this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024

148 points (92.5% liked)

News

36457 readers

2651 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

148

US government says TikTok poses threat to national security (www.dw.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Responding to a lawsuit from video-sharing platform TikTok, the US Justice Department argued that China could order the company to manipulate TikTok's algorithm and expand Beijing's "malign influence."

The US Justice Department defended a law that aims to either ban TikTok or force it to divest its assets in the US after the social media company filed a lawsuit against the legislation.

Under the law, the social media platform will have to find a non-Chinese buyer or face a ban in the US by January 19, 2025.

The Chinese-based TikTok is challenging the law before a US appeals court.

top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago (2 children)

X is owned by a South African and middle easterners, and is actively doing the things they fear TikTok May do today. Where is the outrage and laws banning X?

[–] bzarb8ni@lemm.ee 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I know what you're saying, and I agree that X is extremely problematic.

I think the difference is that X is owned by private individuals, whereas they're saying here that TikTok is under the control of the Chinese state. I wonder if there are different rules at play for estate actors?

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

OR...and hear me out, two things might be bad at the same time.

Hell, maybe ALL of the things. Maybe too much information is being shared and traded.

[–] bzarb8ni@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

OR...and hear me out, two things might be bad at the same time.

Isn't that what I said?

[–] mecfs@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Middle easterners?

[–] archchan@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Saudis financed Muskrat's takeover

[–] mecfs@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Why stop at just tiktok? All social media and hyper-targeted advertising poses the same threat and can be misused just as easily. It's almost as if, and this is shocking I know, advertising and online privacy should be very strictly regulated as a national security concern.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Lobbying funds. $20M annually from Meta alone.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000033563

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Fun fact: Tiktok's main competition are all owned by entities that spy just as much and are beholden to SEVERAL oppressive regimes rather than just one.

Two of them have even been instrumental in foreign actors successfully influencing the results of US elections, unlike Tiktok.

Then again, they're based in the US and supply politicians with more legal bribes, so they're exempt from even the most basic accountability.

[–] mrfriki@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

And for all mankind too.

[–] Kagu@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Man... the red scare really did a number on the American psyche...

This comment section better remember that you can't even order from McDonalds anymore without creating an account online. Hell, as of a few weeks ago I can't even update apps on my personally purchased smart TV without creating a fucking account and letting them link my email to data they already have from Experian (all US companies btw). Tiktok is just a fucking scapegoat so y'all wont push for actual privacy protection laws.

If Tiktok gets sold to a US company nothing will change about their practices the CCP will just buy the data from a 3rd party vendor owned by a US LLC.

[+] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee -8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

What is really going on here? Fear of conpetition? How will divestment ensure data is still not shared?

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fuck the CCP is what's going on here.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not sure I understand. Trying to have a sincere discussion.

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You don't give an authoritarian government with a freedom index of 9 access to international user data.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They can already buy it. They are already getting it! Look at ALL of the latest televisions on the market - they require you to accept user agreements to basically suck the life out of you. They listen, report what you watch, how long you watch it, when you change channels, it is really unbelievable. And cars are doing it too! How fast you drive, what you are saying. All of the Google and Apple Home Pods, Amazon’s Alexa products. It is a joke. Except it is not! I think it is a competition for information between big companies backed by big governments.

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And we can reject it. Fuck the CCP (1st), but also fuck Google, Amazon, Apple next.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You're talking past the other guys point. We all agree that the CCP sucks, but just going after tiktok doesn't solve the problem when they can just buy user data from a broker. You need to go after all surveillance adtech if you want to keep entities like the CCP from buying that data anyway.

Tiktok isn't special here, just about every online advertiser will run whatever campaign you want as long as you pay their prices so you have to go after all of them to resolve the issue. Tiktok has CPC ties, yes, but they're just the tip of the iceberg if you're serious about the national security risk of adtech.

Edit: if you really want to go after manipulation of public sentiment you'll also need to mandate disclosure and auditing of social media feed and advertising algorithms to a regulatory agency with extremely heavy fines (say X million $/day) for violators. That's about the only way you can actually stop the sort of behavior the CCP is engaging in on tiktok.

Adtech itself is an entirely bigger ball of wax, if you want to reduce adtech's social influence you're going to have to take ownership of private user data out of the hands of advertisers and give it back to people themselves.

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I agree. But first thing first

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

You really think people are going to come back and talk about the privacy problem of US companies without this stuff in the news? People need to push for this now, otherwise they're going to fall back into the rut of the status quo. This should raise eyebrows that they're finally doing something about one company when it's US companies that brought us a shit stain like Trump into the presidency.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

A chinese owned company, by chinese law, is the CCP’s bitch. An american owned company, by contrast, at least has the chance to refuse government requests, not that they always do.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I thought Snowden already made it pretty obvious that US companies don't. Basically the only thing you can do as a US company is try to obfuscate your data with encryption so not even you can read it. That's why some VPN companies advertise about not keeping laws, so they have nothing to turn over when the feds come a-knocking.

The other problem is that you don't even need official government power to get data from US companies. A lot of these companies will sell their data on you to make a quick buck, anyway.

[–] Kagu@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Unless they get subpoenad by a district court and the C suite is willing to go to jail for not disclosing it.

Also the US govt already has asked for built-in backdoors to iPhones and the like. They even have highly complex de-anonymization algorithms for data that almost every American with a credit card is giving to their "private" bank so we can have FICO credit scores and venmo.

The private ownership isn't doing shit for our data protections.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Frankly, it doesn't ensure it, there is no way to fully guarantee data will not be shared. Just makes it harder.

[–] asyncopation@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it really such a stretch to say a Chinese owned company managing the feeds of the most active social platform would use that platform to sow division and hatred in the US?

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Isn’t that already happening by American companies? Data is being sold for pennies to the highest and lowest bidders, which are probably not all domestic interests.

[–] asyncopation@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Whatabout US companies"

US companies have seen similar criticism, antitrust suits, and billions in fines.

It is true that US tech companies have horrendous practices when it comes to data privacy and security, and that the US needs better federal regulation similar to GDPR to protect the consumer. This must be corrected.

It's also true that the location of the parent company of a social media platform does not protect that platform from bad actors and adversarial abuse. See: Facebook in 2016

However, there is a big difference between selling bits of redacted data to ad companies, and providing raw database access to a foreign adversary with malicious intent.

Add to that the fact that kids/teens use tiktok more than any other platform, and their habits are exposed without their knowledge or consent.

The possibilities are endless, but to name a few concerns:

The CCP is using this app as a social engineering experiment to attempt to influence public opinion in the next generation of Americans.
Imagine how much easier it will be to influence the next generation of US politicians who have no privacy whatsoever, and whose thought patterns are well documented.

The EU has already fined them for their negligent privacy practices: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/15/tech/tiktok-fine-europe-children/index.html

It's not enough. I don't think a ban is the right solution, but the problem is clear.

[–] fern@lemmy.autism.place 1 points 2 years ago

Imagine how much easier it will be to influence the next generation of US politicians who have no privacy whatsoever, and whose thought patterns are well documented.

We're already dealing with the aftermath of this with US Corps evidenced by the destruction of unions and workers rights if you replace "privacy" with "education." Why is privacy important

One of the biggest lies I see is this foreign adversary being a bigger threat than the endless local adversaries (capitalists) that are actually destroying this country. The Chinese didn't destroy the healthcare industry, nor rail, energy, telecommunications, airline, financial industries. They have not suppressed the regulating of the internet, religion in politics, nor have they aided to the degrading of education, social security, disability support, or our laws against bribing politicians.

US companies have seen similar criticism, antitrust suits, and billions in fines.

Nah, they haven't, otherwise we'd have laws (regulations) around them that would prevent them from, say, in the tech industry, distributing our data.

…there is a big difference between selling bits of redacted data to ad companies, and providing raw database access to a foreign adversary with malicious intent.

We know of techniques to pull out excess data from claimed "anonymized" datasets. Can you prove this data is redacted more effectively than that? Can you prove that they are only selling to ad companies? Can you prove it's more malicious intent?

The answer is no, because we already avoided regulating this industry due to internal malicious actors.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

Hey. Keep your facts and logic out of my emotional baggage.

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It’s a small amount of protectionism.

I don’t think it’s foreign ownership or hostile intent. The data and influence angle is shaky - any company, including those accountable to hostile foreign governments can buy data. And that data can be put to use running influence campaigns with our without official platform support on pretty much any platform.

But TikTok isn’t beholden to the U.S. They don’t have to adhere to the same sorta of content moderation policies, and they don’t necessarily have to have the same values. If I may be conspiratorial, I think that other social media platforms tweak their algorithms in ways that keep U.S. regulators happy
To me, it’s telling that the U.S. made threats about it until the Gaza war, and that much of the U.S. opposition to it has been engendered through TikTok. It seems once that became apparent, the U.S. set to make good on its threats to shut TikTok down.

I’m not a big TikTok booster, but I sort of think they’re on the receiving end of injustice here - ironically, for being free in the content they show (U.S.) users.