←back to thread

747 points empressplay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
not2b ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
raydev ◴[] No.42073165[source]
> 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?

replies(5): >>42073171 #>>42073178 #>>42073638 #>>42074389 #>>42074400 #
temporalparts ◴[] No.42073178[source]
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??

replies(1): >>42073221 #
raydev ◴[] No.42073221[source]
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?

replies(4): >>42073644 #>>42073745 #>>42074637 #>>42080520 #
tivert ◴[] No.42073745[source]
>>> 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.

replies(1): >>42073939 #
raydev ◴[] No.42073939[source]
> you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same.

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

replies(1): >>42074209 #
tivert ◴[] No.42074209[source]
> 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.

replies(2): >>42078928 #>>42079630 #
raydev ◴[] No.42079630[source]
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?

replies(2): >>42080139 #>>42084417 #
fsflover ◴[] No.42080139[source]
Large-scale, targeted psychological manipulations of the crowd into liking tyranny, hating democracy and/or each other and so on?
replies(1): >>42085471 #
1. fsflover ◴[] No.42085471[source]
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