@benroyce@Wileymiller i personally don't see how TikTok is any worse for national security than Facebook or Twitter. They're all owned by people who don't care about national security. On the other hand, I think DT and his minions having access to national security briefings is incredibly dangerous. I bet he's going to tell everything he learns to Putin and Orban etc.
but i don't understand so many people's takes, including here on #mastodon, disappointingly (i would think your average #fediverse enjoyer is here because they are aware of the scope of the problem): this false choice, "well other things exist that are bad, so we'll ignore this bad thing right here"
what?
just condemn all of it, facebook, twitter, #youtube, tiktok, etc, as privacy defiling psyop disinfo filth
the most disappointing point is that you see these #itktok whataboutism shillers all over #mastodon / #fediverse
i would have thought that people here, being here, understanding what the choice of the fediverse is about in terms privacy protection and escape from algorithm manipulation
so it's distressing how weak that concern is when confronted with the psychological, social, and political cost of their dopamine high from facebook, twitter, youtube, and tiktok
If the other social-media giants are as bad as TikTok — as the what-about-ers point out — the proper question still isn't "Why TikTok?" but "Why not TikTok?"
When you're cleaning house, you have to start somewhere — you can't dust all the rooms at once.
The people ginning up all this anti-TikTok bullshit are ... surprise, surprise ... Tom Cotton (R) and that galaxy-brain Little Marco Rubio, also of the (R) contingent.
Not to be outdone, Chuck Schumer. Democrat, is now wringing his hands about data collection and potential for user data to be misused - as if Steve Bannon and his use of FB data was done by outsiders.
Howzcome all this hooey about TikTok, when FB has been doing everything we're now worried about TikTok doing?
This is all so much political outgassing, xenophobia, harum-scarum about those Awful Chineezies. Sick of it. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying - pay attention to the monkeys doing the screeching
right, that we go after #itktok and don't also go after #facebook is 100% hypocrisy
but you wouldn't say "there was this guy who got away with a hit-and-run. therefore, we're going to let this guy who just hit and run get away with it"
you would say "nail this guy who just hit and run. also, continue going after the other guy who thinks he got away with a hit and run"
Erm ... we might ask why that turkey neck Tom Cotton is so exercised on this issue.
I say it's just another GOP racist dog whistle. If he tried pulling that shit in the USA on Zuck, the hardware stores couldn't keep torches and pitchforks in stock
yes, some of the opposition to tiktok is xenophobic bigotry. like some opposition to the israeli govt is antisemitism
does that mean all opposition to the policies of the israeli govt is just antisemitism? if someone stands against tiktok is the only reason possible sinophobia and racism?
@benroyce TikTok's one step worse because the Chinese government ultimately has control over it. They probably don't need it to do whatever they want, but it's a valuable Chinese asset.
How would people feel if the Facebook had to answer to the FBI? That's the problem. That all the social media platforms are manipulative is bad enough, but they're not state controlled.
@benroyce@sysop408@Jennifer@Wileymiller i think the problem comes from saying that it's a threat from a state actor rather than it's a threat because it's a manipulative social media. Also ignores the empirical data from the number of people who have found incredible, but credible, information (especially as search engines are eating themselves with ML)
It's probably closer to saying "VW cars are bad because Hitler made them"
The state sponsored spying is practically an irrelevant.
@benroyce@sysop408@Jennifer@Wileymiller the warrant machine on the likes of FB, Googlr, Twitter and friends makes the US spying probably just as bad. About the only things they don't really do is control the algorithms 🤷
@ketmorco sure the FBI has ways to get their claws on data, but the FBI can't steer the company. That's what's different about China. They might be pretty hands off right now, but at some point, they will step in and give TikTok marching orders and the company cannot not comply.
All state actors are deploying all sorts of data utilities to spy, but few of them have the full authority to be the de facto board of directors and TikTok is a sentiment analysis engine on steroids. It has the potential to be Cambridge Analytica on a whole new level.
so presumably you would think #tiktok being just as bad as #facebook, #twitter, #youtube etc would have people condemning it just as much
but through some force of human psychology that escapes my grasp (perhaps: addiction), it becomes "well, other bad things exist, so tiktok is excusable"
@benroyce@ketmorco@sysop408@Jennifer@Wileymiller We should be putting substantive regs on *all social media (and data brokers). Singling out Tiktok is hypocritical and being done for the wrong reasons.
@MaierAmsden we need to do more about social media in general, but TikTok is a different beast because it is ultimately owned by the government of China.
Would you even login to Facebook if their boss was the FBI? By boss, I don't mean the FBI can snoop on them. I mean the FBI has the full authority to drive the company behind the scenes. THAT is the problem.
i hear this argument all the time and it drives me nuts
yes, 100% we need substantive regs on all social media
but how does this become an argument against acting on tiktok?
it's "perfect is the enemy of good" nonsense. because an action is not comprehensive, and only piecemeal, of course we desire something comprehensive. and... so we oppose piecemeal? what?
@benroyce@ketmorco@sysop408@Jennifer@Wileymiller It's an argument against bad faith hypocrisy. It's not piecemeal. It's selective. Piecemeal implies that that these legislators just haven't gotten to the other sites yet. The people pushing Tiktok divestment don't give a fuck about privacy, and they aren't going after any other SM. They just want abusive social media under *their control.
@MaierAmsden this isn't about privacy, which is what everyone is stuck on. It's about total state control over a platform that is a sentiment analysis engine. It's about letting loose Cambridge Analytica 2.0 and handing the keys to an authoritarian regime and massive abuser of human rights.
That is a whole different problem than privacy which is a problem in of itself.
@sysop408@benroyce@ketmorco@Jennifer@Wileymiller That's why I don't care for this particular law. We could outlaw algorithmic manipulation. We could outlaw data transfers. We're doing none of that here.
@MaierAmsden yeah. I hear ya there. That would be a lot harder to do.
If we were to ban algorithmic behaviors, how would we even define it? I think we may have just discovered the next version of the "If it's obscene, you know when you see it" argument.
but that's just "perfect is the enemy of the good"
of course we can do better. that's an argument against doing anything at all?
if your standard is that all legal moves must be comprehensive before they can proceed, nothing will ever get done, considering how the sausage is made
@benroyce@sysop408@ketmorco@Jennifer@Wileymiller The law isn't just not comprehensive. It's basically nothing in the way of fixing the thing it purports to fix. The whole thing is just a big noisy "fuck you" to China, which is fine on its own. Unfortunately these legislators are using real serious issues that they have no intention of fixing for their big "fuck you," and that pisses me off. The bill does *nothing to stop bad actors (including China) from abusing social media.
@benroyce@sysop408@ketmorco@Jennifer@Wileymiller The important issue to me is the issue that's being both cited and neglected by those pushing this divestment legislation - social media abuse.
@benroyce@sysop408@ketmorco@Jennifer@Wileymiller We still haven't put Tiktok "on the hook." They'll still be free to engage in all the same abuses, just with China at arm's length instead of at the top. China can still influence the algorithms and sweep up the data, just via a different sort of relationship - possibly a nominally different relationship.
@benroyce@sysop408@ketmorco@Jennifer@Wileymiller I'm fine with shitting on China for the sake of human rights, Tibet, Hong Kong, Uyghurs..., but this ain't it. Now's as good a time as any to do the right thing for the right reasons for all involved parties. Legislators want to bring up real issues in their imperialist swipe at China (or to silence anti-Zionist dissent). I want substantive legislation that we're all entitled to.
@benroyce I think the way this is being handled by some lawmakers does have some racist undertones to it though and people are picking up on that... but that's no reason to overlook that the Chinese government is not just any ol' state actor and they've already shown again and again that they have no hesitation to stongarm anyone on their soil to do whatever they want. I mean, where's Jack Ma these days? Retired. At the peak of his powers? Suuuuuure.
Add comment