Trudeau government bans TikTok from operating in Canada

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

Okay. Now imagine CNN and NYTimes and Fox News being coerced into publishing or not publishing info because a US gov agency demands it. Or how about the US gov pressuring Meta and Twitter to change their algos around very specific topics? You don't need to imagine it actually.

So why is that less of a concern than China controlling a media delivery service?

From the US government's perspective? Because they are the ones in control of those US-based scenarios.

This can't be a serious question.

US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.

They don't want an adversary to have control. Is the distinction not obvious??

I'm very serious.

> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.

I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective.

> They don't want an adversary to have control.

Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

No, from yours/commenters' perspectives. What about US-governed control is functionally better for consumers?

It's less of a concern because it hasn't happened, and -- assuming Trump doesn't "suspend the constitution" -- can't constitutionally happen. If it does happen, then yes, I will be incredibly concerned about it, more than whatever China is doing.

But right now, today, we have a media delivery service, controlled by China, that millions of Americans use. That's a real, present concern.

> Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

No, because there's more nuance in the world than you seem to suggest.

Since it's a hot button conspiracy theorist topic, I need to preface that I don't actually care about the Hunter Biden laptop drama nor the contents of the laptop, but Twitter and Meta actually were told to suppress sharing and discussion of the topic, and they followed orders. It happened. And that's just a recent time that we happen to know about.

> But right now, today, we have a media delivery service, controlled by China, that millions of Americans use. That's a real, present concern.

Again, I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?

>>> So why is that less of a concern than China controlling a media delivery service?

>> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.

> I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective.

Why is it less of a concern to you if you control your bank account than if I do?

If we're not making obvious distinctions today, you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same.

>> They don't want an adversary to have control.

> Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

It is not. I have difficulty imagining your question is not founded on feigned ignorance.

China is an adversary of the US. Some optimistic and naive Western politicians in the 90s thought making them a "primary trade partner" would cause political changes that would eliminate the rivalry. They were wrong, and weakened their countries in the process. That's been clear for like ten years. Now their mistake needs to be dealt with.

> you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same.

How is this comparable to the media you're consuming?

> How is this comparable to the media you're consuming?

If you can't see the point without tedious hand-holding, I can't help you.

They might make an echo chamber that causes a given party to think they will win and thus less people show to the polls.

Do people think China wants Trump? Because everyone on tiktok apparently thought this was going to be a Harris landslide victory.

>Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

Absolutely not. Japan was a primary trade partner going into WW2. The US is actively preparing for wars over Taiwan.

We must have different tiktok feeds. Because everyone on tiktok apparently thought this was going to be a Trump landslide victory

I wonder if once any post goes up that is relevant China's interests, an email goes out from some department in the CCP govt, then hordes of Chinese advocates descend on the comments section, arguing, diverting, obsfucating, and muddying the waters so much that no sensible conclusion can ever be made.

I've been here for years, I just constantly see a lot of talk of harms but no details of what the harms are and it's tiring.

Yeah, that's kinda how all social media algos work. You get bucketed in with the content you engage with and watch the most ie the stuff you likely (but not necessarily!) agree with the most already. It's almost as if TikTok's algo isn't any different than FB or IG or X.

You haven't made a point that I can see! I'm actually being genuine here, I don't know where this went off the rails for you exactly, but I would like my questions to be answered.

I'll just copypaste what I said in another thread to be as direct as possible:

I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?

Large-scale, targeted psychological manipulations of the crowd into liking tyranny, hating democracy and/or each other and so on?

The gov doesn’t care about your perspective.

trade partner does not exclude adversary. Look at US-Japan trade in the 30s up until just before WW2 when the US decision to embargo exports to Japan (to try to force Japan to stop its occupation of China) led to WW2. It was a pretty quick flip from major trading partner to war.

The harms are so obvious I am wondering why I am even discussing it. Obviously giving your primary geo-strategic competitor (with a history of propaganda) access at massive scale to shape opinion, promote discord, polarisation etc etc in the next generation of youth is a bad thing. Not to mention the harvesting of personal data at massive scale and who knows how that might be used in the context of an AI-driven future. You'd have to be ridiculously naive not to see that.

> to shape opinion, promote discord, polarisation etc etc in the next generation of youth is a bad thing

I remain unconvinced that people aren't shaping their own opinions by continuing to pursue similar content to what they typically agree with already. And as we all know, at this current time TikTok's algo is indistinguishable from US competitors in the obvious way it buckets people into like-minded feeds + comments.

At minimum we should be consistent in what we claim is the bad behavior. If the algo is really the problem, start regulating all of them and do it now. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

> who knows how that might be used in the context of an AI-driven future

I'm not sure we want to legislate and set rules based on a "who knows". If the outcome is bad you need to define that bad outcome.

"I remain unconvinced that people aren't shaping their own opinions by continuing to pursue similar content to what they typically agree with already. And as we all know, at this current time TikTok's algo is indistinguishable from US competitors in the obvious way it buckets people into like-minded feeds + comments..."

You have not the slightest clue whether this is true or not.

Why does China block all foreign social media access within its own borders?

Wouldnt it be wonderful if we in the West could advocate for our own interests inside China the way the Chinese can participate in our conversations.

> You haven't made a point that I can see!

I made a pretty simple and straightforward analogy, which you didn't get. Maybe you don't get the geopolitical relevance of media control, but I'd really hope you'd understand bank account control. You = the US polity, Me = China, Bank account = something an adversary could harm you by controlling.

> I'm actually being genuine here...but I would like my questions to be answered....

> I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?

If you're being truthful, I think you might be at the point where you have to do some basic reading first, because you seem to need more hand-holding and explanation than it's reasonable to expect. You may also have some conceptual deficits that are so basic they come off as feigned.

I'm not sure why I'm being quietly downvoted. Here are some links showing the corresponding slippery slope: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34098132, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38256810, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32304735, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22610829

> I think you might be at the point where you have to do some basic reading first

You are making the claim, you should be able to back the claim up. You're actually writing very many words to avoid a direct explanation, which is even more confusing.