• LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      They don’t care what the content or format is, just who owns it, and where the data is flowing. They want the data flowing into the U.S. and sold out. Rather than into China and sold out. That’s all it is.

  • airportline@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    This is only great news if you are Mark Zuckerberg and you want a near-monopoly on social media.

    • maplebar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      TikTok could have sold to an American company (read: a company that we can hold legally accountable for bad things that their product does) and made billions of dollars in the process. They chose not to, for some reason, and thus knowingly opted to face a ban in the United States. Those were the options and they knew it.

      As I understand it American companies doing business in China almost always have to go through a Chinese company in order to operate legally and make products available to the Chinese market. Platforms like Facebook are already banned in China and must be accessed through a VPN because they don’t play ball with the Chinese regime, so why should it not be reciprocal?

      Until TikTok is being managed and operated by a company that can be held legally accountable here in America, they are nothing but a security threat and a backdoor for the Chinese government into every cell phone of every person who is dumb enough to install that shit. Is that what the people want to hear? Probably not, but it’s the truth.

      I wouldn’t install TikTok on my phone any sooner than I’d install RedStarOS on my PC, because the implications of using a proprietary, closed source application with ties to the Chinese regime should be fucking obvious to anyone with bare minimum technical knowledge. Likewise, I wouldn’t blame a Chinese person for being skeptical of Microsoft Windows or X.com for their close relationship with the American government. To think otherwise is just not smart.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          No. I’m implying that in general, international trade works by shared openness or shared closeness. If one country or economic region an import tax on something, the reciprocal thing is likely to be taxed by the opposite partner.

          I was responding to someone saying “oh this just creates a monopoly for Zucks” when in fact the Chinese social companies have a monopoly in China (an ENORMOUS market) because our products are blocked over there.

          So what we are doing is in line with the norm in international trade.

          • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            Is anyone else besides China doing this? Cannot really call it international norm if 1 country is doing this.

            • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              I don’t think I’ve explained my point very well, or you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said.

              My point is all international relationship is tit for tat. Since China chose to block western social media, it’s not unreasonable for the west to block Chinese social media.

      • meliaesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Obviously being on Lemmy you get people who support open access. But seeing the state of the average American, and the results of their latest election, maybe it’s time for big brother to step in a little bit…

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Yeah, full support for the Trump administration to have the power to say which social media is acceptable, that’ll fix everything! /s

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            … They said the populous of Lemmy was more scrutinizing of privacy than other platforms. He never said anything about the people using meta or Google. I’m not sure people here are even reading what others are saying.

            To me it comes like this. If China won’t allow a Chinese owned app to be used in China, it gives other countries reason to worry about it. Meta and Google can be controlled by the U.S. government and are allowed within the nation they are owned in.

            Is it a good thing they collect so much data, no. But this law has nothing to do with privacy, and everything to do with the flow of usable data and who controls that.

      • maplebar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        It’s not “censorship” to ban a product like TikTok any more than it’s censorship to ban any other product. TikTok had the opportunity to sell to an American company (the same way all products on the Chinese market are forced to go through Chinese companies) and, for reasons that only they can explain, they chose not to do that. They would have made billions of dollars selling, but perhaps money isn’t their primary concern…

        At any rate, we absolutely need to have a separate conversation about all social media in terms of privacy and data rights (though it’ll never happen under Republicans), but that doesn’t mean TikTok is free to continue being a completely opaque and unaccountable backdoor to the Chinese government.

  • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Short videos are dumb. Are people really that addicted? I have it and go on it sometimes. And by sometimes I mean like 10 minutes per week. The videos are OK at best, but half of them are ads or live weird shit and the search function for relevant topics are trash.

    • AWittyUsername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I’m guilty of using tiktok half the people on here have never used it. But you’re exactly right a few years ago it was actually not too bad, but these days every other video is an advert for some AliExpress level shit.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Ive tried to use it, my wife is on it a lot. I can get through a few videos before the constant changing bothers me and I physically feel a need to get away from it. Its to quick, too short, too shallow. My brain is wired nearly the opposite.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I stay the f away from it. You haven’t spent enough time to properly train it. As you watch, it tracks time spent on each video, interactions, passive and active choices and slowly builds a dossier on you.

      As you keep going, it occasionally throws adjacent stuff in. It starts tossing you stuff that other people with your likes watch. If there is content on there that you’ll appreciate, it will eventually find it. If there is enough, it’ll stream it to you non-stop.

      They’ll find people who share your political alignment and say precisely what you want to hear. If you like brunettes with flowy blouses or redheads who are gym rats, you’ll get them. If you like skeptics or preppers, you’ll get them.

      My wife gets a lot of her news from it, I find probably 1/3 of it to be suspect and 90% of it biased toward what she wants to hear. Nothing there is telling both sides of any story. (to be clear we have the same political/ethical views, but I’m a touch more skeptical about journalism and random influencers, especially popular influencers)

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          For my wife, it never occurred to her that she could trust tiktok influencers far less than even corporate journalists. They have to ethical requirements on tiktok, no verified sources or corrections or redactions, or any accountability at all.

          I had to point that out over multiple videos, although to be fair some of the people on there do put up a front like they are legit to trick people into taking them seriously.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            The same nonsense happens on YouTube and Instagram. Just look at the motivations, these “content creators” get paid via ads (so views) and corporate sponsors, so they don’t get rewarded for truth, they get rewarded for saying things their spomsors and viewers like.

            I’m not saying they’re intentionally misleading people, but journalism is hard and clickbait and copycat “journalism” is easy, so they’ll tend to do more of the latter.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              13 days ago

              I think its the mentality in america of, “whatever I need to do to get ‘mine’ is good”.

              Theres a reason people ask “was it worth it” about nearly everything here. I dont know how to convince people theyd be happier if greed didnt drive their values.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Why is it shocking that people hear about topics through social media? Seriously? Why? I heard about the UHC shooter through TikTok. And it’s not necessarily just memes, there are “real” news accounts on TikTok. The same way I hear about new on Lemmy because people post links to stories. Like the literal platform and thread we are currently discussing.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days ago

            It’s not shocking that they hear about news through social media, it’s shocking that people trust it anywhere near as much as traditional journalism.

            There’s no incentive for someone on social media to fact check or tell any more of the story than will get them views.

      • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        For all its bullshit, YouTube is the same. I’ve found myself on it more lately precisely because of the reasons you’re saying. It’s amazing how much niche content there is for any taste, even ones you don’t yet realize you have.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Youtube at least realizes when its suggestions are in a rut and gives you that little popup offering to show you stuff slightly outside of your current echo chamber. Just how different it actually is I can’t really prove.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I actually really like short-format videos for recipes so you don’t have to watch somebody chopping onions for ten minutes. Also, Ronaldo highlights set to Brazilian phonk are kinda cool. Other than that, the format seems pretty worthless.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Framing this as people being pouty because their favorite social media is being banned is a shit tier take. This is a problem of censorship and government overreach.

    • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Yes with the attention span of a ground squirrel.

      Why do you think they all talk vast with stupid ADHD inducing shit on one side. (Minecraft parkour, GTA V driving or subway surfers)

      Because people will scroll away if you don’t jingle keys in front of them

    • nek0d3r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I was on tiktok and even created for it for a bit, but it did get exhausting quickly after getting flooded with a painful amount of ads. I do like short form content though, I’ve been enjoying Loops!

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      It’s about xpntrolling the narrative. Tiktok is one of the few (if not the only one) popular social media apps that doesn’t censor everything that the US government decides. Just look at how much Palestine stuff goea around there compared to anywhere else.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Most videos on my feed are 3 - 10 minutes, they are ttending less short.

      I like tiktok, it’s the only “social media” I use other than Lemmy. I normally hate finding video content, YouTube sucks, and their shorts are even worse. But on Tiktok I get served all sorts of interesting videos, I will stumble upon some cool topic that has been chopped up into five 10 minute videos and then find the video or a similar video on YouTube or something.

      It’s an excellent way to discover things fast. You just can’t use it as a good source, need to do external research.

      My biggest gripe is as you said, they have really seemed to amp up the ads and stupid live crap.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    ITT: Braindeads defending government censorship of the internet as if Zuckerberg won’t immediately replace the void with his own platform or by buying out TikTok in a bid.

    Banning one platform would not magically get rid of short attention span and brainrot you fools. Every social media company already copied or utilizes the same techniques as TikTok, which is already a massive platform because they don’t spam ban or regulate content as hard as Facebook and YouTube do.

    It is insulting that a Chinese run social media platform provides more freedom of speech online than its US competitors.

    They’re banning it to remove competition, congress does not care about its effects on privacy or health, otherwise they’d have done something about Faceebook, Insta, Twiiter, and YouTube decades ago. They pulled their usual committee shenanigans to pretend to care by calling in CEOs to testify, and then promptly accepting a shitload of lobbying money.

    • Tregetour@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      Competitor lobbying doesn’t even enter into it, I’d guess.

      The US State Department won’t tolerate Americans being exposed to media that doesn’t adhere to its view of the world. What large groups of Americans think - and vitally, the bounds of what they are permitted to think - is a national security ‘issue’ in the eyes of the state. No such problem exists with Facebook, cable news, the establishment newspapers, etc. As Chomsky teaches, propaganda is equally about what isn’t in the news.

    • Cowabunga_It_Is@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Banning one platform would not magically get rid of short attention span and brainrot you fools.

      Ah yes, the old “Taking this action won’t solve all of the problems therefore we should do nothing” argument.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      You think the communist party of China will allow western billionaires to buy one of their asymmetrical psyops weapon systems? Ha!

    • Trantarius@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Absolutely none of this law was ever about privacy or mental health. No one ever claimed it was. The law is banning tiktok because it is based in China. That is the reason given by the law itself. The possibility that meta or Google or some other American company will buy or replace tiktok and operate the same way is not an unintended outcome. It is literally the whole point of the law to get bytedance to sell tiktok to an American company.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Hence them saying it’s braindead to say otherwise.

        What would be interesting to see is if other countries ban Facebook because it’s a “national security risk” lol.

        • maplebar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          From China’s perspective, Facebook probably IS a “national security risk”, which is why it is already banned over there.

          For American to do business and sell products in China, they almost always have to go through a Chinese company. I’m sure that’s part capitalism and part accountability theater, but it’s just a fact. So why is it such an outrage for America to ask TikTok to do the same?

    • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Agree on this except I have doubts that this statement is true

      It is insulting that a Chinese run social media platform provides more freedom of speech online than its US competitors.

      • Ostrichgrif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yeah tiktok is the reason we have words like unalive, I wouldnt call it freedom of speech just incompetent moderation.

          • Cowabunga_It_Is@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            I have to admit, it’s a bit bizarre seeing so many comments holding up TikTok as if it’s a free speech bastion away from western-run social media companies.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Isn’t this the one where people started saying “g*y” because there’s only one sexuality and Taiwan doesn’t exist?

  • marrow1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    I cannot decide what to support here. On one hand, Tiktok is a blight and a cancer upon the whole world. But on the other hand, I’m kind of a libertarian, anyone should be able to do what they like.

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I get it, but also can you imagine a foreign country banning Amazon because “it means the US can see what you’re up to and it gets to choose what deals to push at you” etc?

    I mean… Facebook for god’s sake…

    Being protectionist makes sense sometimes but it screws you over when other countries start banning your apps in favour of home grown alternatives…

    • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      The People’s Republic of China has banned Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, etc). Brazil has banned Twitter and the European Union is considering it.

        • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Well, TikTok refused to abide by the law saying they had to be sold to a US company, which is why they’re being banned, so it’s technically the same situation, if for different reasons.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            Not really, Brazil’s demand was to stop spreading seditious material and to engage with their court system.

            The American law is to bar them from the market. Reducing that to “follow the law” is a bit disingenuous.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          It really doesn’t. Banning Tiktok is banning certain types of speech. Same goes for Twitter/X and Meta. It’s like banning a book because it wax heavily influenced by an adversary country.

          Brazilians and Europeans should be very angry about doing anything that resembles banning speech.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        China has banned practically all US social media sites, not just Meta-owned properties. A bunch of other sites are blocked too.

        China generally wants major internet services to have servers in China itself, similar to how the EU wants citizens’ data to remain in the EU. In order to operate servers located in China, you need to get a license from the Chinese government (ICP license). Large sites that don’t do this tend to get banned by the Great Firewall.

    • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Uh, there are several countries that ban Amazon. And amusingly, the EU Parliament has also banned their employees from entering the building.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I don’t see it as a bright side, but I also think it should be unbanned. Don’t get me wrong, I think TikTok is cancer and nobody should use it, but I also don’t think the government should decide what propaganda I get to consume.

      The government should absolutely do a public campaign against it and keep a close eye on it, but don’t ban it.

      In the meantime, we should look into passing laws to solve the underlying problems, which would impact Meta and other big social media orgs as well. Or maybe fund independent social media alternatives that are FOSS.

      But don’t ban speech. Banning TikTok feels a little too close to banning books…

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I think TikTok appeased the right by changing their algorithm. Charlie Kirk is apparently doing extremely well on the platform now.

    • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Until a flood of TikTok users bankrupt them, anyways.

      Not entirely sure how you’d make the economics of hosting endless video files work without great big piles of money and some way to get even more big piles of money on a routine basis :/

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Yeah, video hosting is notoriously expensive. It’s why there’s still not a real competitor to YouTube, because nobody else but Google could afford to run the platform at a net loss for the amount of time required to build a profitable user base.

        If even a tiny percentage of TikTok’s US user base decided to move to Loops, that may be enough traffic to not only completely disable Loops, but would probably impact the rest of the Fediverse at large, too.

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              Yet none of them really paywall you for using an adblocker.

              Actually come to think of it, porn sites are the only place I allow ads (obv blocking the pop ups and other dark pattern fuckery)… probablys because I learned to ignore them entirely as a teen before ad blockers existed.

        • Telorand@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          They can. And if at any point it becomes untenable, you can just archive whatever you host, shut down your instance, and put the videos up for download somewhere.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            I think this could lead to bigger activity pub instances collecting revenue for allowing company owned instances to federate. aka ad revenue.

            • Telorand@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              Could you explain that idea in more detail? I’m not really sure I understand how that would work in practice.

              • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                15 days ago

                Private instance for company/creator: Hey, can we federate with your instance?

                Large public instance: pay me.

          • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            If a company is going bankrupt as a result of hosting a video service, they’re not hoping to be able to afford to archive and make it available for download either.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Not entirely sure how you’d make the economics of hosting endless video files work without great big piles of money

        You’re absolutely right, which is why BitTorrent never managed to take off. Totally unviable, doesn’t work at all, and definitely isn’t the technology underpinning federated video services like PeerTube.

        • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          At one point BitTorrent/P2P was responsible for something like 30-40% of all global internet traffic.

          The thing is the protocol never really developed beyond some useful, but minor evolutionary updates.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            You say “never really developed beyond” as if that isn’t a synonym for “finished and working fine.”

      • actually@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        That and labor organizing, environmental awareness, and many other things where the absence helps the rich get wealthier .

        It’s also just a blatant theft; there is a lot of money to be made here however it goes down , and that money goes to connected arseholes

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          It also broadcasts propaganda disproportionately highly and harmful ideologies as much as that little list of yours.

          On its face the platform itself is neither good nor bad, but the massive theft of identifying information, photos, and personal conversations leading to increasingly common hacking and theft from Chinese sources tips the scales a bit.

      • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Because when US politicians advocate for a single, global market, and a single, global internet, it is with the understanding that US firms and allied parties will dominate the space anyway. When that is no longer the case they get about as nervous as the Chinese got when they went and built the Great Firewall and made a clone of every popular western platform. Now that US/Western dominance is seriously challenged, we are seeing more and more signs of protectionism.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Because it’s bad if China has the information. It’s fine if “US entity” had the information. The ban is ultimately fake. No one banning the app cares about TikTok, they just hate that China is getting the information they want. What will happen is some US based company, Oracle last time, but someone like that will buy a sufficient enough stake in the company and the ban will not happen. It will be declared “safe” and the data will go to a US controlled entity, but also still secretly to China. (The later will be revealed years later, to the shock of no one.)

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Theater.

      Cybersec is hard. There are always more holes. China exports a LOT of stuff with holes. We can do little more than stick our fingers in the dyke. This looks like they’re doing something.

      What they’re not going to expect is how much people hate them for taking their entertainment away.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            What are you suggesting? That Congress didn’t force TikTok to hand over control is US servers years ago? You didn’t see it in the news at the time, or you just don’t believe it?

            Or do you think China has been censoring on behalf of the state dept?

            • rumba@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              I think they still get all the data of what goes off the servers, and I think that the Chinese side of the company still has ultimate control over what gets displayed.

              The servers being in the US means that the Chinese government doesn’t have to have access to the servers but it doesn’t mean that they still don’t have the equivalent situation silently going on.

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                15 days ago

                I really don’t care if China gets my data. They don’t have any jurisdiction over me. I’m concerned about domestic surveillance.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      They aren’t banning it because China can see what you put on it, they’re banning it because China can control what you see from it.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          There’s no evidence that China can control what’s shown on a China-owned app?

          In case you’re still unaware, the China govt is the ultimate authority within China, even in private companies. More so after recent crackdowns on their oligarchs and billionaires. The idea that they have no control over tiktok is plain laughable.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            TikTok has gone out of their way to show they’ve siloed American operations. There has been no evidence that the Chinese government could or would breach that.

            • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              So you’re arguing that TikTok US, despite being fully owned and controlled by China, has full independence and decision making capability? Even regular western companies don’t have that. What the home office says, goes. At most, their American operations are making sure they’re abiding by US law with regards to data and such (and even then I’d highly doubt that, given all the forensic breakdowns about TikTok sending encrypted data to China).

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                15 days ago

                If it sends encrypted data to China it would be the first I’ve heard of it. The worst the news could come up with last time is headcount data. And yes they went on an entire project to silo it. At the end of the day they want the money, and TikTok shop provides it. Other than that they sell the same info Meta does on the open market.

                • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  15 days ago

                  And yes they went on an entire project to silo it

                  So? It doesn’t matter what internal bureaucratic sleight of hand they pull. The bosses are in the CCP, and when they say ‘jump’, the answer is going to be ‘how high?’. That’s how private companies work.

                  At the end of the day they want the money

                  TikTok wants money. The CCP wants other stuff. As long as the CCP isn’t making demands, TikTok will make their money. The moment the CCP says to do something, TikTok will do it.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  If it sends encrypted data to China it would be the first I’ve heard of it.

                  No shit. Do you think they would tell everyone? Do you think it would be easy to prove?

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  15 days ago

                  I really don’t think China is nearly as interested in siphoning data as controlling the algorithm. Getting people to see more pro-Chinese videos, more anti-US videos, and some bias toward candidates they want to see win is completely doable without exfiltrating any data.

                  Basically, all the stuff people are pissed about Musk doing to Twitter (changing algo to push right wing content) are just as feasible for TikTok to do, with the main difference being China is a state actor, whereas Musk is a private billionaire.

                  We should be very worried about any social media app that’s very popular and controlled by an org with political motivations.

        • Moc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Inversely, they’re banning it because the US cannot control what is posted on it— regardless of whether the central party in China can (they can and they do though so I am not sure why you’re debating it).

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            Really? Then you can point to the news article that lays out evidence of that actually happening and not just quoting FUD?

            What the government wants out of this is to make an example. Then whenever they want something from Meta, Google, Apple, X, etc, they’re going to remind them of TikTok while pointing to the third section of the definition for foreign control. The catch all that says the app can be considered foreign if the government claims the owner has been unduly influenced by a foreign entity.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Are we still supposed to be on this shithole’s side or something?

        I don’t care about winning the global economy. Do you? Does anyone who isn’t a sociopath that would. Drown a thousand babies for another nickel of quarterly earnings?

        The nords are quite happy without playing herp derp growth or die.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            Sure, I’m just saying that Republicans are taking over and they rely on the disinformation machine to have a chance to get elected so banning TikTok goes against their interests.