why ban at all?
or did you mean why not ban TikTok AND america?? hmmm that's a more interesting proposition
It's a slippery slope
no it's not. there's no such thing as a slippery slope.
ban TikTok. it is a threat.
It's not a slippery slope, true, its already the bottom one worries about a slippery slope leading to.
the outcome is either the result of a single decision (not a slope) or a result of multiple independent decisions, any one of which could stop the forecasted unintended consequence (not slippery).
There is very little risk that I hurt myself doing cocaine responsibly once. The risk in doing cocaine is that if I do it once, I will be inclined to do it again and so on until I'm a broke addict. If slippery slopes were a mythical problem, I could just commit to doing cocaine only once.
If you ban alcohol, private citizens will be more likely to decide to start a criminal enterprise to supply it outside of the law. If someone is running a profitable criminal enterprise, they'll be less concerned about breaking the law in general and more likely to branch out to violent crimes. If slippery slopes were a myth, we could institute prohibition without risking a massive expansion of the criminal underworld.
I can't find it now, but I saw a comment on HN the other day where a UK citizen expressed how foolish Americans were for disliking their knife laws. Of course they should ban knives in public- knives account for the majority of homicides in their country. No one in the US could be convinced by that argument until effective gun control made it true. Instituting gun control makes it more likely for citizens and politicians to support knife control. (Whether this is worth it is another matter.)
Independent decisions are a myth; every decision is made in the context of the ones that came before.
either the one decision destroys something (no slope into an uncontrollable outcome) or there are multiple decisions which appear as a single destructive decision (multiple independent decisions, rather than a slope into an uncontrollable outcome) even though any decision could have been the one to stop the unintended effect feared in the beginning. the outcome is always under control. maybe not by someone you favor, but it is always under control.
it's literally called "The Slippery Slope Fallacy."
"dangerous levels of ignorance" pfft
TikTok is sketchy AF, but you don’t ban it. Just have your buddies at Raytheon or Teledyne snatch up the old Vine assets and get cheugy with it.
And whether this judgement is significantly different from whether reducing influence from the CCP, an obviously totalitarian government that does not balk at overtly undermining of democratic values within your own borders, is worth losing access to TikTok.
Here:
- Is it worth losing access to US social media to reduce the influence of the US government?
- Is it worth losing access to TikTok to reduce the influence of the CCP?
Are these the questions your are asking? I really want to understand your comment because I think the same as the parent commenter. And even though I don't understand what you're try saying, it seems like they are important questions I should ask myself.
Subtle US interference and soft power, unpalatable though it may be, is not a real problem for European quality of life even in isolation, certainly not compared to the benefits of cultural exhcange & compatibility, and the following long-term trade and geopolitical cooperation with the US.
Whereas interference and soft power from the CCP deliberately undermines multiple core values of our society. It’s pretty damn obvious.
I guess to which degree Europe & the EU actually follows democratic values is a separate and very worthwhile discussion; maybe it’s closely related. Certainly looks like that from where I sit, at the northernmost border of the economic block.
The CCP seeks to undermine these systems to favour totalitarianism.
Still it has not much of an effect on the here and now. I'd still rather not be ruled by a communist totalitarian dictatorship.
As a European, I'm more likely to be extradited and tortured by the US than the CCP. I'm sure much of the world hasn't forgotten their penchant for assassinations, support for dictators, and destabilisation of democratically elected governments. Let's not forget the decades long mess that was the Iraq war.
As a European you're effectively only protected from Russian aggression (or re-invasion, depending on which country you're in) because of NATO, which is substantially led by the US. Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. would be completely up shit creek right now if it wasn't for US military involvement in NATO and arms in Ukraine. It's why you see Finland etc. racing to join after years of non-alignment.
Why wouldn't China cosy up to Russia? The US has spent much of the last decade tearing apart most of the progress they made over the last five. The Trump administration took an overtly hostile stance to relations.
> As a European you're effectively only protected from Russian aggression (or re-invasion, depending on which country you're in) because of NATO, which is substantially led by the US. Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. would be completely up shit creek right now if it wasn't for US military involvement in NATO and arms in Ukraine. It's why you see Finland etc. racing to join after years of non-alignment.
Russia can barely deal with Ukraine's largely irregular army. They'd get wiped trying to invade any of the EU states.
In less recent memory we might recall the US "protecting democracy" by providing direct financial, training, operational training, and the occasional assassination to military coups/dictators in Latin America[0].
Allies of the US certainly have it a lot easier but it doesn't mean their leaders communications won't be monitored [1].
China's behaviour is certainly objectionable but as someone that lives in neither country the US has a much more worrying history of foreign interference.
> The administration of President George W. Bush abducted hundreds of "illegal combatants" for U.S. detention, and transported detainees to U.S.-controlled sites as part of an extensive interrogation program that included torture.
> Extraordinary rendition continued under the Obama administration, with targets being interrogated and subsequently taken to the U.S. for trial.
> A June 2006 report estimated that one hundred people had been kidnapped by the CIA on European Union soil
TikTok is state owned and state controlled. On top of that, the communist Chinese state has consistently threatened its neighbors with violent annexation. I think it's a dishonest argument to claim that independent American platforms and state-owned Chinese platforms are equivalent.
Are you saying that the US government can compel these companies to take certain actions in the same way that the Chinese government can? Like, as in, being able to force the company to give up all of its users' private details? Or being able to force the company to inject malware into their software?
https://onezero.medium.com/cops-are-increasingly-requesting-...
I'm surprised you haven't heard of this by now, its been known for years. Of course you can say police will only use it in "real emergencies" but you're not the one defining what a "real emergency" is and cops lie constantly just to get information
There is reasonable evidence of this happening. For example: what happened with Qwest. The former CEO claims this was the primary reason for him being targeted. He was openly against the spying by the NSA before the charges were filed. https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/former-qwest-ceo-joe-na...
> ByteDance is financially backed by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, SoftBank Group, Sequoia Capital, General Atlantic, and Hillhouse Capital Group. As of March 2021, it was estimated to be valued at $250 billion in private trades.[0]
> ByteDance says 60% of its shares are owned by non-Chinese investors such as U.S investment firms Carlyle Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Japan's SoftBank Group. Employees own 20% and its founders the remaining 20%. [1]
> On top of that, the communist Chinese state has consistently threatened its neighbors with violent annexation. I think it's a dishonest argument to claim that independent American platforms and state-owned Chinese platforms are equivalent.
I don't think America has much moral high ground when it comes to violent foreign interference.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/us-chinese-owned...
If the US withdrew from NATO we would be in theoretical trouble.
If US would like to hurt us economically, our retaliation capacities are weak.
All in all we unfortunately depend on the US and have to play along.
When Donald Trump decided to punish Iran he forced EU companies to retract from Iran as well (despite having contracts there). If we were to not comply, there would be sanctions against EU companies operating in the US.
We asked the EU Commission for help on that but ultimately the EU did not have enough weight. So we got off Iran.
Note that I am not addressing the human/ethical aspects of operating in Iran, just the economic imbalance between the US and EU
The point is that EVERY country needs to concern itself with its own national security, local laws and regulations. I wish that every country would embrace freedom, free trade and the open Internet and that we could all just get along ... but those are my personal value judgments being applied. In the current world of foreign relations, countries are going to act according to their own national interests, whatever those happen to be. Each will pretend that it is the one taking the "right" position, and each might behave hypocritically in the moment. The question of who is "right" and who is "wrong" will vary according to your own set of moral principals and beliefs.
They are not saying that it should or should not be banned.
And I do agree: I don't feel more threatened by TikTok than by Big Data.
On a national scale? Well, I certainly do not want an adversary with an interest in overtaking the U.S. have both data and means to manipulate the opinions of its citizens.
How is that any different from the US itself. People seem to have forgotten the WMD lie...
Your argument leans on whataboutism.
Your government was the one kidnapping its own citizens through 'rendition flights' totally outside the legal apparatus and holding and torturing them whenever it wanted. It still does that.
Your government has power over you. Not China. If you would be concerned about 'opinion manipulation', there is still the open issue of the Iraqi WMDs lie and the entire false reality created by that very government of yours and its private sector extensions. If you are not worried about that, you would have no grounds to be worried about 'hostile' governments.
And what does 'hostile' even mean? You think that China or any other country cares about what you do as a singular American? And their hostility is toward you, the random American in god knows where in the US and not instead towards your government that is openly, explicitly, directly saying that it is targeting China in total violation of the international laws? Are you aware that any such threat or open admission of intent of economic or actual warfare from a country that can follow up those threats gives a legitimate casus belli against the targeted country and triggers the Article 51 of the UN convention?
Its amazing how the Americans think that they have anything in common with their government and establishment and they literally claim shared interest...
> whataboutism
There is nothing wrong about 'whataboutism'. Those who make moral, legal, ethical accusations have to provide an objective framework for their accustion. You cant just smear others while your own side does even worse things than what you accuse others of. Without an objective framework, any kind of moral accusation becomes a mere smear.
Chinese government does not have the power to abduct you without telling anyone, hold you in an undisclosed location for however long it wants without telling anyone. The US president does. No other president and government in the world has that kind of openly legislated power. Not even any secret service anywhere has been given that power. And yet you worry about 'other governments'.
This behavior pattern seems more like projecting the troubles at home to abroad to avoid cognitive dissonance than any actual concern...
In 2012, the act was updated to accommodate the prevalence of the Internet, and has led to an increase in the spread of government propaganda. Individuals who unwittingly perpetuate these false narratives may inadvertently be contributing to the deterioration of the Western world, all for the benefit of a select few who manipulate situations for their personal gain.
It's essential to recognize that remaining ignorant on such matters is not acceptable. We must strive to educate ourselves and be critical of the information we consume. If this is your first exposure to the Smith-Mundt Act, it may be time to reflect on whether you have been misled in the past.
Also, "whataboutism" only serves to stifle meaningful conversation and hinder our ability to understand different perspectives. To foster a healthy exchange of ideas, we must commit to evaluating arguments based on their merits, rather than resorting to discrediting tactics that have been employed by evil political parties you think you're against.
Being condescending does not help you win arguments.
After I got past your tone, I saw you completely ignored the part where I said my disapproval of Chinese spyware does not imply approval of American spyware.
EDIT- Let the record show that infamouscow substantially edited their remarks above without noting it. The tone was indeed condescending and referred to me as a marionette.
If one chooses not to actively participate in the exchange of ideas, it may lead to a perception that the informed individuals are being condescending, when in reality they're sharing knowledge and perspectives.
I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.
I am willing and able to debate the nature of all governments and to acknowledge history. I don't enjoy sarcasm, snide remarks, and unacknowledged bad faith edits.
"One is my government, one is a hostile government."
Instead, we find ourselves focusing on peripheral points and accusations.
This situation brings to mind the tactics employed by the CIA to discredit truth tellers like journalists and academics. These tactics often involve diverting attention from the core issues, creating distractions, and undermining the credibility of the individuals presenting the facts. Engaging in this behavior we inadvertently contributes to a climate of misinformation and confusion, which hinders productive discourse and prevents us from reaching a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
"One is my government, one is a hostile government."
This is a perfectly valid retort.
A hostile foreign government spying on Americans is a national security risk.
It is perfectly fine to care more about national security risks like that, even if both situations are arguably bad.
Hostile foreign governments doing it is simply worse and more important to regulate.
Please respond to this directly instead of talking around it.
The primary focus of the discussion has been on the potential influence of the Smith-Mundt Act on one's opinions and understanding of the issue at hand.
Engaging in a deeper analysis provides a more stimulating conversation, as opposed to simply expressing superficial agreement or disagreement, which isn't thought-provoking or worth commentary in the slightest.
Ok gotcha, so then the point is valid, and it is totally fine to be more worried about, and ban the actions of a hostile foreign government.
Glad you agree completely with the central point, and we cleared that up that you are in 100% agreement with the original statement.
I urge you to consider the implications of the Smith-Mundt Act and its repeal in the context of your viewpoints. Engaging with this crucial aspect of the conversation allowing for a more informed and nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and to help ascertain whether opinions are genuinely untainted by external manipulation.
Because that sounds like a yes to me!
You didn't say no! So I can only assume that this is a yes.
If you do not explicitly include the words "yes" or "no" in your response, I will assume that your answer is "yes".
Actually you already basically said yes here: "The claim on its face was never in dispute".
This is a yes.
We already see something similar happening all the time. Totalitarian dictatorships coercing foreign citizens by threatening the wellbeing of family still in the motherland.
that way governments may act against you regardless of where you are, best abide by the law, citizen,
Source? They are a totalitarian government that considers the US it's #1 enemy, and has its sights on a military invasion of a peaceful democratic nation and ally in a 2-5 year horizon.
Understand what I'm saying here -- I'm specifically talking about whether I'd prefer to be spied on by China or by corporations. If that's my choice, I'd prefer to be spied on by China because they don't care much about me, individually.
But really, I'd prefer not to be spied on at all -- and that's my underlying point. When it comes to issues like TikTok, I'm not saying TikTok isn't a problem. I'm saying that the problem TikTok presents is not unique to them. If we are to address the problems -- and I think we should -- we should address it across the board, not just with a single company.
I don't want to be spied on by either government, but this point you are trying to make that China has 0 influence or means to impart change in American life is incorrect.
That is most definitely not the point I was trying to make.
I'm talking about data collection, not propaganda.
But I was talking specifically about China's ability and interest in harming me, personally, directly. I was not talking about China's ability to do societal harm.
The US has squandered what good will it had with China to the point that they and even India have aligned more closely to Russia as a consequence of the Ukraine conflict.
The inability of the west to effectively put an end to Russian aggression in Ukraine only makes an invasion of Taiwan more likely.
See: one China policy
> Any effort on the Biden team's part to improve relations (and China has indicated a strong desire to do so) would likely have the administration fending off charges of being soft on China.
The results of this approach have been, among others: a trade war, a president repeating conspiracy theories that blame China for Coronavirus[2], and publicly accusing China of controlling the WHO[2]:
> "I chose not to make a statement today," Mr Trump said on Monday about the event, while describing the body as "China-centric" and "a puppet of China".
> He said the WHO had "gave us a lot of very bad advice, terrible advice" and were "wrong so much and always on the side of China".
More recently we've heard American politicians, in a congressional hearing, repeatedly refer to China as their "enemy". Are we supposed to believe that doesn't indicate how far relations have cooled? Are we supposed to be shocked that China doesn't align with US interests on Russia when the US has been displaying open hostility?
[0] https://theconversation.com/trump-took-a-sledgehammer-to-us-...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/01/23/959683134/what-trumps-declass...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-hel...
Not only that but China is committing mass espionage in US universities through their Thousand Currents program and National Front Work Programming.
They are using 5th generation war tactics to attack and debase the US society through cultural weapons such as tiktok, as well as Facebook and twitter.
They are attempting to install backdoors in US infrastructure such as the power grid (Biden signed executive order reversing a ban on such equipment) and the communications backbones (huawei, zte, etc).
They have police stations in countries all over the world to ensure they can rendition misbehaving expats.
Its likely covid was leaked by improper handling of virus research in the BSL2 parts of the WIV. So they likely are to blame for poor practice's.
The WHO was demonstrably favourable to China giving them a two week headstart and refusing to acknowledge or talk about Taiwan as a country. It doesn't matter what trump said we have video from the source.
They frustrate freedom of movement operations in international water they claim sovereignty over.
And overall they operate in bad faith, using hypocritical unequal double standards, pushing for conditions in the USA and elsewhere that they disallow in China.
So it is no wonder US politicians believe them to be an enemy, when they act like one.
Taiwan is not the Ukraine.
For better or worse, I'll give Biden credit for picking a side, though I personally think he picked the wrong side.
No. Let's call spades, spades. The Unite States is declaring war on China, not the other way around. Our policy with Taiwan is as stupid as if the EU recognized the Confederacy as not belonging to the United States.
Once again the United States seeks war - and this coming from a U.S. Marine.
Once again the United States will compromise its principles in its pursuit of war. Winston Churchill is credited with the quote, and I'm paraphrasing, "the United States can be relied upon to do the right thing, once it has exhausted all other possibilities."
Here we go again, exhausting all those other possibilities.
Memes about Tiananmen square were popular on that platform. As well as videos critical of the CCP.
Anyone who claims otherwise clearly hasn't used Tiktok. And they'll shift goalposts to fit their narrative
There's no point in hiding these things from western users because we already know about them. If they will block them it will only attract more attention (aka Streisand effect)
Sure, but would you get delivered this content if you didn't search for it?
Or if you are in a contested region? https://futurism.com/china-hong-kong-censoring-protests-tikt...
Big difference.
And we're talking about TikTok content in America, not in Hong Kong.
Why? Is Hong Kong not worthy of the same rights to freedom of information as America?
That's not what's happened though. Instead, there's a witch hunt spurred on by US politicians who can't tell the difference between Singapore and China.
Per request of which government?
> can't tell the difference between Singapore and China.
I'm sorry if this a reference to the TikTok CEO? He is Chinese Singaporean. Chinese ethnicity exists outside China.
Moreover, having observability into who and what are publishing such content arguably provides more value than censorship. Now you know who to watch, who/where/when they are, who their friends/family/associates/audiance are, and build out models and networks to provide even better overall observability and predictability over what you might see as a threat.
Not true. Communism is allowed:
It is just not very popular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#Best_resul...
Progress?
A Chinese company sold Grinder because of privacy concerns. Tiktok will either IPO or be sold off
China bans western websites because they don't follow China's censorship requirements. Apple services exist in China, why isn't Apple a national security threat? They're the richest tech company on the planet, and based in the US.
Tim Cook just went all the way over there to kiss their feet: https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/tim-cook-touts-apples-symbioti...
And he doesn't have a choice. Google took a stand and had to give up its position in the Chinese market. But Apple as a manufacturer will have to give up their entire business if they go against China.
Bytedance is majority owned by foreign shareholders:
> ByteDance says 60% of its shares are owned by non-Chinese investors such as U.S investment firms Carlyle Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Japan's SoftBank Group. Employees own 20% and its founders the remaining 20%.
I would go a step further and say that reclaiming Taiwan and triumphing over the US are among the top goals of the CCP.
Soo... where is all this anti-Taiwan stuff on tiktok then? Because I've seen exactly 0.
That’s a silly reason.
The US/UK didn’t do anything to save Hong Kong’s democracy, so I don’t know how much I’d buy the tired “protecting democracy everywhere” approach. Is it just because we have military bases there?
The US (and post WW2 europe) has a long-standing policy of protecting democratic countries against expansionist dictatorships.
WW2 was an battle between two types of nations: democracies and dictatorships that wished to expand their empires. What is playing out in Ukraine and China is no different. If the democratic world shows weakness (e.g letting Russia to take over Ukraine) it threatens the entire democratic world order since suddenly smaller nations are free pickings to expand Russia / China’s sphere of influence.
Even something as benign as adjusting the temperature for Ukraine related content is 100% in China’s interest here. Ukraine cannot defend itself without the support of the US public, and any sign of weakness from the democratic countries will have material consequences.
Instead, the idea is: if you have a substantive point, make it thoughtfully; if not, please don't comment until you do.
I don't really see a fair way to handle this that doesn't end up also banning Facebook, Instagram, etc. The problem is that these companies are collecting enough sensitive data to pose a huge security risk, but our politicians are acting like it's only a problem when someone else does it.
So much this. Everyone's gotten focused on one particular company when this problem is much more widespread than that.
If a company (Chinese or otherwise) ignores the law, then it would be appropriate to sanction them.
No it hasn't. It admitted China into the WTO (only to have China go back on pledges to open their economy), stood up multiple industries domestically in China with expertise only to have all foreign entities kicked or squeezed out.
Why would anyone think China would go along with any international agreement ?
China has not banned those. Foreign internet companies can operate in China if they obey the same rules that Chinese internet companies have to obey, such as Chinese censorship requirements and requirements to share data with the government.
Most US internet companies aren't willing to meet those requirements, so don't operate there.
If the US wants to ban TikTok it should do the same thing here: make privacy and transparency rules that all social media companies that want to operate in the US must follow.
I wonder how many people in the US will use TikTok if the rules require government censorship and data sharing.
US: Listen CCP, you can't use your tech companies to deploy a massive surveillance system on American soil as you do in China.
CCP: OK!
Those rules, however, are official state secrets, and western companies who wish to operate in China must infer what they are themselves lest they get kicked out. China works on the standard that "there are rules that you must break, we won't tell you what they are, so be very very very careful." Not transparent at all (incidentally, China rejects rule of law as a western imperialist concept).
> Censorship decisions are arbitrary, opaque, and inconsistent, due to weak rule of law in China’s political system and because so many individuals and processes are involved. Regulations issued by government and CCP agencies establish censorship guidelines. The impact of content restrictions may vary depending on factors like timing, technology, and geographic region. ISPs reportedly install filtering devices differently, including in the internet backbone or even in provincial-level internal networks.99 Lists of prohibited websites and sweeping censorship directives are closely held secrets, but are periodically leaked. There are no formal avenues for appeal and they cannot be challenged in the courts. Criticism of censorship is itself censored.100 There is also no transparency surrounding private companies’ day-to-day censorship in China, and users similarly lack avenues for appeal.
You aren't given a bunch of laws to follow when you do business in China, instead you are just told "don't make us angry." In a rule by law rather than rule of law country, what else do you expect?
The laws on paper might be entirely fair, but what those laws say doesn't matter.
Wow. Talk about being disingenuous. “oh you can vote - you just have to take a literacy test first and show us 5 different types of ID we’re sure you don’t have - it’s just the law”.
“It’s just the rules” - what else could it be? Censorship isn’t this mystical thing the government does - it’s implemented with rules. Sounds like “go back to your country” at company scale.
I would accept limited bans within specific contexts (e.g., people in sensitive positions with access to sensitive data).
At the same time, I crave reform to our privacy laws. We, the people, need better protection against data collection and use by both private and public entities.
Is that really where you want to go.
We should absolutely ban it, the same way China bans Instagram, Facebook, Google, etc for the same reasons: national security threat.
And I personally love TikTok, I'm active on it for a couple of hours a day, but I know that it's a threat.