> The China thing is touchy but I want the west to beat them by being better, not by being dismissive and protectionist.
I don't think the only question is "who wins at having the most popular social network." The more concerning one is of exerting political influence through manipulative amplification/suppression (which is something the PRC has a lot of experience with). That could be both highly effective and extremely subtle and difficult to detect (e.g. activating one political tendency with relatively more call to action videos, while distracting its opposition with relatively more cat videos and relatively fewer calls to action).
That is a real threat, but that's a problem with (proprietary, centralized) online media in general. Which social network would you trust not to do that? Facebooks experiment on manipulating emotions comes to mind [1].
The only way to minimize these effects is to consume a multitude of media from multiple sources, so no one entity has too much influence. Balancing all the US-based social networks with some TikTok certainly seems healthy in that regard.
Is the network authority the only entity to blame here? Looking at the other end of the spectrum, if a popular network was fully decentralized and had zero censorship or speed bumps to control how viral something goes, then I still think that social network would be vulnerable to propaganda machines. Specifically still by those with the most money to throw at it.
I don't think Facebook and many social networks are doing a good job but I think we should also recognize that the problem is difficult and unclear how to solve. There's an issue with how information naturally flows and how that can be manipulated.
Specifically I don't think TikTok is great because the focus on short videos (we see this on Facebook too. A meme is even shorter). 30 sec to 3 min political videos are more likely to be propaganda in my experience (e.g. NowThis). Though that isn't too say there aren't longer form versions (e.g. PragerU).
Generally I agree people (especially on HN) are too optimistic about zero-censorship decentralized systems, but I think it's important to point out that decentralization doesn't have to mean zero censorship / everything goes. In federated systems like Mastodon, each instance can handle their own moderation separately, allowing moderation to be done with more context by people closer to their communities and for a diversity of moderation styles to exist.
TikTok has already been found to be censoring content that criticises the Chinese government [1]. Theres a big difference between that and a nonpolitical public research project that ended up with a minuscule effect size.
For news, weekly newspapers are probably the best source. They don't have to be reactionary, they have time to do research and let things play out a bit, enabling them to give you useful insights instead of hysteria.
To me social media isn't about news, it's about entertainment, education, social interaction, etc. My TikTok is about people rapping childrens books, what ADHD does to people and how to deal with it, how introverts go to the party for the cats instead of to meet people (all things in the first five clips when I just opened it).
Social media certainly can be toxic, but it can also enrich your live and give you a much wider horizon by bringing you into contact with people outside your social bubble.
> Which social network would you trust not to do that?
Well step 1 is to see what country the social network was made in, and see if that government has had a strong history of using the law to force companies to silence criticism.
What sort of manipulative amplification/suppression, specifically? Maybe a skinner box outrage machine that turns us into hostile tribes sniping over cultural crap while completely unable to govern ourselves as they surpass us?
> What sort of manipulative amplification/suppression, specifically? Maybe a skinner box outrage machine that turns us into hostile tribes sniping over cultural crap while completely unable to govern ourselves as they surpass us?
Amplifying pre-existing fault lines to encourage general weakness is certainly one that's been well explored. Another might be amplifying political or ideological that serve the foreign power's goals (e.g. general pacifism when that power is planning some kind of aggression or military build up, or electioneering messages for a candidate with a more favorable trade policy to that power).
No one could deliver particular results with certainty using any of these methods, but they could definitely put their finger on the scales.
> Sorry I was describing our current social networks. Impossible to gauge how thick to lay it on in text.
I know you were. The issue here isn't that this kind of manipulation is totally unheard of, it's that it could be done far, far more effectively and stealthily with the control of the platform.
"Effective and stealthy manipulation" were your words I believe. Short hop from there for someone else to go further.
We just watched people spend 3-4 years claiming that 50 Russian internet trolls were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign. The "smart people"! At some point you have to add up the mass values and ask if this adds up, or if we're just making excuses for ourselves.
> "Effective and stealthy manipulation" were your words I believe. Short hop from there for someone else to go further.
A hop you took, not me.
> We just watched people spend 3-4 years claiming that 50 Russian internet trolls were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign.
Fifty Russian internet trolls (likely more), were working to put their finger on the scale, but it's an exaggeration to say definitively that they "were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign." Maybe they tipped the scale, but maybe they didn't. There's no way anyone will ever answer that question.
It's like hacking. Has a foreign nation hacked the US power grid to cause widespread blackouts? No. Does that mean foreign hacking of US utility companies is not something for Americans to be concerned about? No. Does that mean the US shouldn't harden its power grid against the threat? Also no.
It's a scale with a billion dollars on either end, and we were asked to believe a small office of internet trolls from Russia tipped it. BS detector engaged.
If we're so fragile that some marginal stuff can steer our culture, then we deserve it.
> It's a scale with a billion dollars on either end, and we were asked to believe a small office of internet trolls from Russia tipped it. BS detector engaged.
No, we were not asked to believe that, at least not by anyone worth listening to.
You're missing the point. The attempt to put a finger on the scale is threat that warrants a response. It doesn't matter if the scale was tipped or not. It's like if someone shoots at you and misses. Would you have no problem with that? Should you proceed like nothing happened?
Similarly, the capability to make an attempt is also a threat. It's like if someone hands you a time bomb, are you going to carry it around and act like it's not dangerous, just because it hasn't gone off yet?
It purports to show North Korea through the lens of a hidden camera. Plenty of shots of couples holding hands and playing badminton without nets.
I get the sense that this is propaganda and not genuinely capturing the everyday lives of North Koreans. That said, I can't prove that this is the case.
> Why wouldn't North Koeans hold hands? Most have normal lives in an abnormal place.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they wouldn't. What I'm trying to convey is: I have no idea what life in North Korea is like because (to my understanding) nearly every photo that is taken and leaves the country must be approved by North Korean officials[1].
I think many people would love to see North Korea as it is, not as North Korean officials would like it to appear. As such, a TikTok account that claims to be secretly filming North Koreans and exfiltrating that footage is very interesting. However, I believe there is a good chance that this footage is still released with the approval of the North Korean government and does not accurately capture the everyday lives of North Koreans.
The fundamental problem here is that I don't know what life in North Korea is like. I cannot claim with certainty that this footage was staged. I suspect the same could be said about the footage that you've seen, it is very hard for outsiders to know what is real and what is not.
You can actually visit North Korea if you are not American.
I knew a western family German passport who went over. You cannot wear blue jeans. You have someone with you at all times and you are not allowed to talk to anyone.
But that tells you very little about day to day life. Checkout this 2012 movie. You will find it interesting and believable.
There are important differences between being influenced by domestic actors, as part of a domestic political process, and being influenced by foreign actors. The latter is a far more serious threat to political independence.
It's also pretty well documented that the PRC political authorities already use its domestic social networks in this way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> exerting political influence through manipulative amplification/suppression
and social influence
there are a few worrying trends on the internet which are difficult to attribute to simply headstrong visionaries concerned with the general progress of our species
I do think TikTok's chosen format and their algorithm make a great product. However, I am also increasingly wary of their growing power. Although I didn't expect it because they are foreign-owned, they are much more heavy-handed about censorship of centrist and conservative views (on the American political spectrum) than other platforms like Twitter and Facebook. I've seen numerous people I follow get banned aggressively, and apart from making me/others feel oppressed, such censorship also makes me concerned about the degree of influence they have in shaping public conversation in our society - particularly with younger generations. A feasible explanation is that they are simply conforming to the same politically-biased moderation practices seen elsewhere, like on Twitter ,and are conforming to what they perceive the market is demanding. A more sinister explanation is that this is a purposeful plan by the CCP to sow chaos in America by fanning the flames of a very fundamental, pervasive, ideological division.
I don't think the only question is "who wins at having the most popular social network." The more concerning one is of exerting political influence through manipulative amplification/suppression (which is something the PRC has a lot of experience with). That could be both highly effective and extremely subtle and difficult to detect (e.g. activating one political tendency with relatively more call to action videos, while distracting its opposition with relatively more cat videos and relatively fewer calls to action).