Remix.run Logo
next_xibalba 12 hours ago

From a geopolitical perspective, this issue about 3 items:

1) Influence- TikTok gives the CCP significant direct influence over the views of Americans.

2) Data- TikTok collects massive amounts of data on 100s of millions of Americans. Opens many avenues for spying, extortion of influence, etc.

3) Reciprocity- Foreign tech companies are essentially banned from operating in China. Much like with other industries, China is not playing fair, they’re playing to win.

Insofar as TikTok has offered a “superior” product, this might be a story of social media and its double edge. But this far more a story of geopolitics.

w0m 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 1) Influence- TikTok gives the CCP significant direct influence over the views of Americans.

There is no credible argument that the CCP doesn't directly control the alg as it's actively being used for just that in tawain/etc.

Does the US really want a (hostile?) foreign govt to have clear direct access to influence 170m americans, an entire generation - completely unfettered? Incredible national security implications. Bot farms can influence X/Meta/etc, but they can be at least be fought. TikTok itself is the influence engine as currently constructed.

jonathanlb 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Does the US really want a (hostile?) foreign govt to have clear direct access to [...] americans

Apparently, American users want this? Approximately 700k users have joined RedNote, a Chinese platform. It's out of the frying pan and into the fire for Americans.

sanktanglia 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well yes, people are addicted to this content so of course they'll seek out alternatives. People want to be distracted by pretty pictures and funny stories and someone telling them their opinions are right

w0m 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For perspective on the the root issue, that number seems incredibly high, and it's still only ~.5% of estimated active American TikTok users.

airstrike 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

700k rounds to zero. YouTube has ~240 million US accounts, Instagram has ~170 million.

hwillis 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Does the US really want a (hostile?) foreign govt to have clear direct access to influence 170m americans, an entire generation - completely unfettered?

As the SCOTUS said itself:

“At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC

w0m 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Functionally; as TikTok is a known/controlled mouthpiece for the CCP - it's infringing the first amendment rights of the foreign govt within US borders?

hwillis 4 hours ago | parent [-]

1. source?

2. A core principle of the constitution is that those rights apply to noncitizens as well as citizens. They are human rights, not citizen rights. It's significantly more ridiculous for corporations to have free speech than a government. They don't have less of a right to free speech because we don't like them.

jagermo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1) to be honest, when I see how russia, Iran and other states influence all other networks (especially when it comes to voting), not sure how tiktok is worse than all of them - just think of Facebook & Cambridge Analytica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

2) yes, that is an issue.

3) fair point.

Manuel_D 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Russia illegally spent something like $100,000 on political ads. Thats basically nothing compared to aggregate political spending.

mjparrott 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is mind blowing to me that this fact is not widely understood. A mountain was made out of a molehill. $4B was spent in 2016. $12B in 2024. Yet $100,000 somehow is believed to have made any difference whatsoever. Literally 0.0025% of the total in 2016.

*Source: https://www.emarketer.com/content/political-ad-spend-nearly-...

seizethecheese 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is, of course, because both USA political parties run their own propaganda machines

lossolo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it's a good scapegoat, why take responsibility for losing an election when you can easily shift the blame to someone else?

epolanski 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Meanwhile US channels this propaganda money through no profits.

dv_dt 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Yup exactly the same thing is happening only with money laundered through nonprofits and political pacs. Once its there the same buy data and place ads & influence is completely legal - which makes the singled out ban on TikTok at odds with the stated purpose of it

throwawayq3423 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1. This was a scandal for FB, not a feature.

next_xibalba 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cambridge Analytica had zero effect on the 2016 elections. It was the mother of all nothingburgers. I encourage all who see this comment to dig into the truth of that case.

The huge difference is that while foreign adversaries run influence networks on other social media platforms (and are opposed and combatted by those platforms) TikTok (the platform itself) is controlled by the foreign adversary (the CCP).

throwawayq3423 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It was more a proof of concept. If that could be done on a small scale, why not a large one?

And elections are decided by margins, pushing them even slightly has massive, irrevocable consequences.

fidotron 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 1) Influence- TikTok gives the CCP significant direct influence over the views of Americans

More to the point: it removes the ability of the existing American establishment to monopolise the viewpoints presented to Americans.

next_xibalba 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Americans are already quite free to seek a broad range of domestic and foreign viewpoints. Chinese citizens, on the other hand, are not. At all.

The key point here is that an algorithm can invisibly nudge those viewpoints, and a foreign adversary controls the algorithm.

Insofar as your claim is that powerful people and institutions care most about power, I agree. It’s very telling that TikTok would shutdown instead of divest. (Meanwhile, U.S. companies have routinely taken the other side of the deal in China: minority stake joint ventures in which “technology transfer” is mandated. AKA intellectual property plundering.)

fidotron 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Americans are already quite free to seek a broad range of domestic and foreign viewpoints.

The reality is they live in an establishment controlled media bubble, that is itself full of propaganda.

Being free does not mean free to live in a lie constructed for the benefit of someone else, it means being free to live in reality, and that freedom is being denied to Americans. At least the Chinese are aware of their reality.

next_xibalba 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I can navigate my browser to Al Jazeera, RT, or Xinhua without interference. Meanwhile, China has a national firewall imprisoning its netizens. So, while most Americans opt to live inside filter bubbles, they are free to escape if they so choose. Not so for the citizens of China, who live in the iron grip of the CCP.

That’s to say nothing of censorship. I can post “f** Joe Biden” on any social platform in the U.S. Meanwhile, a Chinese netizen compares Xi to Winnie the Pooh and gets a visit from the police. And their post never sees the light of day.

These aren’t differences of degree. They are differences of category.

throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I can navigate my browser to Al Jazeera, RT, or Xinhua without interference

The reason you can is that very few people actually do. As the Tik Tok affair shows, the moment the US suspects it might have some real competitor in controlling the narrative, it shuts them down. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but it's worth taking note that it's how things are.

fidotron 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Americans live in a society lying to them by omission. You have to have learned AlJazeera, RT or Xinhua exist, because they're not going to be shown to you by normal channels, and you almost certainly go on a watchlist if you visit too much.

The whole point is to remove anything that may cause a passive media consumer to question what is presented to them.

JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You have to have learned AlJazeera, RT or Xinhua exist, because they're not going to be shown to you by normal channels

They’ve each run ads on billboards in New York. I distinctly remember Xinhua’s in Time Square.

fidotron 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Recently?

Al Jazeera America closed down some years ago. (2016 apparently).

JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Definitely after 2016, but before Covid.

fidotron 9 hours ago | parent [-]

At the risk of a tangent, were Xinhua seriously fishing for a US audience? Or was it more kudos from the billboard?

My parents used to be addicted to Al Jazeera, then some unspecified incident occurred and we were never to speak of it again. All very strange.

reaperducer 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You have to have learned AlJazeera, RT or Xinhua exist, because they're not going to be shown to you by normal channels

Al Jazeera is widely known across the country, and during the time I had cable television was available in every city in which I lived.

RT is available over-the-air on free regular broadcast channels in some American cities. You can't get less restricted than that.

You speak like someone who's never even been to the United States.

throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't matter what media are available as long as you manage to control their impact- that is, the vast majority of your citizens don't really watch them. The moment one becomes impactful, you can shut it down citing dangerous foreign interference (and it's true!).

fidotron 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Al Jazeera America stopped in 2016.

RT America was removed from most services as of 2022 and hasn't been broadcasting since.

This is changing in the wrong direction and you are getting less free over time.

> You speak like someone who's never even been to the United States.

You speak like someone who's never left it.

throwawayq3423 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Both AJ and RT are widely available online. Your bar of "American cable networks must grant licenses to broadcast hostile foreign state propaganda" is one that no other country abides by.

In fact, even the idea of allowing CNN or BBC to broadcast into people's homes in Russia is so laughable, I don't know why you even brought it up, or what your point is.

fidotron 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> In fact, even the idea of allowing CNN or BBC to broadcast into people's homes in Russia is so laughable, I don't know why you even brought it up, or what your point is.

No one's talking about availability in Russia except you.

And to add some substance about why AJ and RT can be accessed I will quote another commenter who put it better than I did: "The reason you can is that very few people actually do. As the Tik Tok affair shows, the moment the US suspects it might have some real competitor in controlling the narrative, it shuts them down. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but it's worth taking note that it's how things are."

throwawayq3423 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> No one's talking about availability in Russia except you.

That's the other side of the coin. Why do you expect one country to be totally open and allow the other to be totally closed? How is that a standard that makes any sense?

> "The reason you can is that very few people actually do."

I don't see what consumption habits have to do with anything. This is also contradicting what you just said, that people in the US don't have access to this content.

> As the Tik Tok affair shows, the moment the US suspects it might have some real competitor in controlling the narrative, it shuts them down.

Who is the "US" here? The U.S. government? A specific company? Without specifics you aren't really saying anything at all, just implying some greater unfalsifiable conspiracy.

fidotron 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> This is also contradicting what you just said, that people in the US don't have access to this content.

The point is that their other media so promotes a lack of curiosity by providing a false impression of being comprehensive. If you risk bursting that bubble suddenly you are first mocked, then they try to buy you, then they block you, and tell you it is your fault.

The US is held to higher standards because that is how it promotes itself. Many of us outside the US are actually saddened by a betrayal of these values, because we are all too aware of how lacking many places are, and we need the US to be better than this.

throwawayq3423 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> The point is that their other media so promotes a lack of curiosity by providing a false impression of being comprehensive. If you risk bursting that bubble suddenly you are first mocked, then they try to buy you, then they block you, and tell you it is your fault.

I'm not being funny but I honestly couldn't follow that.

> The US is held to higher standards because that is how it promotes itself.

You are right, they are. That's why they didn't prevent TikTok from operating and growing domestically for years. Then the Chinese government starting using it as an asset of their espionage apparatus, so in response the U.S. STILL didn't ban the content in contains, but rather told the (apparently) independent company operating TikTok that the content is free to remain as long as it's not controlled by a hostile foreign government. The refusal to sell is the most obvious public facing proof that they are in fact Chinese government controlled.

All of that is how the U.S. is different, but as evidenced by this conversation and multiple other threads, no one really cares about the nuance.

And the greater context to this discussion is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

The application of this principle can be seen when closed societies maintain complete control over their domestic media, while spreading as much toxic nonsense as possible abroad[1].

At the same they are completely intolerant of speech at home, they exploit the openness of the west by pushing disinfo they know to be wrong (and harmful) aboard. They continue to muddy the waters by pretending their information warfare is "just asking questions" (RT's moto is "Question More"). It's an extension of their hybrid warfare efforts, and shouldn't be seen as anything less.

[1] For example, domestic Russian media encourages citizens to get vaccinated against COVID19, while promoting anti-vaccine conspiracies abroad. This is one of thousands of examples. https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/russia-china-iran-covid-...

reaperducer 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You speak like someone who's never left it.

Darn it, then decade I spent in Asia and the 100+ trips to Europe and the Middle East didn't prepare me for the rapier banter of some rando on the internet.

fidotron 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Dishes it out but can’t take it?

How appropriate.

portaouflop 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes the categories of “our glorious leader” on one side and “their wretched despot” on the other. The categories of “our objective news” and “their state propaganda”. “Their brutish enforcers” vs “our noble police”.

You have to accept that the era of American exceptionalism is over and we’ll all be measured by our actions rather than the dreamy stories told.

davidcbc 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The key point here is that an algorithm can invisibly nudge those viewpoints, and a foreign adversary controls the algorithm.

Compared to all the other algorithmic social media in which domestic adversaries control the algorithm.

unethical_ban 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, exactly, finally you get it. Because yes, China is worse.

w0m 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It’s very telling that TikTok would shutdown instead of divest.

TBF; The CCP passed laws that likely make it illegal for TikTok to sell/export that kind of information (the algo). They can't divest without also neutering the sticking power of the service.

next_xibalba 11 hours ago | parent [-]

And why did the CCP pass those laws? Perhaps bc they understood it would block divestment, acting as a poison pill to would be acquirers, thereby forcing foreign governments to fight their own public in outright banning TikTok.

w0m 11 hours ago | parent [-]

DingDingDing. Ignoring actual value of the ban - I fully expect Trump to save US TikTok to avoid the bad PR associated.

JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Trump to save us TikTok to avoid the bad PR associated

He can just blame it on Biden and use his time productively.

throwawayq3423 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> More to the point: it removes the ability of the existing American establishment to monopolise the viewpoints presented to Americans.

There is no evidence this exists.

unethical_ban 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It doesn't have to be either /or. You should be skeptical of US spy agency behavior, and still recognize the threat of Chinese influence via psyops algorithm to the United States.

xnx 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

0) Protectionism- TikTok is eating Meta's lunch. Meta can't make a social app as good as TikTok in the same way GM can't make a car as good a value as BYD.

luma 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Much like Google was eating the lunch of everything in China and the CCP, in response, made it essentially impossible for them to operate.

This is not new behavior between the two countries, the only thing new is the direction. US is finally waking up to the foreign soft power being exercised inside our own country, and it isn't benefiting us.

joshuaissac 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Google was eating the lunch of everything in China and the CCP, in response, made it essentially impossible for them to operate.

Google was operating in China until 2010 when they got banned because they stopped censoring search results. Other Western search engines like Bing continue operate in China.

nmfisher 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Completely tangential, but from personal experience, the performance of Google Search had been degraded for at least 2 years prior, so when it was banned it was already mostly useless anyway.

GMail continued for a few years after that - I'm not even sure if it was ever actually banned, or just suffered the same fate (death by a thousands timeouts).

throwawayq3423 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They also got their source code stolen by Chinese state hackers. The word "hostile" doesn't begin to describe their experience operating on the mainland.

next_xibalba 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is just a different bias on point 3, reciprocity. BYD benefits from state subsidies and state sponsored intellectual property theft on an industrial scale. See again, point 3.

swatcoder 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That certainly plays some role in why domestic social media companies haven't stirred up resistance to the ban, but is more like #50 in terms of geopolitical strategy.

The domestic companies lost some attention share to TikTok sure, and a ban or domestic sale would generally be in their interests, but it's not like they were about to be Myspaced. They've remained among the most valued companies -- presently and in forecasts -- even while it was "eating their lunch"

xnx 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> it's not like they were about to be Myspaced. They've remained among the most valued companies

It hasn't been an overnight switch, but the trajectory did not look good for US companies. TikTok was even eating into TV viewing time. There's a fixed amount of attention and TikTok was vacuuming it up from everywhere.

JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I won’t say that isn’t relevant; when you’re building a coalition you don’t say no to allies. But it was a cherry on top of a well-baked pie. Not a foundational motivation.

xnx 12 hours ago | parent [-]

True, but I'd say that in this area (vs. manufacturing where tariffs can be applied), it's more taboo/embarrassing to admit how dominated Instagram was. Reels is the cheap knockoff of the genuine article.

JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> it's more taboo/embarrassing to admit how dominated Instagram was

Where? Stockholders have been vocally livid about it.

unethical_ban 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Meta can't make a psyop as dangerous

We should treat social media as the addictive, mind altering drug it is, and stop acting like a free market saturation of them is a good thing.

China having their more potent mind control app pointed at the brains of hundreds of millions of people is not something to celebrate.

dmix 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> TikTok collects massive amounts of data on 100s of millions of Americans. Opens many avenues for spying, extortion of influence, etc.

you can buy all of that from data brokers

hwillis 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not even about them:

> If, for example, a user allows TikTok access to the user’s phone contact list to connect with others on the platform, TikTok can access “any data stored in the user’s contact list,” including names, contact information, contact photos, job titles, and notes. 2 id., at 659. Access to such detailed information about U. S. users, the Government worries, may enable “China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

It seems farcically ridiculous to me to ban the app because it somehow could let china blackmail CEOs.

fidotron 6 hours ago | parent [-]

They have had legit unintentional problems with apps like Strava: https://www.wired.com/story/strava-heat-map-military-bases-f...

What ZTE were up to was way more nefarious, but couldn't be done with just apps.

soramimo 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bravo, perfect summary of the issue at hand.

It'll be revealing to see which political actors come out in favor of keeping tiktok around.

bsimpson 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has blown my mind how "free Palestine" has become a meme. That war started with a bunch of terrorists kidnapping/raping/murdering college-age kids at a music festival, and college kids around the world started marching _in support of_ the perpetrators.

At some point, I realized that I avoid social media apps, and the people in those marches certainly don't.

I know that there's more to the Israel:Palestine situation than the attack on the music festival, but the fundamental contradiction that the side that brutalized innocent young people seems to have the popular support of young people is hard to ignore. I wonder to what degree it's algorithmically driven.

spencerflem 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In response, Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, 80% civilians, 70% women and children, have destroyed more than half of their buildings residential or otherwise, displaced millions, refuse aid. Disproportionate does not begin to cover it

kbloop 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

to say it started on October 7th is beyond being misinformed or a misrepresentation.

>that the side that brutalized innocent young people

runarberg 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It looks like you are comparing a specific terrorist group to Israel as a society. Be aware that there is a large propaganda machine which uses this tactic to dehumanize Palestinians in order to justify a genocide against them.

Now if you wanted to compare atrocities—which honestly you shouldn’t—you would compare the Palestinian children that were brutalized both in the Gaza genocide, and in any one of the number of IDF incursions into Gaza and the West Bank before and after oct 7. That is compare victims to one side, to the victims of the other side.

But people generally don’t pick sides like that. They don‘t evaluate the atrocities committed by one armed group to the atrocities committed by the other and favor one over the other. And they certainly don‘t favor one civilian group over another based on the actions of their armed groups. People much more simply react to atrocities as they happen. And Israel has committed enough atrocities during the Gaza genocide that social media will be reacting—both in anger and horror—for a long time to come.

lvl155 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nail in the head with reciprocity. I think the US honored its end of the bargain over the past four plus decades since China started manufacturing goods for US companies. China clearly benefited since they are now the second largest economy. Along the way China grew ambitious which is fine but they made an idiotic policy error in timing. They should’ve waited a couple more decades to show teeth.

lossolo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1. Is there any real evidence of the CCP using TikTok for anything?

3. Then what is Microsoft doing in China? What is Apple doing in China? Etc. No tech company is banned from China, the only companies that choose not to operate in China are those that do not agree to follow Chinese laws.

9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]