Unless you audit every foreign app's source code and sign its binaries, those laws are meaningless. And if you do that you're really just swapping foreign advertising for domestic wiretapping. shrug Lose-lose.
And then they are banned. Not because they are China or TikTok, but because they break specific rules we hold everyone to.
I'm no fan of the CCP, but I'd take Chinese propaganda over American censorship any day.
If we actually care about surveillance by App, we have to make rules that can prevent that including requiring levels of access and transparency to enforce those rules.
Of course, there is little appetite for making those rules... But that doesn't mean that such rules are impossible.
> A China-based team at TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, planned to use the TikTok app to monitor the personal location of some specific American citizens, according to materials reviewed by Forbes.
Isn't that called "an app store"? Good luck getting non-signed binaries on an iPhone.
My point is that if TikTok is somehow able to escape its sandbox and perform surveillance, that's a fault in the sandbox, and there should be a general process for handling this otherwise you just have to deal with the next week's app "TokTik".
Man the FBI acts like tik tok is used in jet planes and nuclear power plants...
1. Shaping and manipulating minds. Eg, show healthy, educational, intellectual content to Chinese users, and unhealthy, addictive, emotional, short-attention-span-inducing content in US and foreign markets (already happening [1]).
2. Train AI for analyzing and further manipulating foreign publics, or for providing strategic insight into political and election dynamics, making political and election interference operations more effective.
3. Collate data on individuals gained from TikTok with other sources like credit ratings agency breaches, OPM, etc. for their entire life, to create a continually growing lifetime data profile on every American, European, Asian, South American, African, etc. which may be used for pressure, coercion, or manipulation operations or similar. Think of it as "customer lifetime value" [2] for political purposes.
None of which we want an adversarial, totalitarian foreign power to be capable of doing to us.
[1]:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tristan-harris-social-media-pol...
It can't be more than a week ago that we discussed here on HN a way that MS Powerpoint can leak your entire presentation to microsoft. Lots of people in my country use the entire MS suite, and I don't think the CIA/FBI/ABCDEFG should have our data.
That said, yes if you use FB/etc you should assume your data could be used by US intel agencies for similar purposes. Just don't use those apps. Heck, I'm American and refuse to Facebook or any of their other services (Insta, Whatsapp, Meta). None of this stuff is actually necessary to live a happy healthy life, and often even detracts from it.
And that's precisely why there is a trade war in between the US and Eu since early 2005. Because the Eu started making up its own rules and standards. TTIP, ACTA, PIPA were all attempts by the US to bring the Eu to heel. All failed. And voila - there is a proxy war that deprives the Eu out of cheap oil and gas, leading to literal deindustrialization of the Eu.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-09/european-...
Its not an argument for what you are proposing. Its an argument against it.
CCP can do very little to impact me directly. The feds could ruin my life if they wanted to - just fabricate a few charges.
How the hell CIA rendition flights are a 'lesser problem'.
> Western companies subject to Western laws, which Western citizens have some say in
Western public has not been able to change neither the economic policy, nor forign policy, nor the surveillance state laws in the past 40 years. Also, the western laws are wantonly ignored in the west when western corporate or state interests are at stake. So no.
...
This is exceptionalism. You are applying to others the standards that you are not applying to your own side, where you have no means to do anything about the problem.
Its a coping mechanism that helps avoid cognitive dissonance by projecting 'worse' problems to outside, to external 'enemies'.
You mean China has regulations on how youths interact with the internet and the US prefers an on-going social experiment lead by sheer engagement numbers that will continue with or without TikTok?
That is happening, because the US audience is CHOOSING to interract with shtty content online. Actually, the majority of shtty content, from flat earth to Reagan being alive et al, come from the US.
> which may be used for pressure, coercion, or manipulation operations or similar
So Chinese government will coerce and pressure me to do what, exactly. Will it be any worse from the rendition flights of CIA.
...
This sounds like double standards.
That is the only information that should be protected?
But lets start by simply banning the most criminal organizations first. If the KGB, CCP, or any other group known for imprisoning and killing literally millions of people is running a social network we need to block it right away.
Bytedance has forced CCP members on their board and you can bet the government uses the user data, behavior data and biometrics to help squash dissent.
Then we can move on to blocking the networks sharing data with less dangerous groups.
NSA and cghq have tapped onto the global fiber optic systems on a global scale and see spying on every single person on the planet with dragnet systems alongside as you say biometrics, and that includes US citizen data.
Where does that fall into?
The only reasons not to include them are purely nationalistic.
Edit: Here's the summary of this thread so far:
1) Let's make a rule against it instead of just hitting companies based on their nationality
2) A rule would be great, but in the mean time let's target the worst actors
3) These US based spy agencies do a bunch of stuff that is similar, where are they on that list?
4) That's off topic whataboutism
5) Seems like the same topic, why is it different?
6) It just is, no explanation required
Using "whataboutism" to try to shut down discussions you don't like is not intellectually interesting or useful.
it always goes along the lines of your thread;
a: "hey, look at awful thing x <other country> is doing, we should do something about that"
b: "we do that too, and it is bad. we should fix it"
a: "that's whataboutism and it's off topic"
where x includes, but is not limited to: class-based legal asymmetry, extralegal incarceration, the existence of a ruling class, unprovoked invasions of sovereign territory, race-based murder by state actors, news suppression...
.. and mass surveillance with a political agenda.
Were I to Don my tinfoil chapeau, I'd say there's a taste of astroturfing to conversations like these. Abusive patterns of social interaction that certainly seem like they're in service of a national agenda. But lacking proof, I won't.
What it was being used to do was to support the argument that "instead of just banning one company, we should create rules that apply fairly."
That isn't deflection.
Notably, the first non-TikTok entities that were mentioned as needing to be reigned in were the KGB. Nobody complained that was off topic.
So while "whataboutism" and allegations of "whataboutism" can both be (edit: and frequently are) used to distract and deflect, that doesn't mean that every instance of either is doing that. You have to ACTUALLY READ what is being said and how it relates, not make snap judgments.
You can see throughout these comments, and everywhere else, every time this topic comes up, the "but also the USA" fallacious argument is brought out. It's really not relevant.
You climb a mountain one step at a time.
Neither KGB or CCP are 'known' for anything like that in 80% of the world. They aren't even 'known' for such things in majority of Europe. They are 'known' for that only in Angloamerica and sufficiently propagandized segments in its satellites.
There isnt ONE single country which the Angloamerican establishment did not smear in the past 60 years. That's why 80% of the world literally stopped heeding anything it says.
==>> How??? <<==
If the do operate in the US, they must comply with US laws.
The risks are existential to ...? Again presumably you mean those who thrive under USA-centric capitalism? You think the CCP are planning a forced takeover of Western democracy?
Please don’t what-about the Uyghurs to Native American history because it’s disrespectful both ways, and minimizes their suffering. For all the conflict with Europeans, our historical experiences with them, painful as they may have been and remain, were much more nuanced and complicated than what is happening in China. I have also never met anyone native who thinks of our history as a genocide, and I’m involved in tribal politics.
Honestly even calling our history a genocide is a dramatic simplification that removes our agency (all too common in non-native takes). We fought back and won some things, lost others. That’s not something you can say about victims of genocide.
Lakota who?
A few thousand or ten thousand 'native americans' who are considered native american if they have 1/30 native american blood?
...
sheeeshhh...
Unless you are suggesting that because of some previous genocide we should ignore an ongoing one?
> If you know of any Native Americans currently being genocided, please do call someone about it.
it seemed to imply that the native american genocide was over. maybe not, I probably missed context earlier up thread. I was disagreeing with that statement.
yes of course I agree that the active sterilization / genocide / cleansing of Uighur Muslims in China exists and is a human rights violation and should be stopped. I'm not going to compare its magnitude to the native american one because one is centuries-old and ongoing and one has been going on for several years (maybe longer, I have not studied it) and both are bad. hope that answers your question.
This propaganda takes a kernel of truth (China began enforcing the 3-child policy on Uyghurs, who were previously exempt - the policy previously only applied to the Han majority), and distorts it beyond all recognition (China is sterilizing all the Uyghurs).
Given the public's utter lack of knowledge about China in the US and Europe, it's easy to sell this sort propaganda.
It would be so much easier to discuss the actual issues (such as China's harsh crackdown on separatism in Xinjiang) if the US government were not so shamelessly distorting them for political reasons. One almost finds oneself having to defend the Chinese government, because the US government has so little compunction about pushing big lies like the "Uyghur genocide." China did use heavy police measures and political indoctrination to go after people it suspects of supporting separatism. No, it's not trying to wipe out the Uyghurs (or to do anything even remotely like that).
The use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Uyghurs is transparently propaganda, which began with Mike Pompeo during the Trump administration. Even the US State Department said they had no evidence of genocide, but Pompeo went ahead anyways and officially labeled it "genocide."
You can very justly criticize China's crackdown on what it views as separatism in Xinjiang, but it's beyond the pale to label a situation "genocide" when nobody is being killed, and when life expectancy and income of the group supposedly being genocided is increasing.
That is a genocide. They are attempting to remove the Uyghur people.
The Chinese government has, by all appearances, carried out a harsh crackdown on what it views as separatism and religious extremism. It has forced large numbers of people to go through political indoctrination, based on suspicions of being sympathetic to the Uyghur separatist movement or of harboring fundamentalist religious beliefs.
The Chinese government has also begun imposing the 3-child policy on Uyghur families. The 1-child policy used to only apply to the Han majority. It has been relaxed to 3 children, but is being applied more broadly.
However, the Uyghur population continues to grow. The Uyghur language continues to be an official language in Xinjiang and it is one of the primary languages used to teach children in state schools. And as I said before, life expectancy and average incomes are increasing among Uyghurs.
The Chinese government doesn't intend to "remove" the Uyghur people. It is trying to stamp out separatism, both by implementing harsh police methods and by pumping money into the region to improve living standards.
This is not what a genocide looks like. That term is just propaganda in this case, meant to influence people who aren't at all familiar with the situation in Xinjiang.
...
100 year old atrocity propaganda. Nothing more different than how the British smeared the Germans by saying that they raped babies in Belgium.
Get out.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/middleeast/uyghur-arab-muslim...
I realize I'm inconvenient for you and your party line. I plan on continuing to be so.
Yeah, the same countries who extradite known terrorists to the country they committed their terrorist acts at. Much better than CIA's rendition flights that kidnapped whomever CIA wanted without even asking that country's government.
> I realize I'm inconvenient for you and your party line.
I should have apologized for disturbing your US State Dept. propaganda first...
And btw even if they were "terrorists" that doesn't legitimize genocide
This would be the first "genocide" in history in which the targeted group continued to grow in size, and in which it saw its life expectancy, income and educational levels increase.
> genocide
That genocide is as real as the Iraqi WMDs. Or democracy-loving Syrian 'freedom fighters'. Or the 'Libyan Opposition'.
Forced or otherwise, yes. This is the whole point of the "making the world safe for dictators" thing.
All they seem to want is make sure you dont talk to their own sheeps while you focus on yours lol
For some reason, the random schmuck on the street in the US or the random Little Englander in East End in the UK, think that they have something in common with their elite. As if the former has a few billion in stocks and the latter has graduated from a posh public school...
Suit you? Suits me.
My point is that the rules should target what it does rather than simply "China=Bad", since that offers a way back into compliance with the rules. However unlikely that actually is.
Nobody is calling for blanket bans of foreign apps. This is a straw man argument.
What about that is that the US congress allocated $500 m for anti-China propaganda in its last budget and all the free, knowledgeable Americans who are littering this thread with their McCarthyist Cold War comments are just taken in with the 'latest thing' from their government propaganda.
Nothing more different than how Saddam was the 'greatest threat to civilization' in 2003, or Gaddafi was in 2011 etc etc.
And the 'civilization' they are stanning for is the one that kills its people if they cant pay for healthcare. Without even touching how poor are starting to choose euthanasia in Canada instead of being homeless.
...
I see this as a way in which Angloamerican denizens direct their frustrations to external 'enemies' by taking their attention away from the problems at home, which they are powerless to fix. They vilify and demean chosen 'enemies', and direct all the criticism that should happen at home towards those enemies. This avoids both alienation from their own society and the pressure to address the problems at home.
Long story short, they just avoid cognitive dissonance.
This reminded me of the two-party system...
Yes, well spotted - the two party system definitely employs the same mechanic: all the evils are projected out to the 'enemy', and all the wrongs in their own group are ignored. This provides group cohesion and allows them to avoid cognitive dissonance and taking responsibility for the results of their own choices.
If there were more than two viable parties, or, god forbid 3-4 viable parties like in many European countries, this would be near impossible to make work. You cant vilify 2-3 other groups as the 'ultimate' evil at the same time...
So, no, that is not my response at all. There is no technology involved in kicking these corporations out of the civilized world, just political will.
> preventing Chinese IP addresses from accessing whatever they would like
is a technical thing that you can do with computers, and
> allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's liberty while denying it to their subjects.
is nationalistic nonsense that lacks any reference to anything material.
Which civilized world.
Is this racism because China is mostly made up of one race? Then, we should ask why that is the case. (E.g. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/chinese-communist-party...)
> because the US basically only sees nationality
Is China more generous here?
It is funny that any valid criticism of China is fought with claims of racism.
Let's have reciprocal rules. If country X bans US social media then why shouldn't the US do the same?
Because comparative advantage.
Because you don't jump off a bridge because Johnny jumped off a bridge.
Why not? Is 'below the bridge' a place we need to get to, and do we have a parachute?
Sorry, no, that analogy doesn't apply.
Here is a better one:
You invite Johnny to your home and he keeps hitting you and stealing from you (and you are banned from his house), you need to respond at some point.
Tell that to the Qing dynasty.
if only
It's not that China would try to convert Americans to communism, but I think we should be worried that they could attempt to sway election results via TikTok. TikTok is the most efficient algorithmic feed based website to date, it's ability to take a human and just pour bite sized information into their lives is unmatched in my opinion. It makes you feel like you're part of a group that doesn't even exist, get enough talking heads talking about a topic and you get grass roots cultural movements as people imagine extreme ideas are widespread when they're not.
If US social media, search, and other internet companies are banned in China, then similar Chinese companies should be banned in the US. If US companies can't operate in China except through a joint venture with a Chinese company which the US company must transfer its technology to, then same should apply to Chinese companies operating in the US. Etc.
Is should be clear at this point that negotiations with China won't change anything internally in China. The only option is for the US to do what is in its power to within the US (and perhaps with fellow democratic allies). Aka reciprocity.
Some foreign companies follow the rules and are allowed to operate in China, while others are unwilling to follow the rules, either because they have ethical qualms about the rules (which involve censorship), or more cynically, because implementing those rules would be bad for PR back in the US.
More broadly, American tech companies do a massive amount of business in China. Apple is the largest smartphone brand in China. China is the or one of the most important markets for Nvidia, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and many other American tech companies.
> If US companies can't operate in China except through a joint venture with a Chinese company, to which the US company must transfer its technology to, then same should apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.
Your understanding of how things work in China is out of date by about a decade. China has continuously reduced joint-venture requirements over time. There is a select list of industries that require joint ventures, and that list shrinks every year. For example, automobile manufacturing was removed from the list a few years ago, which is why Tesla was able to build its own plant in Shanghai.
> It should be clear at this point that negotiations with China won't change anything internally in China.
China is actually willing to negotiate over many aspects of how foreign companies operate in China, trade barriers, intellectual property, etc. If the conflict with the US were only about regulations on American companies in China, it would be relatively easy to solve. The Chinese government is very pragmatic about those sorts of issues.
However, the conflict is about something much more fundamental: the US government believes that China will soon surpass the US in overall geopolitical power, and the US government desperately wants to prevent that from happening. The US views the high-tech sector as China's Achilles' heel, and believes that it can blunt China's economic development through sanctions (for example, on imports of high-end chips, or on companies like Huawei, SMIC and YMTC). There's no way for China to negotiate with the US over this issue, because China is never going to agree to not develop its economy.
That should be why Julian Assange is in British Guantanamo. And also why CIA rendition flights happened. And why women and children are being blown to bits in drone bombings. And definitely why the Occupy Movement was stomped down in a nation-wide raid in 30 American cities organized by the FBI.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/no...
And as of this very moment, the people who lied about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs in order to invade Iraq and murder 1 million Iraqis, are giving lectures about 'spotting misinformation'.
Save the 'values' nonsense. They don't exist where you claim them to exist.
Psy-ops effectively
Here's a segment by 60 Minutes explaining how they show their own citizens educational, beneficial content inspiring them to be better citizens, while the rest of the world gets the degenerative content we usually associate with ticktok.
And China could easily further adjust their ranking algorithm further to highlight the views it wants us to have. All social media has the power to do this, but China has both the most adversarial incentive and a demonstrated willingness to do so.
But in all honesty, I have noticed among fellow colleagues that this is the case. Even outside of the country, you can tell that people are afraid to speak about politics.
I would be too.
Nobody (in the US) wants this obviously.
Btw, the EU isn't anything better in this regard: We would like to forbid other countries to spy on us, but the EU authorities "need to have" the possibility "because terrorism, child abuse, and other 'harmful content' & 'disinformation'". (Just see the fresh Digital Services & Digital Markets acts).
Same surveillance everywhere. Only it's "OK" when done by "us", the "good ones", but not "the others", because they're the evil "bad ones"; of course.
That won't work because China will just follow the rules. How would that hurt China?
I bet China's going to be like "guys we can't do this anymore, they just updated their terms of service with this brand new rule so we can't proceed with the head-in-toilet challenge operation".
China is pretty smart, you trying to do the same thing in their country would be impossible. Guess why?
If Tiktok the app is performing surveillance, ban surveillance by apps. All of them. Or make it technically impossible to escape its little sandbox, and let people have their entertainment.