100% this. Setting the topic of conversation for millions of Americans is absolutely unacceptable to throw to the hands of foreign powers.

But it’s acceptable to put in the hands of Elon Musk?

From a geopolitics standpoint, the effective question here is “whose guns are the owners of the company worried about?” Elon is a bit of an outlier here because he’s effectively bought the government now, but in theory, if the US government decides to arrest Elon and seize his assets, that’s a big problem for Elon, whereas if China does, that’s a lesser problem for him (yes, Tesla, I know). It’s the same reason the US banned Huawei from US telecoms: the US government can’t threaten Huawei like they can Cisco.

None of this is a normative statement - I’m not saying whether this is good or bad, but if you want to know why the US government thinks Elon is better than ByteDance, it’s because they can shoot Elon tomorrow if they decide to, but they can’t shoot Zhang Yiming without causing an international incident.

No, that's not acceptable either. Elon should never have been allowed to get full control of Twitter/X. But that is a separate battle. And it doesn't make the issue with TikTok being under CCP control any less of a problem (unless you're China and trying to shift the narrative with "what about Elon", and if you are that basically proves the point that you can't have a foreign adversary in a position to be able to heavily, while subtly, influence public opinion through an algorithm.)

> Elon should never have been allowed to get full control of Twitter/X.

We can't just ban everything though. It'd be better to just allow everything.

Honestly X is pretty crazy on the propaganda these days, it's a little scary. The issue with TikTok would be way more subtle or speculative. Anyway if it is "unacceptable", I don't want that to be for the govt to decide. Even if it was being overtly politically manipulative (which is less scary than being subtle I guess) - I'd still support it. I like consuming foreign media, recognizing bias, being exposed to different view points, and thinking critically to make my own decisions. If you don't think the average american can do that, well too bad, we can't just spoon-feed people "approved" content.

I like consuming foreign media too, and I have no problem with Americans have access to CCP media.

But control of an algorithm that can shift public opinion in ways that are imperceptible through promotion / demotion of posts on certain topics, is a different matter altogether. And the CCP are masters at this (since their own social networks in China are heavily controlled).

I 100% agree with open access to all sources - but you should know what the sources are. If the CCP secretly owned the NYT, that would be a problem as I would want to know that when I read the NYT it's likely reflecting CCP authorized views, just like I know what to expect when I read the Economist, WSJ, or The Times.

No making decisions by a committee of individuals doing their best in an open and transparent way is the correct method.

Basically what Twitter was before Elon bought it.

That incessant whataboutism is the only recourse of those who oppose the ban really helps the cause of those who are for it.

Elon Musk doesn't have a military hostile to the US, nor are his companies controlled by any, so for the purposes of this concern, yes.

When it comes to actual harm done to Americans (particularly via their own data), that harm is continually done by US commercial and government interests.

This law isn't a consumer protection law, nor does it attempt to be.

He does take regular phone calls from Putin, the content of which we're not privy to, and he meets with the Iranian government on the down-low.

I think those alone would be grounds to at least take a close look at his access to Twitter data, his censorship choices and any input he has into the algorithms.

Don't we need to have a pretty low opinion of the average american cognitive skill to feel the need to protect them from foreign propaganda for fear it would take a hold on them?

If the general public is that stupid and that this kind of protection is really needed, then it also means that democracy is no longer a viable form of government because the public is also too stupid to vote.

> Don't we need to have a pretty low opinion of the average american cognitive skill to feel the need to protect them from foreign propaganda for fear it would take a hold on them?

No. Influential foreign propaganda is inconspicuous. There’s nothing to be mindful of other than “who benefits if this is widely believed?” and it’s not a low opinion to think most people aren’t mindful of that.

Propaganda works. PR works. The global ad industry is worth trillions, not because it doesn't work.

I'm not saying that it doesn't work and I'm not saying that I hold the general public in high esteem. What I say is that holding the general public in low esteem while at the same time holding democratic values sacred is, as Spock would say, illogical.

> What I say is that holding the general public in low esteem while at the same time holding democratic values sacred is, as Spock would say, illogical.

I fully agree. The last year has shaken my confidence in democracy more than any other time in my lifetime. Not because of threats of war or revolution, but because what is the point of elections if the majority is chronically misinformed? Why have a yes/no election if no one knows what the question is?

It's still the best worst system, and i'm still going to vote in 2 years and again in 4, but my faith is low.

> last year has shaken my confidence in democracy

Read the federalist papers. Our obsession with elections has destabilised the balance built into our republic.

Meaning what, elections aren't a necessary part of democracy?

> elections aren't a necessary part of democracy?

Read the Federalist Papers. Elections are an essential part of democracy. But it's possible to overdo it, and elections alone a democracy does not make. (Much less a functioning republic.)

I supposed I dont understand your point. 4 years is too often to vote for a President?

This leads to why the US didn't setup a pure democracy. The job of certain long term branches like the senate, supreme court & certain unelected positions is to be able to think long term & say "eat your veggies" without the worry of losing there job because someone else is offering nice European chocolates.

Democratic values are good but not without flaws.

If you acknowledge that all humans have a lot of cognitive biases and information processing weaknesses, acknowledging that these are easily exploitable is not holding people in low esteem. It is taking a realistic stance on how open all of us are to being influenced in ways that we will not notice and barely understand.

Well said. And you don't abandon a system of representative government based on flaws that will always exist.

> Don't we need to have a pretty low opinion of the average american cognitive skill

Well, half the country voted for a convicted felon who _illegally tried to overturn the results of an election_, so yeah, it's pretty low.

> democracy is no longer a viable form of government because the public is also too stupid to vote.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" -- Churchill

It's flawed, but still miles better than what China has. At least there are still some safeguards on Trump, unlike Xi.

> If the general public is that stupid

What is your evidence that propaganda efficacy scales inversely with intelligence?

An interesting parallel, they've studied cult recruitment and intelligent people are not less likely to join one. In fact, often times, the better they are at reasoning, the better they are at convincing themselves something bad is in fact ok.

It's self-evident. Propaganda is defused through rhetorical skills. You know, knowing about the general forms of sophism, all that stuff. Rhetorical skills correlate with intelligence.

> It's self-evident. Propaganda is defused through rhetorical skills

It's far from self evident. There is all kinds of nonsense that is catnip for overthinkers. The reason I paused at that assertion is that a lot of propaganda (and in general, military misdirection) is aimed at deceiving leadership.

Fifty four percent of Americans now read below the sixth grade level.

Do not underestimate your enemy.

> Don't we need to have a pretty low opinion of the average american cognitive skill to feel the need to protect them from foreign propaganda for fear it would take a hold on them

that's naive. Literally leaving CNN on in your living room 3 days a week will eventually change you opinions. Our minds absorb things we hear repetitively, even if we now they might be half truths or lies.

That still sounds like a pretty low opinion, even if it's more general than only applying to Americans. You're essentially saying that the outcome of an election is determined primarily by who owns the most effective propaganda machines, which is a pretty heavy (valid) critique of the concept of democracy.

> If the general public is that stupid and that this kind of protection is really needed, then it also means that democracy is no longer a viable form of government because the public is also too stupid to vote.

They are, it is, and it never was, for that exact reason.

Foreign propaganda is much easier to spot. It is the domestic propaganda that was legalized in the 2012 Smith-Mundt Modernization act that concerns me.

> data harvesting is not the real problem

You may not think this but it was one of the two arguments the made to SCOTUS.

> the big problem is that you have a social network to which millions of your citizens are connected and used daily, which is under the control of a foreign adversary; it's a bit like if CBS was owned by the CCP

You mean... like the rest of the world countries are. Look, you make a point here, but the only solution here is to completely cut-off the internet and for the government to run a single TV channel akin to Korea.

The US has been tirelessly working to "infiltrate" other countries media and influence them. That was heralded as "bringing freedom". How the times have changed.