| ▲ | muglug 13 hours ago |
| Right, Congress was shown some pretty convincing evidence that execs in China pull the strings, and those execs are vulnerable to Chinese government interference. As we’ve seen in the past couple of weeks, social media companies based in the US are also vulnerable to US government interference — but that’s the way they like it. |
|
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They have? They released a Marty Rimm-level report citing that pro-Palestinian was mentioned more than pro-Israeli content in ratios that differed from Meta products. This was the 'smoking gun' of manipulation when it's more of a sign Meta was the one doing the manipulation. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The opinion today has almost nothing to do with how content is controlled on the platform; the court is very clear that they'd have upheld the statute based purely on the data collection issue. | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That report was pivotal during the vote for the law and belies the actual interests. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The court addresses that directly, and every member of it, despite agreeing on little else, disagrees with you. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | derektank 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't know what Congress has said but there absolutely is evidence that TikTok has been used to spy on users for political reasons. A US based engineer claims that he saw evidence that Hong Kong protestors were spied on in 2018 at the behest of a special committee representing the CCP's interests within ByteDance. This is not surprising, most major corporations within China maintain a special committee representing the government's interests to company executives https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/6/7/china-spied-on-ho... | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The DHS does that in the United States. Every major social media and dating application has a law enforcement portal. This was documented in BlueLeaks. | | |
| ▲ | derektank 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do law enforcement portals provide current location information? There's an extended history of the TikTok being used to spy on the location of user devices https://archive.ph/kt0fY | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, in some cases. Grindr is the most obvious one. | | |
| ▲ | derektank 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, that's because Grindr users choose to publicly share their current location; that's the point of the app. Governments having an API that lets them access data that users publicly share seems substantively different from governments having access to private information, obtaining that information by subverting internal controls at TikTok and ByteDance intended to keep it private. I think anyone not arguing for arguments sake would acknowledge that | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most apps coerce their users into sharing location information. That's why they released apps and did not just use progressive web apps in the first place. But, this is done under the guise of commercial interests, usually advertising, so it's okay? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yard2010 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's the way I like it for my children. Pardon the demagogue. The US, being the awful mess it is is still 100x better IMHO than the chinese government. It's the lesser evil kind of thing and honestly the reason I believe that democracy is 100% THE way to go. Things can only get US level nefarious with democracy. Far from perfect but much less evil. The only problem with democracy is that it's so fragile and susceptible to bad non-democrat actors intervention, which is more of an awareness problem. |
| |
|
| ▲ | navi0 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is X vulnerable to Chinese government interference because its American executive has other business interests in China at stake? I’d argue the TikTok remedy should be applied to X, too. |
| |
| ▲ | tartoran 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This should be applied to all social media. | | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, X doesn't have a corporate governance structure that requires Chinese government control, because it is a US company. Companies in China (and especially those of prominence) have formal structures and regulations that require them to cooperate with the government, and sometimes require the companies to allow the government to intervene in operations if necessary. It is not possible for a CCP official to show up to a board meeting at X and direct the company to take some action, because that isn't how US corporations work. | | |
| ▲ | gWPVhyxPHqvk 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | A CCP official could show up at a Tesla board meeting and announce they're going to seize Gigafactory Shanghai unless Musk takes down some content on X. There doesn't seem to be much of a difference. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tesla is quite notable as the only foreign automaker which China has allowed to operate independently in China. All of the rest of them were forced to joint venture with 51%+ control being handed over to a Chinese domestic company. So, really it's pretty surprising that they haven't done that even before Musk owned X. But regardless, there is a huge difference between a request and actually having managerial authority -- the most obvious being that someone with managerial authority can simply do whatever they want without trying to compel someone else. Also, X, being subject to US law, must comply with that no matter what consequences Musk is threatened with. So, any threats may have limits in what they can practically accomplish. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Zigurd 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are assuming a lot about supposed evidence nobody has said anything specific about. One shouldn't also assume people in Congress know how to evaluate any evidence. Nor justices, based on the questions they asked. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As a matter of political science and public choice theory, the legislature is the branch of government most trusted to collect information and make these kinds of deliberations. | | |
| ▲ | coldpie 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You might buy that, but I don't. Unless they can actually put forward publicly compelling evidence of a national security risk, this can only be seen as a handout to Facebook by the government. This saga just gives more evidence that the US government exists primarily to serve the interests of US's oligarch class. Aside for those oligarchs, it does nothing to serve US citizens' interests. | |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would you call Marjorie Taylor Greene a qualified and trusted investigator for the american people? I sure wouldn’t. Talking about what the legislature is supposed to be is irrelevant. What the legislature actually is is relevant. |
| |
| ▲ | morkalork 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Congress members speak of space lasers and weather control... I'm not sure they're competent as a whole. Actually, it reminds me of the Russian guy that always spouts nonsense about nuking UK into oblivion, and that theory that he's just kept around to make the real evil people look sane. |
|
|
| ▲ | eptcyka 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Good thing Mr Zuckerberg is a shining beacon of independence from the US government. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He's not a formally designated foreign adversary, at least not yet. | |
| ▲ | jack_pp 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The difference is you can easily prosecute Zuck | | |
| ▲ | jeffrapp 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Easily? No. Within the bounds of the US Constitution, yes. | |
| ▲ | coldpie 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No. Zuck is very securely within the class of citizens that is immune to prosecution within the US. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m sure he’s bending at the knee right now because he feels very secure and just had a change of heart about everything precisely one month after the election. | | |
| ▲ | coldpie 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is he bending the knee, or dropping the mask? The billionaire+ class rightly sees this as their big opportunity to seize power for the next several generations, removing worker and consumer protections and enshrining themselves as essential parts of the government. |
| |
| ▲ | kevinmchugh 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why is this true of Zuck but was not true of SBF? | | |
| ▲ | coldpie 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | He was just a dumb get-rich-quick kid, he didn't have any political power. Zuck has spent the past 2 decades gathering money and power. | | |
| ▲ | kevinmchugh 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | How did SBF manage to be the #2 Democratic donor in 2022 without accruing any political power? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kccoder 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Gigabillionaires with immense influence don't get prosecuted. |
|
|
