this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
39 points (80.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36427 readers
1655 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And what is the evidence for it being a Chinese spying platform? Is it owned by a Chinese company? Is there any hard evidence? Why is it so controversial?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Tiktok is owned by a Chinese company, so all of the data harvesting that's perfectly fine for Facebook and Twitter to do suddenly became a problem for the US government.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's not about the data harvesting, please stop repeating this falsehood.

It's about how China is controlling the algorithm for polical goals. From pushing its claim over Taiwan to interfering with global elections by showing(or hiding) speicifc content to sway peoples choices.

[–] theunknownmuncher 51 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So what is considered perfectly fine for Facebook and Twitter to do, got it

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What if I think Facebook and Twitter should be shit canned too?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Are you the US government cherry picking privacy concerns to eliminate competitors?

[–] theunknownmuncher 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

They all suck, yeah. I think banning individual social media services is not the solution. The solution is to create meaningful laws that hold any company, Chinese or American, accountable for data privacy and misinformation/election interference violations.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

Funny you say that, because Chinese apps like tiktok can't ever be compliant with GDPR, and American ones are fully reliant on an executive order where Biden pinky swore to not use the Cloud Act against GDPR.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

We don't do that here

Unless you live in California, they kinda do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That wouldn't solve the problem because the Chinese government is not bound by US law in China.

[–] theunknownmuncher 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

They are while doing business in the USA

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, which doesn't solve the problem because the problem is in China. The Chinese government can demand any information that ByteDance possesses. Under Chinese law, they are bound to comply and bound to deny that they were even asked under threat of extremely harsh punishment.

[–] AA5B 2 points 18 hours ago

It does solve the problem at least as far as then you’d have legal standing to ban til too, and equally anything else that doesn’t follow the law

[–] theunknownmuncher 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I would expect a meaningful data privacy law would involve forcing the client software to be audited to ensure they aren't collecting the information in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You're conflating privacy and espionage. The reason basically every country in the world has laws about foreign ownership of media and telecommunications infrastructure is not because of privacy concerns -- it's because of the potential for espionage. That fanciful law with no chance of passing in the US (even if it should!) would reduce but not eliminate the problem. It's illegal for China to operate weird little secret police stations in foreign countries to threaten, intimidate, and control the Chinese diaspora, but that hasn't stopped them from doing it. Having them control powerful monitoring and tracking tools doesn't make it harder. They are very capable of surreptitiously doing shit they shouldn't.

[–] theunknownmuncher 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

No I'm not conflating anything, you're just moving the goalpost...

from

accountable for data privacy and misinformation/election interference violations.

to

ownership of media and telecommunication infrastructure

People can still do murder even though its illegal and most murderers are never caught, so we shouldn't have laws making murder illegal because it doesn't "solve" murder

would reduce not eliminate the problem

🙂 perfect is the enemy of good. I don't think we're going to "eliminate" espionage, something that has existed for all of written history...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

No, you're conflating privacy and espionage.

I'm not moving the goal posts. The order for China to divest is about espionage. The ban stemming from their refusal to divest is about espionage. Your privacy law doesn't solve this problem because it's not a privacy problem, it's an espionage problem.

To take your murder example, it's like saying 'I don't see why everyone's so worked up about China coming here and shooting people. People get shot here every day and the army doesn't get involved!' Despite sharing some details, domestic gun violence and war are different. You're focusing on the trees and missing the forest.

🙂 perfect is the enemy of good

I'm not opposed to your proposed law. I'd support the hell out of it. It would solve other important problems, even if it wouldn't solve this one. But saying that a country can't do anything about espionage unless they pass that law is unrealistic.

[–] theunknownmuncher 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

But saying that a country can't do anything about espionage unless they pass that law is unrealistic.

Who said that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I think banning individual social media services is not the solution. The solution is to create meaningful laws that hold any company, Chinese or American, accountable for data privacy and misinformation/election interference violations.

You, in a nutshell. You're saying that they shouldn't address specific threats. Why not both?

[–] theunknownmuncher 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

lol no. But nice try. I applaud the attempt!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's like having siblings. It's okay if I call my siblings buttheads, but you're not allowed to because you're not family.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, that's exactly what Facebook and YouTube and Twitter do as well just over different things like radicalizing people towards Maga and whatnot.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 15 hours ago

Facebook and You tube haven't been pushing Maga content, they're just allowing it to exist. The feed itself isn't set to give it to everyone or hide left-wing content for a default user.

Twitter is a different story, and should probably also get banned at this point. Elon is absolutely using it to push his own rhetoric.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 hours ago

It's also about the data access by the chinese gov, as you can read here: https://www.nytimes.com/article/tiktok-ban.html

(not the harvesting, but the access to the harvested data.)

[–] Tedesche 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Seems like the most honest answer so far. The U.S. doesn’t trust the CCP with its citizens’ data. No surprise there.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Please read my reply to the comment, it's not about data ownership, it's about weaponizing algorithms.

[–] spankmonkey 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Just like meta and xhitter are doing.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Companies weaponizing algorithms for profit is different than governments weaponizing algorithms for all sorts of far worse reasons.

If you can't see that, you're a bloody idiot.

[–] spankmonkey 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You don't think meta and xhitter are weaponizing algorithms for Republicans? They might not be the whole government, but they are now in power after coordinating their hate filled messaging and misinformation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

Meta, no. Twitter, yes.

Twitter should be banned as well at this point. They have absolutely weaponized it, but not for government purposes, it's for Daddy Elon's purposes.

Meta is just allowing the hate content, they aren't prioritizing it to all users or something. My feed certainly doesn't contain any of it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except FB and Twitter sell their data to the highest bidder. If China wanted American's data, they can just buy it.

[–] Tedesche 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good point. Seems like another issue of concern. As usual, the issue seems to be data privacy laws overall.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It is, but the relevance to the discussion is that China getting american's data isn't the reason for the ban. Nor is China influencing Americans because they tend to derank politically spicy videos. If China was controlling the algo to make the US look bad, videos tagged BLM wouldn't have been deranked.

Tiktok also wouldn't have hired a bunch of state department spooks if they weren't intending to keep amplifying US narratives.

[–] Tedesche 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It depends on the manner in which said “politically spicy videos” are being censored. If it’s being done in a manner that promotes Chinese narratives while demoting American narratives, that’s an entirely legitimate concern for the U.S. and I don’t really see why not demoting BLM videos is not in the CCP’s interest; videos that make America seem racist seems entirely in the interest of an Anti-American country.

I also don’t see why hiring former American intelligence operatives demonstrates a pro-American stance, as their motivations for doing so could be to learn about American intelligence-gathering methods while promoting Chinese interests.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If it’s being done in a manner that promotes Chinese narratives while demoting American narratives

Spicy in this case means protests, police misbehavior, stuff the US wouldn't want amplified. The big waves of censorship came in 2020 and 2022. You can search news articles from the time with lots of people wondering why they're no longer getting that content in their FYPs and content creators getting <1/10th of the views. FB and reddit do the same thing.

I don’t really see why not demoting BLM videos is not in the CCP’s interest; videos that make America seem racist seems entirely in the interest of an Anti-American country.

Amplifying the videos that show America's response to antiracist movements would make America look like the racist country it is. Demoting them conceals that.

I also don’t see why hiring former American intelligence operatives demonstrates a pro-American stance, as their motivations for doing so could be to learn about American intelligence-gathering methods while promoting Chinese interests.

CIA agents living in America who disseminate intelligence-gathering methods while promoting Chinese interests get charged with treason.

They were hired to help identify and amplify US state department narratives, same reason CNN and Fox hires them.

[–] Tedesche 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Amplifying the videos that show America’s response to antiracist movements would make America look like the racist country it is. Demoting them conceals that.

No, that doesn't make sense. Amplifying shows of division in a country promotes the view that said country is flawed and weak, in this case along racial lines. China has plenty to gain by showing that.

And America is no less racist than China, btw. I would argue far less so.

They were hired to help identify and amplify US state department narratives, same reason CNN and Fox hires them.

That seems entirely speculative. There are plenty of other reasons to hire them. Can you provide evidence for your claim?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Amplifying shows of division in a country promotes the view that said country is flawed and weak, in this case along racial lines. China has plenty to gain by showing that.

Exactly! So demoting those videos suggests that China is not using the algorithm to promote anti-american views.

That seems entirely speculative. There are plenty of other reasons to hire them. Can you provide evidence for your claim?

No, CIA agents don't go around saying they're working for media companies to disseminate propaganda, and media companies don't broadcast that they take extra care to make sure their coverage lines up with the state department's narratives.

[–] Tedesche 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly! So demoting those videos suggests that China is not using the algorithm to promote anti-american views.

??? You're trying to have it both ways with this. I'm out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

No I'm not, you've been misunderstanding me from the start.

Tiktok does not amplify views that make the US look bad, it demotes them. That demonstrates that china is not using tiktok to influence Americans because they would want the opposite.

Instead they do exactly what any media subservient to the state department does.

[–] TrickDacy -1 points 22 hours ago

Hard to believe this post is in good faith. This ban has been discussed at least for like 4 years now