You must log in or # to comment.
Banning the one mentioned is partisan
Easy, you have a very different idea of what the “nation” in “national security” and “national interests” is than they do.
Look, the problem isn’t China getting your data.
The problem is they’re not paying a US oligarch for it.
It’s not, there’s no evidence that it is, and even if the Chinese were trying to get all of our data they could buy it for far less trouble and expense from any of the American data brokers happy to sell it. They don’t need an app to obtain our data, they just need money.
The influence argument is similarly baseless. Cambridge Analytica demonstrated that existing American social media capabilities already permit foreign interference in American public opinion. TikTok is remarkably expensive to run, and the influence campaigns that they could run on Facebook would be much less expensive.
TikTok is competing with American social media companies. It’s no better or worse than any other social media company, but because it’s not based in the US it’s labeled a national security risk. We’re happy to let any company collect and sell personal information, so long as they’re based in America.
The security at risk is that of the white tech monopoly my friend
Because Musky has conned America into thinking he’s a smart good American.
Maybe both are bad?
“Facebook should be under incredibly strict regulation or killed outright” is also a position I’m fond of.
The Cambridge Analytica story explains how much I distrust Facebook.
💲
Because at least in America when a Billionaire buys a company they can kick the Feds out the were manipulating and suppressing information for 8 years.
Because communism le bad.
Can someone explain why the author is censored in this screenshot? Isn’t it public already?
Copyright violations are fun
Well, the TikTok lawyers kinda said the quiet part out loud during their SCOTUS brief:
Mr. Francisco contended that the government in a free country “has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda” and cannot constitutionally try to keep Americans from being “persuaded by Chinese misinformation.” That is targeting the content of speech, which the First Amendment does not permit, he said.
It’s not a great look for your app when your argument before the Supreme Court is “yeah, we’re a propaganda machine for a hostile foreign power, but free speech says you can’t stop us. Neener neener.”
The issue for common people regarding tiktok is more along the lines of foreign adversaries obtaining personal information of the users or using it to spy on the government. The idea that chinese propaganda would be in any way a threat is absurd and shouldn’t even need to be defended in any way. “America bad” is hardly a hot take and they don’t need to spread any lies to get that point across.
The issue for common people regarding tiktok is more along the lines of foreign adversaries obtaining personal information of the users or using it to spy on the government
What’s the difference between Facebook / Meta selling my data to whoever, vs. TikTok harvesting it themselves?
There is no difference, neither should be allowed to do that. Person I replied to claimed the issue is chinese propaganda instead of any actual security risks.
How is it any different than the Russian propaganda campaign to get Trump elected? Or was that something you were fine with as well?
When you let a foreign government run an active psyop campaign against your citizens, you’re just begging for instability and chaos.
And how is it different than Dems calling Trump Hitler, regardless of how accurate it was? Should they also be tried for “propaganda”? And how about goverments claiming they’re doing well, should they be tried for propaganda? How about the entire red scare propaganda? How about anti-arab propaganda? Putting someone on a trial for “propaganda” is a dangerous violation of free speech. If you can prove they’ve been lying, then at best they’re at the same playing field as the government suing them, and in case of tiktok as far as I am aware there is no evidence that they were spreading any lies. It’s just that they weren’t censoring the genocide Israel commited in Gaza, unlike platforms aligned with USA, like Meta or Twitter. Which censorship was most definitely a propaganda, but instead of them it’s tiktok that’s being punished for not doing it? It’s nonsense. Boosting negative commentary about foreign country is basic freedom of speech, and attempting to silence that feels very dictatorial. It’s what China did with a lot of internet for spreading propaganda against them, don’t you feel like removing Youtube access in China for making anti-chinese material available was bad for free speech? I wouldn’t mind tiktok getting closed for spying on people, but it’s obvious they don’t want a precedent for that. Blocking propaganda? Bullshit.
As for me “being fine with” other peoples freedom of speech, I dislike what they had to say and I’d want them to be punished for lying, but I’d never advocate against them having option to speak. You end up living in a dictatorship by doing that. I’m not a free speech absolutist, by any stretch of imagination, but banning platforms for containing content casting bad light on you is going too far for me. Especially since there are much better reasons to do so.
I disagree. I think it’s incredibly dangerous for a malevolent actor to control the media we consume and can erode the community from within.
Just look at fox news.
So in your view Fox News should be banned because they’re propaganda machine for the right wing, calling out Dems for their faults and praising Reps for anything they did? Or because they’re lying pieces of shit that helped manufacture a false narrative that eroded democracy and allowed fascists to get in power? Because, as far as I know, tiktok didn’t do the later and it’s the platform that got banned.
Oh yeah it’s the latter. I’m not advocating for the tiktok ban at all, but I do think fox news is a malicious cancer.
In fact, because of fox news existence, I think foreign national propaganda engines are more important than ever. If the population is going to be manipulated for the gain of a few, at least have a lot of actors manipulating everyone so we have a chance of not letting one person control everyone.
that’s not what they’re saying, they’re saying even if they were chinese propaganda, it would be protected under the first amendment for americans to read what they want and make their own decisions….
but, nice 4th grader logic you got there.
See, “I’m not gonna smack you across the face, but I totally could if I wanted to and you can’t do shit about it” might not be the best way to clear your reputation as a bully.
See, “Why aren’t you going after other social networks. Specifically Facebook and X…you know, the ones proved, since 2016, to lie and interfere with democracy? Is this gonna be wack a mole? Another chinese app its already trending you know…”
I don’t use none of these. Facebook, xitter, tik-tok…I don’t defend any of these.
But we KNOW Facebook was used to manipulate elections across the world. We know none of them give a dam about the truth.
I just want to ser Musk and Zuckerberg punished as the rest.
Unfortunately both of those people are american.
Rich Americans.
Its hard to take people down when they are responsible for making countless politicians and business people money, as well as assisting the government with their surveillance domestically and internationally.
deleted by creator
They are assholes, sure… but are they wrong?
I mean, yeah? Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are inalienable rights, sure, but they’re generally intended to extend to citizens. Not foreign governments.
There’s a big difference between a Chinese citizen here on a green card going around saying they love China and a company running an active misinformation campaign on orders from their government.
It’s no different than how the government tried to crack down on Russian election interference. Turns out, hostile nations running psyops campaigns is bad.
I agree that it’s bad, and it should be forbidden… but with the whole US decisions that “corporations are people” and “money is speech”, I think it’s legally questionable.
I might grant questionable, but not super.
I think a large part of why it was a 9-0 decision was that it’s not speech to run a social media site. It’s commerce, plain as day. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce full stop. The fact that China is using that platform to spread misinformation, and then claiming that stopping them from doing so is a 1A violation is just a red herring.
“Money is speech” just means rich people can donate all the money they want to a politician. Not that you can run an otherwise unlawful business because “money is speech and free speech is a thing!”
I mean, if that’s the question you want answered…
X uses a native browser controller when you open a link, so the app can’t see what you do in there.
Whereas TikTok uses a managed webview… which they have been caught injecting keyloggers into.
Back in the olden days, we called this a cross-site scripting attack.
Finally a reasonable answer that isnt propaganda or stupidity
Seems like meta were trying something similar with thier replacing all links in Facebook messenger with thier fbrpc://facebook/nativethirdparty?app_id Links, but seems like they gave up on it because it was all broken.
Yup. They’re all dangerous monsters.
IMO, it doesn’t even matter who’s worse, cuz they’re all bad enough they should all be subject to aggressive regulation with the goal of establishing safe interop off-ramps for people to stop using the services or at least use more trustworthy clients.
In my estimation, TikTok is worse, but that’s not even what the ban is about. It’s because China is spying instead of the US. That’s not a reason to defend TikTok though, or to oppose the government’s decision — cuz they were accidentally right, for the wrong reason.
It is really difficult to write down good regulations. There are so many diverse issues with tech companies. For instance, data harvesting, misinformation, addiction (to short-form content), propaganda, anticompetitive practices, tax evasion etc etc. Ideally there would be some good-standard platform/tech company so we have some idea how to deal what to regulate towards. Otherwise it’s a really tough task.
That’s where I’m at. If in an alternate universe Congress did something like banning the distribution of harvested data, even just to foreign entities, and TikTok then refused to comply, then I’d be fully in support with them getting banned for it.
Here in the real world though, Congress apparently doesn’t have the balls to pass blanket privacy rights like that, because you see, that’d catch some of the wrong fish. I think it says a lot about the state of modern social media that all they were willing to go after TikTok for was something as nebulous as “national security risk”.
Just something to think about when it comes to the influence social media has on society
TikTok has already transformed how Americans communicate, influencing language and behavior in ways that may have broader implications. The Chinese government, known for using censorship and language control to maintain social order and suppress dissent, leverages euphemistic language as a tool for manipulating public opinion and silencing critical discourse.
Phrases like “unalive” for suicide or “grape” for rape dilute the meaning and impact of language, making it easier for powerful entities to control narratives and obscure uncomfortable truths. This process, known as “language laundering” or “semantic bleaching,” strips words of their emotional weight and original meaning, making it harder to address sensitive or urgent issues effectively.
This trend has extended beyond language to visuals, with people obscuring letters or censoring words in pictures and posts—using terms like “s**cide” or “r*pe.” While this may help users navigate algorithms designed to suppress certain keywords, it completely erodes the clarity and impact of critical conversations.
The normalization of this behavior on TikTok has permeated Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, and other social media platforms, spreading a culture of diluted language and indirect communication. These practices hinder meaningful discourse, desensitize users to serious issues, and ultimately make it more challenging to engage with sensitive topics in a direct and effective manner. Recognizing and resisting this shift is essential to preserving the integrity of public discussions and fostering authentic engagement.
You’re attributing to TikTok what has been happening for years before even Vine came into existence and is actually a different issue: corporate-owned platforms cracking down on uses of those words as they’re not “advertiser friendly” and don’t “encourage a safe and fun space” or whatever. TikTok is in no way special here
It was already incredibly common to censor these words, grape for rape goes back at least 15 years to when WKUK were making their rounds. Unalive on sites like YouTube go back at least to 2018/2017 en masse if not earlier
It’s mainly because words/phrases such as: murder, suicide, rape, human trafficking, forced prostitution, child sexual abuse, etc can get you banned on those platforms. Don’t blame the people who work around, to discuss important but heavy subjects, blame the algorithms and report -happy users who for some weird reason, are opposed to these topics being discussed. Probably perpetrators or enablers imo not who knows?
They are both security risks. The difference is the SA oligarch has already successfully infiltrated our national security and installed himself in a position of power so we can’t do anything about it anymore.
Honestly the way he did it was pretty perfect. Create technology and weapons and R&D for the country you want to infiltrate, ingratiate yourself to it’s people, government, and military. Then start throwing money into politics to buy yourself a spot on the cabinet.
This is a game any bad state actor with a huge wad of cash can play thanks to Citizen’s United.
Create
I think you mean buy. Fund is probably the most generous word you could use, but that’s a fat stretch.
Musk created SpaceX, he didn’t buy it.
It is the only active one that he didn’t buy into I think. I guess maybe the money pit boring company that doesn’t do anything?
-
Paypal he bought into by merging X.com and got thrown out after
-
Tesla he bought into and ousted the founding members and paid and retconned gis heart out to call himself a founder. It is also where most of his wealth comes from from insane speculative overvaluation (look at market cap vs Toyota and then market share vs Toyota) that he can continuously borrow off of at essentially 0% interest or tax rate.
-
the boring company he did found, mostly as a scam to kill goverment mass transit projects (Chicago, San Jose trail link, hyperlopp) essentially winning competitions through good presentations and getting better projects involving mass transit to drop out or be rejected before canceling the project. Who would have thought, coming from a car company. The LA loop is the only thing they ever accomplished and is a nightmare unsafe hellhole of non-working self driving and traffic that is a huge enclosed fire tragedy waiting to happen
-
twitter he got forced to buy into after being a loudmouthed asshole idiot and turned it into a bot-riddled right will hellhole
-
musk bought into solar city and since bought it out by Tesla and it is riddles with problems
-
musk venture capitalist funded openAI but was against pretty much everything and almost got throws out. I guess if you consider having almost no impact or vision besides providing some money founding then I guess he founded that?
-
musk bought neuralink out from scientists, by pretending to not be elon musk, for pennies to expand on their ideas and make it mainstream. Stealing someone’s name, work, and ideas under the pretense of being someone else doesn’t seem like founding to me
But he pays to be named founder on Wikipedia for many of those lol
-
He founded Space X, but he did not create the technology and do the R&D alone like Tony Stark. He got the funding though.
Who ever claimed he created the technology? That makes no sense at all. And SpaceX got funding from NASA, just like a lot of other aerospace companies. In terms of value they delivered for that money, they’re far ahead of the competition. Boeing got more money for Starliner than SpaceX got for Crew Dragon. And look how that turned out.
Who ever claimed he created the technology?
The initial comment in this thread:
Honestly the way he did it was pretty perfect. Create technology and weapons and R&D for the country you want to infiltrate, ingratiate yourself to it’s people, government, and military. Then start throwing money into politics to buy yourself a spot on the cabinet.
This is what was being responded to.
Original comment…
Create technology
On the cabinet? He bought himself a shadow presidency.
