's expected and required here. I could go on, lack of photos, videos, etc. The content is community driven via ranking versus an algorithm optimized for financial outcomes.... I also don't actually know any of you people so how is that a social network, it's a community forum at best. The almost absence of political stuff on HN helps a fair amount.
Addiction itself isn't super bad. Addiction to harmful things is what's bad. I don't even know if I'm addicted to HN, sometimes I go weeks without coming here - but have mostly been here daily for many years. I enjoy it, it enriches my life, I feel it's a positive habit. Just because you take your dog for a walk every day, are you addicted to it? You could just let him out in the back yard? You do it because it's a healthy habit, for them and you.
Does it? Does a human need to examine everything posted? You can certainly send letters without them going through a human moderator. Only what is flagged by a scanner? What if nothing is flagged? What should be flagged?
Because those are two orthogonal things. You aren’t sending a letter to be displayed by everyone and their dog on this planet to see.
Of course, it is possible they meant to come up with a holistic plan for improving society in three short sentences, as your reply assumes.
Which would, I suppose, indirectly make the case that social interactions online tend to be pointless and a little silly.
This was really a fun time and it was a whole new vista for interaction. It was really something to enter a new age.
That feeling didn't last long, but I still got value from Facebook until the early 2010s.
But for actual social media? Burn it all down lol
Honestly, Facebook without the push for reels / videos isn't that bad. (now you can crucify me)
I really wish they had some kind of auction component to deal with multiple interested parties / reduce flakers, but I imagine eBay has some crappy software patent that they wield with an iron fist.
Facebook Ads has auctions for selling ad slots. They have the technology, they just reserve it for their real customers.
Now I feel physical disgust when I look at the FB logo
Not that TikTok should have stayed, but the fact that Meta was pushing for this and now stands to benefit massively should be concerning.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/faceboo...
I've thought about this a lot.
I don't think I'll ever build it (I have another idea in the works consuming all my time), but I'll go a step further and share my other thought on it:
The less they use it, the less they should pay for using it. So if your goal is to keep up with relatives via sharing photos / videos, you can do that, and bug right out. So now there's a financial incentive to use it less, but it serves its purpose, like email.
I think the answer is what we see with Mastodon, etc. and that's federated/distributed social networks.
The sooner we treat it as an addiction the faster we'll think of treatments.
"Social media" went from blogging and commenting with your friends and others to watching videos of ads interspersed with random memes and shit.
Quite a slide.
I'm fine with going back to 100% chronological feeds. Show events as they happen and don't put a hand on the scale.
That's how social networks usually build their base then they switch to an algorithmic feed to satisfy advertisers once their user base is big enough.
Even decentralized mastodon is too big and it makes it far too easy to post BS and hateful / unhealthy stuff. Plus there are far too many posts you can’t relate to or just don’t want to read („algorithm“ or not), without even mentioning the bubble effect, much worse there than on X to be honest.
Smaller communities which you can connect to /disconnect from plus a good combo of RSS feeds to get news. That’s probably it.
I keep toying with building a modern version of that using some of the existing fediverse infrastructure, but I just don't have the time or attention span for it. Partially because my attention span was fried by Instagram.
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume this is how you grew up?
The bad part, of course, is that Discord is owned by one single entity and not indexed like the open web is.
IRC, simple php forums, no TLS, easy stuff. Nowadays we're full of technology and very poor content. In no way can mastodon (mentioning because it's the defacto decentralized social media) solve that problem. It's really easy to post stuff that shouldn't be posted.
On the other hand, crappy looking forums, slow internet connection, you really had to take the time to think about what to say and mainly why say it in the first place. It was more about the content than about quantity.
Some of us are old enough to remember when those were already the enshitification stage, and would prefer to go back to usenet
One has to be extremely naive to think Google (youtube) lobbyists didn't play a role in this Tiktok ban.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/faceboo...
If you want to end that, you need to actively sabotage it, by creating fake users who eat resources for not add-revenue. Feeding crack to children has to become economically unviable for the world to change.
We live in organised societies, nobody is forcing you to do crack but people doing crack will definitely lower the experience of everyone they interact with (and more given the burden on shared goods like healthcare, infrastructures, &c.), that's why we collectively decided that crack shouldn't be sold to 13 years old kids.
Now of course this is very flawed and we'll always have things slipping through the cracks (alcohol, tobacco, junk food, &c.), but unless you want to live in a mad max type of world you have to accept some level of regulation, and that level of regulation, in a working society, should be determined through politics
If tiktok is crack, HN is honey. One becomes problematic much quicker than the other, when you see a kid spending 5 hours a day on HN hit me up
Like to ski? Your injuries have a societal cost.
Like to cook? Your inefficient use of energy costs society.
If you can use an argument for anything it’s not a very convincing argument.
If you think skiing and cooking have as much of a negative impact as social media as on entire generation of kids I doubt we'll find common ground to go further, usually it requires a bit of good faith
>Like to ski? Your injuries have a societal cost.
>Like to cook? Your inefficient use of energy costs society.
This assumes that fairly standard activities are imposing the societal cost you are attributing to them. For most individuals who perform these activities, they are not producing an outsized societal cost, which is the delineation the parent comment was making. The parent comment used an example of something that from their point of view has a negative societal cost in the base case. Your examples are not similar as they are not referring to the base case of simply performing the activities, but only to the relatively uncommon tail end outcomes.
This is the second philopsiphical point of economics. Everything is a choice between costs.
Im curious how else you would put it?
Social media is just the demon of the day. In the 80s it was that damn rock music ruining our kids and in the 90s it was violent video games and rap.
Every generation has their "this thing is corrupting the youth" moment.
Following your logic everything new has to be desirable, that's a tough position to defend imho. Just because new trends were incorrectly criticised in the past doesn't mean every new trend is good until the heat death of the universe, logic 101
Let's stop pretending adults do not do it too.
Children are in a crucial period of their lives when it comes to forging habits, learning skills, developing addictions, &c.
Once I got diagnosed with ADHD and tried stimulant medicine, I noticed that the time I spend reading news, social media and playing games dropped dramatically. So, effectively all these activities have been nothing more than drugs for my dysfunctional brain. When my brain isn't deficient in dopamine, I seem to automatically spend most of my time on something more useful. Probably wouldn't be writing this if my meds weren't wearing off at this time of day.
I think there's a great argument that says the first amendment is not a suicide pact. The social media environment right now is having an unprecedented destructive effect on US democracy. I think TikTok is right there as a key player in spreading weapons-grade, state-sponsored mush to younger people.
“But the masses will be able to access the scripture without guidance! Society will crumble!”
So yes - we should definitely agree that all new technology for publishing (publishing? COntent creation?) result in issues of free speech.
I will say that each of these, have had different issues, and that from Radio onwards, we are dealing with several issues (side effects ?) that become more intense with each new media developed.
I'll jump to the end, but Social media is definitely different from the printing press.
We certainly get new and improved benefits, such as the distribution of publishing power to individuals.
At the same time, we are getting issues with an abundance of content, that people need content to be eye catching, in order to gain an audience.
Theres also a tendency for networks to consolidate over time, so at the start of the radio era, or TV era, you have a bunch of cable networks, then over time they start collapsing into larger groups, which are better able to survive.
Fully admit that these are highly generalized, I am just thinking of what others can chime in with.
Not that different from arguing that your average American can’t see through propaganda on TikTok - I think they can.
And if the argument is that it’s addictive, I mean ok? Lots of things are addictive that aren’t severely harmful. We tolerate those as well.
The argument about teens is an entirely different one, I’m talking about adults.
think of the printing press as invented and controlled by your worst enemy and only printing what it deems to be acceptable.
Threads is notorious for de-boosting posts with external links. This is a deliberate choice which filters facts and external references out of the conversation.
Or you can just delay the feed of posters you don't like. They arrive at every debate a day late, while your favourites go through immediately. And to more people.
And so on.
There's nothing free about any of this. It's covert behaviour and sentiment modification.
With a newspaper you get an editorial angle, so you can choose it if you want it.
Social media pretends to be a neutral conduit. But it's carefully curated and manipulated, and you don't know how or why.
Although I like HN more than TikTok, it's so funny
HN (and reddit) generally lacks this hyper-targeting. Obviously, just the act of going to HN is selecting for a certain cross-section of opinions, but once you're there what you see is determined by the community and not by your own personal preferences.
1. There's often little or no visibility on how this personalization happens. People with often try to guess and steer the algorithm but the reality is you don't know. This means that unpopular opinions can be quietly suppressed with no detectable censorship. On the poster/creator side this presents as constant paranoia about "shadow banning" and the like.
2. The personalized feeds are effectively endless. This allows for repetition that really amplifies any biases/fears. For example, suppose you're worried that the roads are getting more dangerous and you go on Instagram and start looking at car crash reels. Instagram will happily feed you as much of these as you can stomach and it starts to affect your perception of reality. Never mind that you're looking at incidents captured over a period of years from all over the world, seeing them all back to back will probably give you anxiety the next time you go to cross the street. Now apply this same logic to any political topic...
HN/subreddit provides a single echo chamber for everyone
that's why I like HN more, I don't want to be in my echo chamber, I perfer visiting your chamber
I know how hard it is to be in the minority on a contentious topic without getting provoked (and then becoming provocative oneself), but that's what we need commenters with minority views to do. Otherwise we end up having to moderate the accounts, not because we want to suppress minority views but because we have to enforce HN's rules.
I've written about this extensively because it's such a consistent phenomenon. Here's one post if you (or anyone) wants a fuller explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41948722. There are plenty more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
It's in your interest to do this, because then you maximize the persuasive power of your comments. Conversely, if you succumb to the pressure to be indignant and/or snarky and/or flamey and so on, that ends up discrediting your views, which is particularly damaging if they happen to be true: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
(p.s. I'm an admin here in case that wasn't obvious)
and there's misunderstanding, I was not provoked, at least in the comment above
it's not a critique to HN, in fact, isn't it obvious that HN inevitably ends to a echo chamber? unpopular opinions greyed out, popular opinions ranked up, wasn't it design to be this?
it's not that bad, most communities are echo chambers
Well, that's a straight out lie! :)
But nobody ever says "I was banned for breaking the site guidelines". What they do instead is make new accounts to claim "I was banned for my contrarian views". How noble that sounds!
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
The tell is that they never supply links (e.g. to their previous account(s) or the place(s) they were banned). If moderation is so bad, why not allow readers to see what actually happened and make up their own minds? And yet these complaints are always linkless...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
In this case you've been using multiple accounts to post in the same thread in ways that are misleading and abusive. That's clearly over the line, so I'm banning this account (and also saying so). If you would please stop creating accounts to break HN's rules with, that would be good.
Only for tech topics
Things went ugly(but fun!) for political/geopolitical topics, 'unpopular' opinions will be grayed out, opinions survived coalesced into the essence of the Anglo-Saxon spirit
That's about the number of social connections the human brain is really meant to handle.
One of the rules of moderation I believe in, is that the workload depends on the nature of the people in your community.
Oh, so communities follow the rules of subculture founding and decline ???
So there should be a point where things that were not cool, become cool again?
Someone put the microphone too close to the speaker. As the feedback rings our ears someone reaches out for the power switch. Do you call out "but the start of the feedback was the music from the band, turning it off won't fix the band"? :)
The traditional media loves to chase negative news (If it bleeds, it leads) and we let that happen (muh free speech!). So it is logical that social media amplified the negativity of society, coupled with algorithms evolution and instant broadcasting the impact is amplified.
Fck around and find out I guess.
Watching news is like begging for nightmares, and most of it's made up anyways.
We have. It's A) too expensive, and B) we can't agree on what "fixed" looks like. "Think of the children" type scare-legislation is going to fill this void.
The algorithmic feed, in addition to time spent on social media, has also intensified online discourse in a way that I believe to be harmful to society. What people see now is not the most recent things their friends were posting, no matter how banal, but whatever it is that the algorithm judges most engaging. Truth doesn't matter. Now the conspiracy theories and weird new age shit that your one hippy friend posted constantly have an audience. That kind of thing is engaging, so it floats to the top.
I'd be perfectly fine with just banning social media altogether. Never before in history has the value of a barrier to entry to publishing something been more apparent. But as a compromise, I would accept banning the algorithmic feed.
Bringo.
The day Facebook implemented the feed as the main page rather than the original homepage was the day social media went sideways. It's little more than a Skinner box with a bright candy coating and it has just gotten more egregious over time. It's right on the tin, "Feed".
I'd be interested to see how much R&D budget has gone into hiring persons in the field of psychology to tweak the dopamine treadmill over time.
Prior to newsfeed, FB was obviously an N-N platform, but the interactions were more 1-1. You used the network to find and connect, but you interacted with individuals (on their wall). The newsfeed tipped the focus toward 1-N interactions, and direct messages solidified that (no more wall posts).
For its first few years, Facebook had no feed at all.
+5 Insightful
For your health
If there's no algorithmic feed and the company is truly just a self publishing utility then keep the section 230 protections
They're acting as editors for a publication. Hold them accountable like the publication companies they are.
Want to continue getting safe-harbor exemptions for user submitted content? No fucking algorithmically chosen feeds.
Prior to that lawsuit, the existing law regarding defamation was that you could hold a newspaper accountable for what they had printed, but not the newsstand selling the newspaper. The courts in the Jordan Belfort cases decided to categorize online services based on their moderation policy: if you published literally anything sent to you, you were the newsstand[0]; if you decided not to publish certain things then you were a newspaper.
In case it isn't obvious, this is an unacceptable legal precedent for running any sort of online service. The only services that you could legally run would either be the most free-wheeling; or the most censurious, where everything either has to be pre-checked by a team of lawyers for risk and only a small amount of speech ever gets published, or everything gets published, including spam and bullshit.
To make things worse, there is also standing precedent in Mavrix v. LiveJournal regarding DMCA safe harbor[1] that the use of human curation or moderation strips you of your copyright safe harbor. The only thing DMCA 512 protects is machine-generated feeds (algorithmic or chronological).
So let's be clear: removing CDA 230 safe harbor from a feature of social media you don't like doesn't mean that feature goes away. It means that feature gets more and more censored by the whims of whatever private citizens decide to sue that day. The social media companies are not going to get rid of algorithmic feeds unless you explicitly say "no algorithmic feeds", because those feeds make the product more addictive, which is how they make money.
The "slop trough" design of social media is optimal for profit because of a few factors; notably the fact that social media companies have monopolistic control over the client software people use. Even browser extensions intended to hide unwanted content on Facebook have to endure legal threats, because Facebook does not want you using their service as anything other than a slop trough.
So if you want to kill algorithmic feeds, what you want to do is kill Facebook's control over Facebook. That means you want legal protections for third-party API clients, antitrust scrutiny on all social media platforms, and legally mandated interoperability so that when a social media platform decides to turn into a slop trough, anyone so interested can just jump ship to another platform without losing access to their existing friends.
[0] Ignore the fact that this is not how newsstands work. You can't go to any newsstand, put your zine on it, and demand they sell it or face defamation risk.
I don't have tiktok, but I used to watch a lot of YouTube suggestions. I finally took the app off my devices and used a suggestion-blocking browser extension. I could only find stuff that I actively searched for. After a few months, I took a peek at suggestions and it was actually great: pretty much only videos I was legitimately interested in, steering me towards useful tiny channels, etc. I still keep it blocked, but check it once daily just in case.
The problem is that algorithmic feeds want you to just keep watching and will absolutely probe all of your "weaknesses" to keep doing so. Instead of trying to support you, it says "how can we break this guy/girl down so s/he keeps watching...".
Until the feeds say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't serve you another video. You should go outside and enjoy the day", then it should be treated more as a weapon aimed at one's brain by a billion or trillion-dollar corporation than a tool.
More than that too, my recollection is that those early social media sites were considered "separate" from the real world. It'd be seen as odd to take it "seriously" in the early days.
The big change I noticed was when my (our?) cohort started graduating college and started sanitizing their Facebooks and embracing "professionalism" on the then nascent LinkedIn. I distinctly remember being shocked at that, and the implicit possibility that employers would "care" about your Facebook posts.
How far we've fallen.
The US occupies a new office downtown. China wants eyes on a specific room, and the choice spot for monitoring it is someone else's apartment. This person happens to own a bakery also in town, and it sort of seems like the apartment is a reach for them as it is.
Now in your feed you get a short showing some egregious findings in the food from this bakery. More like this crop up from the mystical algorithmic abyss. You won't go there anymore. Their reviews tank and business falls. Mind you those posts were organic, tiktok just stifled good reviews and put the bad ones on blast.
6 months later the apartment is on the market, and not a single person in town "has ever seen CCP propaganda on tiktok".
This is the overwhelmingly main reason why Tiktok is getting banned.
Maybe consider that it's being banned because it makes it harder to control the political narrative and discourse in society when people have access to information. I think Chomsky put it best: there are many ways of population control, in the old Soviet Union it used to be the boot. In "democracy" it's controlling information and the Overton Window and TikTok breaks that completely. A great example is the Israel's assault on Palestine. Has this been covered anywhere where you watch news in even remotely the most honest way? Don't think so. Is it on TikTok? I think you know the answer.
I'd also say to single out TikTok and the Chinese while ignoring Meta and Google (why not ban them?) is very questionable if you really care about the scenario you described.
If what you said is the primary reason for banning TikTok (bad actors can do bad things), it's also a valid reason to ban literally every social network, or possibly even all user-generated content on the internet.
They can still kind of do it, but it requires a lot of work to fool other companies algo's into artificially promoting what you want. Much easier to just call up Bytedance and say "We need everyone in this area seeing this tiktok tomorrow".
To the second, you misunderstand the issue the US government has here. It is not that the social network is compromised and can be manipulated to any number of uses by an external authority. It is that it is compromised and can be manipulated to any number of uses by an external authority that they are enemies with.
Whether you consider them your enemy, whether they consider you theirs, whether you think that China really is or is not an enemy of the US government, and whether you consider the US government your enemy or not is all irrelevant to the point at hand, as interesting as they may be in other contexts; this is about the beliefs of the US government.
China has similar concerns and has already taken numerous similar steps, and it's equally not any sort of hypocrisy or anything because the principle they operate under is not about the existence of control, but who has the control.
Because something that is very important to understand about China, or any other totalitarian regime, is that the people in charge don't let something like TikTok happen without having a fairly good grip on the people running it. That's just authoritarianism 101.
China has secret agents they need to move through an area. Why not have an asian hate awareness rally in that area at the same time?
Nobody attending that rally would have any idea they are acting as decoy agents. None would report seeing CCP propaganda on tiktok.
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Peer-Reviewed...
"TikTok would rather shut itself off from the U.S. market than divest its ownership from the CCP.
That is not the action of a rational corporation and really tells you who calls the shots at TikTok."
What in the law, exactly, would prevent the things you discussed from being spoken about on another online platform?
Let me expand this: what in the law prevents someone from going to TikTok.com and seeing the same content?
The ban is on (a) apps in the app stores and (b) hosting by American companies. It’s not sanctioning TikTok à la Huawei.
Most people are just annoyed their social media addiction is being interrupted when they moan about account bans, or app bans in this case.
Get a ham radio license and use profanity when you transmit. Seriously. Do it. Odds are, the FCC does nothing. The thing they do when they do catch you is send you a letter saying "please don't do that".
1. There's plenty of speech you can't say (fraud, libel), so speech is believe it or not regulated.
2. This isn't about free speech per se, it's about the right of a company to exist. the government has broad leeway to regulate which entities do or don't have the right to have limited liability. if TikTok were a unincorporated business entity and the owners were liable for lawsuit the story would be different.
3. the government forcing a sale is individual free speech maximalist position in this situation, because the users of the platform can still have their free speech. if tiktok doesn't take the deal, then the "loss of free speech" is on them, not the government.
4. America, which is supposed to be a bastion of free commerce, forced the sale of Merck away from germany (there is still a german merck with the same name). this is no different.
Of course, my take is likewise anecdotal, and you may take it for what you will. That said, boiling the entirety of the American sentiment to fear of a "threat to their core" is disingenuous. Criticism of the effects of the app are as valid as its merits, regardless of what conclusions you draw based on your "fears".
You, as an adult receiving that video, have the (hopefully) developed sense of what is accurate information or not, as well as the time to gestate on the content of that video and apply critical thinking. You can delete the video and move on with your life.
Tik Tok sends 15 seconds worth of such information, good or bad, and doubles down on detected interest, leaving little to no time to process before moving on to the next clip which is likely tailored towards the first clip's subject. Couple that with the suggestibility and naivete of children, and you end up with reinforcement of thin, poorly informed opinions based on information that may or may not even be remotely accurate.
The idea of banning all dubious information is a strawman.
Americans love free speech. American oligarchs hate it.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: I took a quick look at your recent comment history and it seems just fine (other than https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42713605, also in this thread). If you'd please post like that and not like this, that would be good.
The voting system exists and works more than well enough to bury bad comments. That's why my comment up there is at -4; it was bad. Problem is solved.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm sorry that I didn't understand that you were joking. The problem, though, is, that many other readers won't understand that either and some will react by getting triggered (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42711424 and the replies there), so in the end it sadly doesn't make much difference.
We have to be proactive (not to say paranoid) about this issue because it's one of the worst dynamics that ruins threads. Lots of past explanations here if anyone wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
As for upvoting, I wish you were right about that—it would be so much less work—but alas, the voting system alone isn't sufficient for this place to survive. (Past explanations about that if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...)
have wanted to do this meme for so long
my bad though
By "accounts like yours" I mean ones that express minority views on any divisive topic. That is valuable to the community but, unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure on anyone who wants to comment that way, and it often doesn't go very well. We've seen this over and over.
I wrote a longer reply to you about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42714563. Just wanted to add some context.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
We don't even have free speech, btw.
You can't yell FIRE in crowded rooms with impunity, you can't say untrue things about people that harm their businesses or put their lives in danger with impunity, etc.
The idea that our politicians should not be allowed to ban something being owned by a foreign company (especially when our companies aren't allowed to operate in said country, especially when we don't exactly have friendly relations with said country) - is, IMO, absurd.
>> The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-serie...
The point is: Legal experts unanimously agree this analogy is terrible and should never be used. The Supreme Court also thought so, completely overturning the case it originated from just several years later.
The black box algorithms are the problem.
And of course someone will reply to this and mention usenet.
I like tiktok. I scroll for a bit in the morning and watch some funny videos. Who are you to say that's immoral and shouldn't happen?
We no longer know how to actually govern the country, but it used to be entirely possible.
It's not that they deliberately want the addiction. The addiction is a consequence of it, but they go to TikTok because their peers are on TikTok.
I think peers is also a strange word to use. When I joined Facebook in 2007 you were more-or-less sorted by where you went to high school. You connected with people you knew.
I'm sure that still exists on some level, but social media is now about driving engagement with people who pay these companies to get eyeballs. An influencer isn't your peer. It's like considering Billy Mays (may he rest in peace) your peer in 2007. No, he's a dude who sold you Oxy-Clean, but he was on TV a lot.
I was also a new kid so it was hard to join an existing clique in a small town.
Online groups saved me. It not only let me stay in contact with my old friends, but also let me meet new people with similar interest so I didn't feel so alone.
That's what it is, but that's not how teenagers perceive it, I think.
I see it like this: if all your friends watch the news everyday and spend a lot of time talking about it, you will end up watching the news as well. To connect.
If all your friends watch a lot of sport and meet for that, you may well end up learning to enjoy sport as well.
If all your friends know the trends on TikTok and talk about it...
But not in a tiktok-way. They have more than enough social contacts when they go to school. No one need tiktok.
Things would have been a lot different if I had access to the internet.
Unfortunately, the data about mental health outcomes of teens who consume social media is not positive, so I’m not sure things would have been better.
(Or am I asking the same exact question two different ways, a distinction without a difference?)
If you ever found yourself being the "weird kid" in a small town high school, you might see it different.
But social media isn't the cause of alienation. It's a symptom.
And we should not underestimate teenagers: if they have something better to do than swiping on TikTok, they do it. Parents must help them have better things to do.
But still, if all their friends know and talk about the TikTok trends, they will feel disconnected if they have no clue. That's how I meant that they "need" it. They need to "connect" as in having the same references as their friends.
Most parents are addicted to smartphone and don't go with their children outside. I would start the investigation into root causes right there.
I didn't expect what I wrote to be that confusing.
My friend group had a phpBB forum back in the day. I spent hours on there because I liked hanging out with that group of friends, not because it was profitable for some megacorp.
I rather wanted to say that it's easier said than done. You can't just tell teenagers "stop using social media, it's bad for you". Because if their peers use social media, then they need to use social media as well.
I'm all for removing social media altogether.
Worse, it's treating symptoms as the problem. We, as a society, deify hyper-individualism. This is to such an extreme that people actually in completely and utterly selfish ways are glorified and celebrated because "freedom".
Social media happened after we destroyed community and any sense of collectivism. Unhealthy social media habits are a consequence of that. They didn't cause it.
Where once you needed just one job to live, you now need 5. Every aspect of our lives is financialized. We spend 30 years working to the bone to pay for a house that cost 1/10th what it did 30 years ago. The high costs of housing have destroyed all the so-called "third places".
Federating services does nothing to the core problem here. I find HN's obsession with federation, which literally solves zero problems for users and creates a bunch of problems, bizarre and out-of-touch.
The problem is capitalism.
The companies are big because they’re advertising machines with intense targeting abilities, which makes for a great place for advertisers to spend money.
Plenty of people enjoy Facebook, and plenty of people enjoy drugs and gambling and all sorts of destructive behaviors that many nations regulate. I think we can recognize that it can be fun and have utility, while still being dangerous or problematic.
If you had to convince people to pay for Facebook as a subscription, would people use it the same way? Would they still find utility there? Would they prefer a competitor?
I have a facebook account from my college days, but I don’t use it and neither does most of my network. My parents, despite being deeply suspicious and tech-savvy have started using it more and more to “connect” with family. In reality, I’ve seen their usage and it’s mostly generic groups and memes and similar stuff. I suspect that most people experience the same reality, and respectfully, I think society can survive without that.
To postulate, I think there are a million “better” ways to connect with friends and family, but I also think that there’s no one App that can do everything for everyone. My extended family bought a dozen smart picture frames, and everyone adds photos to a joint account we all share, and that has replaced a social feed for pics of kids/grandkids. I think people would be better served finding what works for them and letting it be bespoke to their family/friends.
This is the USA, we don’t do that here. (Except when we do, as in this terrible case, but it’s not what we are about.)
If you don’t like them, don’t use them. Don’t force other people to share your views and opinions. We like social media and choose every day to continue to use it.
App bans are simply state censorship, nothing more. It’s a real shame we don’t have methods of sideloading to bypass such idiocy on the part of the USG and the chokepoints at Apple and Google.
At least tiktok.com will still work.
Also note that the law doesn’t force TikTok to shut down, it requires divestment. The fact that they choose not to divest says a lot about how they view the platform.
Arguably, even if you are not prohibiting the content itself, if you take away the means for your content to spread far & wide, that's the same as censorship.
I find this quite disturbing.
At least as far as kids are concerned, current evidence does not readily support this common believe.
Sabine Hossenfelder writes: "The idea that social media causes children mental health distress is plausible, but unfortunately it isn’t true. Trouble is, if you read what the press has written about it, you wouldn’t know. Scientists have described it as a “moral panic” that isn’t backed by data, which has been promoted most prominently by one man: Jonathan Haidt."
Video for more insight, if you are interested: https://youtu.be/V95Vg2pVlo0
The chart with the number of suicides for children going up is not a moral panic, but a grim reality.
It's FB but for the purpose of studying effects of social media on mental health it should suffice:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-internal-report-sho...
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/how-social-medias-toxic-conten...
The causes for suicide might've changed in the last 50 years.
Also, the number of children suicides was in a downtrend before it went up again:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/05/03/suicide-...
The crackpots had a greater barrier to transmit back in the day. They had to get an FCC license or know someone with a radio station. Even then reach was limited unless you could reach a deal to transmit nationwide.
I personally believe our brains are primed on some level to buy into this stuff. It’s very hard to overcome.
> When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.
bah, I really dislike "scientist influencers". She isn't versed in the subject, she's no better than Haidt.
Why would a physicist's opinion on mental health carry any weight?
Being diagnosed is the likely reason there is an explosion in mental health disorders. We go to lengths to apply a diagnostic label on every child. The massive variation in humans means that a huge portion are going to fall to the sides of the curve on all sorts of gradients. Older HNers will remember having a wide variety of kids among their cohorts, with "nerds", depressives, the hyperactive, the super driven and focused, and the manic depressives, etc, but likely zero were actually diagnosed in any way. Now you could apply a diagnoses on literally all of them.
This isn't judgmental, and it's good to know what people are dealing with, and to offer treatment or medication where possible.
According to the CDC, teen suicide rate is up over 33% from 1999.
(Obviously, social media doesn't have to be the only cause. But something is producing a material difference and it's hard to say social media isn't a leading one.)
Rather than accept that >50% of the population being classified as mentally ill might be a sign we were thinking about things in a backwards way they just got rid of the multi-axial system in DSM 5.
Problem solved.
Europe and the rest of the world has social media as well. And of course 1990 didn't have social media.
There are a lot of reasons teens can feel hopeless, and I think the hyper-partisan political atmosphere / circus, coupled with the existential crisis and very real career crisis caused by AI, at least in the common understanding, the rapid heating of the Earth, etc. I would attribute all of those as dramatically more likely to lead a child to seek an out more than social media, even if the latter is much easier to blame.
You could use the exact same argument with the Earth temperature: it was higher 50 millions year ago.
The "disorder" is gender dysphoria. The "cure" for that is being able to live as your chosen gender, eg being transgender. People aren't trying to "spread" it anyway, what gave you that idea? All the trans people I've met haven't been trying to convince other people to be trans, they're giving people advice when they need it. You cant make someone transgender just by trying to convince them they are if they aren't
I would genuinely rather drop ship the CCP my SSN/banking info than trust the US government to do something in favor of it's own people when there's lobbying money involved. Why are so many of you pro-government and anti competition only when it comes to tiktok specifically? It's completely the opposite on nearly every other topic from what I've seen.
TikTok is the first and just about the only place I’ve seen content about corporate greed, the accelerating disappearance of the middle class and the real downstream effects of US foreign policy that hasn’t been whitewashed.
The ball is in China’s court now, if they can provide a space where this class consciousness can continue to grow they’ll easily get equal/better (though I think magnitudes greater) returns than Russia’s recent social campaigns.
We can hope the CCP's consciousness grows and they shutdown their concentration camps, stop organ harvesting, and start having elections.
The ball is in their court.
We can talk TikTok being allowed after that.
There are certainly are issues in China but are these "popular headline" talking points worse than the suffering we have here? And that's even after assuming they are factual.
We sell prison labor for pennies. We allow individuals to create epidemics and slap them on the wrist. We allow the future of our next generations to be squandered for today's profits. We allow our government to be just as captive to the desires of private parties in a way that's effectually reduced elections to a non-choice.
I don't think anyone with a conscious can say we're any better and that's without taking into account our worst contributions of genocides/wars/instability to the global community.
But in the end w/e, you have your freedom tinted glasses on (it must be nice) and the average american is screwed on our current trajectory.
In the US those people lost their rights by committing criminal acts and were convicted by a jury of their peers.
In China, the Uyghurs were forced into camps because of their ethnicity.
No different than Nazi Germany. And yes those camps are real.
Btw the prison labor camp talking point is a common 50 cent army tactic. Not sure if you're doing it for free or...
Do you really think, in real world terms, that China could not accomplish the types of infiltrations / surveillance it would deem strategically important without tiktok? Considering that they already compromise government systems on a regular basis (which I can provide links for if you're curious)
Do you genuinely think that corruption / lobbying has nothing to do with this ban? What is your primary concern that makes you in favor of this?
Do you look at things like facebook and instagram and either not see the blatant propaganda on there or not see a problem with it?
I'm just wondering if we are disagreeing on the facts or if we have fundamentally incompatable values, I want to understand.
Respond to the prison labor vs concentration camps point, since you brought up prison labor in attempts to compare convicted criminals to an ethnic group being forced into labor.
Although I do think there's some degree of equivalence specifically in regard to a specific ethnic group being forced into labor since you mentioned it, but I don't want to go on a tangent because that's not what I brought up and not what I was talking about.
Nothing to do with the Chinese people as a whole, and everything to do about their overlords.
Before you do some whataboutism, yes the US spies, even on it's own citizens. That is a separate issue we should make sure doesn't happen.
Two things can be bad and is not an excuse for more spying or letting foreign adversaries broadcast psyops.
Framing Gaza as the victims in this whole ordeal.
That's like the 3rd time you dropped Israel in this China topic.
Really trying to shoehorn that in eh?
I can be against Chinese spying and bad things the US does.
Israel is irrelevant in this thread...
Hopefully they aren't paying you the full 50c for these posts, get better.
You proved my point. You claim to be a free thinker and then try to dismiss what I'm saying by claiming I'm paid for without any substance.
I think there are two things in play.
First, folks on this site don't know what real propaganda looks like. Based on growing up in Texas, as far as I can tell you'd have to publish and mandate textbooks to make a meaningful impact on peoples' belief systems. I have seen it happen, and I've had the experience of often leaning that things I had thought were true (or some underlying assumption) was in fact false, and then been able to trace that to my early education. So propaganda feels likely, but it also doesn't seem like some easy magic that can happen at the behest of some autocrat somewhere.
Unfortunately the folks here don't really have much perspective to judge the ways in which their own assumptions about the world are shaped by the rhetoric of the systems that raised them.
Second, many people likely generally haven't had many positive and genuine experiences on social media, or at least not on contemporary short-form video social media. Having been on the net since usenet days, I believe that it's possible to learn how to have those kinds of experiences, just as it's possible to engage with trolls and have a bad day or whatever. I don't consider HN to be fundamentally different than other social media sites, but I also understand that is a marginal view.
However, since folks here have generally never used something like Tiktok in a way that has had a positive impact in their life, the folks using it look like they are addicted doom scrollers instead of people highly engaged in conversations with their community.
I've personally gotten a lot out of Tiktok- the quality of the discussions there is much higher and more diverse than HN. I've also interacted with a lot of folks there in ways that make me fairly certain that I am dealing with actual humans and not, like, a PRC Botnet or something.
It's tough for me to disregard my own experience:
TT doesn't feel any more propaganda-laden than any other media stream, and certainly not in ways that are driven more by the PRC than by the content creators themselves
Further, I feel a little fury at folks who are happy engaging in whatever crappy media they like: mass sports, bad sitcoms, poorly written TV news, etc and feeling like the hour they might spend with that is somehow better than the half hour I might spend listening to some lakota guy talk about some nuance of tribal politics, and then have the gall to tell me that I'm addicted.
However, at the same time those folks apparently have a lot of power- they can happily elect folks who will hake it harder for me to hear some conversations that I found useful. So I suppose it's important to understand that these sociopaths view me as just another addicted, over-propagandized NPC.
If you don't understand why that would be then I posit you haven't spent much time around teens.
Unless you want to learn Chinese and/or spend time to navigate around the content modulation system (not very hard, it just different), the experience ain't great.
The name 红宝书 is popular in mainland China. Chinese from Taiwan or other se asian community just call it 小红书 or 毛語錄
Guess what
1. As you mentioned, Xiaohongshu, is the same name of Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung
2. The CEO of Xiaohongshu has the surname Mao
3. The headquarters of Xiaohongshu is located near the site of the First National Congress of CPC
obviously, this is part of CPC's conspiracy
> It is very worrying to me
No other comments can be more brilliant than this
It’s basically the r/athiesm equivalent.
What makes you think this? Vibes?
It's hard to unpick these thoughts and it's harder to decide what a good outcome would look like.
In general the algorithm seems flexible to me; on TikTok I find it easy to scroll away or flag unwanted content as "do not show again"; and in my experience the algorithm adjusts well to that.
I also don't buy the national security argument. Considering how much of our personal data is leaked through all of the other social media apps, as well as international ad markets, that argument is nonsense. This is about the US government and corporations going to any length to control the narrative as the US falls to authoritarian dystopia and fascism.
I'm disappointed in the Democratic Party for not standing up for free speech and the rights of its constituency. It's forgotten where it came from, and what its goals are. This move means that there effectively is no Democratic Party - we just have two Republican Parties, both beholden to their corporate overlords (Meta and X/Twitter), as well as the billionaires behind them (Zuckerberg and Musk).
It's also tragic beyond words that Donald Trump may be viewed as TikTok's savior if he lifts the ban after he takes office. After he has undermined so many aspects of American tradition and our institutions. It reeks.
And most of all, I'm at least as mad at all of you as I am at myself for not organizing to stop this ban. 170 million TikTok users and we can't come together in solidarity to have real leverage on our elected officials? As in, withholding our participation in keeping the web running? Talk about ineffectual.
The more time goes by, the more I'm giving up on the tech scene. We've lost our values on such a fundamental level that we are now the clear and present danger threatening the American democratic experiment. Shame on all of us.
If we keep losing the way we are, and with the rise of AI and unprecedented wealth inequality, we have maybe 5-10 years left before revolution. We've entered a Cold Civil War, divided along ideological lines. I dearly hope I'm wrong and it doesn't come to violence, but after watching America's decline as a beacon of freedom post-9/11, the safest bet is continued cynicism.
If what you say is true then perhaps the credit is due to something that’s Above being subject to the whims of society & you never needed the clock app & “the beacon of freedom” was acqui-hired sometime around the age you think we’re headed back toward & the cynics are the sages.