Most active commenters
  • lazystar(6)
  • ImPostingOnHN(6)
  • bhouston(3)
  • aprilthird2021(3)

←back to thread

Trudeau government bans TikTok from operating in Canada

(www.cbc.ca)
747 points empressplay | 49 comments | 06 Nov 24 23:04 UTC | HN request time: 3.497s | source | bottom
Show context
not2b ◴[07 Nov 24 00:01 UTC] No.42071538[source]▶
Instead of the laser focus on TikTok as a threat, it would be better for the US and Canada to have real data protection laws that would apply equally to TikTok, Meta, Google, Apple, and X. What the EU has done is far from perfect but it bans the worst practices. The Chinese can buy all of the information they want on Americans and Canadians from ad brokers, who will happily sell them everything they need to track individuals' locations.

Perhaps the way to get anti-regulation politicians on board with this is for someone to do what was done to Robert Bork and legally disclose lots of personal info on members of Congress/Parliament, obtained from data brokers and de-anonymized.

replies(14): >>42071557 #>>42071563 #>>42071688 #>>42071710 #>>42072099 #>>42072166 #>>42072254 #>>42072301 #>>42073186 #>>42073359 #>>42073828 #>>42075283 #>>42076039 #>>42097112 #
imgabe ◴[07 Nov 24 00:03 UTC] No.42071557[source]▶
It is not about the data. It’s about a foreign government controlling the algorithm that decides what millions of people see, and their ability to shape public opinion through that.

Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish.

replies(38): >>42071596 #>>42071716 #>>42071772 #>>42071817 #>>42071833 #>>42071939 #>>42072002 #>>42072050 #>>42072201 #>>42072215 #>>42072256 #>>42072299 #>>42072351 #>>42072358 #>>42072658 #>>42072956 #>>42073124 #>>42073165 #>>42073184 #>>42073214 #>>42073220 #>>42073395 #>>42073441 #>>42073500 #>>42073558 #>>42073861 #>>42073884 #>>42074322 #>>42074602 #>>42076004 #>>42076190 #>>42077183 #>>42077776 #>>42077779 #>>42077855 #>>42079213 #>>42079968 #>>42085466 #
1. bhouston ◴[07 Nov 24 00:58 UTC] No.42072050[source]▶
> Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish.

It is happening on our local platforms here. Meta, based in the US, is systematically censoring Palestinian content that would otherwise be available here in Canada.

Details:

* https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...

* https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...

For a very recent example, one of the few remaining prominent Palestinian journalists, with a following of over 1M on Meta, was banned today:

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/11/7/al-jaze...

replies(9): >>42072139 #>>42072490 #>>42073009 #>>42073820 #>>42073876 #>>42074078 #>>42074692 #>>42076206 #>>42080125 #
2. sattoshi ◴[07 Nov 24 02:03 UTC] No.42072490[source]▶
Moot point because Trudeau basically banned all news from being shared on Facebook
replies(3): >>42072625 #>>42073281 #>>42078963 #
3. bhouston ◴[07 Nov 24 02:22 UTC] No.42072625[source]▶
> Moot point because Trudeau basically banned all news from being shared on Facebook

You can still follow individual reporters posting their own content. For example I can access both https://www.instagram.com/wizard_bisan1/ or https://www.instagram.com/clarissawardcnn/, etc.

But I can not access the organization pages like https://www.instagram.com/cnn/

4. stickfigure ◴[07 Nov 24 03:19 UTC] No.42073009[source]▶
The majority of Canadians share the majority of Americans' view of the Middle East.

The majority of Canadians share the majority of Americans' view of China.

replies(4): >>42073044 #>>42073553 #>>42075629 #>>42084659 #
5. forgotoldacc ◴[07 Nov 24 03:24 UTC] No.42073044[source]▶
Which gives us a cyclical problem. Do they share those views because American media has so much influence in Canada? Or does American media have influence in Canada because they Americans and Canadians have shared views?

Neighbors in Asia and Europe often have completely unaligned political politics due to a language and media barrier. Even the US and everything south of Texas don't align as much as the US and Canada.

replies(1): >>42073810 #
6. throw1230 ◴[07 Nov 24 04:05 UTC] No.42073281[source]▶
Trudeau didn't ban news on FB, FB banned news posted to Canada because they don't want to pay publishers.
replies(2): >>42073627 #>>42073654 #
7. aprilthird2021 ◴[07 Nov 24 05:00 UTC] No.42073553[source]▶
Which has nothing to do with censorship on social media. Censorship is okay if it matches what people want to see? Sounds like China justifications...
replies(1): >>42073806 #
8. sattoshi ◴[07 Nov 24 05:17 UTC] No.42073627{3}[source]▶
Surrounded by scandals, Trudeau passed a law that had an oh-so-unintentional side-effect of hiding news from many people’s primary news source.

It’s hard to not be cynical about it.

replies(2): >>42074021 #>>42075780 #
9. shiroiushi ◴[07 Nov 24 05:23 UTC] No.42073654{3}[source]▶
Expecting Facebook or Google to pay publishers is like going back in time to 1970 and saying that a newsstand should be paying newspaper publishers for the privilege of selling their papers.
replies(1): >>42076330 #
10. lazystar ◴[07 Nov 24 05:52 UTC] No.42073806{3}[source]▶
some amount of censorship is unavoidable. when nation state A is in control of the censorship, and designs that censorship to intentionally hurt nation state B, then nation state B has every right to ban the platform that nation state A is using to push it's agenda.
replies(4): >>42073921 #>>42075806 #>>42076001 #>>42079376 #
11. lowdest ◴[07 Nov 24 05:52 UTC] No.42073810{3}[source]▶
No. US and Canada share a language and have historically intermingled their populations significantly. We're the same because we have largely similar daily lives as individuals, we have similar problems, and we're populated by people of similar origins. If, for example, conditions caused our paths to diverge, an extreme example would be the split between East and West Germany, then you would expect differing views. Even prior to modern media we were very similar peoples.
replies(1): >>42074032 #
12. lazystar ◴[07 Nov 24 05:54 UTC] No.42073820[source]▶
a non-zero amount of censorship is unavoidable in a social media platform. when nation state A is in control of the censorship of social media platform Z, and designs the censorship of that platform to intentionally hurt nation state B by causing division amongst the citizens of nation state B, then nation state B has every right to ban social media platform Z.
replies(2): >>42073911 #>>42074190 #
13. seanvelasco ◴[07 Nov 24 06:06 UTC] No.42073876[source]▶
can i have a dataset containing articles that were censored? these articles may be misinformation or openly sympathetic to terrorist organizations.

i'm quite happy with Meta handling the moderation on the conflict.

replies(1): >>42076522 #
14. logicchains ◴[07 Nov 24 06:12 UTC] No.42073911[source]▶
>designs the censorship of that platform to intentionally hurt nation state B by causing division amongst the citizens of nation state B

If the division is a result of the platform exposing people in that nation to information that they previously didn't have access to, due to the government censoring it, then it's absolutely a good thing for the people of the nation. The government of the nation state can get fucked when its interests go against the interests of its people. A divided people is a much better thing than a people united by ignorance and belief in falsehood.

replies(1): >>42073960 #
15. logicchains ◴[07 Nov 24 06:14 UTC] No.42073921{4}[source]▶
What matters is the people of the nation state, and censorship by their own government depriving them of information is absolutely hurting them. Government only censors people when uncensored information would cause their interests to conflict with those of the people in power.
replies(1): >>42075084 #
16. lazystar ◴[07 Nov 24 06:20 UTC] No.42073960{3}[source]▶
but thats not what nation state A is doing - differing amounts of information is selectively made available to different groups of citizens in nation state B, purely to sow discord when those two groups of citizens interact.
replies(1): >>42079397 #
17. wvenable ◴[07 Nov 24 06:30 UTC] No.42074021{4}[source]▶
I can't say I miss it; Facebook is actually usable now and shouldn't be anyone's primary news source.
18. Loic ◴[07 Nov 24 06:32 UTC] No.42074032{4}[source]▶
Une partie du Canada ne parle pas Anglais.
replies(1): >>42076015 #
19. safety1st ◴[07 Nov 24 06:39 UTC] No.42074078[source]▶
While one is certainly entitled to disagree with Meta's moderation policies, I feel like this muddies the issue.

Specifically what happened in Canada is:

* A national security review found Tiktok's operations in Canada to be a risk to national security

* Tiktok's operations in Canada are being closed down but Canadians are still able to use and post on Tiktok

* This type of review is pretty opaque by nature so more details are probably unavailable at this stage

If Canadians are still able to use and post on Tiktok I'm not sure there is a speech/censorship issue here. Maybe Tiktok Canada was harboring spies or something, or maybe this is a roundabout way to push Tiktok out of the country later, but I don't think we have any solid public info.

replies(2): >>42074443 #>>42075866 #
20. RobotToaster ◴[07 Nov 24 06:57 UTC] No.42074190[source]▶
So if the censorship on Facebook is designed to hurt China, they have every right to ban facebook?
replies(3): >>42074741 #>>42075958 #>>42078059 #
21. bryan_w ◴[07 Nov 24 07:35 UTC] No.42074443[source]▶
> If Canadians are still able to use and post on Tiktok I'm not sure there is a speech/censorship issue here. Maybe Tiktok Canada was harboring spies or something,

If tiktok is allowed to do business in the country, then they can buy allegiance via the creator fund which makes it harder to get citizens to realize (and leave it) once they start deploying active measures.

22. exe34 ◴[07 Nov 24 08:19 UTC] No.42074692[source]▶
here in the UK, Facebook can't seem to get enough of assisting hamas in their propaganda war.
23. sham1 ◴[07 Nov 24 08:26 UTC] No.42074741{3}[source]▶
I mean, China has banned Facebook. It may or may not be due to that stated reason, but it's nevertheless banned.
24. corimaith ◴[07 Nov 24 09:23 UTC] No.42075084{5}[source]▶
No information is being deprived, you can read up all you want in more detail than in TikTok. Rather it's the argument to lazily consume 2 minute bites as a replacement for in-depth study.
replies(1): >>42076450 #
25. bhouston ◴[07 Nov 24 11:08 UTC] No.42075629[source]▶
> The majority of Canadians share the majority of Americans' view of the Middle East.

Almost 50% of Canadians believes Israel is committing genocide in Gaza: https://www.readthemaple.com/polls-show-gap-between-canadian...

replies(1): >>42076051 #
26. passwordoops ◴[07 Nov 24 11:36 UTC] No.42075780{4}[source]▶
The dude lurches from one sound bite to another with policy so shallow it barely looks at first order effects.

I'm sure the impact was fully unintentional. Very welcome after the fact. But still unintentional

27. boffinAudio ◴[07 Nov 24 11:42 UTC] No.42075806{4}[source]▶
Censorship is fascism. If you want bad ideas to die, let them be examined and discussion to proceed. When you censor ideas you don't like, you give them a safe environment to foster.
28. NooneAtAll3 ◴[07 Nov 24 11:53 UTC] No.42075866[source]▶
> I feel like this muddies the issue.

"instead of focusing on China, we should limit the issue as a whole"

"It is not about the data. It’s about a foreign government controlling the algorithm that decides what millions of people see"

"it's not only China - we do it to ourselves to. Instead of focusing on China, we should limit the issue as a whole"

"this muddies the issue"

you know what? instead of focusing on China, we should limit the issue as a whole

29. lazystar ◴[07 Nov 24 12:12 UTC] No.42075958{3}[source]▶
yes, of course
30. ◴[07 Nov 24 12:20 UTC] No.42076001{4}[source]▶
31. infecto ◴[07 Nov 24 12:24 UTC] No.42076015{5}[source]▶
Yes ~9% of the Canadian population is unable to hold a conversation in English. We are talking about the other 90%.
32. hnbad ◴[07 Nov 24 12:28 UTC] No.42076051{3}[source]▶
IIRC similar polling in the US led to similar results so the claim is not wrong even if the implication was likely that the majority of Americans support Israel.
33. mikehodgson ◴[07 Nov 24 13:09 UTC] No.42076330{4}[source]▶
Google agreed to the terms. They're paying $100 million per year to the Canadian Journalism Collective.
34. ImPostingOnHN ◴[07 Nov 24 13:26 UTC] No.42076450{6}[source]▶
> No information is being deprived

It seems censorship is indeed being conducted, as described here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42072050

replies(1): >>42077393 #
35. ImPostingOnHN ◴[07 Nov 24 13:36 UTC] No.42076522[source]▶
Being openly sympathetic to the ongoing genocide of Palestinians is bad, so if your rule is being followed, we should expect to see an equally low amount of information from both sides of the conflict: the Israeli side and the Palestinian side.
replies(1): >>42078994 #
36. lazystar ◴[07 Nov 24 15:20 UTC] No.42077393{7}[source]▶
youre ignoring my point to such a degree that it seems intentional. ill have to assume that you either work for a nation state, or you have a third grade education level.
replies(1): >>42077493 #
37. ImPostingOnHN ◴[07 Nov 24 15:31 UTC] No.42077493{8}[source]▶
I actually replied to someone else, not you. I'm not aware of any point you have because I haven't read anything you've posted. Given your attitude here, it seems like that's for the best. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else, too?
replies(1): >>42083805 #
38. troyvit ◴[07 Nov 24 16:24 UTC] No.42078059{3}[source]▶
Apparently they do, so yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...

replies(1): >>42080144 #
39. not2b ◴[07 Nov 24 17:45 UTC] No.42078963[source]▶
No. Canada passed a law requiring Facebook to pay news media for links. Meta said no, we aren't going to do that and banned news instead.

You can argue that this was a predictable response by Meta or that it was a stupid law, but it was not a ban.

40. ImPostingOnHN ◴[07 Nov 24 18:21 UTC] No.42079311{4}[source]▶
> there is no genocide of Palestinians in Gaza

Sure, just like there is no terrorism in the middle east. We said it, so that makes it true.

Honestly though, I believe the rising islamophobia and anti-Palestinian attitudes owe to the proliferation of such content online. There is simply no denying an extremely disproportionate amount of hate speech and misinformation coming from the pro-Israel movement, backed by Israel and Israeli media, and directed towards Palestinians and those who oppose the genocide of them. I say this as a jewish person.

I'm just suggesting we remove the noise surrounding the conflict, by curbing the systemic spread of non-truths and hate speech by Israeli-backed disinformation campaigns. Just scroll through any social network or news post with comments. For every one mild post you see describing Israel's genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and The West Bank, you will find ten extremely islamophobic comments directed towards Palestinians who had nothing to do with the conflict.

replies(2): >>42079726 #>>42093076 #
41. aprilthird2021 ◴[07 Nov 24 18:28 UTC] No.42079376{4}[source]▶
No it doesn't. When the citizens of nation state B have the right to freedom of speech and freedom to consume foreign-controlled media, then nation state B does not have the rights you outlined over its people.
42. aprilthird2021 ◴[07 Nov 24 18:29 UTC] No.42079397{4}[source]▶
But it doesn't matter what the intent is. The intent behind many types of publishing and media can be malicious. The ability to publish that media and the ability of Americans to consume that media is protected free speech
43. insane_dreamer ◴[07 Nov 24 19:43 UTC] No.42080125[source]▶
For sure US companies do it too. But from a _national security perspective_ the US/Canada don’t care about local companies as much as foreign companies _controlled by a foreign (and in this case hostile) government_.
44. insane_dreamer ◴[07 Nov 24 19:44 UTC] No.42080144{4}[source]▶
But that’s not why they banned it. They banned it because FB refused to submit to the CPC’s censorship.
45. ImPostingOnHN ◴[07 Nov 24 19:55 UTC] No.42080245{6}[source]▶
If you are interested in discussion, I encourage you to post good faith replies, instead of calling people who don't agree with you, "trolls", an old and tired routine of internet trolls dating back decades.

What exactly do you take issue with? Your naked and hurtful assertions not being taken on blind faith? The fact that I, a person of jewish faith, see significantly less hate directed at me for it, than I do directed towards Palestinians and those who oppose the genocide of them?

46. lazystar ◴[08 Nov 24 03:24 UTC] No.42083805{9}[source]▶
sorry, its been a long couple of days. my apologies
47. balex ◴[08 Nov 24 06:26 UTC] No.42084659[source]▶
Source? And what are these consensus opinions? (Honest questions)
48. anone9462 ◴[09 Nov 24 08:38 UTC] No.42093297{4}[source]▶
Your opponent justified himself that TikTok ban was necessary- he looked some antisemitic videos, and this is it, he promotes terrorism and antisemitism, totally falling under propaganda.
replies(1): >>42101706 #
49. ImPostingOnHN ◴[10 Nov 24 18:34 UTC] No.42101706{5}[source]▶
"Your opponent"?