It's also documented that Cambridge Analytica used data made available to it by Facebook to target millions with political propaganda. It wasn't just the US election, they had plenty of practice validating the strategy in elections in smaller countries.

Where's the evidence that TT has been successfully used for nefarious purposes on a similar scale?

Think about how last summer Harvard discovered that Covid started in Wuhan back in August 2019 using satellite imagery and then overnight the focus became how to combat anti-Chinese sentiment (hate crimes had risen against Asian-Americans to levels seen earlier in the 2010s, still an order of magnitude less prevalent than hate crimes against American Blacks). TikTok was the principle platform leading that charge. Pretty simple strategy and it worked, no one even talks about the timing of the Wuhan cover up anymore.

From where I'm sitting, the overnight focus was on establishing public health protocols to prevent the healthcare system from a black-swan type of event-driven collapse.

And passing legislation to provide financial relief.

And coordinating global travel restrictions.

And coordinating vaccine development efforts.

Those four things are absolutely what the discourse morphed into, but it goes to show the success of the campaign. Because Trump called it the "kung flu" and is almost always racist with his rhetoric, liberals piled onto anyone that tried to dig into the origin of covid as being racially motivated. TikTok made that culture war really simple for liberals to fight. Trump is a nasty guy full of bad ideas, but the culture war and Trump Derangement Syndrome are real things that shut down legitimate inquiry.

> Where's the evidence that TT has been successfully used for nefarious purposes on a similar scale?

I don't need to see a particular bomb blow up to know it'll be dangerous when detonated.

The concern is exactly that such evidence might be much harder to find for TikTok. Cambridge Analytica's clients included multiple prominent American politicians, including the sitting president at the time the scandal broke. China would try their hardest to stop a scandal involving Xi Jinping from breaking in the first place, and certainly the People's Congress wouldn't demand a public investigation as the US Congress did.

Cambridge Analytica is not a government, they don't operate prison camps for millions of people (many of whom were targeted by online surveillance).

Correct. They just offer their services exclusively to people that want to win elections.

Both Facebook and TikTok are foreign actors in my country (and almost all of them).

I'm not sure how this is a counter to the above comment. Seems to still apply.

To add nuance, it's also not a binary problem. Is it influence from a country with closer values to you/your country or one further apart? Obviously your country is likely to be one end of the spectrum. I'd also say that US and China have very different cultural/political/economic views and considering a significant percentage of HN posters are American, this is why the specific comparison is frequently made (and a Dutch, for example, social network isn't really a world player right now).

You are assuming that the person you respond to is american. He's dutch, and is regularly spied on by the US.

> You are assuming that the person you respond to is american.

No, I was responding with my thoughts as an American. And frankly, his comment was ambiguous enough to be open to multiple interpretations (e.g. 1. to a non-American, US-controlled networks are foreign; 2. and manipulation/propaganda happens on US-controlled networks already, so why should it be any more concerning on one from China; 3. etc.).

> He's dutch, and is regularly spied on by the US.

The issue I was talking about isn't spying.

If we ever get a Weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the capitols of Europe episode again, I would wager FB and YT will start to block content which questions that narrative ( or fairytale rather ).

> There are important differences between being influenced by domestic actors, as part of a domestic political process, and being influenced by foreign actors

Just because the actors are domestic doesn't make it at all better. Domestic actors don't have public welfare in mind, they have their own welfare in mind.

This influence happens behind close doors, and I, as a constituent, don't get to have any input on it.

For a great example, I didn't get to vote on whether or not Fox news should peddle absolute nonsense 24/7 that radicalizes their base. Its owners made that decision, without my input.

If you want 'domestic' influence and oversight over your mass media, social networks, etc, use the political process to set some ground rules, and make everyone operating these businesses in your country follow them. Blaming or targeting the foreign boogieman is a distraction, when we've got plenty of domestic monsters living in our closet.

>> Just because the actors are domestic doesn't make it at all better. Domestic actors don't have public welfare in mind

No love for any social network from me, but there's a huge difference between a company looking for its own interest, and one being controlled by a state which may be in a hot (or certainly cold) war with your country in the near future.

You can surmise that FB will put its interests over your own, but you can bet that a Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live, it's just a matter of time.

The US has had by far the most aggressive foreign policy in the last several decades. There's simply no contest. No matter what you think of China's track record, it is clearly focused on domestic control and internal security. A statement like "Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live" is delusion, not borne out by any of the facts. A frightening example of how easily the state can designate new scapegoats.

I am not looking to argue which country is objectively better/worse (although I disagree with your view, it's not important to disprove it for the point I am making.)

Whatever that is, I live in the US and so do many TikTok users. As a point of view of someone who lives in the US, being dominated by a foreign adversary is a bad thing. Giving that adversary control of what we see and think about is therefore very dangerous.

I totally understand that if you're in China your perspective on this will be backwards but here's one example: let's say China invades Taiwan which is our ally. Should the US defend our ally? Would china use its control of social media to make most Americans not aware/not care/be misinformed about the situation to ensure that the US does not get involved?

Again, not expecting you to agree, but do think that someone who lives in and likes the US to care about this

> You can surmise that FB will put its interests over your own, but you can bet that a Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live, it's just a matter of time.

There are plenty of powerful domestic actors that actively want to harm particular groups of people. Sometimes the cruelty and the harm is the point. Sometimes it's just a distraction, intended to pit half the country against the other half, while they get away with highway robbery. Sometimes it's because they are sociopaths on a massive ego trip.

And I'm not talking about Facebook's leadership, here. You are correct that it just wants to make money.

I am Dutch.

Which country has closer values to your country? US or China? Take the parents comment above and turn it from binary into a spectrum using this metric.

As far as colonialism and imperialism goes, you're right that the Dutch has closer values to the US.

And I'm an American, speaking as an American. If you want to ban Facebook and Tiktok in the Netherlands over these issues, it's totally fine by me. I have no love for any social network.

I actually had a thought in the back of my mind that the outlook may be different in other countries, but I didn't write it down. Especially since American companies have a tendency to pursue their own agendas, even against the American government.