TikTok ban?

[GeneralMacArthur]

And yet no actual hard evidence to support the claims. The logic is “it might be possible” and no matter how much you try to spin, that’s not going to make voters hate your policy any less.
Electric Circus and others have already responded well to you on why your demands are unrealistic (which you have ignored because you know you don’t have a good response)

Is the post you and Electric Circus keep begging me to reply to this one he wrote on Saturday from page 4?

I'm struggling to understand the distinction that you're drawing when it comes to regulation. The federal government has no way to "audit" the algorithms used on platforms owned by publicly traded companies like Meta or Alphabet, let alone privately held ones like X. These organizations have made changes to both their feeds and their advertising policies in response to political pressure from various quarters (regulators, consumers, shareholders - if applicable), but that's also true of ByteDance.

...

because I'm not saying the federal government should audit the details of the algorithm.  I'm saying it can audit who is controlling it, who is having any say over how the algorithm is changed and built.  Changing the algorithm to align with CCP directives would absolutely involve a paper trail.  It would be a large project with product planning, engineering designs, meetings galore, and then the actual code changes.  The company may try to hide that the command to make these changes came from the CCP (internal communications retention law right now is strict for financial companies but loose for everyone else) but it would be difficult, and they'd need a plausible alibi for why they made these algorithm changes.

Doing oversight of social media is difficult, but hardly some impossible or unheard of task.  We looked into this a few years ago with Facebook after the whistleblower incident.  We've also had plenty of legal back-and-forth regarding ownership of, and responsibility for, content on a platform.  The EU imposes plenty of regulations on social media companies.  In fact TikTok is under EU investigation as we speak for allegedly violating various regulations.

At any rate the only reason we'd want to do so is because ByteDance answers to China, so not only is it a national security risk if China dictates the algorithm, we have no way to find out if they do.  If TikTok was an American company, it wouldn't answer to China, and there would be no such risk, so it's moot anyway.

[Electric Circus]

That's even more ridiculous than the original proposal.

[It’s so Joever]

And yet no actual hard evidence to support the claims. The logic is “it might be possible” and no matter how much you try to spin, that’s not going to make voters hate your policy any less.
Electric Circus and others have already responded well to you on why your demands are unrealistic (which you have ignored because you know you don’t have a good response)

Is the post you and Electric Circus keep begging me to reply to this one he wrote on Saturday from page 4?

I'm struggling to understand the distinction that you're drawing when it comes to regulation. The federal government has no way to "audit" the algorithms used on platforms owned by publicly traded companies like Meta or Alphabet, let alone privately held ones like X. These organizations have made changes to both their feeds and their advertising policies in response to political pressure from various quarters (regulators, consumers, shareholders - if applicable), but that's also true of ByteDance.

...

because I'm not saying the federal government should audit the details of the algorithm.  I'm saying it can audit who is controlling it

To what extent? Surely we can’t audit every single individual involved in any programming or planning event of the algorithm or platform, that would be way too many people, including many who don’t even live in the US at all. If you mean leadership, we absolutely can do investigations on their background, but don’t be shocked if nothing substantial turns up.
 

but it would be difficult, and they'd need a plausible alibi for why they made these algorithm changes.

This last sentence tells me you really don’t know much about tiktok. The algorithm is changing constantly and there are so many little tweaks made for all sort of reasons. Almost all of these minor tweaks could be attributed to something as basic as fixing bugs/app performance and honestly even a hypothetical tweak done to favor China could have such a cover.

Doing oversight of social media is difficult, but hardly some impossible or unheard of task.  We looked into this a few years ago with Facebook after the whistleblower incident.  We've also had plenty of legal back-and-forth regarding ownership of, and responsibility for, content on a platform.  The EU imposes plenty of regulations on social media companies.  In fact TikTok is under EU investigation as we speak for allegedly violating various regulations.

Great! Let’s regulate tiktok instead of banning it.

At any rate the only reason we'd want to do so is because ByteDance answers to China, so not only is it a national security risk if China dictates the algorithm, we have no way to find out if they do.  If TikTok was an American company, it wouldn't answer to China, and there would be no such risk, so it's moot anyway.

You say this, but you do understand even if tiktok operations in the US were sold to an American company, there would still be plenty of easy ways for China to access the data if they really wanted to, right? Will you move the goalposts once again, or will you accept that some risk has to be accepted at some point? I’m fine with making tiktok operations be sold to an American company. ByteDance will moan but eventually will have to cave and that could create new jobs here in America, but will you accept that once it happens or will you find another reason to try and ban tiktok?

[DaleCooper]

Anyways if GMac, DaleCooper, and BRTD want to go on a tiktok is bad and all the users are sheeple brainwashed by China circlejerk, that’s totally fine. Whatever makes them feel superior. However I do hope they are at least intelligent enough to realize why that’s not going to convince anyone nor why their ideas would backfire electorally. The only good news for Atlas Dems is that the writers of this bill had enough brain cells to make the most damaging parts of it only happen after the election in practice.

I don't necessarily think they're all brainwashed, I think they all have brain damage.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The correct answer is to regulate the algorithim and the content. The Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, shows much the same content, but a little different not because of some weird conspiracy, but because the Chinese government enacted regulations, on what kind of content the app could promote, also putting in a 40 minute time limit for minors. By the way, those regulations apply to all apps in China, not just one. TikTok has a parent mode in the US that does largely the same thing.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-tiktok-douyin-teens-privacy/

Essentially, all the supposed harms of this app could be addressed by regulation that gives auditing and oversight of the algorithm, data, to US officials and third parties, as well as adding data privacy requirements and encouraging use of features like parent mode that are within First Amendment allowances. There is no need to remove literally billions of videos, likes, comments, and so on, generated by Americans, in the biggest government takedown of free speech in US history. This would be an ideological victory for the CCP, which is not to be underestimated. After all, the reason we won the original Cold War was because ideologically, freedom and capitalism came to be seen as more appealing systems by the world at large from the 1960s to the 1980s. Similarly, if we want to survive as a free nation and one more appealing to the world, we need to hold tighter to our ideals and not give them up.

Further, on the same day the House Energy & Commerce Committee passes this bill 50-0, they tabled a bill that would have stopped data brokers from selling Americans' data. If they are s concerned about protecting our data, why would they do that? Not to speak of the fact that while they are adamant about the equivalent of the death penalty for TikTok, they have zero concern for enacting any regulation that would address the harms of social media in general.

So none of their supposed concerns require a ban or divestment to solve and there's no evidence any privacy or data concerns would even be solved by a ban. But whenever critics of this bill point that out, the supporters keep going back to ignoring it and repeating the same talking points "blah blah CCP threat". Almost as if there are other motives out there for the ban/divestment besides what's stated. The supporters can't even get straight whether it's a ban or not, one moment they say it's not a ban and the next moment they say "the ban" can't be challenged. But the text of the bill clearly contains language that would prohibit the app, as well as give the government power to ban foreign hosted websites.

     Well their concern isn't protecting our data, but striking back against China. That's the reality of the situation, and I won't defend that. If banning the app is an ideological victory for China, then so would be passing regulations similar to those that exist there, since they can easily make the case that this is happening because their method of governance is superior.

     Either way, your talk of regulating TikTok concedes that following the lusts of the masses is not sufficient to deal with the challenges we face as a country, and I would indeed prefer something more narrowly tailored to deal with the specific issues that TikTok and social media at large represent. Forumlurker points out that this will be politically unpopular, but the oft-repeated conceit on the forum that popularity dictates correctness makes no real sense and never has. The popularity problem is however a real problem that we face with our political paradigm, and a more moderate form of regulation will still be devastatingly unpopular because it conflicts with the way that TikTok appeals to the base aspects of human nature. Indeed it may be even worse if people actually have to develop a healthier relation to social media and we don't just allow Instagram and Youtube to fill the niche that is ripped away from TikTok.

[Beet]

The correct answer is to regulate the algorithim and the content. The Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, shows much the same content, but a little different not because of some weird conspiracy, but because the Chinese government enacted regulations, on what kind of content the app could promote, also putting in a 40 minute time limit for minors. By the way, those regulations apply to all apps in China, not just one. TikTok has a parent mode in the US that does largely the same thing.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-tiktok-douyin-teens-privacy/

Essentially, all the supposed harms of this app could be addressed by regulation that gives auditing and oversight of the algorithm, data, to US officials and third parties, as well as adding data privacy requirements and encouraging use of features like parent mode that are within First Amendment allowances. There is no need to remove literally billions of videos, likes, comments, and so on, generated by Americans, in the biggest government takedown of free speech in US history. This would be an ideological victory for the CCP, which is not to be underestimated. After all, the reason we won the original Cold War was because ideologically, freedom and capitalism came to be seen as more appealing systems by the world at large from the 1960s to the 1980s. Similarly, if we want to survive as a free nation and one more appealing to the world, we need to hold tighter to our ideals and not give them up.

Further, on the same day the House Energy & Commerce Committee passes this bill 50-0, they tabled a bill that would have stopped data brokers from selling Americans' data. If they are s concerned about protecting our data, why would they do that? Not to speak of the fact that while they are adamant about the equivalent of the death penalty for TikTok, they have zero concern for enacting any regulation that would address the harms of social media in general.

So none of their supposed concerns require a ban or divestment to solve and there's no evidence any privacy or data concerns would even be solved by a ban. But whenever critics of this bill point that out, the supporters keep going back to ignoring it and repeating the same talking points "blah blah CCP threat". Almost as if there are other motives out there for the ban/divestment besides what's stated. The supporters can't even get straight whether it's a ban or not, one moment they say it's not a ban and the next moment they say "the ban" can't be challenged. But the text of the bill clearly contains language that would prohibit the app, as well as give the government power to ban foreign hosted websites.

     Well their concern isn't protecting our data, but striking back against China. That's the reality of the situation, and I won't defend that. If banning the app is an ideological victory for China, then so would be passing regulations similar to those that exist there, since they can easily make the case that this is happening because their method of governance is superior.

No, because regulating social media is not a fundamental distinguishing difference between the U.S. and China's government styles. However, free speech, and free use of apps, provided that there are regulatory ways of dealing with security concerns short of banning, traditionally has been. I'll also note that China does not ban American software such as operating systems, cloud providers, databases, the App Store, or browsers, even though those also collect data. They specifically ban foreign social media. Why is that? Because they are out to censor content to control their own population. That is their motive. Importing a policy with such a basis here is profoundly unAmerican by traditional metrics, although maybe not the country we are becoming.

I don't think there is a singular motive for the proposed TikTok divestment/ban either. The AIPAC lobby is clearly upset that the app was used to show a lot of images of suffering Palestinians. The app is valued at over $200 billion. If it is banned, someone is going to lose/make a lot of money.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Images of suffering Palestinians—and Israeli soldiers broadcasting their own war crimes.

Showing things like that cannot be allowed, and we especially cannot let that be seen by our impressionable young people who are already driving us insane with all of their Woke Gender Ideology. It’s all CCP propaganda anyway, right?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

LOL!

https://twitter.com/SizweLo/status/1753033896822800411

Tom Cotton is the worst.

Respectfully, Tom Cotton can go to hell.

[lfromnj]

Looking into the bill it is quite trash. It is one thing to retaliate against China but giving the president power of what is a national security threat is incredibly dangerous.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I'm a big supporter of this policy, not because I care about Chinese influence, data privacy or anything but soley because it will rid the literary world of the cancer that is booktok.

Get hyped for the return of bookstagram!

(Going by the Indian example, the most likely result from a ban is Google and Meta cornering the short video market and its ad $$$. Would be a disappointing result from an administration that’s talked a lot about increasing competition within markets and tech companies being too big.)

A scattered and weekend booktok will still be an advantage. Seriously the way the literature of our generation is being ruined by booktok almost makes me want to become a RETVRN poster.

[emailking]

A scattered and weekend booktok will still be an advantage. Seriously the way the literature of our generation is being ruined by booktok almost makes me want to become a RETVRN poster.

How is it doing that? I don't follow this stuff.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You say this, but you do understand even if tiktok operations in the US were sold to an American company, there would still be plenty of easy ways for China to access the data if they really wanted to, right? Will you move the goalposts once again, or will you accept that some risk has to be accepted at some point? I’m fine with making tiktok operations be sold to an American company. ByteDance will moan but eventually will have to cave and that could create new jobs here in America, but will you accept that once it happens or will you find another reason to try and ban tiktok?

China is an authoritarian state and as long as ByteDance is operating as a Chinese company, there's no reason to think the Chinese government couldn't just order ByteDance to give them their data.  Or assign representatives of the state to monitor the operations of the company.  Or simply take data that's stored on Chinese servers that the government already has access to.

If ByteDance was an American company storing its data in America, there's no reason to believe China would be able to do this.  Sure they could hack the data -- they could do that for any company -- but that's an entirely different matter.  "There's no point keeping data out of China's hands because they'll just hack it anyway" is a silly argument (one that was made elsewhere on this thread).

[GeneralMacArthur]

Imagine if federal government employees were storing our nuclear codes and other top national security secrets on a version of Google Drive that was actually, like, Kwangmyon Drive, and it was a North Korean company operating under the purview of the DPRK government.  And we knew some data from usage of the app was being stored on DPRK servers, but the CEO went before Congress and pinky promised that none of the most important top secret data was.

Like, it's just so obvious that this would be unacceptable.  There's no way!  I would fully expect Congress to immediately ban all federal government employees from storing top national security secrets on this app.  Any arguments about free speech in such a scenario would be obviously spurious.

Except in this case, it's not federal government employees, it's all Americans.  And instead of top national security secrets, we're giving them something even worse -- a blueprint of how Americans think, what we like and dislike, who we trust and distrust, and exactly how to manipulate each and every one of us.

Yes, Americans don't sign contracts the way federal government employees do, subjecting ourselves to federal policy on handling of top secret data.  But that's because we don't typically have the capability to deliver such information to foreign adversaries because the government prevents us from finding ourselves in such a situation.  This is a unique situation where the valuable information is an aggregate over all Americans.  But basic principles make it obvious that the current situation is unacceptable.

[SteveRogers]

Imagine if federal government employees were storing our nuclear codes and other top national security secrets on a version of Google Drive that was actually, like, Kwangmyon Drive, and it was a North Korean company operating under the purview of the DPRK government.  And we knew some data from usage of the app was being stored on DPRK servers, but the CEO went before Congress and pinky promised that none of the most important top secret data was.

Like, it's just so obvious that this would be unacceptable.  There's no way!  I would fully expect Congress to immediately ban all federal government employees from storing top national security secrets on this app.  Any arguments about free speech in such a scenario would be obviously spurious.

Except in this case, it's not federal government employees, it's all Americans.  And instead of top national security secrets, we're giving them something even worse -- a blueprint of how Americans think, what we like and dislike, who we trust and distrust, and exactly how to manipulate each and every one of us.

Yes, Americans don't sign contracts the way federal government employees do, subjecting ourselves to federal policy on handling of top secret data.  But that's because we don't typically have the capability to deliver such information to foreign adversaries because the government prevents us from finding ourselves in such a situation.  This is a unique situation where the valuable information is an aggregate over all Americans.  But basic principles make it obvious that the current situation is unacceptable.

If I may respond to one clunky analogy with another: Should it be literally illegal for me to voluntarily handwrite and mail a letter to the Chinese government informing them of how I think, what I dislike, who I trust and distrust, and how to manipulate me?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The correct answer is to regulate the algorithim and the content.

snip:

Essentially, all the supposed harms of this app could be addressed by regulation that gives auditing and oversight of the algorithm, data, to US officials and third parties, as well as adding data privacy requirements and encouraging use of features like parent mode that are within First Amendment allowances.

I’m sure this would be enthusiastically welcomed by American social media companies.

Further, on the same day the House Energy & Commerce Committee passes this bill 50-0, they tabled a bill that would have stopped data brokers from selling Americans' data. If they are s concerned about protecting our data, why would they do that? Not to speak of the fact that while they are adamant about the equivalent of the death penalty for TikTok, they have zero concern for enacting any regulation that would address the harms of social media in general.

oh

The bolded bit is flippant enough about the difference between a human life and a f**king phone app that it almost makes me think there's something to the crass "kids these days" framing here. Not great!

[GeneralMacArthur]

If I may respond to one clunky analogy with another: Should it be literally illegal for me to voluntarily handwrite and mail a letter to the Chinese government informing them of how I think, what I dislike, who I trust and distrust, and how to manipulate me?

No, but I think if Americans started doing that en masse it would be fair to regard it as a national security thread.  After all, I would say that fentanyl is a national security threat, because lots of Americans are destroying their lives doing it.  Obviously fentanyl is far worse than merely giving an enemy state a blueprint for how to manipulate you.  But voluntary self-destructive behavior is bad and when it happens at scale it becomes a threat to the country, which is the sum of its citizens.

I think the Russian government, another enemy state, having a blueprint for how to manipulate Americans (which they acquired illegally from Facebook via Cambridge Analytica) was also bad and had disastrous consequences for our national security, as it let Russia manipulate Americans into electing as president Donald Trump, a man who was beholden to Russian interests.

[It’s so Joever]

You say this, but you do understand even if tiktok operations in the US were sold to an American company, there would still be plenty of easy ways for China to access the data if they really wanted to, right? Will you move the goalposts once again, or will you accept that some risk has to be accepted at some point? I’m fine with making tiktok operations be sold to an American company. ByteDance will moan but eventually will have to cave and that could create new jobs here in America, but will you accept that once it happens or will you find another reason to try and ban tiktok?

China is an authoritarian state and as long as ByteDance is operating as a Chinese company, there's no reason to think the Chinese government couldn't just order ByteDance to give them their data.  Or assign representatives of the state to monitor the operations of the company.  Or simply take data that's stored on Chinese servers that the government already has access to.

If ByteDance was an American company storing its data in America, there's no reason to believe China would be able to do this.  Sure they could hack the data -- they could do that for any company -- but that's an entirely different matter.  "There's no point keeping data out of China's hands because they'll just hack it anyway" is a silly argument (one that was made elsewhere on this thread).

The operations still would be heavily reliant on infrastructure from the original Chinese company and interconnected with tiktok operations globally. If China really is getting as big of a benefit as you seem to think they are from this, they will easily swipe American data, not to mention conduct covert operations.

Again you can pass this bill and ByteDance will eventually suck it up and sell to an “American” company, but you really are dreaming if you think that would solve any of the hypothetical security concerns brought up, in which case the question is what then?

I’m not opposed to this specific bill per say, I just happen to think it’s based on some incredibly dull takes and will be ultimately ineffective.

[It’s so Joever]

Imagine if federal government employees were storing our nuclear codes and other top national security secrets on a version of Google Drive that was actually, like, Kwangmyon Drive, and it was a North Korean company operating under the purview of the DPRK government.  And we knew some data from usage of the app was being stored on DPRK servers, but the CEO went before Congress and pinky promised that none of the most important top secret data was.

Like, it's just so obvious that this would be unacceptable.  There's no way!  I would fully expect Congress to immediately ban all federal government employees from storing top national security secrets on this app.  Any arguments about free speech in such a scenario would be obviously spurious.

Except in this case, it's not federal government employees, it's all Americans.  And instead of top national security secrets, we're giving them something even worse -- a blueprint of how Americans think, what we like and dislike, who we trust and distrust, and exactly how to manipulate each and every one of us.

Yes, Americans don't sign contracts the way federal government employees do, subjecting ourselves to federal policy on handling of top secret data.  But that's because we don't typically have the capability to deliver such information to foreign adversaries because the government prevents us from finding ourselves in such a situation.  This is a unique situation where the valuable information is an aggregate over all Americans.  But basic principles make it obvious that the current situation is unacceptable.

This is the same logic the CCP uses to ban companies such as Google in their country, and I have no doubt you think that incredibly authoritarian.

[Sir Mohamed]

I guess if that becomes law, still a huge if, it will be struck down by various courts. I don't like TikTok and think there should be more regulations to protect minors. I just fairly uncertain this bill actually helps.

[Beet]

The correct answer is to regulate the algorithim and the content.

snip:

Essentially, all the supposed harms of this app could be addressed by regulation that gives auditing and oversight of the algorithm, data, to US officials and third parties, as well as adding data privacy requirements and encouraging use of features like parent mode that are within First Amendment allowances.

I’m sure this would be enthusiastically welcomed by American social media companies.

Further, on the same day the House Energy & Commerce Committee passes this bill 50-0, they tabled a bill that would have stopped data brokers from selling Americans' data. If they are s concerned about protecting our data, why would they do that? Not to speak of the fact that while they are adamant about the equivalent of the death penalty for TikTok, they have zero concern for enacting any regulation that would address the harms of social media in general.

oh

The bolded bit is flippant enough about the difference between a human life and a f**king phone app that it almost makes me think there's something to the crass "kids these days" framing here. Not great!

It was a bad turn of the phrase.

Speaking of human life, Congress has done almost nothing for 20 years as mass shooters actually take away the lives of children in our schools, it does nothing about a health care system that has higher per capita spending but worse outcomes in life expectancy that other OECD countries with lower per capita income than us, and higher rates of treatable illness, and chronic conditions, and it does not seem to be troubled that the president sent over 100 arms shipments to Israel in its war that has cost 30,000 Gazan lives in the past six months alone. It does not want to act to avert climate change that is estimated to cost over 250,000 lives per year.

So if the perceived flippancy based on bad wording one time of me, one guy posting on an Internet forum who has no power, who is 40 years old and not even a part of Gen Z, is "almost" enough to dismiss an entire generation who I am not even a part of, what makes you think our Congress, which actually has power and is substantively flippant year after year about human life, should be trusted to be able to tell us which apps we can express ourselves on? This is not just about a "f**king phone app", it is much deeper than that, when considering implications of the government taking this power for themselves.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1777421194129531215

[GoTfan]

Funny. This bill was written so damn quickly, passed by the House so damn quickly, and now the Senate wants to enact it as quickly as possible.

Nothing fishy about that at all.

[PSOL]

I seriously wish hell on everyone involved in this.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Funny. This bill was written so damn quickly, passed by the House so damn quickly, and now the Senate wants to enact it as quickly as possible.

Nothing fishy about that at all.

The Senate has been moving at a snail’s pace on this bill, sadly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The correct answer is to regulate the algorithim and the content.

snip:

Essentially, all the supposed harms of this app could be addressed by regulation that gives auditing and oversight of the algorithm, data, to US officials and third parties, as well as adding data privacy requirements and encouraging use of features like parent mode that are within First Amendment allowances.

I’m sure this would be enthusiastically welcomed by American social media companies.

Further, on the same day the House Energy & Commerce Committee passes this bill 50-0, they tabled a bill that would have stopped data brokers from selling Americans' data. If they are s concerned about protecting our data, why would they do that? Not to speak of the fact that while they are adamant about the equivalent of the death penalty for TikTok, they have zero concern for enacting any regulation that would address the harms of social media in general.

oh

The bolded bit is flippant enough about the difference between a human life and a f**king phone app that it almost makes me think there's something to the crass "kids these days" framing here. Not great!

It was a bad turn of the phrase.

Speaking of human life, Congress has done almost nothing for 20 years as mass shooters actually take away the lives of children in our schools, it does nothing about a health care system that has higher per capita spending but worse outcomes in life expectancy that other OECD countries with lower per capita income than us, and higher rates of treatable illness, and chronic conditions, and it does not seem to be troubled that the president sent over 100 arms shipments to Israel in its war that has cost 30,000 Gazan lives in the past six months alone. It does not want to act to avert climate change that is estimated to cost over 250,000 lives per year.

So if the perceived flippancy based on bad wording one time of me, one guy posting on an Internet forum who has no power, who is 40 years old and not even a part of Gen Z, is "almost" enough to dismiss an entire generation who I am not even a part of, what makes you think our Congress, which actually has power and is substantively flippant year after year about human life, should be trusted to be able to tell us which apps we can express ourselves on? This is not just about a "f**king phone app", it is much deeper than that, when considering implications of the government taking this power for themselves.

I'm not one of the people in this thread whom I think you can fairly accuse of complacency on all these other (and, yes, enormously more important) issues, Beet.