What do you mean? China has banned all US social media. On the simple grounds of reciprocity (which afaik is a generally accepted foreign policy strategy) this ban seems justified.
The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.
The argument against TikTok boils down to "it's Chinese", without any kind of detail or thought on how this badness actually works. What, specifically, is bad about TikTok that doesn't apply to any other influence buying or advertising operation within the US?
HN often argues that free speech is such an unalloyed important political good that all sorts of racism and incitement to violence must be allowed. The widespread defence of Kiwifarms, for example. But as soon as someone mentions the magic word "China" all that goes out of the window?
(I should note that if you're a US national or resident with Chinese family or of Chinese origin, the long arm of oppression can be much more of a problem!)
Of course they're not doing it for me, I'm not even a US national either! :) I'm just a .. participant in the discourse.
(I'm mildly surprised that the UK hasn't had a go at this yet, since the government has a track record of stupid internet censorship attempts, but perhaps that's going to turn up in the autumn electioneering)
> The argument is basically that for the average US national, mass surveillance and propaganda by US tech is more of an issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this track 100% with the bills stated intent: to prevent foreign adversaries from having this kind of influence?
I don't think the US is making an argument that data collection, surveillance, and propaganda are bad and then selectively only choosing to enforce these ideals on China. I think the US is making the argument that a company which belongs to an adversary and operates an a domain that is out of bounds from US regs/enforcement is a NatSec issue.
Any kind of control over these companies is seen as "censorship", while banning a foreign (to the USA) company in the US is seen as a matter of national strategy... That's why it is so hypocritical
A lot of companies wanting to operate in china must have a pretty large ownership by chinese parties. While chinese owned companies have no such obligations in the US.
Not the parent, but I think the main hypocrisy is to claim that freedom of enterprise and that freedom or speech are paramount, and then cracking down on Tiktok.
The fact that Tiktok has 60% ownership by investment funds (most of which are US based), is just the cherry on top.
Personally, I think that some amount of censorship is warranted (see the "paradox of intolerance"), but I think that then the US should dial back all of that "land of the free" rethoric
People and companies in the U.S. (and parts of the U.S. government) have frequently said that it's bad of the Chinese government to prevent U.S. companies from having Chinese users, and to prevent people in Chinese from choosing to see material from U.S. companies and users. We've said that this wasn't a legitimate thing for Chinese law to do, on account of human rights law, free speech principles, and also trade treaties. We've tried hard to help people in China circumvent technical restrictions on accessing foreign content and services, and often claimed that was appropriate as a matter of upholding Chinese people's autonomy.
(I say "we" here because I've personally done those things.)
And the U.S. (people, companies, government, and NGOs) say that Chinese Internet censorship is bad for Chinese people, not just for American companies whose services are blocked.
Who in the US could realistically buy it? And how could ByteDance sell TikTok without selling its Chinese counterpart Douyin (that it shares its codebase with)?
It seems like the move is to force ByteDance to set up a company incorporated wholly in the United States, which would then be subject to the oversight of the US government. Then, Byte Dance would lease the IP surrounding TikTok to this separate company. All the US customer data would be siloed on US servers and perused by US agencies and Byte Dance would still get their revenue from the US market. I don't know if the close association with ByteDance and China would still make that sort of arrangement a target of the US government.
Facebook (fold it into Instagram)? Google (fold it into YouTube Shorts)? Elon Musk if he wants to lose even more money? Or any other very rich big tech company that wants to have an insanely addictive social media app? If nobody buys it then it will lose much of its value anyway by not being usable by a huge moneyed market which will apply downwards pressure on the price as buyers play chicken with each other. Plenty of buyers.
Elon will definitely relaunch Vine if the opportunity presents itself here, but in a more similar style to TikTok. It could very well become the top popular alternative if TikTok were to become unavailable.
>(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
>(A) any of—
>(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
>(ii) TikTok;
>(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
>(iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii);
No. The POTUS as part of the Executive Branch serves to Execute laws Legislated by Congress as the Legislative Branch.
The Supreme Court or a lower court could Judge the law to be unconstitutional as the Judiciary Branch, and to that end the POTUS can nominate judges and the Senate can approve or deny them.
The only thing POTUS can unilaterally enact and/or revoke are Executive Orders, which themselves are grounded in laws Legislated by Congress and Judged by the courts as necessary.
But the U.S. theory (which I advocate) is that this behavior is hurting Chinese people, not just Americans! It's somewhat bizarre to say that retaliating for that in the same fashion is thereby justified. Sure, it makes sense in a trade war sense, but not in a "free speech is actually good and everyone is entitled to it" sense.
Because Meta and Google are weaponized by a dictatorship?
How can people really be so blind to the enormous threat posed by allowing hostile dictatorships unfettered access to our eyeballs and devices within our own borders.
Both Meta and Google have deep, well established ties to the US intelligence and military. So yes, they have been weaponized. Just by whatever the hell kind of oligarchy/plutarchy/neo-reactionary shitshow the US is turning into, and not a dictatorship per se, yet.
I mean... that isn't outside of the realm of possibility honestly. A lot of European states and the EU parliament have been making noises that could lead down that path. EU states actually take user data seriously, and its not like the US firms have been covering themselves in glory in that regard.
Echelon and Five Eyes would like a word. American data in European hands is a threat to Americans. European data in American hands is a direct threat to Europeans. We still kill people over metadata.
And be careful mentioning authoritarianism as if the West hasn't been creeping in that direction for a while. Trump was a clown but also a warning to the rest of the world that American stability and "Pax Americana" could no longer be depended upon long term.
There is so much false equivalence in this thread it's stunning. If you're Europe, do you want to trust the country that just doubled its trade with Russia, or the country who just sent $60bn to Ukraine and is in NATO? The level of naivete from tech people of anything outside their bubble (in this case geopolitics and foreign policy) is unbelievable, it's like they live in a fairy tail world where everyone who does spying is somehow equally hostile to Western interests. It's just not true.
Europe cares about Russia and by extension, China. America is an ally helping them fight their enemy. Don't confuse yourself into thinking anything else.
TikTok is concerning. With it's data and algorithms it could be used as a very effective tailored propaganda machine in theory. Given that China is a communist dictatorship with a thing for propaganda, and where government is always involved with companies, I believe that this is mostly justified.
As a non US citizen the cognitive dissonance at play here is astonishing, but sadly not surprising anymore.
All governments play the propaganda game, no need for autocrats. On my phone right now, but if you want I can pull up sources. One painfully clear example is the war in Iraq. Look at how the US Government portrays itself in that regard, as the invasion force and violent oppressor or as the glorious savior and bringer of democracy and freedom?
What does it prove? All social media are concerning and owners can manipulate people and I would say even change the outcomes of elections, just by fine-tuning the algorithm.
Recently I've noticed that YouTube is sunsetting one of my favourite YouTubers. I watch him every day and every day I need to find him manually because he's not on the first page. If the algorithm was tailored to me, it would find that this guy is the only one who I watch every day.
If they’re claiming the First Amendment, they’re saying they’re not just a passive facilitator of communication but communicating themselves, which seems to validate it as a state propaganda arm.
Maybe if they're asserting their own first amendment rights, although I doubt anyone would question the BBC's free expression interests in sharing its broadcasting with Americans (or Chinese or Iranians), or Americans' first amendment interest in choosing to access that programming, even though the BBC's editorial line isn't completely free of political influence from the British government.
I thought their statement was that they help Americans exercise their first amendment rights in communicating with one another, which seems obviously true. Much like HN is doing right now, for example!
> If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher”
> If you said “A site that has political bias is not neutral, and thus loses its Section 230 protections”
> If you said “Section 230 was designed to encourage websites to be neutral common carriers”
Basically, section 230 was not designed to ban sites from having or exercising their own editorial judgment, or to require them to be passive in other ways. In a sense, its purpose was actually the opposite of that: to allow sites to make editorial judgments about content without getting sued for the content that they did or didn't choose to block.
