78 points

Since when does Congress ban websites or dictate what apps people can have on their devices? Regardless of how you feel about this particular company, I feel like no one is talking about the internet-killing precedent that’s being set here, and that should be concerning.

permalink
report
reply
40 points

To be fair they didn’t actually name TikTok. That would be clearly Unconstitutional. Instead they made a bill that will only apply to one company. So unconstitutional but most people won’t notice.

And even better Meta, Alphabet, Apple, and GM are all busy selling China your information as fast as they can anyways.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

It’s being used as an infiltration device by the Chinese government. Not that I agree butvits not just a website. Same as Twitter and Facebook bit we have more control over those.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

It’s being used as an infiltration device by the Chinese government

Please prove this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Spoiler: they can’t

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

There’s obviously not going to be proof, it’d be huge news if there were. At the same time, I also wonder why people so adamantly defensive of TikTok in particular? It seems trivial enough to establish that they could exert an undue influence on a global audience through social media with just a few (I would think uncontroversial) assumptions

  1. Social platforms have more than enough information to create a good idea of your politics, personality, and interests
  2. Platforms such as TikTok operate on “pushing” content the algorithm wants instead of users “pulling” content they want to see
  3. You are not immune to propaganda. Nobody is.

With a state ownership stake in the picture, it creates a pretty uneasy tension, right? If they know (1), they could just push ads and content which would help prime you emotionally and mentally to receive that advertising via mechanism (2). This is their actual business model.

Alternatively, if so motivated, they could just as easily use that same profile and mechanism to push content which nudges the content consumer in any myriad ways (politically, socially, etc.). Start with something that’s “close” to the viewer’s existing views, and cumulatively keep pushing content which leads folks down pipelines. They don’t even need to make the content. The users create it; the sentiment, quality, and popularity data informs which shorts to push where; refine the model based on receptivity; repeat as necessary.

Given (3), especially at the scale we’re talking about with TikTok, I think it’s obviously possible that the platform could be used to meaningfully influence public opinion, sow discord, spread misinformation, whatever. Whether they actually do this is purely speculative, but I also have a hard time thinking people would be quite so enthusiastically defensive of a similar social platform under direct influence from their own government?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Same as Twitter and Facebook bit we have more control over those.

Only in the sense that the people using them to manipulate us are the same ones making the laws. They’re leveraging it for their own ends, not stopping it.

The correct course of action (from the perspective of the American people, in stark contrast to that of the American government/oligarchy) would be to ban TikTok as the threat it is, and also ban Facebook, Twitter and Reddit for the threats they pose as well. The trouble is that it won’t, because it is the entity wielding that weapon against the American people and will not voluntarily disarm itself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Banning them is the exact wrong way to go about the problem. That just gives the government the power to ban apps that contain information that doesn’t fit the narrative the government wants to put out. It gives them control over the consumer.

What should happen is comprehensive privacy protections for consumers and extensive fines when companies don’t abide by them. That way, the consumer benefits and the government has more oversight over companies, not people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

I’m not a ban fan but social media like that is psychological cancer that is definitely harming the young and old mentally.

Kids growing up these days have the burden of the disgusting need for social media self-promotion. They are conditioned that attention and Likes are the most valuable social currency, and waste so much of their valuable youth pursuing that hollow bullshit.

I’m keeping my kids off social media for as long as I can so they can experience growing up without Cloud-automated peer pressure.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Look what it did to boomers. Legit. Ban all that shit. Geocities for the win.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Lead exposure was probably a big part of that as well to be fair.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

This will do nothing about that. If TikTok is banned, kids will just move to something else. You would have to ban all social media. Good luck with that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You can’t ban peer pressure. That’s like trying to stop the flow of water.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Surely engineers have devised ways to reduce pier pressure caused by the flow of water.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

They said this about TV. And game consoles. And computers. And every social media website. They said this about movies when they first came out too.

Social media is a reality of the world. This ban isn’t getting rid of that, just banning one specific platform. Why is Intagram Reels acceptable but Tik Tok isn’t? Because ones is owned by a Chinese company and the other isn’t. That’s all this ban is about. Literally nothing else.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They said it about stories that were written down instead of memorized and told our loud.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, I’m almost 100% sure the “tiktok is damaging kid’s brains” is the millennial equivalent of boomers “videogames and TV are damaging kid’s brains”.

I’m a millennia by the way, and we are starting to sound a bit afraid of technologies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Short form video is genuinely pretty bad though… Most social media is too, it’s not just a new medium people are scared of, it deliberately trains people to maximize use of it

Facebook pioneered most of the (unethical) experiments that make it so bad. They experimented with what makes people use the app for longest - controversial topics, quickly decreasing the amount of “desired” content as you scroll to push you to the optimal reinforcement schedule in operant conditioning, and copious amounts of alerts to give you fomo

Video games can be bad for the same reason - they can also be built to cultivate addiction. And social media can be built without it… The difference between Reddit pre-investment (which coincidentally, I think was also related to tencent/bytedance… They have an obscene amount of money invested everywhere) and Reddit now is a good example

It’s not just people clutching pearls about the new thing or a rise in mental illness coinciding with the growth of social media - there’s a science-backed arms race between engineering more time in app and understanding/treating the effects

(That being said, I agree we millennials are starting to emotionally reject new technology - in this case there’s just solid science showing how this is being misused with bad effects)

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This is all true which is why it’s obvious that this ban has nothing to do with any of this considering they allow this behavior to continue just as long as these companies are also under their influence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m a new parent trying to navigate all this myself.

Most research I’ve been able to find suggests that social media doesn’t cause problems, but rather kids with problems tend to spend too much time on social media. As in there’s no causal link between social media and whatever social problems.

I guess when my kids get to that age the best I’ll be able to do will be to try to keep them engaged with the physical world however I can.

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

How about a digital bill of rights instead of playing ineffective whackamole?

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Harm the stock portfolios of US billionaires? You sound like someone who hates receiving RVs and fishing trips.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I do, fishing sucks

Just get drunk on a boat without the act, cowards

permalink
report
parent
reply

Because the US can control the topics shared in the other platforms, but since tiktok is owned by a chinese parent company, they can’t

Also, tiktok was originally told they had to sell to a us based owner to avoid the ban (see hostile takeover)

This ban has nothing to do with privacy and Chinese manipulation, and everything about control and profits.

Hell, Besos and The Zuckster are the two main forces pushing for this ban.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Corporate lobbying doesn’t want digital rights for people, more work for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

Good.

Let’s go further. Any company using an algorithm to profit off people’s engagement has to publish the code.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

Code’s not enough. The data the algorithm is analyzing (both the training data and live data) has to be public too, in order to actually understand what the algorithm is doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Is there a way to publish the data without harming the users?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The training data, yes. As for the live data… I would say “yes” in the sense that the service shouldn’t be storing anything but what the users explicitly choose to make public to begin with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They are making money off a literal public good. EVERYTHING they produce, including the profits, is public property.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

If I have it correct, the law wouldn’t immediately ban TikTok but would require it to actually be sold to a real US company within a certain amount of days otherwise it’d get banned. The CCP obviously doesn’t want that. So if this passes, TikTok isn’t removed immediately.

Probably what happens is the CCP, I mean Bytedance, sells it to a US company then puts their people there to still siphon data.

permalink
report
reply
35 points

The law is to force any company that isn’t US owned that the US doesn’t like to hand over ownership. Regardless of your thoughts on TikTok/ByteDance/China in general, this is not a law one should praise. It’s incredibly dangerous and is one more step toward the US becoming a full-fledged fascist state.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What exactly is fascist about it? Being able to ban companies from hostile nations seems like a legitimate tool that frankly is concerning that we didn’t have before. Russia and China are using massive propaganda farms and the US has been paying the price of that for too long. We are moving into a hostile multi-polar world and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Internet isn’t segregated sooner or later if hostilities start

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

I guarantee you that Facebook, Twitter and Google are selling data to China on the regular. And anyone else willing to pay up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s all fine and dandy for Biden though because he gets to sort through it all first unlike with TikTok.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m pretty sure Biden is not sorting through everyone’s social media information. I think he’s a little busy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It’s already run by a Singaporean group. Transferring it to the US is just a chance for our Social Media conglomerates to part it out and destroy competition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The best part is they get to buy it at a discount, because they know there won’t be any other options.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

The CEO is Singaporean but it isn’t run by any Singaporean group.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

TikTok Ltd was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and is based in both Singapore and Los Angeles.[11] It owns four entities that are based respectively in the United States, Australia (which also runs the New Zealand business), United Kingdom (also owns subsidiaries in the European Union), and Singapore (owns operations in Southeast Asia and India).

From the Wikipedia. This isn’t hard information to find.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

60% of Bytedance is owned by institutional investors. It’s a private company. The CCP doesn’t own the company. 3 of the 5 board members are American. Don’t spread made up bullshit. If there’s any reason not to sell the company to a US company is because only 150 million Americans are tiktok users on an app with over a billion monthly active users globally. Not to mention that the US companies are gonna lowball the shit out of their offers because they think Bytedance is gonna be begging to sell. Also, there’s a chance that if the US bans tiktok, then maybe they could get access to China, which tiktok is not currently available in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Any business that does business in China, especially ones based in China, are under the CCP. Doesn’t matter who the “owners” are and they can have 1000 American board members.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

China has private industry AND state owned industry. While everything is monitored by the CCP, they don’t control private businesses. They do indeed have capitalism in China. The only difference is that in China, rich people get killed when they fuck people over. Even the US is an insanely corrupt surveillance state.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

99.99999%

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 469K

    Comments