None of those arguments are the salient one, which is that a geopolitical adversary has control over a major influence vector on US public opinion. They could simply have divested.
Geroge Orwell - Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
I don’t get how can Americans be so insecure about themselves and have such fragile trust in what they can achieve as a country. This idea that foreign authoritarian regimes should be respected as much as their own people and system is just baffling.
The country is constantly on a knife edge. It takes only a tiny shift to cause a radical change in the power structure, and good reason to think that power structure will be used against you.
It is indeed remarkable that the country has achieved anything at all when it spends so much time cowering. Nor is that new, but modern media seem to give it more immediacy.
I disagree based purely off of my own life and experiences. The shift rightward over the past 10 years is palpable. It's not surprising historically at all - the US has always been composed of almost entirely conservative, individualistic attitudes and then little pockets of progressiveness here and there. They never last, rather the hope is just to get as much done as fast as possible in that time frame.
Certainly, policy that would be unthinkable 15 years ago is par for the course now. I think that's just undeniable, and speaks to the radicalization of the US.
Take a deep breath, we're all gonna be okay.
While you are preparing brisket they are expecting to lose rights and have friends taken away. For them it is not going to be ok.
Maybe you should try to get out of the technofacist mindset?
Fuck right off about "gonna be okay", asshole.
Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree. If you believe that something is wrong, use arguments, educate, inform... It's hard to implement pathological behaviour in well informed and educated society. Fragile society, however, is easier to be manipulated with and lead to hate, violence and wars.
What's wrong with this solution?
An example of an anti-solution is lowering crime by making something that was illegal no longer illegal (see: public transit vs automobiles). Or, reducing the incidence of something by making it illegal while simultaneously increasing it's necessity (see: abortion). Or, solving wage inequality by protesting minimum wage increases.
I think imposing certain limits on various freedoms, including speech is required for a functioning democracy. I also believe that there are deeper issues if the populace of a nation no longer respect the decisions made by its highest court of law.
We've got the whole world wearing blue jeans and listening to our music, mostly communicating on our tech platforms. English is the default language for international business. One Chinese social media company and its game over? Have some faith in your culture.
Every bad thing we’ve been taught to believe about China or Russia, it turns out we do too and often worse. So what loyalty should we have? What has democracy and capitalism done for us but bankrupt our seniors with medical debt and addict our children to iPads and amphetamines?
I’d love to be able to trust my government and the American ideal again, but don’t tell me I’m weak for second-guessing the whole con game this century is turning into.
Radicaly increased wealth. I guess you have access to drinking water, food, place to sleep and be warm at cold sessions. It wasn't a standard few decades ago and still it is not fot most in the world.
"I’d love to be able to trust my governmen..."
Do you really believe that government solve your problems?
“Radically increased wealth”, for who? Government has never solved my problems, only created more. My point is that I would have been doing better under China’s system than ours.
Years of TikTok usage
Let's be honest: "Democracy" in the USA is and always has been a game for the rich, especially since the 1908s when Reagan and Thatcher decided that China should be the top dog in the world order.
People just want to live happily. Simple as that. TikTok gives a lot of people a feeling, a snippet, of a little bit of freedom and connection with others. All US media makes people fearful - FOX "news" is literally just fearmongering for boomers and their children who can't afford homes of their own. CNN and MSNBC is just fear mongering against boomers who watch FOX "news". Facebook/Meta/IG/WhatsApp is an extension of these fears into the virtual world and TikTok offers something better.
Jokes on the USA though. RedNOTE is gonna close the cultural divide between America and China and Americans will realize just how far the boomer generation and those who have been elected to uphold boomer beliefs really left younger/current generations behind.
China has won technologically and now begins the cultural victory.
I can foresee, sadly, that there will be an unnecessary loss of lives in the short term however for both the USA and BRICS nations. Hopefully I wind up being wrong.
TikTok is not some bastion of freedom, they did win with critical mass and a vastly superior algorithm. All media makes people fearful, you speak so highly of China but have you consumed mainland Chinese media before? It is like Fox on steroids, packed full with stories that paint China as the victor and America as a dangerous and silly country.
Calling a victory in technology is laughable, mainland manufacturing is incredible, one of the best in the world. Products in China have caught up and in some spaces exceeded western brands. China is still missing out on innovation in high-tech, thats why they have been caught so frequently trying to steal corporate secrets.
RedNOTE is not going to prove anything to americans except the disdain the Chinese have for Americans joining their social network and the level of censorship that exists in a mainland app.
It is like you are a propaganda machine and ironic enough it reads just like a mainland Chinese news article. If there was a conflict everyone would lose out. I am surprised anyone would foreshadow it. China unlike Russia seems to still think through the lens of economic interests, I suspect nobody in the current regime would want any type of conflict. While they may have a military its entirely untested both equipment and men.
It is only when a system is failing that it becomes susceptible to destruction by indifference.
Similar story with Huawei.
The politics of this are exactly the opposite of that you're saying. This is about restricting democratic rights.
Senator Mitt Romney put it very bluntly [0]:
> "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites - it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."
Or maybe Mitt Romney is just another conspiracy theorist?
0. https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...
People being convinced to change their countries geopolitical policies seems to me a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a democracy.
If the american people would like closer relations to china and vote accordingly that seems to me to be the whole point of democracy.
China engaging and supporting that is also a perfectly legitimate means of achieving its goals, no? Or would you prefer that instead of convincing the american people of that, they should instead bribe or coerce their politicians behind closed fdoors?
Unanimous decision to ban TikTok from a divided Supreme Court, 2025.
In both ways, users do it voluntarily, by agreeing with terms of use. You don't have to use those platforms.
- Meta - Facebook et al
- Stasi (an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit), was the state security service and secret police of East Germany from 1950 to 1990. It was one of the most repressive police organisations in the world, infiltrating almost every aspect of life in East Germany, using torture, intimidation and a vast network of informants to crush dissent
The privacy / data protection angle on TikTok is a red herring.
There are other ways China, or anyone else, including any one of us, can get their hands on vast amounts of personal data about anybody. It just costs more than operating a profitable social media platform.
All you need to do is flash a few bucks and talk nicely to a data broker, or Meta (remember Cambridge Analytica?) and there's nothing the US Government or you can do about it, because it's entirely legal. The minimal barriers that are in place to protect the data going into "wrong" hands are trivial to bypass.
And if that doesn't work, the next level up in difficulty is hack the same organizations. China has made an industry out of that.
Nope. Unanimous decision that the First Amendment does not prohibit banning TikTok.
The fundamental issue is ByteDance ownership. Forced divestiture due to legitimate concern for potential abuses is perfectly acceptable whether by a financial or national security rationale.
———
1 - https://www.axios.com/2024/04/27/biden-tiktok-sale-grindr
All data that they collect are given by user voluntary, by agreeing with their terms of use. Instead of banning, educate about how data harvesting works and why it matters. No one is learning from censorship.
0: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
While it does contain some criticism of the the UK, quite expected as Orwell was a socialist, it also doesn't claim that Animal Farm was really about UK, European, or US governments.
EDIT: I found the primary source[1] of the unpublished preface, it does list Orwell as its author.
0: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
1: https://archive.org/details/TheTimesLiterarySupplement1972UK...
Here’s one that flies in the face of the Orwell’s:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
- Karl R. Popper
In practice we’ve seen both ways play out badly. So clearly we can’t just hope that full freedom is good, and good guys will win.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/yes-you-do-have-to-tolera...
Lots of respect for this guy and his writings but it’s naive to believe people are thinking independently because they can watch TikTok. It just becomes a different propaganda vehicle; the thoughts will still be dependent on the messages they see.
Sure, but even you would agree that if you have even less venues to discover said messages, it'll get more and more heterogeneous?
Maybe TikTok isn't "The last standing beacon for Freedom of Thoughts" exactly, but banning it certainly doesn't get you closer to plurality of opinions.
I think keeping it around is worse. While we’re at it, we need to go after American social media, including entertainment news. People should commune in person and get their opinions from interacting with their community.
It's weird to me that that idea could be such an important part of culture as to become a common saying yet have so little impact on actual discourse.
Not all of it. Just some of it. No need to see everything in such a black and white way.
Also Orwell was obviously not talking about major entities run by other countries. Do you think he would have opposed stopping newspapers directly run by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union from operating inside Britain?
Let’s JUST invent practical nuclear fusion and sentient AI while we’re at it. Both would be probably significantly easier to achieve..
How are you supposed to manufacture consent if it works?
TikTok's manipulation of the feed has been proven through extensive public studies: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/tiktok-is-just-the-beginning
The pressing need to ban it on security grounds likely extends further into non-public knowledge - Let us not forget that in the current political landscape it's pretty hard to get both major parties to agree on anything, then to actually also vote that way: but that's what happened with regard to TikTok.
There is no behavior that TikTok exhibits that isn't equally applicable to every major social media.
I don't particularly care whether right now, the CCP happens to use that manipulative potential for its own ends more than the US does. It shouldn't be hard to take a principled stand against dystopian surveillance.
I don't understand people who correctly point out that TikTok is a "vector for influence of public opinion", but somehow think that's only a bad thing if it's controlled by a "geopolitical adversary".
By your implied logic, the US should allow Chinese police to function on US soil as the US already had US police on US soil.
As exposed by whistleblower Frances Haugen, Facebook's algorithms favored content that generated anger and division, which in turn increased user engagement. Facebook now wants to return to that algorithm.
Of course
I think a lot of normal and applicable arguments aren't entirely valid when the company in question is more or less an entity of a political adversary.
1.) It's pointless, TikTok is officially banned in US. Even if trump decides to find a US buyer for it, it will go under strict ownership investigation. So there's no way Chinese government has any influence anymore.
2.) This means that any future Chinese apps that get popular will get banned, and no need to go through any court challenges since there's precedent and law
3.) The traffic from the original TikTok will just keep getting split and syphoned, until the magnificent seven claims most of it
except this is not what's happening, the opposite is true: the "manga" (make american nato...) supporters are screaming that China and Russia are finally defeated in the propaganda war, while China and Russia do not care about the tik tok ban.
It's already a victory when the enemy castrate itself and goes against the sentiment of their population, especially the young ones, out of fear that something might happen, but there's no evidence it has happened yet not that it is going to happen anytime soon.
When you think that tik tok is so dangerous that your democracy could fall because of it, well, you got bigger problems on your hands.
> goes against the sentiment of their population
If you read this thread you’ll see that it’s pretty divided. I for one don’t care that it’s gone and even welcome the ban. I dislike that China has a firewall for American companies, but will gladly enter our market.
Isn't Red Book pushed by angry titk tok users, just like blue sky was the reaction to Musk buying Twitter?
> I dislike that China has a firewall for American companies, but will gladly enter our market.
China was invited by the USA in the USA market.
In exchange for their cheap and educated labor force and growing market.
Ask Apple if it was good or bad for them to exploit the Chinese market and labor.
It's the USA that pushed to invite them in the WTO.
Is it too much to ask to the USA to reflect a little before acting?
They can't do that with offices that are parties offshore, owned by non-Americans.
Additionally, I'm not convinced that the US is actively investigating such things, at least formally, on domestic social networks anyway. Twitter's algorithm at some point was tweaked to amplify Musk's posts. Was there a formal investigation or certification process, or were any controls put in place, to ensure that nothing Musk Tweeted would ever be subject to foreign influence, and thus enable amplification of foreign propaganda or ideology? I quite doubt it.
I didn't think Twitter was even required to inform the government that his Tweets were being boosted. Researchers discovered it. (And I think there were some leaks from Twitter developers, via journalists.)
It just seems weird that we seem to put very minimal effort into verifying that domestic networks aren't pushing foreign propaganda, but then our logic was excluding foreign social networks is that they might push propaganda. We don't even know that the American ones aren't, and we don't even seem to care very much.
The PLA took huge lessons from the first Gulf War that the way to fight the US was to fight everywhere but the traditional battlefield.
Their means and methods have been absolutely brilliant.
The most brilliant thing to me is to fight on a time frame that is so long, that even the idea the PLA is at war with the US sounds ridiculous to most Americans.
If this is true, Douyin will never divest of Tiktok in the US. They would rather it just shutdown in the US. They won't let the US dissect an information weapon from the inside. The company valuation can't include the information weapon value so the offer price is always going to be a joke from the Douyin side.
Not the entire U.S. population is on TikTok. Even if a significant percentage are, your argument is that they cannot think for themselves? It is widely known that TT is Chinese owned/controlled yet Americans still used it. Even a regulation requiring disclosure of that fact each time you open it would be fine. But an outright ban on the app itself? This is a huge "feel good" moment which will not improve any aspects of the social media environment in the U.S.
we don't let any foreign citizens work on missiles and stuff (ITAR), we shouldn't let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure
this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. even if the CCP wasn't manipulating the algorithm to sway US public opinion - I don't know whether they were or not - having that option open was far too valuable to part with it.
and I think they were playing a game of chicken, honestly. they bargained for the US government being too dysfunctional - and TikTok too popular - for the ban to happen.
I think that's kind of trivializing the position they were in. Would you take the same tone if it were an American startup that were forced to sell a big chunk of itself pre-IPO? Would you roll your eyes at them for "being greedy" at any indication of pushback against such a requirement?
I don't think the law is necessarily bad, considering the national security implications, but it's a cop-out to dismiss the burden of being forced to sell a major part of an enterprise as no big deal and the owner as just stubborn.
> let adversarial countries own and control communications infrastructure
This is an exaggeration that a social media platform for short form content is communications infrastructure, akin to a cell tower or fiber optic line. I'd the say the same for your mention of ITAR in a thread about, again, a social media platform.
If we were serious, there would be regulations for all social media, not just forcing of U.S. ownership then saying "all good, this can't be bad since Americans own it"
if "we were serious" about what? the issue of foreign control is not relevant to domestic companies. we could have some other regulations too, sure, but this one is reasonable.
why should China obey to an US request?
Of course they are against selling it, like the US government of course is against Google selling to the Chinese.
But that speaks volumes on the sad state of our democracies, they are so brittle that students protesting against the slaughter of Palestinian kids can trigger a cold war and the revanche of the authoritarian doctrines of a not so distant past.
Suppose that is true. Then why are you ok with Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or any other American oligarch wielding even more influence on US culture? When it comes down to it, it's just jingoism, isn't it? China man bad, America man good.
Not wanting authoritarian shitholes to have influence on people isn't really all that crazy of a stance, IMO, even if the world isn't perfect and shitheads like Zucc have similar influence.
If you don't like this, you are free to forgoe your citizenship and the benefits of the protection of the state to live statelessly.
Ban 'em both for all I care, my whole point is that pretending as if the west is being evil or whatever for banning these obvious propaganda channels is absurd to me
I would chose China, which is on the other side of the globe, has no military bases in my country (USA have 3! two of them with nuclear capabilities) and probably what they gather from me make little or no sense to them and can't really influence me the same way (not even close to it) content in my language, repeated day and night from the top government bodies to the least popular piece of media that then spread from mouth to mouth and becomes a discussion topic at family gatherings, can.
No way tik tok remotely has that power, no way China could really do anything like that, they can at most insinuate through the cracks already present in our contemporary societies hoping it will work, but banning tik tok will only widen them.
It's one of those situation where having a common enemy should reunite people with opposing views, but it's not evil aliens trying to conquer earth we are fighting, it's social content (mostly entertainment) that this time will take people with opposing views even more apart.
Sometimes, public opinion can be swayed very easily, by igniting the first spark with something outrageous; this is especially fruitful in times where the president of the United States openly opposes journalism, spreads lies, and generally fosters distrust and doubt. Lots of people are more inclined to believe a random TikTok than a professional journalist with decades of experience; what do you think were to happen if the Chinese government sees immediate value in the US government making a specific decision to their benefit, and one of the tools in their toolbox is playing a flurry of short videos to millions of American citizens, made to influence their understanding of an issue?
Most people will follow a reasonable opinion if it's the first time they're confronted with a complex situation. TiktTok is the perfect tool to exploit this, by delivering this opinion to absurdly narrow target groups, in a matter of seconds. Just because you don't notice this right now does neither mean the capability doesn't exist nor that it isn't already happening—which may be one of the reasons there is a bipartisan effort to pull through.
Singaporean corporations controlled by the Chinese government in China does not have FA rights.
America man friend of president.
It assumes that we must prevent public from accessing some thoughts/propoganda as they may not be able to make right decision themselves. This is rhyming with 1930s Germany or other authoritative regimes since then.
It’s a clear example of how leadership can skew the algorithm to try to influence things.
Now, in twitters case they are wildly obvious about it and everyone is starting to think they’re a joke.
Tik tok isn’t run by a buffoon so anything they do would be far more subtle
Twitter is also showing why these type of companies need far more regulation applied. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad to take other actions in the meantime.
america and americans should be able to view any media and still come to the best conclusions. banning media is a lack of trust in americans ability to formulate opinions. what the point in having media and democracy if you dont think people can make good decisions based on it?
I’m rather confused how do you think that is somehow connected with:
> horrible crutch that suggests america is already dead and gone
If you believe that then surely you must also believe that it was never “alive” in the first place?
Americans certainly didn’t have unrestricted access to any type of media in ta past. In fact it was heavily centralized and controlled by a small number of entities. One might argue that the decentralization starting with cable television/etc. and then internet led us to where we are.
Everyone used to be watching the same handful of television channels (which were relatively “apolitical” anyway) and a small number of available newspapers. It’s rather obvious why it was much easier to reach societal consensus on most issues compared to these days…
I'm sorry, but this is not a good assumption. It has not been the case historically.
As does turkey or Germany or whoever when it comes to US socials operating in their countries.
All you need is a court order and all socials will delete whatever content is requested.
We have freedom of speech in this country — and for the boogeyman that China was somehow weaponizing their platform, we just removed the voice of countless communities that had formed on TikTok.
Imports of firearms and ammunition from China to the USA have been banned since 1994 [1]. IIRC Chinese companies were caught selling rifles and other gear to known gangs in California and that motivated the law.
Firearms imports are also much more restricted generally than most other categories. More than one manufacturer has reincorporated in the United States because of the regulations.
[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355...
there is no First Amendment right for Chinese companies to operate within our market. there is no First Amendment right for RT to be carried on US cable networks.
if TikTok were a website, it'd be different. it'd be one thing if the US were blackholing tiktok.com. but TikTok is an app that sells ads, and they're not entitled to sell ads to US businesses or publish on US app stores.
There might be, but it would be the cable network's first amendment right to carry them, not RT's right to be carried.
The argument in court was kind of backwards, nobody violated TikTok's rights by taking them off the app store, but you could fairly easily argue that Apple and Google's rights were violated by telling them that they can't carry it. That would, presumably, require either Apple or Google to bring a lawsuit though, and they seem to want to play nice with the incoming administration.
It's not true, just to clarify it.
Many foreign corporations operating in China, only if they:
1. Keep all user data within the border. 2. Cooperate with censorship
TikTok meets the first condition in the U.S., and I think the issue lies with the second condition.
so Azure in China can only be ran by a Chinese entity
If you look at it from the other side, it's like Tiktok must be hosted by Microsoft/Amazon but not datacenters in China
China is a dictatorship where people have no rights. America was built on the principle that the government shouldn't have the power to tell the common people what to do.
They just move to new place. Loads of online communities have died/migrated for various different reasons over the years.
> We have freedom of speech in this country
This doesn't impose on your freedom of speech at all.
Just because you have the right to say anything, doesn't give you the right to say it where you want.
By this logic, the US government should be able to ban any newspaper that is publishing articles that they don't like: it doesn't encroach on the freedom of speech of the reporters of that newspaper, they can just speak somewhere else. They don't have the right to say anything at that particular newspaper, just in general.
Of course, in reality, banning a publication (TikToK) because you think they may publish stories that you won't like (propaganda for Chinese interests) is an obvious violation of the first ammendment and a form of government censorship.
Freedom of speech is that an American person cannot be blocked by the government saying what they want.
There is nothing in the first amendment that protects you from where you can say what you want, nor is anyone entitled to give you a platform.
That's why the US has "freedom of speech zones" which are basically cages far away from where they should be protesting.
TikTok was banned because it's owned by a foreign government, not freedom of speech. If the Chinese government had removed their connection to it, it would not have been banned.
The reason TikTok being owned by China is considered a problem is because it could allow China to control what American citizens see on their timelines - the content.
Just to give an example of what would be concerns of the platform aspect of TikTok, that would be concerns about the ability for the app to deploy malicious code to users' phones, or the amount of data that it siphons off legally. But those are de-emphasised in favor of their control on content, which is precisely what's supposed to be protected by the Constitution.
If we banned China from importing video games into the US, that would be a trade issue.
It's very ironic you bring this up though, since China is famously very strict about what foreign media it allows in, and really about how foreign businesses in general are allowed to operate there.
They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.
> How about guns?
This doesn’t have anything to do with media.
> Can they release major motion pictures?
They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.
> Video games?
They would not be allowed to own the publishing company.
The people in these communities still have a right to assemble and say things to each other. It’s more difficult to do so on TikTok after the US distribution ban but it’s ByteDance who made it impossible with this play; this service shutdown is not a requirement of the law.
Both are publishing stories written by others (reporters for the newspaper, subscribers for TikTok), and taking decisions on which stories to publish (through direct editorial control for the newspaper, through the algorithm + some direct editorial control for TikTok).
The operator doesn’t necessarily have to be American. A European operator would be sufficient. But it can’t be an overtly hostile nation.
All of these arguments have been made ad nauseum.
All social media companies controlled by the CCP will be banned in the US. And since all tech companies in China are controlled by the CCP that means all Chinese social media products will be banned in the US.
It’s not all that complicated. It’s not even that controversial.
The place to protect against this kind of threat is in English class, and by regulating in favor of transparency (re: the algorithm), not by censorship.
The latter will just create a fight for control over the censorship infrastructure, and given our cyber security track record and habit of letting companies do whatever they want, that's not a fight I think we can win without becoming all of the things about China that we find objectionable.
It all just smacks of protectionism and isolationism to me.
Personally, I think it’s a bit of both. There’s definitely concern about Chinese control but it has also been seen as a business opportunity.
That sounds pretty geopolitical adversary to me.
Rather you don't remember the agenda and just roll with the flow.
Trump and Boris Johnson are both total arse clowns, much smarter that they appear to be, and masters of throwing a dead cat on the table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy
Trump is a _very_ good carny grifter, he can grab attention like few others can.
Remember that pledge to fix Ukraine within a few days of taking office? Probably not - he tangented off on seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal.
Meanwhile, that basket of deplorables is being sworn in.
but yes, there is some evidence but of course its very controversial
Your comment makes me quite alarmed, to be honest. Are people really this clueless about what goes on in the world? Do they not already know that American platforms are already banned in countries that are adversarial to the US?
If America were a hostile nation to a European country, then said country probably would (and should, heck) ban an enemy nation from running a social media company in their borders. As it is, America is on friendly terms with “Europe” and so the worry isn’t really there.
This is why it’s important for nations to not get to the point where relations are this bad in the first place. It results in isolationism and distrust, which is a slippery slope that results in zero-sum outcomes that are worse than if we had open trade. But that ship has sailed long ago. China has openly declared itself to be in utter opposition to the US and has been engaged in grey zone warfare with us for a decade or more. The next Cold War has already begun.
You mention Europe, which is ironic: China is allied with Russia and is openly funding its invasion of Ukraine. Something the EU hasn’t really done anything to help with, because of a complete lack of resources spent on an independent military from the US’s which they have always counted on to defend them. The idea of EU states souring US relations so much that they welcome China, the very country that is funding the invasion of their continent, is utterly insane. If Germany/UK/France/etc had any kind of sense they’d ban TikTok too out of solidarity.
The word "Adversary" is literally the most important word of GP's sentence. They're a country that we're in a cyber cold war with, and they have god mode control over our public opinion.
It would make about as much sense to let Moscow buy spectrum in the 1950s and broadcast TV directly to every American's home. In what universe does that make even the slightest bit of sense?
To take this further, they would be beaming specific content tailored individually for each American.
This is why social media is so damaging for foreign adversaries to control. They’re beaming personally tailored propaganda.
Edit: from your comment history it looks like you’re from turkey. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if turkey banned instagram/fb/X. In fact I’m kind of surprised they haven’t already.
What an odd thing to say. Why should a company that started the biggest social media app in a decade "divest" it to US oligarchic interests when it's a global application? It makes no sense.
This is the largest affront to American freedom since the patriot act, and the fact that people are celebrating it on some red-scare bullshit is terrifying.
I am personally disgusted that my government thinks it should be in the business of telling me what apps I can have on my phone. I am a grown adult, and a taxpayer, and the US Government has no fucking business telling me where I can watch and/or post videos.
Maybe it's time to build a decentralized alternative so this never happens again.
The US is just reciprocating.
we are the same now
The CCP is not some weird thing that's wrong 100% of the time, so the US must always do the opposite thing.
The CCP banning Google/Facebook was wrong, but not for the reason of removing something a "geopolitical adversary has control" over, it was wrong because it was part of their extensive and illiberal censorship regime. The US has nothing similar.
> we are the same now
No.
You can't say without hypocrisy that China blocking US social media is censorship but US banning Chinese app is national security.
It could, but that's clearly not the reason they are banned in China. IIRC, foreign websites were perfectly kosher in China just as long as they fully complied with its illiberal censorship regime.
For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China:
> "In January 2010, Google announced ... they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary."
> ... On 6 August [2018], China Communist Party's official newspaper People's Daily published a column which was soon deleted saying that they might welcome a return of Google if it plays by Beijing's strict rules for media oversight.
----
> You can't say without hypocrisy that China blocking US social media is censorship but US banning Chinese app is national security.
I can without hypocrisy (see above). Your ignorance doesn't make your false equivalencies true.
this reminds me another brilliant comment:
> China bans US businesses because it has an autocratic, ethnocratic government. The US is banning a Chinese business for obvious national security reasons.
In the 1950s, China forced private enterprises to sell half of their shares to the state In the 1990s, it required foreign companies to establish joint ventures and share intellectual property as a condition for entering the Chinese market.
Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism
> this reminds me another brilliant comment:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Because all the stuff you were reminded of has nothing to do with the kind of "illiberal censorship regime" that I was referring to in what you quoted.
> Congrats, you just walked in the primary stage of socialism
I feel like you're trying to taunt me, but you're doing a pretty poor job of it. Your mention of joint ventures, seems to confusing walking back from socialism with becoming more socialist, somehow.
I’m not concerned so much about TikTok as spyware or data gathering or a vector for influencing young minds… though it is all of that, to some extent.
The real problem is the one sided nature of the U.S.-China trade relationship.
Some people believe that not retaliating stops cycles and systems. Some of us have principles beyond the very childlike, "well, they did it first".
If you believe state censorship is bad, you should oppose it when it is deployed, even if it's deployed against someone you think is also bad.
Like, I think using slurs is bad. I oppose using slurs, even against people I loathe. I have a principal, and I do not violate that principle even if it would hurt people I would consider my opponents.
Same here. My commitment to my principal that "state censorship is bad" far outweighs any feelings about China.
I think some progress was made getting TikTok on US servers and the US hires etc. Maybe more transparency in how the company operated or observers within could have been good next steps. Maybe some mutual concession with some version of US media operating within China.
Ideally finding benefit to nation states competition benefits global citizens in some way such as the green race transition to renewables is good ... Can we have privacy and democratic media race somehow? ... Maybe not possible :)
I am shocked that so many seem to root for China pointing a mind-control weapon at hundreds of millions of people? The Chinese government wants Europe and the US to fall to them. The good does not outweight the bad, in my opinion.
One doesn't have to support the existence of Instagram and Twitter to definitely not support the Chinese control of TikTok. I think the world would be better without closed-source algorithm-controlled short video feeds.
Do you believe this in your heart? Or how about this: do you believe that Europe wants China to fall? Or that the US wants China to fall?
I feel there’s some uncontroversial stuff like China wanting absolute control over messaging about itself, in the context of avoiding organized resistance in its internal affairs. And it goes to extreme measures to do that.
But (glibly) “we want no criticism to be mentioned of us” does not lead to “we want the US to collapse”! There’s a whole texture to the Chinese position here, one that is different from, say, Russia actually taking more or less direct control of various places during the Cold War.
Have you been repeated this for years that now you take it at face value?
I'm no fan of the Chinese regime, but as an European it's my biggest ally spying on me, lying (Iraq/Lybia) and manipulating me.
China is on the other part of the world and it's history it has never bothered neither Europe nor US. In fact it's our troops that conquered and killed Chinese in millions, not them.