Global digital rights advocates are watching to see if Congress acts, worried that other countries could follow suit with app bans of their own.
This article is what made me realize the TikTok ban actually has a point. It isn’t just about an open internet. It appears ByteDance is actively manipulating content.
edit: for the record, I was literally neutral on the issue until I came across this article earlier today
Then How is Google different? From my view, It also manipulates search results.
I don’t understand what US problem with China is.
Note: I am not an American nor a Chinese. I have never used tiktok before. I am just an outsider trying to get a perspective.
The US and China maintain a good economic relationship but aren’t exactly buddies when it comes to geopolitical issues and have very different viewpoints on things like human rights and democracy.
Yes, I know about that. But why is US limiting technological advancements in China? (By banning GPUs / companies).
I don’t see China doing the same.
Are you kidding? China has some of the strongest censorship laws in the world which includes filtering internet content and blocking access to apps. North Korea is the only country that has more repressed access to free information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China
The Chinese government has banned, among others, Google, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, BBC, Wikipedia and … are you ready for this … TIKTOK. The Chinese government agrees that TikTok should be banned (though for different reasons).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China
I was not talking about censorship. I was talking about technological advancements.
But you have a fair point as this post is about censorship.
How is banning TikTok “limiting technological advancements”?
Would you agree that I was able to provide examples of “China doing the same” which you stated that you “did not see”?
I was not talking about tiktok. I was talking about them banning sale of high performance gpus to china
I think one difference is Google is a pull system: you query Google and get results. The short form video streams are push mediums. They feed you a stream of content that it thinks you want. They are fundamentally more susceptible to pushing a particular agenda.
The evidence from the reports in the above article certainly looks pretty daming that tiktok is pushing a particular agenda. The comparison to broadcast which often does have licensing requirements is probably apt.
I don’t buy the arguement that this gives cover to repressive regimes to censor more views because frankly they are doing that already.
Isn’t broadcast licensing specifically about partitioning radio spectrum space, which isn’t applicable here? US-based social media isn’t licensed and applying radio era law to internet may not be appropriate.
From the UK perspective broadcasters have a license to broadcast and are regulated by ofcomm. I thought the FCC had similar oversight of the US broadcasters - for example not being keen on swearing and sex on TV. For UK news programmes there is a requirement to be balanced for example.
Most assuredly, the licensing of the spectrum comes with requirements and strings, so those broadcasters are regulated. They must follow the rules or risk their license.
However, radio licensing came about to avoid broadcast “collisions” for amateur radio operators in ~1912. Regulations came later under the FCC in 1934.
These same collisions are not applicable to the internet (or rather, we’ve already used methods to avoid them, like DNS).
In my country every platform is pushing some kind of bias from the government.Government can ask to remove any kind of content from YouTube, Facebook, tiktok, etc. Especially political ones.
I have seen YouTube favoring one party in particular in their breaking news section even on a new account.
On a sidenote, its good for tiktok to be banned, I hate short form content.
No. It isn’t that. Google absolutely will build a profile around you with “your anonymized” data for the purposes of ad aggregation. They collect information about everyone who uses their services. They do this in order to push ads not agendas. That’s a major difference. In addition you can and many people do go out of their way to degoogle or not use any Google services. Making it so that Google does not have an effective or even viable way to build a profile on those people. You can’t do that with tik tok.
Even if you’re like me and have never actively used the tik tok website, app, or service, everyone you know who has the tik tok app is feeding it your information. It has system level permissions to a lot of apps. Asks for a lot of access to things the app doesn’t need in order to run. Each time they use the app it takes information from all the other apps on the device. Including things like your texts phone logs, what banking apps you use, what medical apps you use. And it buys data from other brokers to build profiles on not just its users but anyone it’s user’s know and communicate with using that device. It then collates that data to build better profiles of non-users.
This information doesn’t have to be stored on American servers because it’s not the information of users. It’s the information of non-users. And even if it were it would still be accessible by the company and the CCP.
We already know that some bad actors in the company have tried to use the data bytedance collect in order to track journalists with the intension of finding out who their sources are. The company called that bad judgement. I call it a major red flag to add to the stack.
The evidence from the reports in the above article certainly looks pretty daming that tiktok is pushing a particular agenda.
What evidence? What reports?
If manipulating content were the issue they would have introduced a bill banning that practice. Banning a few specific countries from operating does not prevent sites from manipulating content.
Interesting article. I think the money quotes that shifted my POV a little were these:
It has become a leading source of information in this country. About one-third of Americans under 30 regularly get their news from it.
and
American law has long restricted foreign ownership of television or radio stations, even by companies based in friendly countries. “Limits on foreign ownership have been a part of federal communications policy for more than a century,”
It does place the ban in some more relevant historical context.
It does place the ban in some more relevant historical context.
Yes, the context of censorship, propaganda, and extremely violent imperialism.
I skimmed the article and I see your concern, but my skepticism remains because of the inherent assumption that instagram is trustworthy and not already tinkering with their own algorithms. Just because the company is American owned doesn’t make it any more or less trustworthy in my opinion. I think the framing is flawed, but that doesn’t discount the concerns with things that are pro-taiwan having such a small presence
I do think a big reason why tiktok is now being held to the flame is the fact there is so much dissent on it. Younger Americans are becoming increasingly anti-israel and more critical of the US’s stance on foreign policy.
Instead of reacting hastily and banning tiktok I think a better action would be placing the same criticisms on domestic companies. Instead, I think we should make companies much more transparent in how they use their algorithms and filter content. Instead of getting upset that one company is censoring, and making them sell to a US company, we should instead prevent censorship more broadly.
edit: made point a bit more clear
Then do an analysis that shows Instagram has a bias and censors certain positions. I have not seen that analysis. There’s a reason the data points to only one social media site censoring views.
The only issue with Meta is how they refused to take down offensive stuff from high-profile conservatives due to political backlash.
You seem to be claiming there’s a fire without even seeing any smoke while simultaneously ignoring the flames in front of your face.
Fwiw I fully support your reasoning that TikTok in particular should be viewed as a source of particularly insidious propaganda at this moment. I’ve been tracking this for years and it seems very obvious to me.
However… when you’re talking about Instagram you’re talking about the company that offered the tools used in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Disinformation on Meta is not new, and quite suspiciously, Meta is shutting down CrowdTangle (a tool developed by Meta for tracking disinformation) just months before the US federal election. https://www.wired.com/story/meta-kills-crucial-transparency-tool-worst-possible-time/
Fuck TikTok, and also fuck Meta. I can be happy that tiktok might be banned and also despise Meta
If I could do an analysis like this, I would. But I don’t have the technical know-how to do so. Being like “Why don’t you do [complex activity] rather than comment on an existing study” is a shitty mindset that attempts to shut down conversation and doesn’t build upon it in any meaningful way.
Further, I think you completely missed the point of what I said. You presented an article that showed tiktok is biased towards CCP positions, and that isn’t really surprising. I said that I don’t think Instagram is any more trustworthy simply because it is American owned, and I think the framing of that view is flawed. I don’t think it invalidates the data, I just think it places a huge amount of trust in a social media company that has been in constant controversy for its entire existence. The point is why is the problem the fact that a social media company is using their power to promote CCP viewpoints, rather than the fact that social media companies have such power with such little oversight.
You seem to be claiming there’s a fire without even seeing any smoke while simultaneously ignoring the flames in front of your face.
I think you can only say that when you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said to the point I think you are trying to stuff me in some little box I don’t belong in. I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem. If the problem is algorithmic bias with social media, why are we stopping with the foreign company that has opposing interests? Why aren’t we angry that a single company can hold so much power and have such little accountability?
the only issue with Meta is how they refused to take down offensive stuff from high-profile conservatives due to political backlash
I wish I lived in a world that this was the only issue meta had.
- Cambridge Analytica
- Internal research shows Instagram knew it harms teens
- The entire concept of facebook echo chambers and radicalization
- That one time Facebook promoted housing discrimination
- Massive tax avoidance and lobbying
I bet I’m missing a ton, but these things quickly came to mind.
Whatboutism 101, great tutorial. That really proves that TikTok isn’t censoring content, thanks
If whataboutism is reframing the question in a different light that includes what we were talking about and not simply deflecting with a what-about, then I guess I did a textbook whataboutism. I guess I did the classic whataboutism bit where I said tiktok wasn’t censoring, even though I swear I said they were, and instead I said what why do we give social media the power to censor shit like that I was saying tiktok wasn’t censoring and whatabout other social media. 🙄
Whataboutism is when you don’t defend your point or argue against the original point and just change topic. Ex: “Oh you are saying that tiktok is censoring anti-ccp thought? What about facebook and twitter doing shit like banning XYZ political commentators???”
What I said is a bit more complicated than that, so I’ll boil down my points into something a bit more simple manner
- Yeah, tiktok is censoring content
- I don’t like the article’s framing that places instagram as the safe, non-censoring control
- I think media is framing this in such a way that the main reason that tiktok is a problem is because it has a lot of dissent on it and it is foreign-owned, and therefore their flavor of censorship is worse
- instead of forcing tiktok to be sold to an american company, why don’t we address the root cause of the problem, which is the amount of control social media companies have.
Look man, you can’t claim someone is doing a fallacious argument tactic when they aren’t doing it. If someone argued something, fucking respond to it or don’t, it genuinely doesn’t matter. But if you are gonna just be a cunty smuglord instead, you’re a dick and I wish you the worst.
Now, i’m gonna disregard your shit-slinging and go back to taking your comments in good faith. I have a serious question for you. You seem to have a problem with my points, but what about it do you disagree with? I’m literally agreeing with you in a few places and just calling the framing flawed. If you’re gonna respond to that, don’t take me out of context.
Fuck dude… Really??? Did you even read what they said?
Yes, it is textbook whataboutism. Are Israel’s actions okay because other people commit murder? I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance
I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance
Smfh, so then you didn’t read what they said, since they specifically said:
I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem.
And given that Whataboutism is a tactic to discredit the severity of an accusation by pointing to similar or worse behaviors by others, this not only isn’t “textbook Whataboutism”, it’s not Whataboutism at all. Their point was that the scope of the issue exceeds TikTok, and as such, attempts to solve the issue by focusing on TikTok are either misguided or of suspect intent.
In no way did they try to make the point that what TikTok does is okay, nor did they claim that TikTok wasn’t censoring content. I’d accuse you of trying to strawman their argument, but you just flat made up a different argument and pretended that was theirs instead.
They are saying the forest is on fire, and you are accusing them of Whataboutism because they aren’t focusing on your favorite tree.
Ok how about YouTube which has those analyses. I’m not opposed to the TikTok ban, on these grounds. I just think it’s a half measure
Is the issue their censoring content globally or just at all. Twitter for example is known to cave to local governmental pressure but I suppose its limited to a particular region and people outside of there are still allowed access. Really I’m more disturbed anyone is careless enough to rely on social media for news. It’s no secret their all just regurgitating what they or the platform owners want. Most youtubers actively avoid controversial content just to avoid demonitisation; if youre on a platform like truth social id be surprised if you ever get an impartial voice. I literally only scroll tiktok for cute and funny vids.
TikTok isn’t doing anything that any other major social media company isn’t also doing. The only difference being that TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, and not a US one.
Just banning one app does little to resolve the overall privacy and information nightmare that social media is.
The US government has always cared more about national security than the privacy of its citizens.
This is nothing to do with national security.
Oh? You have a source that other social media websites suppress certain stories?
lol seriously? They found 1000 posts that got deleted? That’s a rounding error on the number of posts they delete every second. That’s like comparing an ant to a gorilla. The data is nowhere close to the TikTok stuff
Surveying content on Tiktok by hashtag is spurious. It’s not the primary method of content aggregation.
How else would you compare the topic of posts?
By the content of the post, I’d imagine.
People don’t use hashtags on a lot of sensitive topics, because they already fear suppression within Tiktok. The US based operation is already partially owned by Oracle (and all of Larry Ellison’s shenanigans) and Walmart as of 2020. For example, since October, Tiktok creators went to extreme lengths to mask the content of pro-Palestinian news, including using hand written note cards or other things that are difficult for automated filters to flag. Anti-establishment messages were already suppressed and widely brigaded by Zionists.
#Thispostisaboutfruit
But the full analysis doesn’t bear out what you’re saying. People do use hashtags on other sensitive topics.
Capitalist NYT going after what has been called an liberal/leftist/socialist app. Color me surprised!
I take it you didn’t really read the article haha, considering it’s entirely based on a third party analysis.
Also, that’s not really an effective counterargument.
Open internet- right- even every website forces you to use the app otherwise it nags you to death or disables features, or just sucks and the app is a mass surveillance collection engine requesting access to every service and sensor on your phone or no-bueno. So open, #open.
I’m all for things being open, but what the major social apps force you to do to use them is basically criminal.
Internet ≠ Web and other stuff on the application layer. But I agree this stuff is important to fix.
Yeah I get what you’re saying- I’m making the point that for an uncomfortably large portion of the world, including people in America, Facebook/instagram/tiktok IS the internet. We can ensure the pipes are clear all we want, but if the application layer is effectively the access portal and is in itself locked down with an iron fist, we’re ignoring the real and more immediate problem.
One of the great tragedies in tech is wikis/forums/message boards being replaced by discord, an unsearchable, ephemeral, corporately controlled platform. Have a discord/slack/whatever to chat sure, but put your docs out in the open!
