TikTok is perhaps the most impressively addictive social media app ever created. The algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China for being too addictive.
There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China, then Britain introduced stronger, more disruptive versions, forcing a stronger social reaction.
Geopolitics aside, I think everyone is kind of aware that social media is a vice, and like it or not, this could just be the beginning of our society beginning to scrutinize these platforms.
From a geopolitical perspective, this issue about 3 items:
1) Influence- TikTok gives the CCP significant direct influence over the views of Americans.
2) Data- TikTok collects massive amounts of data on 100s of millions of Americans. Opens many avenues for spying, extortion of influence, etc.
3) Reciprocity- Foreign tech companies are essentially banned from operating in China. Much like with other industries, China is not playing fair, they’re playing to win.
Insofar as TikTok has offered a “superior” product, this might be a story of social media and its double edge. But this far more a story of geopolitics.
> 1) Influence- TikTok gives the CCP significant direct influence over the views of Americans.
There is no credible argument that the CCP doesn't directly control the alg as it's actively being used for just that in tawain/etc.
Does the US really want a (hostile?) foreign govt to have clear direct access to influence 170m americans, an entire generation - completely unfettered? Incredible national security implications. Bot farms can influence X/Meta/etc, but they can be at least be fought. TikTok itself is the influence engine as currently constructed.
> Does the US really want a (hostile?) foreign govt to have clear direct access to [...] americans
Apparently, American users want this? Approximately 700k users have joined RedNote, a Chinese platform. It's out of the frying pan and into the fire for Americans.
> Apparently, American users want this? Approximately 700k users have joined RedNote, a Chinese platform. It's out of the frying pan and into the fire for Americans.
There are 335 million Americans, and a lot of them are stupid and/or foolish.
Well yes, people are addicted to this content so of course they'll seek out alternatives. People want to be distracted by pretty pictures and funny stories and someone telling them their opinions are right
> Does the US really want a (hostile?) foreign govt to have clear direct access to influence 170m americans, an entire generation - completely unfettered?
As the SCOTUS said itself:
“At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
Functionally; as TikTok is a known/controlled mouthpiece for the CCP - it's infringing the first amendment rights of the foreign govt within US borders?
2. A core principle of the constitution is that those rights apply to noncitizens as well as citizens. They are human rights, not citizen rights. It's significantly more ridiculous for corporations to have free speech than a government. They don't have less of a right to free speech because we don't like them.
Extend this line of argument a little further and it ends with US citizens not being able to freely access information that is published elsewhere in the world.
You may not like TikTok, but this line of argumentation also would allow the government to prevent US citizens from e.g. reading Iranian newspapers or researching Chinese media. The polarizing nature of TikTok obscures the fact that US users are losing freedom of access to information in this decision.
> US citizens not being able to freely access information that is published elsewhere in the world
there is a difference between 'US Citizen having access to information' and 'Hostile Foreign Govt having Direct Push Access for news to ~70% of a generation of Americans as they go from puberty to voting age'. US isn't discussing a Great Firewall, the information will still be available, it just won't be as easy for a generation to be indoctrinated (well, by a foreign govt instead of our own* at least. Theoretically our govt has our interests at heart more than 'hostile foreign power' - but that's a different fight we need to have)
1) to be honest, when I see how russia, Iran and other states influence all other networks (especially when it comes to voting), not sure how tiktok is worse than all of them - just think of Facebook & Cambridge Analytica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
It is mind blowing to me that this fact is not widely understood. A mountain was made out of a molehill. $4B was spent in 2016. $12B in 2024. Yet $100,000 somehow is believed to have made any difference whatsoever. Literally 0.0025% of the total in 2016.
Yup exactly the same thing is happening only with money laundered through nonprofits and political pacs. Once its there the same buy data and place ads & influence is completely legal - which makes the singled out ban on TikTok at odds with the stated purpose of it
It's not the "exact same thing" since it's legal spending. If you and your friends want to pool money together and put up billboards promoting carbon free energy solutions, congrats you've formed a political PAC.
This is distinct from a foreign entity, without registering as a foreign entity, directly participating in electioneering. While it's true that the Russian involvement in 2016 was overblown let's not pretend it's the same as legal political spending.
US funds foreign political no profits in other countries thanks to the Foreign Assistance Act agencies like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy.
That's besides the money funneled through other agencies which are more covert.
That means that countries around the world have US funded no profits effectively doing non bi-partizan political activity.
Officially those should only inform (foreign) citizens about their civic and voting rights, in reality they are more often than not tools of the US to influence and take huge biases in other countries.
And here's the underlying problem: as per American exceptionalism it's fine when US does that, but it's unacceptable when others do it in US.
There are multiple organizations not registering as foreign entities who route a lot of political spending. Sometimes they are caught, but there is very little enforcement of political spending rules - and there is even more spending unchecked in the open skirting the transfers legally as far as I can tell.
Cambridge Analytica had zero effect on the 2016 elections. It was the mother of all nothingburgers. I encourage all who see this comment to dig into the truth of that case.
The huge difference is that while foreign adversaries run influence networks on other social media platforms (and are opposed and combatted by those platforms) TikTok (the platform itself) is controlled by the foreign adversary (the CCP).
Americans are already quite free to seek a broad range of domestic and foreign viewpoints. Chinese citizens, on the other hand, are not. At all.
The key point here is that an algorithm can invisibly nudge those viewpoints, and a foreign adversary controls the algorithm.
Insofar as your claim is that powerful people and institutions care most about power, I agree. It’s very telling that TikTok would shutdown instead of divest. (Meanwhile, U.S. companies have routinely taken the other side of the deal in China: minority stake joint ventures in which “technology transfer” is mandated. AKA intellectual property plundering.)
> Americans are already quite free to seek a broad range of domestic and foreign viewpoints.
The reality is they live in an establishment controlled media bubble, that is itself full of propaganda.
Being free does not mean free to live in a lie constructed for the benefit of someone else, it means being free to live in reality, and that freedom is being denied to Americans. At least the Chinese are aware of their reality.
I can navigate my browser to Al Jazeera, RT, or Xinhua without interference. Meanwhile, China has a national firewall imprisoning its netizens. So, while most Americans opt to live inside filter bubbles, they are free to escape if they so choose. Not so for the citizens of China, who live in the iron grip of the CCP.
That’s to say nothing of censorship. I can post “f** Joe Biden” on any social platform in the U.S. Meanwhile, a Chinese netizen compares Xi to Winnie the Pooh and gets a visit from the police. And their post never sees the light of day.
These aren’t differences of degree. They are differences of category.
> I can navigate my browser to Al Jazeera, RT, or Xinhua without interference
The reason you can is that very few people actually do. As the Tik Tok affair shows, the moment the US suspects it might have some real competitor in controlling the narrative, it shuts them down. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but it's worth taking note that it's how things are.
Americans live in a society lying to them by omission. You have to have learned AlJazeera, RT or Xinhua exist, because they're not going to be shown to you by normal channels, and you almost certainly go on a watchlist if you visit too much.
The whole point is to remove anything that may cause a passive media consumer to question what is presented to them.
It doesn't matter what media are available as long as you manage to control their impact- that is, the vast majority of your citizens don't really watch them. The moment one becomes impactful, you can shut it down citing dangerous foreign interference (and it's true!).
Darn it, then decade I spent in Asia and the 100+ trips to Europe and the Middle East didn't prepare me for the rapier banter of some rando on the internet.
Both AJ and RT are widely available online. Your bar of "American cable networks must grant licenses to broadcast hostile foreign state propaganda" is one that no other country abides by.
In fact, even the idea of allowing CNN or BBC to broadcast into people's homes in Russia is so laughable, I don't know why you even brought it up, or what your point is.
> In fact, even the idea of allowing CNN or BBC to broadcast into people's homes in Russia is so laughable, I don't know why you even brought it up, or what your point is.
No one's talking about availability in Russia except you.
And to add some substance about why AJ and RT can be accessed I will quote another commenter who put it better than I did:
"The reason you can is that very few people actually do. As the Tik Tok affair shows, the moment the US suspects it might have some real competitor in controlling the narrative, it shuts them down. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but it's worth taking note that it's how things are."
> No one's talking about availability in Russia except you.
That's the other side of the coin. Why do you expect one country to be totally open and allow the other to be totally closed? How is that a standard that makes any sense?
> "The reason you can is that very few people actually do."
I don't see what consumption habits have to do with anything. This is also contradicting what you just said, that people in the US don't have access to this content.
> As the Tik Tok affair shows, the moment the US suspects it might have some real competitor in controlling the narrative, it shuts them down.
Who is the "US" here? The U.S. government? A specific company? Without specifics you aren't really saying anything at all, just implying some greater unfalsifiable conspiracy.
> This is also contradicting what you just said, that people in the US don't have access to this content.
The point is that their other media so promotes a lack of curiosity by providing a false impression of being comprehensive. If you risk bursting that bubble suddenly you are first mocked, then they try to buy you, then they block you, and tell you it is your fault.
The US is held to higher standards because that is how it promotes itself. Many of us outside the US are actually saddened by a betrayal of these values, because we are all too aware of how lacking many places are, and we need the US to be better than this.
> The point is that their other media so promotes a lack of curiosity by providing a false impression of being comprehensive. If you risk bursting that bubble suddenly you are first mocked, then they try to buy you, then they block you, and tell you it is your fault.
I'm not being funny but I honestly couldn't follow that.
> The US is held to higher standards because that is how it promotes itself.
You are right, they are. That's why they didn't prevent TikTok from operating and growing domestically for years. Then the Chinese government starting using it as an asset of their espionage apparatus, so in response the U.S. STILL didn't ban the content in contains, but rather told the (apparently) independent company operating TikTok that the content is free to remain as long as it's not controlled by a hostile foreign government. The refusal to sell is the most obvious public facing proof that they are in fact Chinese government controlled.
All of that is how the U.S. is different, but as evidenced by this conversation and multiple other threads, no one really cares about the nuance.
> if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.
The application of this principle can be seen when closed societies maintain complete control over their domestic media, while spreading as much toxic nonsense as possible abroad[1].
At the same they are completely intolerant of speech at home, they exploit the openness of the west by pushing disinfo they know to be wrong (and harmful) aboard. They continue to muddy the waters by pretending their information warfare is "just asking questions" (RT's moto is "Question More"). It's an extension of their hybrid warfare efforts, and shouldn't be seen as anything less.
Yes the categories of “our glorious leader” on one side and “their wretched despot” on the other. The categories of “our objective news” and “their state propaganda”.
“Their brutish enforcers” vs “our noble police”.
You have to accept that the era of American exceptionalism is over and we’ll all be measured by our actions rather than the dreamy stories told.
> It’s very telling that TikTok would shutdown instead of divest.
TBF; The CCP passed laws that likely make it illegal for TikTok to sell/export that kind of information (the algo). They can't divest without also neutering the sticking power of the service.
And why did the CCP pass those laws? Perhaps bc they understood it would block divestment, acting as a poison pill to would be acquirers, thereby forcing foreign governments to fight their own public in outright banning TikTok.
It doesn't have to be either /or. You should be skeptical of US spy agency behavior, and still recognize the threat of Chinese influence via psyops algorithm to the United States.
0) Protectionism- TikTok is eating Meta's lunch. Meta can't make a social app as good as TikTok in the same way GM can't make a car as good a value as BYD.
Much like Google was eating the lunch of everything in China and the CCP, in response, made it essentially impossible for them to operate.
This is not new behavior between the two countries, the only thing new is the direction. US is finally waking up to the foreign soft power being exercised inside our own country, and it isn't benefiting us.
> Google was eating the lunch of everything in China and the CCP, in response, made it essentially impossible for them to operate.
Google was operating in China until 2010 when they got banned because they stopped censoring search results. Other Western search engines like Bing continue operate in China.
They also got their source code stolen by Chinese state hackers. The word "hostile" doesn't begin to describe their experience operating on the mainland.
Completely tangential, but from personal experience, the performance of Google Search had been degraded for at least 2 years prior, so when it was banned it was already mostly useless anyway.
GMail continued for a few years after that - I'm not even sure if it was ever actually banned, or just suffered the same fate (death by a thousands timeouts).
This is just a different bias on point 3, reciprocity. BYD benefits from state subsidies and state sponsored intellectual property theft on an industrial scale. See again, point 3.
That certainly plays some role in why domestic social media companies haven't stirred up resistance to the ban, but is more like #50 in terms of geopolitical strategy.
The domestic companies lost some attention share to TikTok sure, and a ban or domestic sale would generally be in their interests, but it's not like they were about to be Myspaced. They've remained among the most valued companies -- presently and in forecasts -- even while it was "eating their lunch"
> it's not like they were about to be Myspaced. They've remained among the most valued companies
It hasn't been an overnight switch, but the trajectory did not look good for US companies. TikTok was even eating into TV viewing time. There's a fixed amount of attention and TikTok was vacuuming it up from everywhere.
I won’t say that isn’t relevant; when you’re building a coalition you don’t say no to allies. But it was a cherry on top of a well-baked pie. Not a foundational motivation.
True, but I'd say that in this area (vs. manufacturing where tariffs can be applied), it's more taboo/embarrassing to admit how dominated Instagram was. Reels is the cheap knockoff of the genuine article.
> If, for example, a user allows TikTok access to
the user’s phone contact list to connect with others on the
platform, TikTok can access “any data stored in the user’s
contact list,” including names, contact information, contact
photos, job titles, and notes. 2 id., at 659. Access to such
detailed information about U. S. users, the Government
worries, may enable “China to track the locations of Federal
employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”
It has blown my mind how "free Palestine" has become a meme. That war started with a bunch of terrorists kidnapping/raping/murdering college-age kids at a music festival, and college kids around the world started marching _in support of_ the perpetrators.
At some point, I realized that I avoid social media apps, and the people in those marches certainly don't.
I know that there's more to the Israel:Palestine situation than the attack on the music festival, but the fundamental contradiction that the side that brutalized innocent young people seems to have the popular support of young people is hard to ignore. I wonder to what degree it's algorithmically driven.
In response, Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, 80% civilians, 70% women and children, have destroyed more than half of their buildings residential or otherwise, displaced millions, refuse aid. Disproportionate does not begin to cover it
It looks like you are comparing a specific terrorist group to Israel as a society. Be aware that there is a large propaganda machine which uses this tactic to dehumanize Palestinians in order to justify a genocide against them.
Now if you wanted to compare atrocities—which honestly you shouldn’t—you would compare the Palestinian children that were brutalized both in the Gaza genocide, and in any one of the number of IDF incursions into Gaza and the West Bank before and after oct 7. That is compare victims to one side, to the victims of the other side.
But people generally don’t pick sides like that. They don‘t evaluate the atrocities committed by one armed group to the atrocities committed by the other and favor one over the other. And they certainly don‘t favor one civilian group over another based on the actions of their armed groups. People much more simply react to atrocities as they happen. And Israel has committed enough atrocities during the Gaza genocide that social media will be reacting—both in anger and horror—for a long time to come.
1. Is there any real evidence of the CCP using TikTok for anything?
3. Then what is Microsoft doing in China? What is Apple doing in China? Etc. No tech company is banned from China, the only companies that choose not to operate in China are those that do not agree to follow Chinese laws.
Nail in the head with reciprocity. I think the US honored its end of the bargain over the past four plus decades since China started manufacturing goods for US companies. China clearly benefited since they are now the second largest economy. Along the way China grew ambitious which is fine but they made an idiotic policy error in timing. They should’ve waited a couple more decades to show teeth.
> That same year, Douyin imposed a 40-minute daily limit for users under 14. Last year, Chinese regulators introduced a rule that would limit children under age 18 to two hours of smartphone screen time each day.
It’s not the same, no. I provided the link because it’s what I assume the OP is referring to.
Limiting use to 40 minutes is not a ban but it still shows a view that extended exposure to it is harmful. To turn it on its head, if more than 40 minutes is viewed harmful for Chinese youth, why not American?
It's a clear sign the international version of TikTok, because of it's addictiveness and content, would never be allowed for a single minute in China by the people that know the most about what it is, and what is does.
If it was a legal requirement for Chinese apps in China, and this is the path for societal heath then why not pass that law for all social apps in the US?
Blanket content bans are the stuff of dictatorships, but restricting access to demographics that could be most harmed by it (children for example) is a good idea, and I wish the US would look into it.
The whole country had a shift though, they implemented gaming and entertainment regulations and video sites like bilibili went from $153 to a low of $8 a share.
China didn't go after TikTok _alone_ - they reportedly went after anything deemed too addictive, including limiting the time spent on games. It was very clearly aimed towards reducing digital addiction (which is something us in the West still try to ignore as an epidemic)
it's called Douyin. It's the same product, the same way a Mexican Coke is the same thing as an American Coke, and both are produced by the same company (Coca Cola).
The analogy to Coca Cola? Let me make another comparison: the 737 Max with one AoA sensor was made by the same company that only sold the one with two in America.
It would be more like Coke was Mexican owned and HFCS was outlawed in Mexico. Then Mexican Coke used sugar and the Coke they exported to America used HFCS. And America said, hey, you're not consuming the same Coke you send here: we're going to ban you if you don't sell to us and our plan is to keep making HFCS Coke once we buy you. You were also hurting Pepsi (Facebook/Twitter), who also only plan on ever using HFCS.
I dont think tiktok app is banned because of algorithm, because bytedance created and maintains both Doyin and Tiktok.
I think it is form of compartmentalizing Internet and social networks, to keep Chinese internet and social media separate from the US.
the red book app, where tiktok refugees are flocking to right now, also want to introduce geofence and compartmentalize Chinese users and US users separately
Tiktok is banned completely in China because it doesn't not have the agressive filtering and CPP propaganda in place to operate in China. The CPP can not allow Chineze citizens to engage in an open exchange of ideas with eachother or with the citizens of other free nations, for obvious reasons.
You cannot operate a TV channel, a radio station or a newspaper in China without running everything through CCP first for approval. You won't find a single news report critical of the CCP because of this.
Every social media app or website in China is required to ask for your real name and ID number, and implement any censorship requested by the party. If you post something that rubs the government the wrong way, your identity is readily available.
I don't believe this level of content control, censorship and user prosecution is there for all American media. And if it were, you are allowed to set up your own channel or social media app in America to be the exception.
>Every social media app or website in China is required to ask for your real name and ID number, and implement any censorship requested by the party. If you post something that rubs the government the wrong way, your identity is readily available.
I didn't know this. Do you have any reading on the subject you can recommend?
You are making a distinction without a difference. China knows TikTok is harmful, which is why it allows it's export and bans domestic consumption. Think of it like a drug.
"It’s almost like they recognize that technology is influencing kids’ development, and they make their domestic version a spinach version of TikTok, while they ship the opium version to the rest of the world,”
I worked on some language in the bill for my Senator. The unifying concern—and my and their concern—was China.
I know when you have a pet war you tend to see everything through its lens, but most Americans—including electeds—couldn’t care less about what’s going on in Gaza or Ukraine.
That’s not now policy works in the US. We aren’t a direct democracy. Policy proposals don’t require “most Americans” to care about it. It only requires most LEGISLATORS to care.
And legislators have zero requirement to explain to the public the real reason a policy proposal happens. The language used in a bill doesn’t have to be the reason it exists. This is how lobbying works.
> Israel was a big enough reason to force Joe Biden out of office
Wow, people really believe Joe Biden wouldn’t have bombed his debate if he just changed his policy on Israel. (Or more seriously, that Kamala was kept out of the White House by this. What a myopic worldview.)
Yes, people believe that, because that’s what scientific polling states. Wow.
You may not agree with the 10% of the population that sides with Hamas, but that’s enough to cause an election to flip from Democrat to Republican or Independent, causing a 1.5% win for Trump.
The world doesn’t operate in majorities. Small groups do have power over you.
What poll? Every reputable pollster said the opposite.
> You may not agree with the 10% of the population that sides with Hamas, but that’s enough to cause an election to flip
I don’t and it’s not because of where they are. State-level polls on the issue show it’s irrelevant. That’s why it was ignored. The fact that people were willing to throw the election on this single issue certainly changed my view on the matter, and I know two Republican Senators who took it as a license to be more aggressive against Palestine and Iran.
If you don’t want to believe reputable pollsters you can look at state primary polling results. For those, the uncommitted movement received 9% of the votes in the Democratic primaries.
And Kamala lost by 1.5% in the general election.
You can thank us in making sure your candidate was defeated. Maybe next time don’t live stream Jews killing thousands of Muslim children on Instagram with the support of your candidate while pretending it doesn’t matter?
lol you really thought Gaza didn’t matter in the election? Even I don’t believe you believe that. Be serious.
The government doesn't care about addictive anything, this is about control and access. If they cared about life or citizens in general they would fix healthcare and maybe introduce any kind of gun control. This is the same government that was slanging cocaine in the 1980's...
Multiple reps publicly said TikTok needed to be banned because they couldn't control the narrative around Gaza as easily. TikTok is the only platform I regularly see content about Gaza fed from the algorithm.
"enormous threat to U.S. national security and young Americans’ mental health ... capable of mobilizing the platform’s users to a range of dangerous, destabilizing actions. The Senate must pass this bill and send it to the president’s desk immediately.”
Indeed, it's all protectionism. They want the money to go to American companies instead. Why do you think the EU, which is generally far more aggressive about these things, has not yet banned TikTok? It's also the same reason Huawei are thriving elsewhere but banned in the US. It's all just trying to protect their big companies with deep pockets.
EU is always slow. They felt browser choice was an issue 0 years after it stopped being one, and then freaked out about cookies also 10 more more years later when it wasn't really an issue. Data tracking is an issue, sure. Not cookies though, not anymore.
Are you referring to the completely scientifically-untrained "bros" who were touting ivermectin and other treatments or cures with little to no scientific evidence of efficacy?
TikTok itself is banned in mainland china. Do you need much more of a source?
Yes, you could say Douyin is available in place of TikTok, but have you asked yourself why they have 2 separate apps? One for mainland China, and another for everyone else?
So is Wikipedia. Otherwise Chinese people just cannot stop reading all those wiki pages about that fungi that only grow on a certain volcano in French New Guinea. How addictive!
There are many reasons why there are two separate apps and not necessarily related to how addictive the algorithm is. The "source" you linked gives one such reason:
> Like other social media services in China, Douyin follows the censorship rules of the Chinese Communist Party. It conscientiously removes video pertaining to topics deemed sensitive or inflammatory by the party, although it has proved a little harder than text-based social media to control.
Also have you used Douyin? It's really feels like basically the same thing.
You could substitute anything you don't like (gambling, alcohol, gacha games, convenience foods, televised sports, reality TV) for "social media" in the above and it makes as much sense.
"anything you don't like (gambling, alcohol, gacha games, convenience foods, televised sports, reality TV)"
Respectively, heavily regulated, heavily regulated, poorly regulated but really has to toe the line to not fall into the first bucket, fairly regulated (with shifting attitudes about what they should be, but definitely not unregulated), probably only a problem because this is "gambling" again lately and has been regulated in the past and I suspect may well be more heavily regulated in the near future, and people probably would not generally agree this belongs in the list.
Good points. I would welcome a discussion on ways social media (however defined) should be regulated to mitigate harms. Hopefully, that would put the perceived harms in context of other harms we regulate.
The GP's statement doesn't work with reality TV or televised sports. Both of those are produced with a lot of human effort, and the cycle time for new content is way too large to form addictions.
Gambling, alcohol, and gacha games are clearly addictive and frequently are not set up to be in the best interests of the users.
“ Gambling, alcohol, and gacha games are clearly addictive “
There are billions of casual drinkers / gamblers / gamers who do not show any sign of addiction. I’m really tired to hear the same nonsense repeated again and again. Do a pyschology study of any casino employee that spends 40 hours a week in a gaming venue, or any manufacturer of gaming devices that professionally play games 40 hours a week, and none of these employees exposed to so much gambling / drinking are addicted.
Psychology studies have not established that these items are “addictive”, because if they were, they would be banned all over the world. Nowhere in the western world are they banned, ghey are regulated for “fairness”. There are some individuals that throw the word addiction around without justification, please dont be one of them.
Alcohol is literally physiologically addictive. Withdrawal symptoms include seizures and death. Of course these things are known to be and recognized by governments as addictive. Addictive things aren't always banned. Here's a US government page discussing alcohol addiction from an organization the government has dedicated to raising awareness of the adverse effects of alcohol, including addiction:
You also basically observed that the people selling the addictive thing don't get addicted, which is sort of obvious. You don't get addicted by being near e.g. alcohol and providing it to others. You get addicted by regularly drinking it.
Casino employees are typically barred from gambling at the venue they work at or others within the same ownership group, often not even at venues under different ownership within the same geographical area as their employer.
Scientific studies have established nicotine is addictive yet purchase and smoking of cigarettes is legal in most countries.
I've learned that moderation is key to avoiding their harmful effects. It’s easy to get caught up in the thrill, but understanding how these systems work is crucial. For instance, gacha games often rely on the same reward mechanisms as gambling, making them equally compelling. Exploring resources to stay informed can help reduce risks. For example, I came across a review on Wild Cash x9990 DEMO by BGaming at https://wildcashx9990.com/ which offers insight into gaming mechanics. Since the site itself doesn’t allow gambling
> doesn't work with reality TV or televised sports. Both of those are produced with a lot of human effort
Those two types of content are about the cheapest TV to produce. Per second of video produced (counting all the unpopular content), short videos might be more expensive, but the costs are very distributed.
Totally fair. I was thinking more in terms of the rate at which people can consume it; if your primary interest is following a sport, or current reality-TV shows, you can only consume content as quickly as it is released.
> TikTok is perhaps the most impressively addictive gambling app ever created.
> Geopolitics aside, I think everyone is kind of aware that gambling is a vice, and like it or not, this could just be the beginning of our society beginning to scrutinize these platforms.
The comparison here is a slot machine: you pay a a few to play, you pull the lever to play, you win a prize.
Here, the payment is your attention, you swipe to the next video to play the game, and the prize if you land on a good video is a small hit of dopamine.
Everyone's losing their collective mind about people watching videos on a platform not approved by our oligarchs, while there's an epidemic of people racking up gambling debt from the sudden prevalence of DraftKings and other mobile sports betting apps.
At least in circles I frequent, people are pretty upset with the state of sports betting too. Feels like lots of things are pretty crappy these days, simultaneously
I love to drink. Absolutely adore it. Putting on a great recors, open 2 bottles of wine and call 10 different people during the span of 4 hours. I wouldn't trade it for social media any day of the week. I am drinking right now actually
Yes? The person you replied to was pretty explicit in drawing a comparison to vices like gambling and alcohol, which are indeed usually regulated. Gacha games are also being recognized as thinly veiled gambling and regulated as such.
There was a bill introduced in the US that didn't go anywhere. Of course gambling has recently been heavily deregulated in the US so I suppose we can't expect much to be done about gambling in video games right now. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/162...
I vaguely recall it in at least one of those state bills to regulate social media for kids (listing it as an addictive behavior that's "harmful to minors" or whatever), but can't find specifics. I don't know whether something has passed anywhere in the US.
Note that the Supreme Court decided the argument based on national security grounds, not content manipulation grounds.
Justice Gorsuch in his concurrence specifically commended the court for doing so, believing that a content manipulation argument could run afoul of first amendment rights.
He said that "One man's covert content manipulation is another's editorial discretion".
Be that as it may, I think a large percentage of the opposition don't buy this natsec reasoning at all. You could use that excuse for anything, like mass surveillance via the Patriot Act...
EFF's stance is that SCOTUS's decision based on national security ignores the First Amendment scrutiny that is required.
> The United States’ foreign foes easily can steal, scrape, or buy Americans’ data by countless other means. The ban or forced sale of one social media app will do virtually nothing to protect Americans' data privacy – only comprehensive consumer privacy legislation can achieve that goal.
Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally.
I don't buy it either. Entire generations are growing up without expectations of digital privacy. Our data leaks everywhere, all the time, intentionally and otherwise.
I think it's more about the fact that users of platform are able to connect and share their experiences and potential action for resolving class inequality. There's an entire narrative that is outside of US govt/corp/media control, and that's a problem (to them).
Maybe it was just a genuine outlet for interconnected entertainment compared to other platforms. American's have always sought similar entertainment since the dawn of the 'couch potato.' Now we can go back to consuming curated narratives/influence on our good ole traditional grams and tubes.
The fentanyl pipeline is what came to my mind as well; another thing exported from China to the US to disastrous effect on the well-being of many Americans.
To be fair, trying to consider the other way around, I wonder what Chinese people could point to as disastrous stuff (in terms of the well-being of their population) coming from the US.
What about America's role in the fentanyl issue? It's available all over Europe as well, but people still decide against it and so far it stays a very small mostly regional niche issue.
That might be true but it's irrelevant. Why? Because that's not the issue the government tackled. Arguing "national security" with (quite literally) secret evidence is laughable. Data protection too is a smokescreen or the government would've passed a comprehensive Federal data protection act, which they'd never do.
It's hard to see how the government would tackle algorithmic addiction within running afoul of First Amendment issues. Such an effort should also apply to Meta and Google too if it were attempted.
IMHO reciprocal market access was the most defensible position but wasn't the argument the government made.
That being said, the government did make a strictly commerce-based argument to avoid free speech issues. As came up in oral arguments (and maybe the opinion?) this is functionally no different to the restrictions on foreign ownership of US media outlets.
What needs to happen is that all of these platforms need to be straight up banned. TikTok is getting picked on because of its ties to China, but why is it better for Zuckerberg or Musk to have the capabilities that are so frightening in the hands of the CCP?
The US social media billionaire class is ostensibly accountable to the law, but they're also perfectly capable of using their influence over these platforms to write the law.
One plausible theory for why the politicians talk about fears of spying instead of the real fears of algorithmic manipulation is because they don't want to draw too much attention to how capable these media platforms are of manipulating voters, because they rely on those capabilities to get into and stay in power.
Because if Zuck or Musk does something bad with said power, we can do something about it.
We can't really jail the CCP. Additionally, Zuck and Musk don't have armies to back up their propaganda. We shouldn't let foreign powers own the means of broadcast...
Who is we, though? I can't do anything about it. Can you?
The people who can do something about it are the people who are already in power in the US. They understandably don't want to share with the CCP, but most of them came to power by manipulating enough voters into voting for them. They stay in power by ensuring that enough voters continue to want to vote for them. Which means that someone like Zuckerberg or Musk has an insanely inordinate amount of influence over whether these people who are in power stay in power.
Yes, I think it's marginally better that that influence remain out of the hands of the CCP, but I would rather that that influence not exist at all. It's too dangerous and too prone to corruption.
Who is we, though? I can't do anything about it. Can you?
Isn't this true for literally all problems in a democracy? Do you have a better solution?
Hopefully we'll get AGI soon and it'll take over and rule as a benevolent overlord. Short of that, everything in your comment feels like it has always applied to every societal problem, and always will.
> Isn't this true for literally all problems in a democracy? Do you have a better solution?
Create a level playing field where money does not amplify speech. Our existing democracy is basically a spending contest with a very small component of eloquently persuading voters to vote against their own interest. The richest of the rich have voices and can manipulate the platforms on which others express their voices, and so those rich people either pick the victors or become them.
For democracy to survive we have to get past the idea that a "free market" approach to speech leads to democratic outcomes. It doesn't, it leads to plutocratic outcomes, which is painfully obvious on both sides of the aisle right now. Americans haven't had a true representative of the people in generations.
US is not a democracy in a strict sense, it is more like plutocracy (people with money have the power).
- the electoral college where winner takes all, so minority opposition vote is always suppressed
- gerrymandering that dilutes and suppresses the minority opposition vote
- oligopoly of two parties
- unchecked financial influence by allowing unlimited funding via PACs
- legalized lobbying/bribery
- influence of special interest groups
- the influence of legal system with expensive lawyers (that only rich can afford)
this all indicate that it is people with deep pockets who have all the power
I'd like to note that TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew,
a former Goldman Sachs banker and venture capital investor,
joined TikTok in March 2021.
He is from Singaporean and is married to Vivian Kao,
an American of Taiwanese descent.
Unlike Zuck, Musk, and Bezos,
Chew did not found the company with which he is most associated,
and his net worth is somewhat less than a billion dollars.
Perhaps algorithmically weaponized "speech" by bad actors with bad intentions, especially controlled by adversaries, doesn't work, and was wholly unpredicted or accounted for by the founders.
I, personally, have views that would lean towards being labeled by HN users as supporting a “nanny state” (at least far departure from younger libertarian phase), but even I struggle with a “why” on banning these platforms in general.
It's still weird to me to see tech website comments calling for extreme government restrictions on technology use. Limiting adults to 1 hour of screen time per day across social apps? That's a call for an insane level of government intrusion into our lives that is virtually unheard of outside of extremely controlling governments.
less controlling than banning the software alltogether.
The government bans plenty of activities. Taking illegal drugs. Murdering people. Fishing without a license. Investing in unregulated stocks, Etc. Why not addictive apps?
I think that’s besides the point given the entity that is banning it. It’s because it’s Chinese. An equally addictive Western-made app would not have been banned.
And generally speaking as a culture we are too liberal to ban things for being too addictive. Again, showing that it is not relevant in this case since it will not inspire bans of other addictive (pseudo) substances on those grounds.
I think TikTok and social media in general is much more insidious than opium, because it is hard to know if you are using an addictive product, or what product you’re even being sold (like if you are being sold a subtly manipulated information diet). For example, it just came out that TikTok staff (in the US) were forced to take oaths of loyalty to not disrupt the “national honor” of China or undermine “ethnic unity” in China and so on. TikTok executives are required to sign an agreement with ByteDance subsidiary Douyin (the China version of TikTok) that polices speech and demands compliance with China’s socialist system. That’s deeply disturbing but also undetectable. It came out now because of a lawsuit.
> this could just be the beginning of our society beginning to scrutinize these platforms.
I think politicians have scrutinized american social media and they're 100% fine with the misery they induce so long as they are personally enriched by them.
> There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China
TikTok isn't anywhere near as destructive as opium was. Hell, purely in terms of "mis/disinformation" surely facebook and twitter are many times worse than TikTok.
Surely the appropriate modern parallel is fentanyl.
I wish it were a reckoning for social media, but reading here shows there's plenty of people here who are passionate about "China bad" and see this only through that one lens. And they seem to think it is strictly about TikTok.
even harder is finding a payment system that is not US-based and broadly accepted (no, not crypto).
I do have some hopes for a digital euro and, maybe, maybe, even Wero. But i fear it will never take off because too many players are involved and there is no clear marketing strategy to get it to people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wero_(payment)
It does not. Its volatile, its backed by some at least as shady companies, rugpulls are constant, the acceptance rate of crypto is way below Mastercard/Visa or even Amex, you need to have at least a charged phone and and and. Sorry, I don't see any available version of crypto replacing MC or Visa.
What is China for Americans, for us Europeans, is the USA.
Some argue that it's even worse for Europeans because the Chinese military and government can't reach you while in the USA. And there is no safe place for Europeans from the US government, unless they move to China or Russia.
The US has planned for that scenario by heavily investing in defense to minimize risk to our security even if our allies abandon us. The rest of the NATO alliance does not appear to have done this and appears quite vulnerable. I know where I'd rather be.
As I understood your post: You said the US is worse because "Europeans" are willing to relocate to the US. And also that China is better because they are not likely to relocate to neither Russia nor China.
This is an incorrect understanding of what they wrote. It's not about Europeans relocating to the US or Americans relocating to China.
They're saying (that other people are saying) that in the US, you are safe from the Chinese government/military. In the EU, you are not safe from the US government/military.
Also note that the claim is not that the US is worse than China for Europeans. The claim is that the US is worse for Europeans than China is for Americans.
The last part about relocating is saying that you can only be safe from the US government/military in China or Russia.
Based on extradition agreements, this conclusion seems true enough on the surface. And maybe US military bases in Europe play a role as well. But this is a thread about national security concerns via social media, and I think it's hard to make a broad and definitive conclusion due to the wide variety of soft and hard powers that countries exert internationally.
Oh come on. The US is in a military alliance with most of Europe. And hasn’t banned any European apps from operating. And has similar democratic and human rights policies.
> And has similar democratic and human rights policies.
In Europe we have some direct and some less direct democracy and human rights that a really apply without any Guantanamo exceptions. When there are issues there are laws made, not singular platforms banned. It's not similar and offensive to say so.
Europe and the U.S. are miles (or kilometers, I suppose) apart of human rights policies.
Another poster pointed out Guantanamo, but our prison population is unreal compared to Europe. We're rolling back child labor laws. We're burning and banning books. We don't have universal suffrage. We're actively and enthusiastically participating in a genocide against the Palestinian people. We've got a "border zone" in which our cops have huge authority that extends 100 miles in from every border. We're letting Americans starve, sleep rough, and die from preventable disease because taking care of each other is considered "communist". The right to protest is being heavily curtailed. And we've continued to gerrymander away democracy across our nation.
No, we're nowhere close to the human rights or democratic positions of Europe. Which of course, is also not perfect, but along those two specific axes? The U.S. is far, far away.
Like Facebook, the "algorithm" is nothing special. TikTok made some smart design decisions that collect more interaction data that legacy social sites like Instagram and YouTube. They use that data to effectively recommend content.
> Geopolitics aside, I think everyone is kind of aware that social media is a vice, and like it or not, this could just be the beginning of our society beginning to scrutinize these platforms.
Come on. We all know that TikTok was banned because the US regime couldn't control it.
If they really wanted to ban vice, they would have banned Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and their kin a long ago.
If it was owned by a Nigerian tomorrow and kept the same CEO, board, employees and algorithm, do you honestly think it wouldn't immediately be banned again?
I disagree that social media is a vice. There's nothing inherently wrong with better communication. Although it's hard for me to see the value (or appeal) in TikTok.
What aspect of modern social media contributes to better communication? We're not taking about WhatsApp here, we're talking about algorithmic infinite scroll feeds.
Just on Facebook I can see what all of my old high school friends are up to. I can instantly send anyone a message. I can find things buy that people are selling. I have a community of people who are into the same obscure hobby. That's just off the top of my head.
> I think everyone is kind of aware that social media is a vice
I don't think this is true. Everyone that is reading this forum might even be too strong. The majority of people happily eating the pablum up as the users of TikTok can't even tell the blatantly false content from just the silly dancing videos.
> this could just be the beginning of our society beginning to scrutinize these platforms.
Could not be more wrong. "Society" is not deciding anything here. The ban is entirely because of idelogical and geopolical reasons. They have already allowed the good big tech companies to get people hooked as much as they want. If you think you are going to see regulation for public good you will probably be disappointed.
The US gov will do nothing to regulate US owned social networks because they're doing for free the work that the government wants to do itself: collect as much data as possible from each individual. The separation between Meta's collected data and government is just one judicial request away. That's why the US gov hates other countries having this power.
The Tik Tok divestment law was passed by overwhelmingly by both houses of the duly elected Congress. At the time, a majority of Americans polled supported the law, while a minority opposed it: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/more-support-than-oppose-tik....
In a democracy, this is how "society decides" what's in the "public good." This is not a case where legislators are going behind the public's back, hiding something they know they public would oppose. Proponents of the law have been clear in public about what the law would do and what the motivations for the law are. There is nothing closer to "society decides" than Congress overwhelmingly passing a law after making a public case for what the law would do.
Yes, they're doing it for "ideological and geopolitical reasons"--but those things are important to society! Americans are perfectly within their rights to enact legislation, through their duly elected representatives, simply on the basis of "fuck China."
This may in some ways be technically correct, but it is also true that in a democracy, the elite make decisions with the support of the people through manufactured consent. This process involves the manipulation of the populace through mass media, to intentionally misinform and influence them.
One could take the position that this process is so flawed as to be illegitimate. In this case it would be a valid position to believe that society had not fairly decided these things, and they were instead decided by a certain class of people and pushed on to the rest of us.
That's the notion of "false consciousness" that Marxists trot out to justify why they're right even though people don't agree with them. It's a tool for academics to justify imposing themselves as right-thinking elites who know better than the unwashed masses.
I disagree strongly with any authoritarian rule, but it is probably correct that the masses don’t actually know the best way to run society. That doesn’t mean we need to impose rule, it means we need to understand manufacturing consent (which is a distinct concept from false consciousness and well supported by the facts), it means we need to combat manufactured consent and better educate people.
100% agreed, unfortunately. There is truth in sayings like "the customer doesn't know what's best for them"... I think because they are often simply not informed or intelligent enough.
Most people are sufficiently informed and intelligent. They simply don't (1) care about the things you care about; or (2) don't agree with you that your preferred approaches will bring about desired outcomes.
It can still be both- in the sense that once a precedent is set using the these additional ideological and geopolitical motivations as momentum, maybe there will be an appetite for further algorithm regulations.
As a tech person who already understood the system, it's refreshing that I now often see the comment "I need to change my algorithm"- meaning, I can shape the parameters of what X/Twitter / Instagram/ YouTube / TikTok shows me in my feed.
I think there's growing meta-awareness (that I see as comments within these platforms) that there is "healthy" content and that the apps themselves manipulate their user's behavior patterns.
Hopefully there's momentum building that people perceive this as a public health issue.
These bans done for political purposes toward public consent for genocide (ie see ADL/AIPAC's "We have a big TikTok problem" leaked audio, and members of our own congress stating that this is what motivates the regulations) won't lead to greater freedoms over algorithms. It is the opposite direction - more state control over which algorithms its citizens are allowed to see
The mental health angle of support for the bans is a way the change gets accepted by the public, which posters here are doing free work toward generating, not a motivating goal or direction for these or next regulations
You want a political body to make decisions apolitically?
> mental health angle of support
This was de minimis. The support was start to finish from national security angles. There was some cherry-on-top AIPAC and protectionist talk. But the votes were got because TikTok kept lying about serious stuff [1] while Russia reminded the world of the cost of appeasement.
I know the state didn't do it or say they did it for mental health purposes, I'm responding to the reasons given here for supporting these regulations
BTW you're the one who cast doubt on me for suggesting UnitedHealth is incentivized to raise prices to get around profit caps, which turned out to be exactly the case despite your sense-making of the rules in place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716428
> you're the one who cast doubt on me for suggesting UnitedHealth is incentivized to raise prices to get around profit caps, which turned out to be exactly the case despite your sense-making of the rules in place
Yea, it might be naive to think the government will act in the interest of the consumer (although it has happened before)- but at least maybe it'll continue the conversation of users themselves....
THis situation is another data point and is a net good for society (whether or not the ban sticks).
Discussion around (for example) the technical implementation of content moderation being inherently political (i.e., Meta and Twitter) will be good for everyone.
Yeah, the ban is interesting because it’s happened before (company being forced to sell or leave), but never to a product used at this scale. There are allegedly 120M daily active users in the US alone. That’s more than a third of Americans using it every day.
While many have a love hate relationship with it, there are many who love it. I know people who aren’t too sad, because it’ll break their addiction, and others who are making really decent money as content creators on it. So generally, you’re exactly right. “Society” is not lashing back at TikTok. Maybe some are lashing back at American social media companies (eg some folks leaving Twitter and meta products).
But if we wanted to actually protect our citizens, we’d enact strong data privacy laws, where companies don’t own your data — you do. And can’t spy on you or use that data without your permission. This would solve part of the problem with TikTok.
While data privacy laws would be good, I don’t see how it would help with TikTok since they have no reason to actually follow the laws when CCP comes calling.
That's because "being hooked" is not why it is being banned. It's banned because people are hooked on it and an adversarial foreign power has the ability to use it for their own gain.
Which is why a viable solution for TikTok was selling it to a US company. If it was just about the population "being hooked", a sale would not be an acceptable outcome.
More specifically the ban is because of the platform being used to support Palestine. There are public recordings of congressmen openly and plainly saying so.
Many other platforms have been used for that for even longer, and none of them are in danger of being banned. I don't think this is the real reason, if there is even a singular reason.
I believe the singular reason is that TikTok is controlled by the CCP and they use it as a tool to further increase political and social division by manipulating the algorithm.
This is evidenced by the fact that ByteDance could've sold TikTok in the US for a huge amount of money to comply with the recent legislation, but the Chinese government won't allow the sale. They aren't interested in the money, which to me sounds like they only ever cared about the data and influence.
Side note: I used Perplexity to summarize the recent events to make sure I'm not totally talking out my butt :). Just a theory though, happy to be proven wrong!
I repeat, there are recordings of congressmen openly saying this is why it needs to be banned and whipping votes on that basis. It’s not a theory. I remember a specific quote “we’re missing it” i.e. congress was not understanding where the pro-Palestinian sentiment was coming from.
I hear what you're saying, but I still don't think that's the real reason. Maybe that's a reason that they were told by someone else, and now it has become their reason, but I don't think it is the most important reason this is going on in the first place. I think it's more about having control over the content Americans see, and/or not letting adversarial countries have similar control over Americans.
First, they are american platforms, and already do a lot of filtering. It's not easy to ban an American platform either, and there is more leverage to twist their arm.
Second, how does your comment change the fact that there are multiple politicians on record saying this is why they are going after tik tok?
Because if the Chinese government actually is using it or plans to use it as a propaganda tool there is no amount of money they would accept. The fact that it wasn't sold to a US company offers credibility to the fact that the product is useless to China if it's controlled by a US company and they wanted to keep the data they learned about addiction to themselves. Also probably wanted to build some outrage among young users for the government banning their favorite app
The sell or be banned part, instead of just banned, was most certainly lobbied for by the US social media companies hoping to get it on the off chance it had served its purpose, wasn't as useful as China had hoped, or the slim chance they really did just want Americans to copy dance trends.
If you have to get a sale done, it will absolutely create a discount on the price. This is regardless of the interest — all parties know you have a time limit. Yes you may still do a sale quickly and the price may still be at a premium to your last funding round or whatever you want to use as a mark to market, but it will be at a discount to what you could have gotten.
if US government says who is allowed to buy and buyers collude (by pooling financial and political capital together) they can easily not fight a bidding war and lowball instead
Can you give an example of how the most eligible buyers might collude in a way that benefits them all equally, so that this would happen?
For me, it's very hard to conceive of any concrete way that would work. It's a brand, some partnerships, and a network of users that would all go to whatever buyer, and would give that buyer a huge benefit over their existing domestic competitors. So under what circumstances would those domestic competitors allow that instead of aggresively trying to secure it for themselves?
I'm open to believing you, I just don't see what you have in mind.
Campaign with the president, offer large amounts of money to the presidents campaign, donate huge sums to a small inauguration party, and then just be picked to get it at a deep discount. The entire point of bribes is that corruption let's you get away with things at a lesser cost. You just screw over everyone else except for the bribe receiver.
Elon musk is an example of acquisition of global social network. Political capital is needed because the tiktok question is politicized heavily (national security as a reason).
Plus FTC will review the acquisition process as well.
> Political capital is needed because the tiktok question is politicized heavily (national security as a reason)
This is entirely meaningless. You don’t need political capital to maintain the status quo.
> Do you have a counter example?
To your hypothetical? My example is the law. FACA is tightly defined. Bytedance needs to divest to a non-FAC to return to the status quo. Trump could do something else to fuck with them. But that’s true of anyone anywhere.
except when the government decides to intervene and reject the transaction. See, this seems like routine, but ultimately it gives the government an option to cancel transaction they dont like and they can always cite some bogus reason like "national security" and use racist pretext like ethnicity of the CEO or whatever
It doesn’t. The courts do. TikTok could be sold to a Hungarian businessman. As long as it can’t be proved they aren’t controlled by China, they should be allowed to reënter app stores.
Generally speaking, we tend to refer to governments in countries with independent judiciaries as being separate from their courts. The same way we refer to the government in parliamentary democracies separately from their parliaments. (Or governments separately from a country’s people, even though one is a subset of the other.)
> Do you think there isn't any collusion between Supreme Court and the other branches of government?
Not super relevant here. This SCOTUS barely upheld the ban with Bytedance as the owner.
> Not super relevant here. This SCOTUS barely upheld the ban with Bytedance as the owner.
Given that the Court has been lobbied by billionaires, I find really hard to believe they wouldn't help an US company to buy it instead of a Hungarian or any other one.
Rich people can always find a common ground and negotiate deals among themselves, its what they do every day.
As a rich person I’d rather get 30% of tiktok with 99% certainty by committing 30% of capital needed, rather than 100% of tiktok with 30% certainty and committing 100% of capital needed.
I don't know about Shorts but Instagram has solved the addiction problem by ignoring signals like the user tapping "not interested" or scrolling past videos quickly. They just show junk.
Think of it like consumer protection laws - Ford has higher safety requirements for the vehicles they sell domestically than they do for those sold in Mexico. Thus, it could be argued that they are not maximizing their monetization of the US market by cutting out expensive safety features that consumers don't pay extra for.
China is wise to have such laws to protect their citizens.
I am a farmer, I grow tomatoes. The ones I sell to large markets, I use pesticides, herbicides, petrochemical fertilizers, etc etc. The ones I grow for my own consumption and for sale at the local market -- those get organic compost and no chemical treatments.
1) I sell to you my special and cherished resource. You may live in the fever dream of "market rules all", but a cold surprise may come that not everyone does.
2) You can afford what I sell - especially if political winds blow so that your benevolent rulers choose to impose 1000% tariffs on my good tomatoes
3) That you even _know_ there's a difference, and that tomatoes come from a farm and not the store or a can.
Where is TikTok not maximizing monetization? If you mean the GP's comment on China's ban on the algorithm originally used then you are missing a critical aspect of that: It wasn't TikTok's choice to stop or decrease monetization there.
Also, even if they were differently monetizing by region, you are also missing the non-monetary reasons this might happen: Manipulation & propaganda. Even aside from any formal policy by the Chinese govermnent self-censorship by businesses and individuals for anything the Party might not like is very common. Also common is the government dictating the actions a Chinese company may take abroad for these same efforts in influencing foreign opinions.
Corporations in China all operate at the behest of "the people" (aka the party). If the government thinks a product is damaging or harmful to society, it can be taken off the market without any legal mechanisms necessary.
Only the control by a foreign adversary part is being threatened in the US, not the algorithmic opium part twisting the minds of the population. They're two different things. The US so far has no qualms with it if an American is in control of the strings. That's where China differs.
> The US so far has no qualms with it if an American is in control of the strings. That's where China differs
Legally, there is no issue with TikTok being Japanese, Korean, Indian, Saudi, Polish, Ugandan, Brazilian or Mexican. Just not owned by a foreign adversary country.
Yes, thank you. I've updated the earlier sentence from "foreign control" to "control by a foreign adversary". It's indeed the fact that China is a geopolitical enemy-to-be that's the problem.
But, they're also something like our third biggest trading partner. China is like a Schroedinger's Adversary: Simultaneously an adversary and a friend, until you ask a politician and the wave function collapses and he picks one.
Don't fool yourself or fall for the propaganda: China is hardly an adversary -- just look at how much money we send them and how many goods they send us. If they were truly an adversary we'd be treating them like we do Russia.
> If they were truly an adversary we'd be treating them like we do Russia
As you said, we trade with them extensively. We didn’t tighten the screws on Russia until it actually invaded Ukraine. Until Xi actually invades Taiwan, it’s profitable to pretend.
> they say it's a national security threat and vote to remove it?
From app stores and American hosting. Only if Bytedance doesn’t sell TikTok to e.g. a French or Indian or American owner. TikTok.com will still resolve (unless Bytedance blocks it).
Any country has mechanisms to ban products the government deems as bad. I think the point is those are much more liberally used in China vs in the US, not that the US would be unable to do it
1) A single party apparatus determines something must be removed, and by fiat it is immediately removed
2) Multiple agencies investigate and make a determination that a real threat exists, the threat and measures to resolve it are debated strongly in two houses of Congress between strongly opposing parties, an passes with bi-partisan support, the law is signed by the President, then the law is upheld through multiple challenges in multiple courts and panels of judges, finally being upheld by the Supreme Court of the country. And no, this is not yet a situation where the country has fallen into autocracy so the institutions have all been corrupted to serve the executive (I.e., not like Hungary, Venezuela, Russia, etc.).
If you think these are the same... I'll just be polite and say the ignorance expressed in that post is truly stunning and wherever you got your education has deeply failed — yikes.
Frankly, I’m not sure what these comments even mean. Douyin (Chinese TikTok) has the same level of brainrot content, except with some restrictions (political and societal level stuff). Chinese kids are as much addicted to it as Western kids to TikTok/IG, from what I’ve seen.
> TikTok is perhaps the most impressively addictive social media app ever created.
What nonsense.
> The algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China for being too addictive.
"Apparently"? Tiktok was forced to separate itself into a chinese version and the non-chinese version by the US because we didn't want "da ccp" controlling tiktok.
> There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China, then Britain introduced stronger, more disruptive versions, forcing a stronger social reaction.
There is no historic symmetry. Unless china invades the US and forces americans to use tiktok. Like britain invaded china ( opium wars ) and forced opium on china's population.
What's with all the same propaganda in every tiktok/china related thread? The same talking points on every single thread for the past few years.
"Tiktok was forced to separate itself into a chinese version and the non-chinese version by the US because we didn't want "da ccp" controlling tiktok."
You're talking about Propaganda but you are spreading straight up fake news.
ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016.
ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017.
There was no "split", let alone one "forced by the US".
> There was no "split", let alone one "forced by the US".
There was no split? You wrote: "ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016. ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017."
You say there was no split while explicitly proving that there was split? You're not that stupid are you?
Why do you think "tiktok" was created in 2017 when bytedance already had douyin( aka tiktok ) in 2016?
Why is there a "tiktok" for china and a "tiktok" for everyone else? Because the "tiktok in china ( duoyin ) was influenced by the chinese government and to appease the US, bytedance branched off tiktok from "douyin".
I doesn't have anything to do with "appeasing" the US, the Chinese version is heavily filtered and tilted towards CPP prefered activities and worldview, such a platform would never work on the international market and they know it.
And it obviously is not a split if they are seperate apps from the beginning. Why do you lie so much btw?
> I doesn't have anything to do with "appeasing" the US
No. It had everything to do with it. How can you say that when tiktok is getting banned? Even after bytedance bent over backwards to appease the US?
> the Chinese version is heavily filtered and tilted towards CPP prefered activities and worldview, such a platform would never work on the international market and they know it.
Sure. But nothing prevents tiktok from catering their app to other nations differently. You do realize that most nations get different versions of tiktok, facebook, youtube, etc right?
> And it obviously is not a split if they are seperate apps from the beginning.
But they weren't separate apps from the beginning. Your fellow bot/propagandists wrote: "ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016. ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017."
If someone is born in 2016 and another person is born in 2017 are born in the same year? Are they the same person?
> Why do you lie so much btw?
Everyone can read this thread and see that you are lying. Not me.
> Even after bytedance bent over backwards to appease the US?
In 2017 when TikTok was launched, there were no US government rules towards it, there were no demands made by the US government about TikTok - that part is the absolutely wrong part of your argument. You either didn't know that, or you are lying about it. Either way it's misinformation.
ByteDance didn't do anything to appease the US in 2016 or 2017. Bytedance offering Douyin for China, and a separate app TikTok for other markets is specifically about controlling the content that people see in China. TikTok is banned in China because content on TikTok isn't as filtered and strictly controlled in the same ways that China's government wants it to be for their own people - TikTok was specifically made for markets outside of China for this reason. The US had NOTHING to do with that, it is strictly about China controlling China's population with Douyin, or more specifically, not losing control of Chinese people by allowing anti-China videos to appear in Douyin. It's far easier for China to control the narrative they want if there are two separate apps that essentially provide the same user experience. The Chinese government controls TikTok, and I have not seen a single anti-China video in my wife's TikTok feed, so I'm willing to believe that they do have some control over content in the US too.
I hope that's not too complicated for you to understand.
>> Why do you lie so much btw?
>Everyone can read this thread and see that you are lying. Not me.
The other person is not lying. You may not be lying, but you really don't have your facts straight.
> “You do realize that most nations get different versions of TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, etc., right?”
That statement is misleading, as the differences between these platforms across various countries are typically minor—mostly due to copyright restrictions—so users can still access roughly 99% of the same content. This situation isn’t remotely comparable to TikTok’s China-only counterpart, Douyin, which exists in a separate and completely different ecosystem. I suspect you’re aware of this, yet you brought it up anyway. What is your motivation for such dishonesty?
> “No. It had everything to do with it. How can you say that when TikTok is getting banned? Even after ByteDance bent over backward to appease the US?”
Could you explain exactly what the United States did before 2017 that caused ByteDance to launch a separate app for every country outside of China (not just in the US)? You seem to be muddying the waters by referring to this potential 2024 ban, but that obviously can’t be the reason ByteDance created a separate platform for every non-China country back in 2017.
> “But they weren’t separate apps from the beginning.”
Actually, they were. Douyin is geo-restricted to China (requiring a Chinese phone number to register) and was never accessible to users outside the country. This restriction was put in place to limit the information available to Chinese users, clearly separating Douyin from TikTok right from the start.
> "Everyone can read this thread and see that you are lying. Not me."
Well, I certainly agree that everyone can read this thread and make a judgement on who is more honest.
> Tiktok was forced to separate itself into a chinese version and the non-chinese version by the US because we didn't want "da ccp" controlling tiktok
No. TikTok was forced to put its data on American servers [1].
Douyin was launched in 2016 as musical.ly, and is unrelated to U.S. pressure. (EDIT: Douyin was launched in 2016, TikTok in 2017. Musical.ly was acquired in 2017 and merged into/basically became TikTok. TikTok has never been in China.)
Musical.ly was not China only and I knew musical.ly before it was the predecessor of tiktok. From how I recall it, it had mostly American users. Was the split during the rebranding?
I'm not saying Britain didn't do something _against the will of the goverment_. I'm just questioning OP's nonsense that individuals were forced to consume Opium vs not forced to consume TikTok - in both cases, clearly nobody was forced. And in both cases, it's products made to be addictive.
The specific words were “china's population” which is different from any specific person.
Did the English strap down each individual and intravenously administer opium? Unlikely.
To the extent that a government reflects the general sense and purpose of a population (mandate of heaven, etc), did Queen Victoria and all her subjects force people in China to accept the presence and marketing of an addictive and risky substance? Absolutely.
Ironically, the people of Great Britain fought a war to sell opium right as there was a temperance movement within Victorian culture.
I don't know if you are just ignorant about history and unwilling to Google, or if you are making the point that of course British did not force feed opium to the people.
What is very well established is that the british fought a war , literally called the opium war by Western historians themselves with the main objective of keeping their opium distribution into China open after the emperor banned it
Their action was akin to if some majority owner of Purdue pharma invades US and forces US government to "keep the oxy market open" while letting "people make their own decision".
Tbh, what you describe sounds nothing like forcing opium on a people.
If mexico invaded and started making meth in the US, or started sending even more meth into the US than they do now by totally taking over the border, I would not begin taking meth.
The brits were also running the opium shops. So if you think country A selling opiods in country B and then going to war so that country B can not stop the sale of opiods is totally okay, then that is truly very different from my model of good behavior.
There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China, then Britain introduced stronger, more disruptive versions, forcing a stronger social reaction.
Geopolitics aside, I think everyone is kind of aware that social media is a vice, and like it or not, this could just be the beginning of our society beginning to scrutinize these platforms.