After the US claimed that Huawei was a national security threat only to drop this claim completely when China started cooperating on trade talks I honestly don't know what to believe anymore.
The point is that any foreign company becomes a national security threat if it's big enough and it threats the domestic player. It's really all about power(economic and technological).
Honestly, I think it's more "You know what happens when you piss off the US gov, Youtube?" (Gov shoots TikTok, to make an example) "That's what. Now get back to work."
Youtube has done a lot of stupid things lately that really do feel like it is an external political agenda being forced on them, not an internal one being forced by misguided placation of shareholders.
Huh? Since when? This sounds really odd to me because my dad is obsessed with DIY and self-repair videos on YouTube and has never had a problem finding tons of such content to watch daily.
I suppose my usage of the word 'political pressure' is nonspecific to US Government entities and more toward the general definition of a general entity's real politik. For example, i would consider a small business owner paying into a protection raquet by a local mafia to be 'caving to political pressure'
I really think YouTube like a lot of tech companies will often just take the path of least resistance and say:
"Well that's a lot of DCMA complaints ... just ban'm if our magic script says to, whatever."
It seems like maybe favoritism to another big company, but maybe is just more a reflection of a crappy process and a tech company habit of just letting some magic formula decide and avoiding any extra time / resource consuming process.
Not to say I don't think it doesn't happen as far as some corporate to corporate pressure goes, but it's hard to know.
YouTube isn't hip enough to take away TikTok market share in any worthwhile amount.
There are a few US companies that might, but Google isn't going to be it. Social sharing isn't in Google's blood, and they've never succeeded before with their $1,000,000,000+ spent on attempts.
If they're highering engineers at "20% above Facebook compensation", it really doesn't make sense. In china they could higher roughly 15 top engineers for the price of 1 engineer in the bay area (in China there's an even bigger surplus of engineering talent).
Makes perfect sense. Poaching FB's (or any competition for that matter) employees potentially makes them easier to compete with and increases the cost for FB to compete.
Profitability is not required if you are an intelligence asset for the state. In this case, the state is China. Maybe it's legitimately profitable, maybe the Chinese govt is purchasing ads with other companies it owns, maybe the books are entirely cooked. It's hard to tell in China.
Nothing is stopping Americans from placing their own propaganda via paid ads or pro-US videos. As long as you're not stupid and push obvious points re: HK, that will immediately come to the attention of censors, you can go far.
It's pretty hypocritical to suggest that we should be worried about people seeing information from a foreign source because they might be "exposed to censorship".
>One question I have, is the real-time interests of millions of 16-24 yo Americans reported back to the Chinese government a national security concern?
Perhaps not, but the influence of a nebulous "algorithm" controlling what comes up next certainly can reinforce a message or way of life that line up with China's cultural norms
If that non-US culture advocates that democracy is a threat to society, or that political re-education camps are not an issue, I would say that yes, we need to keep that out.
>> If that non-US culture advocates that democracy is a threat to society, or that political re-education camps are not an issue, I would say that yes, we need to keep that out.
> [citation needed]
The "non-US culture" framing of the GP and GGP is ignorant and wrong, but what they say is certainly true with regards to the party and government:
> Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society.... The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past.
> ...students are increasingly playing a key role by monitoring how teachers view Mr. Xi, the party and ideas like democracy. In exchange, they are promised rewards like scholarships, higher grades and advancement within prestigious Communist Party groups.
> Ankang University in northwest China said in an online notice that student informers should formally report professors who spread superstition, cults and pornography, “promote Western political values,” and criticize the party’s tenets. School administrators, the notice says, should respond to each complaint within three working days.
One of the central principles of western democracy is that freedom of speech is a good thing and everyone should have the right to advocate for ideas even if they are bad. The opposite philosophy, which is fairly prevalent in many parts of the world, is that it is the role of the government and societal elites to control the flow of information so that bad ideas (as defined by the people in power, of course) don’t gain traction. It’s pretty hilarious that you are adopting the latter perspective and arguing for more government censorship to “defend democracy”. Are you sure you really understand democracy?
While your points make total sense and I agree with what you say, I personally believe that letting Chinese firms acquire control of US social media companies is a way greater threat to Western freedom of speech than what we would lose by blocking these acquisitions. Can you imagine a future in which we’ll be unable to post anti-government content online because most Internet properties are owned by Chinese companies which follow their local regulation? That would be the death of freedom of speech.
You do not necessarily need content censorship to keep CCP ideas out of the West. You can keep them out by means of economic policies. And I feel like Western countries are not doing a good enough job at this, whereas the PRC government has been extremely efficient at blocking foreign entities.
Facebook has released a TikTok clone, Lasso, but they miss a lot of basic things that made TikTok popular, both from a policy perspective and from UX. It's much less competitive than Instagram's cloning of Snapchat.
Initially Lasso only supported registering with a Facebook account, defaulting to exposing your real name to the world. TikTok let you browse anonymously and register with just a phone number or email account, letting users protect their identities much easier. Lasso now allows you to register with an Instagram account.
Lasso has much worse video quality-- seemingly SD vs HD, presumably to save bandwidth, but it makes videos much less appealing since they're noticeably blurrier. This may be because Lasso decided to show me Spanish videos for no apparent reason (or maybe that's where their users are?), and most Spanish-speaking countries have predominantly Android phones which have worse video quality.
The infinite scrolling feels worse because videos fade in from black instead of displaying their first frame while scrolling into view. The feed isn't actually infinite, but refuses to load past a certain point. You can't swipe right from the feed to view a user's profile.
Regarding censorship, I'm not convinced ByteDance's Chinese style "ban anything contentious" censorship is actually a downside for most teen users. Instagram has _very_ loose censorship policies, which easily allow the feed to become very sexualized. I expect this makes younger users feel less comfortable posting publicly-- Instagram is where the bikini models and their followers hang out!-- while TikTok's more carefully curated space feels age-appropriate. That may all be network effects, though, with social networks as always being colonized first by the young.
Grindr's in the hands of the Chinese was already raising hairs. When you consider that Tik Tok is again (after COPA) under FCC investigation over its handling of children data.
I highly recommend folks listen to recent episodes of Ben Thompson’s exponent podcast where he discusses TikTok and its influence in the USA.
He makes the point that US consumers become subject to Chinese censorship policies when using the platform while China outright bans or heavily restricts American companies from operating (eg google search, Facebook).
I wonder too if say you tried to advertise on TikTok but your company was not complying with Chinese censorship requests, or you employed an outspoken advocate, or you employed some folks who posted something about Uyghurs on social media elsewhere ... what would TikTok's response be?
Europe is much more relaxed about nudity (exposed breasts in prime time TV are fine) but much more restrictive about violence and gore. Instead US companies enforce US standards on us.
Even child porn isn't an easy subject. Everyone can agree that liking 12 year olds sexually is pedophilia and images about that are child porn. But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia.
And that's just (north western) Europe who are culturally very similar to the US.
>But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia.
It's not muddier. The issue isn't the nature of the people viewing the content, but the ability of the victim to consent to the creation of the content. There's no muddiness involved here - sexual exploitation of minors for the production of media is not ok.
"Minor" is a very cultural term, the US steps of adulthood at 18 and 21 are more comparable with 16 and 18 in Europe. Also a 16 year old can consent to sex, so why not to images (particularly ones they made themselves and distribute to single persons).
For 12 year olds it's much easier with the "we don't support pedophilia" argument (which has wide support)
Don't be so sure about that, the first amendment is to categorically prevent any discussion of which speech is appropriate. Saying hate speech is restricted or that pornographic images of children are restricted is starting the discussion that was not supposed to start because it always ends in tyranny.
In the latter case, is child pornography probably indicative of a crime? Absolutely. But banning the images and their dissemination is clearly an infringement of free speech. In the former, banning hate speech is also clearly an infringement of free speech. If someone's actions result in violence or death then punish them after, and divorced from the issue of speech; do not place prior restraint on speech.
I can post on Facebook that I disagree with president Trump and he is a liar, try doing the same in China. (Please don't take my comment as a suggestion about President Trump, just trying to make a point).
Was going to reply to the parent with the joke and then didn't bother. Since you mentioned it though...
An American tells a Russian that the United States is so free he can stand in front of the White House and yell, “To hell with Ronald Reagan.” The Russian replies, “That’s nothing. I can stand in front of the Kremlin and yell, ‘To hell with Ronald Reagan,’ too.”
Not sure why you're being downvoted, but in my recent trip to China, I discussed Trump with many local Chinese. Obviously the tradewar is a major topic. I said I share and comment on articles that criticize Trump all the time on Facebook.
I am from Russia (sorry, not China) and I am sure that nothing bad happens to me if I write that Trump is a liar (although I don't think anything bad of him).
Also, we are allowed to post photos with breasts (and much more) on our social network Vkontakte.
Now try to acquire a popular social media app in USA.
I mean, as a Canadian consumer using American social media platforms, we're subject to American censorship policies. Tumblr / Facebook / YouTube being most notable in their filtering of LGBT content and suspending accounts of LGBT users, because of the American governments stance on human sexuality. This argument of who censors makes sense for Americans, but it's more about picking your poison for people from other countries.
What are you referring to, exactly? There certainly is no enforceable law in the United States against LGBT content. There theoretically are restrictions on "obscenity," but they are virtually nonexistent in practice. The only law I can think of that resembles what you're describing in any way is our, indeed, quite aggressive ban on child pornography. And I'm no expert on Canadian child pornography laws, but I'll bet Canada isn't too friendly to that content either.
The theoretical point is true enough, that American content restrictions would generally wind up being exported abroad. The key difference is, however, that we do not actually have Chinese-style content restrictions.
Pretty much all hate speech is censored on social media platforms. So is calling for or promoting violence against certain groups. Harrassment is also prohibited on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
All American social media censors their users, most people just arent producing that type of content.
> Pretty much all hate speech is censored on social media platforms. So is calling for or promoting violence against certain groups. Harrassment is also prohibited on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
Social media platforms censor more than that. Try posting a picture of a nipple on Facebook.
Yes. But GP's comment was about the US government, not restrictions placed on content by American companies voluntarily (or due to pressure from the broader US culture). I agree, of course, the US culture is restrictive in some ways, and this can come through in the practices of US companies (the culture is also quite permissive in some ways). But this is different in important ways from the restrictions being imposed by the government.
Don't think so. We know that there are some allegedly national-security-related takedowns where the government has sought gag orders. We know about them because the companies sometimes object, and the request becomes public. Then there the other types of content being discussed in this thread such as LGBTQ content, adult material, etc. where I don't think there is any reason at all to believe that gag orders would be involved.
There's a pretty good meme about differences between European and American media take on censorship [0].
It's now locked behind an Imgur login due to being NSFW (over a single nipple), but the basic premise is that US media would censor a nipple away, leaving the person recognizable, while European media didn't take issue with the nipple, but instead censored her face to protect her identity.
Which is a pretty good example of how different cultures prioritize things differently. Scale that up to the reality of the tech space being dominated by US companies, and suddenly US cultural norms largely became established as global norms [1].
Before the Internet, US soldiers stationed in other countries had a very similar effect: They also brought their culture with them, which often was considered way more exotic than anything local. Decades later nobody even much cares or notices how US influenced much of our culture has become in Western Europe.
Yes. This is a fair point. I would emphasize, though, that this is about US culture, not US government or law. Interestingly, part of the whole point of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is to maintain a lot of separation between these two things.
> this is about US culture, not US government or law
But these things do not exist in a vacuum.
Ask anybody working on the tech and legal ends of the adult industry and you will hear quite horrific stories about having to jump through so many hoops just for finding a payment provider.
For a while, these used to be www dominating issues, and how they were dealt with in the US, often ended up being the de-facto global standard.
A very recent and relevant example for this is footage out of the Syrian Civil War on platforms like Twitter and YouTube.
Over these past years, whole swats of videos have disappeared on the basis of being tagged as "terrorist propaganda" [0]
In a very similar vein how "Napalm Girl" ended up getting censored as child pornography [1].
By now even Reddit has learned to "selectively forget", as all undeleting/uncensoring sites that used to work, have stopped working.
Just because it's not some US government agency playing the censor, but rather the US government pressuring US companies into self-censorship, doesn't make this kind of censorship any less real in its overall impact.
The thing missing from all of this is any actual evidence of government pressure.
From [0]: "YouTube is facing criticism after a new artificial intelligence program monitoring "extremist" content began flagging and removing masses of videos and blocking channels that document war crimes in the Middle East."
From [1]: "Facebook said it has to restrict nudity for cultural reasons."
I'm not saying this isn't important. I'm not even ruling out some sort of indirect and informal government role. (Government policy and culture are intertwined!) But they fall far far short of supporting the false equivalency drawn in this thread ans elsewhere between western companies removing content due to TOS violations, etc. on the one hand, and content being removed literally, and undisputedly (as far as I've seen) in response to direct commands by the Chinese government.
Sorry I may of missed your point? As a lot of right wing commentary (not saying that you are right wing) suggest when talking about LGBTQ they bring up child pornography alot. Why are you doing so as well?
Yes, you missed it. My point is that the US government does not censor LGBTQ content. In fact, it censors very few types of content. One of the few areas it does censor, just by way of example, is child pornography. But this has nothing to do with LGBTQ content--thus my puzzlement over GP's comment.
I don’t know that it has anything to do with the U.S. government, so much as U.S. social norms which sometimes consider mentioning the existence of gay people as a “sexual” topic (and therefore banned, demonetized, or flagged as adult content) even though many aspects of being gay are not sexual.
>we're subject to American censorship policies. Tumblr / Facebook / YouTube being most notable in their filtering of LGBT content and suspending accounts of LGBT users, because of the American governments stance on human sexuality
No, you're subject to corporate censorship policies. Let's not pretend that individual platforms regulating content is the same as government censorship. Please show me how their policies are related to "the American governments stance on human sexuality".
Also, doesn't Canada have a few laws on the books regarding how people are allowed to address other people, specifically, LGBTQ people?
Oh it is when the entity with a monopoly also has a monopoly on violence a.k.a government. A Uighur detention center, U.S. concentration camp etc. can only enforce their views with threat of violence. It is on an entirely different level of cardinality. To equate them would be to undermine the misery that those that suffer under such extreme regulations of content/thought.
Those aren't being enforced, either! It's not hard to find tweets deadnaming or misgendering a person.
They're taking a fully US-centric approach, treating abortion as a political topic - see https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted... . You can't advocate for abortion in Canadian ads. Which is insane, considering abortion is fully legal here. Going down that list, it's "things that are controversial in America". It's absurd to apply the same policy globally.
> Also, doesn't Canada have a few laws on the books regarding how people are allowed to address other people, specifically, LGBTQ people?
Not really. Canada prohibits hate speech and discrimination against LGBTQ people. The whole "using the wrong pronouns is now a criminal offense" meme was made up by someone looking for something to be offended about/sell books about how PC culture is ruining everything.[1]
People can be sued for discriminating on the basis of gender identity or expression. Repeatedly using the wrong pronoun can be used as evidence of that, but probably has to fit into a larger pattern of behavior. And that's the kind of thing you could credibly sue an employer or business for in the US as well.
Why should a Canadian, or European care about the difference between US government laws affecting the services and media they consume, versus US corporate policies doing the same?
It's a distinction without a difference. They don't have any redress, or ability to influence either US corporations, or the US government, much like how Americans have no ability to influence the CPC.
Would a Canadian have more of an ability to influence a Canadian corporation? I guess I am just confused why it being a US corporation changes the equation verse a corporation from anywhere else.
Tumblr / Facebook / YouTube being most notable in their filtering of LGBT content and suspending accounts of LGBT users, because of the American governments stance on human sexuality.
Facebook removed LGBT pages because the American government forced them? Do you have a link?
While the US doesn't hard censor media like China, I'd agree there is something of a soft censorship/ignoring of many topics. And, if you think about US based hard restraints, there are certainly onerous restrictions with rules attached to financial services imposed by the US into foreign nations.
The censorship is completely different though, if you want to write "Fuck Donald Trump", or give a detailed account of his crimes on a US platform, it will not be censored. Try the same in a Chinese owned platform about f.ex. something as obvious as Tianmen.
There are some things such as porn that is censored in many areas.
It is certainly different, that's why I was drawing a distinction between hard and soft censorship. No hard censorship in the US, but the soft censorship is maybe more pervasive then you first realize. E.g. I think of the MPAA as a form of soft censorship, and one whose rating system was constrained at times by fairly conservative groups. Are there ways around it, yes, especially today, but not not as much historically. Major media coverage in the US also practices a soft censorship of attention and depth of coverage of certain topics too.
It is not reasonable compare a company choosing not to host content that hurts marginalized people, with a company being forced not to host content critical of the most powerful people.
I disagree; I'd even say this is a peculiar blind spot in US political culture. Practically, it's probably easier to have a similar life in a non-US country than to have a similar life while avoiding these big platforms. Yes theoretically the US government has the ability to use violence against you while Twitter doesn't, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the practical impact - people are more worried about the government ruining their livelihood than locking them up, and that's something that Twitter can do just as well.
American private companies aren't forced to censor these things by the government, they are leveraging their own freedom to operate their business with respect to their own prerogatives.
The eighteenth-century ideal of free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest. Some may believe in free speech more rigorously than others (say Reddit, as compared to Facebook). The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' control.
> free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest
This statement is misleading. Some public internet forums owned by large corporations are mediated by companies acting in their own interest. Nobody is required to use those forums and many alternative forums exist, other individuals or firms are also able to create their own online public forums subject to whatever speech standards they consider ideal.
> The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' controls
This is not true. The fact that government cannot censor speech is as critically important today as it ever was. It doesn't matter that a lot of speech passes through private companies because that is a free choice made by individuals who voluntarily push their speech through those companies and are free to take their speech elsewhere if they desire. Additionally, censorship or moderation is sometimes a desirable feature of a social media product because unbridled free-speech is sometimes abused in a way that is antithetical to the user experience and thus to business prerogatives.
You're being disingenuous. Your assertions apply in some narrow senses, but are seemingly inapplicable to the overall situation. For most of society, webcrapps are currently the de facto town square. A clique of companies has obtained the position of censoring the vast majority of interpersonal speech, period.
But sure, there are practical angles in the US where, for example, if we could shift the popular focus to Free software, We could regain society's Freedom of Speech. Perhaps you're focused on the technicalities because you're trying to work towards that - but talk constructively rather than dismissively. It helps nobody to push a stubborn idea that there is some strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500. Whether the political bureaucracy controls corporations or corporations control bureaucracy, it's all government.
> For most of society, webcrapps are currently the de facto town square
They're not public squares though, they're privately owned webservers, they don't become nationalized just because they're popular. That's like saying the dive-bar in your local town is the de-facto town-square because everyone meets there after work. Those individuals made the free choice to interact in a privately owned establishment thus they are subject to the rules of that establishment, if they don't like the rules they are free to go to another establishment with more favorable rules.
> A clique of companies is now in the position of censoring the vast majority of interpersonal speech, period.
100% false. They are within their rights to refuse to rebroadcast content you upload to the servers they own, but they cannot prevent you from rebroadcasting your content anywhere else.
> We could regain society's Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech existed before Facebook and Twitter, so your suggestion that their business practices have caused free speech to go away is incorrect.
> So perhaps you're focused on the technicality because you want to work towards that - and please do! But state it constructively rather than dismissively. It helps nobody to perpetuate a stubborn idea that there is some kind of strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500
This is pretty hilarious. You're suggesting I self-censor the "technical" truth in favor of your editorialized version of the truth because "it helps nobody to perpetuate a stubborn idea that there is some kind of strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500"... even though there is a very obvious "strict distinction" between the government using the threat of force to censor speech vs a private company operating a platform they own and pay for.
> Whether the political bureaucracy controls corporations or corporations control bureaucracy, it's all government.
So are you saying you want to ban corporate lobbying or that we should nationalize large influential corporations so that we can ensure they function in service of the people instead of share holders?
As I said, disingenuous and dismissive. One can use your framework to justify anything USG or state governments do, under a theory that citizens have assented to a contract by being physically present. Clearly, overall constructive behavior matters.
I think the disingenuous and dismissive labels more aptly apply to you for not addressing any of my specific points and your totally absurd suggestion that my reasoning can "justify anything USG or state governments do, under a theory that citizens have assented to a contract with such restrictions by being physically present"... and you're attacking me as disingenuous?
The combination of your low effort dismissal and attacks on my intellectual honesty makes me think this conversation is not worth the effort. Have a nice day.
There is nothing to address in your points. They are not incorrect per se, but they miss the forest for the trees. We all know that presently "[Facebook] are within their rights to refuse to rebroadcast content you upload to the servers they own". Focusing on how something occurs does not make for a justification of why it should.
> It helps nobody to push a stubborn idea that there is some strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500.
There is a huge distinction. Facebook doesn't have a military to enforce their policies. They might be the defacto town square but it's only convenience and network effects which make that true. If there was enough dissatisfaction with the way they are running things then they could be gone tomorrow. That's not comparable to kind of censorship that, for example, the CCP imposes.
> Facebook doesn't have a military to enforce their policies
You're merely restating this assumed division in terms of a specific. Facebook has much less business need to deploy the military than say Exxon or United Fruit, but they still have the ability.
> only convenience and network effects which make that true.
Sure, but how does that make it any less real? The ability to move between states does not invalidate gripes about your current state government. Witness the volume of user complaints. If leaving were a continually-visited fictionless choice, they would have simply left.
> That's not comparable to [the] kind of censorship
They are of different magnitudes, but they're certainly comparable. I'd much rather be subject to Facebook's censorship regime that CCPs. But they're both censorship regimes - if we don't want the former to grow closer to the latter, then it behooves us to compare them.
In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship. When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or William Barr. America most definitely has such a system.
And when independent candidates run for office and can't get their message out for being shadow banned, and the corporatist candidates are always the number one trending subject, you'll be there to finger wag for not bothering to set up their own world-class content distribution system first.
I reject the idea that ownership of one of the most popular websites in the world is comparable in power to the threat of force that underpins the legal authority of the most powerful military in the world. I think that assertion is extreme and that you need to present some strong evidence to explain why popular websites are comparable in power to the justice department.
The result is not the same since government censorship is enforced through violence whereas corporate censorship is not enforced except within the confines of private property owned by the corporation.
Watch the BBC documentary Century of Self, about Edward Bernays, the founder of propaganda in the US, who learned about psychology from his uncle Sigmund Freud, and happened to be the instigator of modern marketing.
The study and control of group behavior is real. The network of educated and privileged elite is real. The power of the media run by these elite perhaps surpasses that of the justice department. The media can start wars.
Some teachable moments about the soft censorship system are when 1) it misfires, like when a teenager stands around on video with a smile in the general vicinity of a Native American man and has his reputation immediately smeared by multiple national networks and thousands of other highly credentialed professionals, 2) when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person in a 72 hour period, or 3) when snippets or leaks come out that demonstrate levers of political control, like the "YouTube Controversial Query Blacklist", or when the Chancellor of Germany asks Mark Zuckerberg on a hot mic to censor certain topics and he agrees.
> when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person in a 72 hour period
This is a weird complaint. One site bans Alex Jones (after a major news event covered internationally). Media gets wind (likely due to him complaining very loudly about it) and starts asking the other major social networks why they aren't following suit.
No conspiracy required, for the same reasons multiple independent news sites writing about Fitbit today doesn't require collusion.
Bingo; well, I'm not talking about one person in particular, but it goes like this:
"Hey [person at platform company], I'm [person whose social network slightly overlaps with yours but who has more reputation], a journalist at [publication that can instantly shape public opinion on any topic]. I'm doing an article on [bad person], who once said [worst interpretation of anything person has ever said] and has been called [threat to public safety and order] by [prestigious NGO] and is also associated with [tenuously connected group that is even worse]. Are you aware your website is [assumption that company endorses bad person's content]? There has been [mention of thousands of angry and unstable people, implication of social and economic damage] on [social media platform where I myself and my friends have considerable influence] about this."
It's also interesting to think about why something becomes a "news event" in the first place, as if it were something that simply falls from the sky.
Your concerns seem to revolve around right wing causes. To balance that out, I would encourage you to look into Noam Chomsky who has been talking about de facto corporate censorship from a left wing perspective for many decades.
The same Noam Chomsky who infamously denied the "Killing Fields" communist genocide in Cambodia, blaming it all on America instead? The smoking gun: https://chomsky.info/19770625/
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That breaks the site rules. Regardless of what you're battling for or against, using HN this way destroys the curiosity that the site exists for.
People need to be more skeptical about governments (both murican and chinese) and have more faith in fellow human beings. Why is it that US government gets it panties wet at the thought of Tiktok having influence in USA but somehow is proud of he fact that Google or Facebook are global companies ? What is that Tiktok would do to american that Google or Facebook won't do to Indians ?
Google and Facebook not being in China is not necessarily a bad thing. Both the companies are massively popular in India but make no profits off Indians yet. On other than their popularity has made Indians value these companies a lot as employers and every third Google/Facebook engineer in Mountain View is an Indian person. Google or Facebooks adventures in India (and China) if at all are nothing but a huge subsidy being delivered to these upcoming markets at the expense of American consumers.
Say China opens up its markets for Google and Facebook like tomorrow would you be fine with that ? Both Google and Facebook are then going to borrow money from american to build massive data center networks in China spending billions of dollars which may or may not be recovered in near future.
Xenophobia and divergence from free market principles in USA have made other countries better potential successors to Silicon Valley. In near future we will see more and more companies coming up from China. What USA has done with Tiktok is essentially a child like tantrum to scare other investors and chinese companies but very likely US government will end up with an egg on its face.
On one hand you're saying that Xenophobia and divergence from free market principles will make USA lose its edge, but at the same time you are saying China, which is a lot more xenophobic and less adherent to free market principles, will have an advantage...
China doesn't ban or restrict heavily only to American companies. All companies are subject to the same laws. It's whether to comply or not.
It must be hard for Americans to understand the need for censorship and thus feel angry when they are subject to such policies. But there are deep historical reasons. And I think ByteDance doesn't really care about whether or not censoring their product in the US. My guess is that it's easy for them to just manage one content review team than multiple.
The globe increasingly feels so connected as to make people not question where things like social networks reside. In the mind of average people, until they have a political axe to grind, the Nation is all but obsolete. The only time the idea has any sticking power is when people are concerned about jobs. Other than that, nobody seems to care all that much.
It's not about a "political axe", its about being adversely affected by the policies of that nation.
Unless other nations began to intrude on their daily life people don't care what those nations do so they may as well not exist. Part of why China has been in the minds of (some) Americans lately is its becoming obvious they are trying to apply their censorious nature to US citizens on US soil, sometimes using US companies.
And, yeah, I'm well aware that the US does similar things to other countries. And some people in other countries on this site complain about that too. It doesn't mean they're just grinding some political axe though.
Do you think people in Hong Kong and Taiwan feel like nations are "all but obsolete"? South/North Korea? Tibet? Crimea? This idea of nations being obsolete feels like a fairly privileged position.
Oh yes it’s absolutely privileged. Doesn’t make it less true. The GP asked why Americans were so ready to use a Chinese social network. My answer is they don’t care because they don’t think of it as overtly Chinese, and those that do don’t really care unless they have a reason to.
Despite the initial hype, Vine was super niche and stopped growing. After it was bought, it seems the new owners didn’t have the foresight or patience to evolve the product into something with more mainstream appeal.
The vine brand still has a lot of value. I think twitter will restart it in a couple years. Vine is pure nostalgia, and I think people will flock if it comes back.
I asked my wife’s kid sister, she’s 19 and in college. Her and her boyfriend had no idea about it being Chinese. It was the hot thing at the moment and that’s all they really cared about.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Chinese don't know that.
It's long been my opinion that you simply cannot destroy the west without mutually assured destruction, so nukes are out. You can't invade and subsequently operate because Americans will never acquiesce to foreign rule, and we are individually armed.
The only way to undo the US/west is to have it undo itself. Seed dissent and promote divisions and hatred among its people. Maybe I was shielded from this as a kid, but it seems these divisions are hatred are sharply on the rise as of late, and it's not outside the realm of possibility this is due to foreign influence via social networks.
Agreed. Authoritarian governments with morally questionable methods were and are better than the West at Humanint and propaganda. Russia and China are two good examples. I recently saw a documentary about North Korea. It was talking about the Clinton talks, NK would study everyone they would speak to. They also knew with an election would change guards and wait to get what they wanted.
Foreign adversaries must be loving the divide America has at the moment with our 2 party system. They are also trying to divide us by race, economic class, and create a divide with the police.
> Agreed. Authoritarian governments with morally questionable methods were and are better than the West at Humanint and propaganda. Russia and China are two good examples. I recently saw a documentary about North Korea. It was talking about the Clinton talks, NK would study everyone they would speak to. They also knew with an election would change guards and wait to get what they wanted.
Do you think that the US Department of State, or the foreign ministries of any other country of note don't do this sort of thing?
How do you know they are more effective at it? Who is telling you this? Someone who is driving a barbarians-at-the-gates narrative, and stands to profit for it? Someone who spent their life working in a department that is always asking for more money?
All we have to go on is the word of insiders who work for the various ministries, and all of these insiders have their own agenda. They certainly aren't opening up their organizations to outside verification of their claims!
Also, consider the context in which these negotiations take place. When NK negotiates with the US, this is the most important diplomatic conversation they have going. They are obviously going to put a lot of effort into it - as the outcome may be existential to them.
When the US negotiates with NK, it's just one of five dozen plates it is spinning at any one time. Whatever the outcome is, it's not going to be an existential crisis for the US. It's unlikely to be the most important diplomatic conversation it's going to have, and the Department of State, and the CIA will prioritize its resources accordingly.
Because Twitter is ignorant of any sign of market opportunity. They had a massive mobile user base, and then they burried the DM functionality deep in the app (this was years ago). Twitter could have become the biggest messaging app before messaging apps were even cool.
A huge swath of the consumer market in physical products is Chinese goods. Why would your average nontechnical, fairly apolitical, non-foreign policy or intelligence news following person draw a distinction?
They see a fun app, they play with it. If they're even aware of censorship issues or geopolitical power games, that seems very distant from some app that amuses them for a few minutes a day.
I'm trying to avoid Chinese manufactured goods where possible. Does anyone know of good online resources for looking up companies which don't have China in their supply chain?
I've found sites that do "made in america" generally, but ideally I'd like a site that allows something like "sort by distance to manufacturer" - I'd like to preferentially support businesses proportionally to how geographically local they are.
Would also be interested in sites that have some sort of curated directory of companies that have good labor relations, quality controls, environmental impact, etc.
Musical.ly, which TikTok parent company acquired for 1B, was far more American (the company was based in Shanghai, but they had more success in the US and rebranded accordingly).
I myself had no idea they were Chinese, despite working in the space. I wouldn’t expect any average teen to know they are Chinese either
(A) Vine was horribly mismanaged by Twitter. No marketing, no interesting new features, needless attempts to integrate it into Twitter.
(B) How would the average consumer know it's Chinese? They totally rebranded it from their mainland product and in fact the social network itself is totally isolated, so you can't even find Chinese people on it.
Vine was and still is a failed execution of the idea of short form video clips. Music.ly and by extension, TikTok are actually really fun, well executed products. I don't think it has anything to do with it being made in China or not and suspect kids today do not care.
> "I'll never understand why (a) Vine was shut down, and (b) So many Americans are eager to rush out and use a Chinese social network."
TikTok is a better app than Vine was. It has far more features (visual effects, etc) and does a good job of making them easy to use. This all translates into better growth and retention.
TikTok was also very well marketed. Lots of slick online ads that went straight to their target demographic. I'm not sure if Vine ever knew quite what it wanted to be.
I would support a wholesale ban on Chinese acquisitions of American companies until American companies are allowed to acquire Chinese companies (or otherwise operate in China).
These ridiculous double standards from China are not free trade, and we should stop pretending it is.
Most people probably realize it. What we need is for the American CEOs, financial elite, members of government that have investments in China to invest in their own country rather than in a lop-sided trade economy that doesn't allow free flow of money back to the US.
"Both sides" have anti-globalists, and both have globalists, and despite an interesting few years globalism is still the establishment norm for most mainline parties in liberal democracies.
I was not trying to imply globalism was one thing. I also pointed out that it is the norm for "liberal democracies", as a way to not paint with too broad of a brush. I very much agree with you.
I would much rather see the financial elite in America expropriated so that corporate leaders are less likely to buckle to China for short-term profit.
What incentive do they have on their side to do that? Ignoring the moral argument, which I agree with, there isn't much financial benefit that comes from that, and very few people who make it that high up the chain seem to be influenced by moral arguments.
Your argument veers unreasonably so into nationalism; there's no reason they shouldn't instead start investing money in Europe, or one of the dozens of other countries that could use US funds well in Asia.
When Marvin Liao, a former Yahoo executive who is now a partner at 500 Startups, a venture-capital firm, considered his preparations, he decided that his caches of water and food were not enough. “What if someone comes and takes this?” he asked me. To protect his wife and daughter, he said, “I don’t have guns, but I have a lot of other weaponry. I took classes in archery.”
...
In private Facebook groups, wealthy survivalists swap tips on gas masks, bunkers, and locations safe from the effects of climate change. One member, the head of an investment firm, told me, “I keep a helicopter gassed up all the time, and I have an underground bunker with an air-filtration system.” He said that his preparations probably put him at the “extreme” end among his peers. But he added, “A lot of my friends do the guns and the motorcycles and the gold coins. That’s not too rare anymore.”
...
Steve Huffman, the thirty-three-year-old co-founder and C.E.O. of Reddit, which is valued at six hundred million dollars, was nearsighted until November, 2015, when he arranged to have laser eye surgery. He underwent the procedure not for the sake of convenience or appearance but, rather, for a reason he doesn’t usually talk much about: he hopes that it will improve his odds of surviving a disaster, whether natural or man-made. “If the world ends—and not even if the world ends, but if we have trouble—getting contacts or glasses is going to be a huge pain in the ass,” he told me recently. “Without them, I’m fucked.”
Huffman, who lives in San Francisco, has large blue eyes, thick, sandy hair, and an air of restless curiosity; at the University of Virginia, he was a competitive ballroom dancer, who hacked his roommate’s Web site as a prank. He is less focussed on a specific threat—a quake on the San Andreas, a pandemic, a dirty bomb—than he is on the aftermath, “the temporary collapse of our government and structures,” as he puts it. “I own a couple of motorcycles. I have a bunch of guns and ammo. Food. I figure that, with that, I can hole up in my house for some amount of time.”
Huffman has been a frequent attendee at Burning Man, the annual, clothing-optional festival in the Nevada desert, where artists mingle with moguls. He fell in love with one of its core principles, “radical self-reliance,” which he takes to mean “happy to help others, but not wanting to require others.” (Among survivalists, or “preppers,” as some call themselves, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, stands for “Foolishly Expecting Meaningful Aid.”) Huffman has calculated that, in the event of a disaster, he would seek out some form of community: “Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat egotistical view that I’m a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not a slave, when push comes to shove.”
...
Why would they care if people were pissed off when they can afford not to care? Especially with enough Chinese and Saudi blood money that they could blow their noses with tissues made of hundred-dollar bills? They're above your problems, they're above everyone else's.
As if the helicopter pilot isn't gonna just kick the guy off and get his own friends and family to the bunker instead.
EDIT: Not to mention whoever built the bunker knows where it is. "Ownership" isn't going to be a real thing in the circumstances where a bunker is necessary.
You are pointing at irrelevant people who don't belong to actual power structures. Ex-yahoo exec seriously? How can you even compare the Reddit CEO to Louis XIV. SV people have an overinflated sense of their importance in actual Power Hierarchies.
If they are only incentivized by financial benefit why exactly should they be left in charge? That's like staffing your (historical physical) treasury exclusively with greedy people in the naive belief that they'll all keep an eye on each other.
They shouldn't be left in charge, but they are. No successful attempt has been made to change this in the long run, and no successful attempt has been made to change this in the short run without massive revolution in countries that don't have half the military or mass surveillance structure that the United States does. Capitalism rewards these types, and so does politics, the military, Hollywood, basically everywhere where power structures exist.
Ha ha ha...the U.S doesn't like double standards. It must be a first. If you need examples think about human rights and international law not to mention trade.
What about French companies buying strategically important companies in the US? That then gets bought by a Chinese company at a later date? Is it a French company still?
Although... now that I think about it... underage girls twerking in tight, skimpy halloween costumes to all the latest trap beats about getting blowjobs from hoes, while swerving at 90 into the fast lane is important.
I suppose Zuckerberg wants to kill it, just like Vines, but he can't this time, and it's a threat to the lamest social media company to ever have sucked the life out of all your important friendships.
Why do you care that US firms can't invest in China? Globalization proponents tell me that this sort of thing only hurts China, by limiting its access to capital - which doesn't seem to be our issue.
Or are you claiming that foreign investment into local companies hurts local companies? If so, please justify our past three decades of policy towards Asia, Africa, South America, and the post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Foreign investment into those countries owns a lot of key businesses and infrastructure, but for some reason, very few firms originating in those countries have significant investments in the US.
If openness to foreign investment is a good thing, why do you care about making it quid-pro-quo? If it's a bad thing, why do we push so hard for it?
A curious development I noticed: Chinese dominated parent company in the Caymans or equiv with two subsidiary "sister companies", with one in US, UK, etc, and the other in China. Besides the obvious IP leakage due to Chinese law, what problems do you see with this and how would you approach this issue?
American companies can and do buy Chinese companies. Foreign ownership restrictions have been relaxed or dropped entirely in most sectors in China over the last two decades.
Complaining that American companies can't invest in China is strange, given that until fairly recently, the flow of investment was almost 100% in that direction. It's only in the last few years that Chinese companies have begun investing significantly in American companies.
As for "operat[ing] in China," American companies have a massive presence in China. Where are you getting the idea that American (or foreign) companies can't operate in China? It's the most important market for all sorts of Western companies. The restrictions on tech companies, specifically, have to do with political censorship. Companies that censor have access.
So are you saying that currently American companies are NOT allowed to acquire Chinese companies or operate in China?
There are a few instances where that's true (there are also a few instances where Chinese companies are not allowed to acquire U.S. companies or operate in the U.S.) but you said "I would support a wholesale ban on Chinese acquisitions of American companies". So again are you insinuating that at this moment, no American companies are allowed to acquire Chinese companies or operate in China?
Below are a few relevant figures. I see the claim repeated often that foreign companies can't operate in China. The sales figures of American companies paint a different picture.
Company - Sales in China - Share in China
Apple $44.8 billion 19.6%
Intel $14.8 billion 23.6%
Qualcomm $14.6 billion 65.4%
Boeing $11.9 billion 12.8%
Micron $10.4 billion 51.1%
Broadcom $9.4 billion 53.7%
The list goes on. S&P 500 firms had nearly $160 billion in sales in China in 2018.
After all the political stuff going on, every country began seeing foreign communication companies as a national security threat. Russia and China were early on this but EU is also tightening the grip. We had a good go but since the politicians got involved I expect the internet to become separated into regional islands of regulations.
Facebook probably had a dream of becoming a global political influence broker and sell mandate to the highest bidder but I think the people who control the guys with the guns are not especially thrilled to play this game.
I dont know, I really fear a world where the US blocks all chinese social media, and china blocks all US social media, in the name of 'national security'.
That would be unfortunate, but it's not nearly as bad as the effects we'll see if the trend of information warfare against civilians continues.
I've come to expect falsehoods on the internet for political or commercial gain -- but I find the recent trend of using propaganda to spark hatred, outrage, and panic, to be particularly disturbing.
There is a massive push to make TikTok a thing. But it is the most stupid app I have ever seen. So they might as well stop pushing the fake videos online.
The article conveniently forgets to mention that Musical.ly was founded by Chinese founders and headquartered in Shanghai. Maybe they technically were an American company, but it's not clear the outcome would have been much different from a "national security" perspective.
The US controls its domestic market - just as China controls their domestic market - and when it comes to going back and reviewing the TikTok / Musical.ly combination it can dictate terms across the app stores which are all US controlled.
The US can say: we're going to ban your combined entity from all global app stores by forcing Google and Apple to comply with our position on that merged entity (TikTok + Musical.ly).
Google and Apple resist? Say hello to national security based sanctions. They will immediately comply, no more questions asked.
The US can instantly, globally kill TikTok, for all intents and purposes. TikTok would disappear from most global app store availability within a week, from Canada to Australia. It would probably only exist in China.
It's unfair? Tell Qualcomm - NXP that. That was blocked solely out of spite by China. This is an economic conflict with China. When China lets US Internet companies have proper, full access to their market maybe the US will relent and start playing 'fair.'
Yes, the US government has the power to block mergers. However, consider the hypothetical scenario where Musical.ly rejects TikTok's offer and competes them out of the US market, growing to the same size as TikTok is today. In that case, there would be no merger to block, but the national security implications would remain the same. What would the US government do then? Put them on a blacklist like Huawei?
Musical.ly was started by entrepreneurs in Shanghai. Although it may have had US and Japanese investors, I don't think it was an American company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical.ly
>"It’s the first company to be headquartered in China, designed in China, but popular in the US," said Greylock investor Josh Elman. "Finally we’re seeing talented people who live in that ecosystem in that world and actually transcend it and build products in the US."
I've heard this myth that musical.ly was founded in China before, but it's hard to believe if you look at some basic facts.
One cofounder worked full time at SAP in SF bay area for several years before and after musical.ly was founded. The other says on his LinkedIn that he was working in Santa Monica for several years on either side of the founding. They lived, worked, and founded the company in CA.
musical.ly appears to have always had its head office in Shanghai until the acquisition. The fact that it also had significant operations in California doesn't make it a US company. Only those operations are subject to US law and would have to be divested due to disapproval by CFIUS.
> musical.ly appears to have always had its head office in Shanghai until the acquisition.
That's not true. I have not found a specific date, but the Shanghai office did not exist at the time musical.ly was founded. I have not found any references to the Shanghai office from before late 2015.
I searched for the Chinese name of the company (found on Wikipedia-zh) and immediately found all the information about how the company was founded and funded.[1] It was founded in Shanghai on 2013-08-01.
Not being able to find any reference on the English-speaking part of the web doesn’t mean it couldn’t have existed.
That's true, of course. However, every source I can find says that the company was founded in Shanghai, but ended up being more successful in the American than the Chinese market, and opened up offices in California. Most of the engineers are supposedly in Shanghai, though. One more detail is that the founders appear to have worked in Silicon Valley before founding the company.
Whether any of this makes any difference, as far as US law goes, I don't know.
Neither do German (What you Americans call Jewish) or Russian/Ukrainian names sound English yet they are by far the biggest majority of your country way ahead of the Anglos. More likely than not a European American has its roots somewhere in Central or Eastern Europe.
Though I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's a myth when you're directly contradicting the first line of the first main paragraph of their wikipage (which is referenced)
"Musical.ly Inc. was founded by longtime friends Alex Zhu and Luyu Yang in Shanghai, China."
"TikTok also says China does not have jurisdiction over content of the app, which does not operate in China and is not influenced by any foreign government."
If it's a Chinese company, why is TikTok saying that China has zero jurisdiction over the app?
Besides that, the US can require that Bytedance peel off TikTok / Musical.ly. If Bytedance wants access to the US market with that app, it will have to play by US rules. That works similar to how China blocked the Qualcomm - NXP acquisition. Neither Qualcomm nor NXP are Chinese companies. If the combined entity wanted access to China they had to obey China's position on that acquisition. And given China's extreme behavior on restricting US Internet companies from their market, this is more than fair game.
> If it's a Chinese company, why is TikTok saying that China has zero jurisdiction over the app?
ByteDance is trying very hard to run TikTok and Douyin (抖音, the Chinese version) as separate companies that happen to share the same code but not data. For one, this is because they're well aware that Western governments are suspicious of foreign companies having access to their citizens' data. Secondly, having Chinese and international users on a shared platform also makes it more difficult to maintain the narrative mandated by the Chinese government, as each cross-border interaction is a potential hole in the Great Firewall.
After the lack of data separation effectively killed Grindr, they can only hope that they've done enough and won't suffer the same fate.
Not sure how they can do that in a reasonable way since it is not open source? And just because the data is not in China does not mean the Chinese government does not get access, it is more like the other way round. If the data is in China you can be sure they have full access.
Weird that this is being downvoted. What is the US government going to do, create a China-style great firewall? Even the (right-) wingnuts would be sharpening their pitchforks.
They will slowly craft some national security or human rights narrative over a 2 to 3 period after which the public, both left and right, will be begging for a firewall.
If it was a website, maybe it can survive no matter what? But if they can get Google and Apple to take the app down in the US market, you effectively kill the app. I‘m sure some will sideload, but relatively speaking, it’ll be a small amt of people.
I haven’t checked the top sites in US list recently, but I imagine even for places that have sites on top of apps, losing App Store access will destroy a large part of the user base. Off the top of head, Google, the surviving portal sites, could survive. But even portal sites like Yahoo likely get enough traffic from apps that they’d be hit hard. Same with Reddit, Facebook, Pinterest. Maybe LinkedIn would go largely unscathed.
> Weird that this is being downvoted. What is the US government going to do, create a China-style great firewall? Even the (right-) wingnuts would be sharpening their pitchforks.
So, if I want access to EU market I can avoid GDPR and other European regulations so long as I keep my server out of Europe?
> given China's extreme behavior on restricting US Internet companies from their market, this is more than fair game.
Except that the US always complained about this behavior from the Chinese government, but now it wants to adopt it as normal. It looks like the Chinese way of doing things is winning...
It doesn't matter, just like china reviews acquisitions of American companies by American companies because they do business in china the US does the same.
The censorship argument against TikTok seems odd given that Trump supporters are a prominent voice on the platform (I'm a huge TikTok user). Wouldn't its Chinese masters want to silence support for him as well? Why haven't they?
To be clear, I don't like the idea of foreign state controlled major social platforms opaque to US oversight. I'm commenting specifically on the argument that TikTok silences Hong Kong supporters.
> Trump supporters are a prominent voice on the platform
Not necessarily, the algorithm shows you things you are interested in. I see China, Golden Retrievers and various songs I like. You see Trump because your eyeballs got locked on the screen. So you will see more Trump.
Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. Would you please review the site guidelines and stick to them when posting to HN? You broke several of them here.
TikTok is actually a great app. When I was a kid in the 00's my friends and I used to carry around a video camera to make music videos. With TikTok you can do it with your cell phone.
They beat SnapChat, FB and Instagram on experience.
Censorship is something serious to consider, but these are mainly kids making music videos. They aren't using it to organize campaigns.
> these are mainly kids making music videos. They aren't using it to organize campaigns.
I think that's a dangerously naive interpretation of the platform (or any platform really), particularly when it involves children and young adult minds.
Have you seen the weird articles on Snapchat Discover? "Why I'm never taking my mom to an x-rated convention again" "How my kitten play fetish makes me feel less alone" "Why I've been dressing like a horse for twenty years"
If I had a teenage daughter, I'd feel much more comfortable with her using the Chinese tik-tok than whatever tabloid-level trash Snapchat is pushing these days. Some of these American media companies have just gotten weird
I think you're too worried about that. I saw plenty of weird fetish shit on forums in my teens and I think I turned out okay, plus a preparedness to accept the breadth of weirdness in humanity. The main thing you should care about is teaching your daughter to recognize clickbait and worthless content.
I don't think GP was trying to say that exactly, but I am glad you phrased it like this. It is indeed sickening to think of music and art as meaningless.
Shouldn't this issue be addressed by the free market rather than by the government getting involved? If there is evidence that the app censors content to serve CCP propaganda, then consumers can make the choice not to use it.
The market is no longer free when China is involved. They'll gobble American market share (and use that market share to further their political goals) while completely blocking out American companies from the Chinese market.
Nobody would care if TikTok were Taiwanese or South Korean.
The free market is usually predicated on rational actors. I don't think the target market of teenagers fits the bill, nor does any market, really, once propaganda enters the picture.
Markets work best when there is transparency: for instance adding MPG to car labels helps "the market" make good choices by informing customers at the point of sale. The law which dictates an MPG sticker is "the government getting involved".
Another example: trademarks allow superior brands to win over time. The enforcement of trademarks is "the government getting involved".
Never trust American government, everything they say is ALWAYS a lie:
- They lied about national security threat from Huawei in order to get a trade deal. Trump said USA will remove all the sanctions on Huawei if china agree to cooperate on the trade deal. So, there is no threat at all.
- They lied about the chemical weapons in Iraq to start the war.
- They lied to Gaddafi and after he agreed to disarm Libya and destroy all weapons of mass destruction, he was killed.
- They promised to remove all sanctions on Iran, if they stop their nuclear program. Iran did it. After the program was stopped and all parties confirmed that Iran fully comply with all the requirements of the agreement, USA introduced new sanctions against Iran...
While I agree that Chinese soft imperialism is bad, I think it's tremendously funny that Americans are complaining about it now, after years of using military and economic power to enforce a similar imperialism everywhere.
Americans beginning to complain that the Chinese government is influencing American's free speech at home due to the financial entanglements made freely by American companies. In essence, US companies economic interests are impacting US citizen free speech.
To express the feelings of non-Americans that find it funny how Americans didn’t care about other countries when the US did the same thing to them as China is doing to the US now.
In the world of international relations, there really are no good guys.
But in a world where everyone is a bad guy, hypocrisy can be forgiven, since it keeps other bad guys in check despite its self-serving intent. Hypocrisy, whether European, Russian, American or Chinese, keeps the peace.
I challenge you to find a person in Eastern Europe or Middle East who wouldn’t crack up reading your comment. The realpolitik the US, China and Russia use are very similar.
As a person who spent majority of his life in Russia, your comment is the one that makes me crack up, not the parent one. And I can safely say that the same would hold true for most of the people from those countries who were lucky enough to be exposed to all sides of coverage on the issue.
If you think the way western media covers things is biased and dishonest (which it sometimes is, I admit), you have no idea how bad it is over there. It is a completely different degree of delusion that cannot even be called "bending the truth", it is straight up aggressive lying and fear-mongering that can barely even be rivaled by Alex Jones and his InfoWars.
Nobody is claiming that China and Russia have anything close to fair and balanced journalism. The above comment points out the irony that Americans are treating censorship on a Chinese social media app for teenagers as if it's the greatest threat to democracy, while their government bombs a country because they don't like the guy in charge.
Fundamentally, those in the US can talk about what happened. We can talk about the shit we did and what we did wrong. The Chinese people can't.
Yes, in a very coarse way they're in the same place we were a while back but that doesn't mean it's ok in exactly the same way it wasn't ok for us. Moral relativism and whataboutism aren't morally sound arguments in this case.
I agree with your premise. Still, at some point one has to pick sides and I know I by far prefer a world ruled by the US than a world ruled by China. That there are situations that could improve I won't argue but it does not change what is preferable for most people in the planet I would say.
Yup, US power is being attacked on all fronts. Just look at how fearful congress was of the Libra cryptocurrency. They were literally talking about libra being a risk to the entire US financial system because libra could blackmail the USA by pulling USD as a reserve backing libra, causing high inflation in the USA. It is no surprise that people/countries/companies are trying to get out of the web we have created around the world (through the financial system). The problem is the USA is imposing all sorts of rules and regulations on foreign countries, threatening their sovereignty. Also the USA is usually extremely militant in how we enforce our rules. Don't comply with the rules - we shut down your accounts, seize your assets etc. Then we require ever financial institution to monitor their customer's activity and report it to authorities. Completely Orwellian system. No wonder people are trying to get out of it.
400 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 309 ms ] threadFCC is actively pursuing removal of Huawei and ZTE equipment under a threat to national security.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/28/fcc-rules-huawei-zte/
Probably in reference to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/business/dealbook/huawei-...
Business is business.
Youtube has done a lot of stupid things lately that really do feel like it is an external political agenda being forced on them, not an internal one being forced by misguided placation of shareholders.
I'm not at all convinced there is any large scale love for YouTube as far as US policy goes.
I really think YouTube like a lot of tech companies will often just take the path of least resistance and say:
"Well that's a lot of DCMA complaints ... just ban'm if our magic script says to, whatever."
It seems like maybe favoritism to another big company, but maybe is just more a reflection of a crappy process and a tech company habit of just letting some magic formula decide and avoiding any extra time / resource consuming process.
Not to say I don't think it doesn't happen as far as some corporate to corporate pressure goes, but it's hard to know.
There are a few US companies that might, but Google isn't going to be it. Social sharing isn't in Google's blood, and they've never succeeded before with their $1,000,000,000+ spent on attempts.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/tiktok-has-mountain-view-off...
It's still super easy to skip by them.
Not to say that TikTok doesn't have any revenue at all, they have ads.
They kept mentioning infinite scroll, and that everyone was supposed to be thinking about how to incorporate that into product.
After zuck discussed TikTok directly recently, I’m not surprised google and fb lobbyists would press for this investigation.
One question I have, is the real-time interests of millions of 16-24 yo Americans reported back to the Chinese government a national security concern?
Besides, Hollywood movies should have enough propaganda in them already.
Perhaps not, but the influence of a nebulous "algorithm" controlling what comes up next certainly can reinforce a message or way of life that line up with China's cultural norms
> [citation needed]
The "non-US culture" framing of the GP and GGP is ignorant and wrong, but what they say is certainly true with regards to the party and government:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...
> Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society.... The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/world/asia/china-student-...
> ...students are increasingly playing a key role by monitoring how teachers view Mr. Xi, the party and ideas like democracy. In exchange, they are promised rewards like scholarships, higher grades and advancement within prestigious Communist Party groups.
> Ankang University in northwest China said in an online notice that student informers should formally report professors who spread superstition, cults and pornography, “promote Western political values,” and criticize the party’s tenets. School administrators, the notice says, should respond to each complaint within three working days.
>advocates that democracy is a threat to society, or that political re-education camps are not an issue
Now it is even more confusing.
You do not necessarily need content censorship to keep CCP ideas out of the West. You can keep them out by means of economic policies. And I feel like Western countries are not doing a good enough job at this, whereas the PRC government has been extremely efficient at blocking foreign entities.
Initially Lasso only supported registering with a Facebook account, defaulting to exposing your real name to the world. TikTok let you browse anonymously and register with just a phone number or email account, letting users protect their identities much easier. Lasso now allows you to register with an Instagram account.
Lasso has much worse video quality-- seemingly SD vs HD, presumably to save bandwidth, but it makes videos much less appealing since they're noticeably blurrier. This may be because Lasso decided to show me Spanish videos for no apparent reason (or maybe that's where their users are?), and most Spanish-speaking countries have predominantly Android phones which have worse video quality.
The infinite scrolling feels worse because videos fade in from black instead of displaying their first frame while scrolling into view. The feed isn't actually infinite, but refuses to load past a certain point. You can't swipe right from the feed to view a user's profile.
Regarding censorship, I'm not convinced ByteDance's Chinese style "ban anything contentious" censorship is actually a downside for most teen users. Instagram has _very_ loose censorship policies, which easily allow the feed to become very sexualized. I expect this makes younger users feel less comfortable posting publicly-- Instagram is where the bikini models and their followers hang out!-- while TikTok's more carefully curated space feels age-appropriate. That may all be network effects, though, with social networks as always being colonized first by the young.
Yes. They are kids today, but they might be a Senator, CEO, or President tomorrow.
Or they might grow up to be an average person, but with a sensitive job and a Chinese intelligence officer needs background on someone to flip them.
They don't need sensational information, just insight on how their target can be influenced.
He makes the point that US consumers become subject to Chinese censorship policies when using the platform while China outright bans or heavily restricts American companies from operating (eg google search, Facebook).
America et al also don’t like certain things being published on social media and try stop it from existing on those platforms too.
Even child porn isn't an easy subject. Everyone can agree that liking 12 year olds sexually is pedophilia and images about that are child porn. But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia.
And that's just (north western) Europe who are culturally very similar to the US.
It's not muddier. The issue isn't the nature of the people viewing the content, but the ability of the victim to consent to the creation of the content. There's no muddiness involved here - sexual exploitation of minors for the production of media is not ok.
For 12 year olds it's much easier with the "we don't support pedophilia" argument (which has wide support)
I'd rather see nudity censored than criticism of religion, to be honest, so thank the Lord it's not Europe using soft censorship.
In the latter case, is child pornography probably indicative of a crime? Absolutely. But banning the images and their dissemination is clearly an infringement of free speech. In the former, banning hate speech is also clearly an infringement of free speech. If someone's actions result in violence or death then punish them after, and divorced from the issue of speech; do not place prior restraint on speech.
There is even an old soviet joke about this.
An American tells a Russian that the United States is so free he can stand in front of the White House and yell, “To hell with Ronald Reagan.” The Russian replies, “That’s nothing. I can stand in front of the Kremlin and yell, ‘To hell with Ronald Reagan,’ too.”
They were surprised you could do that...
We're not far off from china levels of censorship. Look at the NBA as of late.
Also, we are allowed to post photos with breasts (and much more) on our social network Vkontakte.
Now try to acquire a popular social media app in USA.
The theoretical point is true enough, that American content restrictions would generally wind up being exported abroad. The key difference is, however, that we do not actually have Chinese-style content restrictions.
EDIT: Sources in-text since i'm already being downvoted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...
All American social media censors their users, most people just arent producing that type of content.
Social media platforms censor more than that. Try posting a picture of a nipple on Facebook.
There's a pretty good meme about differences between European and American media take on censorship [0].
It's now locked behind an Imgur login due to being NSFW (over a single nipple), but the basic premise is that US media would censor a nipple away, leaving the person recognizable, while European media didn't take issue with the nipple, but instead censored her face to protect her identity.
Which is a pretty good example of how different cultures prioritize things differently. Scale that up to the reality of the tech space being dominated by US companies, and suddenly US cultural norms largely became established as global norms [1].
Before the Internet, US soldiers stationed in other countries had a very similar effect: They also brought their culture with them, which often was considered way more exotic than anything local. Decades later nobody even much cares or notices how US influenced much of our culture has become in Western Europe.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2f8xmd/nsfw_the_dif...
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-09-29/the-cleaners-...
But these things do not exist in a vacuum.
Ask anybody working on the tech and legal ends of the adult industry and you will hear quite horrific stories about having to jump through so many hoops just for finding a payment provider.
For a while, these used to be www dominating issues, and how they were dealt with in the US, often ended up being the de-facto global standard.
A very recent and relevant example for this is footage out of the Syrian Civil War on platforms like Twitter and YouTube.
Over these past years, whole swats of videos have disappeared on the basis of being tagged as "terrorist propaganda" [0]
In a very similar vein how "Napalm Girl" ended up getting censored as child pornography [1].
By now even Reddit has learned to "selectively forget", as all undeleting/uncensoring sites that used to work, have stopped working.
Just because it's not some US government agency playing the censor, but rather the US government pressuring US companies into self-censorship, doesn't make this kind of censorship any less real in its overall impact.
[0] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/youtube-ai-deletes-war-cr...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318031
From [0]: "YouTube is facing criticism after a new artificial intelligence program monitoring "extremist" content began flagging and removing masses of videos and blocking channels that document war crimes in the Middle East."
From [1]: "Facebook said it has to restrict nudity for cultural reasons."
I'm not saying this isn't important. I'm not even ruling out some sort of indirect and informal government role. (Government policy and culture are intertwined!) But they fall far far short of supporting the false equivalency drawn in this thread ans elsewhere between western companies removing content due to TOS violations, etc. on the one hand, and content being removed literally, and undisputedly (as far as I've seen) in response to direct commands by the Chinese government.
No, you're subject to corporate censorship policies. Let's not pretend that individual platforms regulating content is the same as government censorship. Please show me how their policies are related to "the American governments stance on human sexuality".
Also, doesn't Canada have a few laws on the books regarding how people are allowed to address other people, specifically, LGBTQ people?
They're taking a fully US-centric approach, treating abortion as a political topic - see https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted... . You can't advocate for abortion in Canadian ads. Which is insane, considering abortion is fully legal here. Going down that list, it's "things that are controversial in America". It's absurd to apply the same policy globally.
Not really. Canada prohibits hate speech and discrimination against LGBTQ people. The whole "using the wrong pronouns is now a criminal offense" meme was made up by someone looking for something to be offended about/sell books about how PC culture is ruining everything.[1]
People can be sued for discriminating on the basis of gender identity or expression. Repeatedly using the wrong pronoun can be used as evidence of that, but probably has to fit into a larger pattern of behavior. And that's the kind of thing you could credibly sue an employer or business for in the US as well.
1. https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-f...
Which in a large part with preference tailored to US
It's a distinction without a difference. They don't have any redress, or ability to influence either US corporations, or the US government, much like how Americans have no ability to influence the CPC.
Facebook removed LGBT pages because the American government forced them? Do you have a link?
There are some things such as porn that is censored in many areas.
Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures: "Twitter will now hide — but not remove — harmful tweets from public figures" (https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-t...)
"Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures"
vs
"The FBI will require Twitter to censor political speech from public figures"
I think those two scenarios are eons apart.
The eighteenth-century ideal of free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest. Some may believe in free speech more rigorously than others (say Reddit, as compared to Facebook). The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' control.
This statement is misleading. Some public internet forums owned by large corporations are mediated by companies acting in their own interest. Nobody is required to use those forums and many alternative forums exist, other individuals or firms are also able to create their own online public forums subject to whatever speech standards they consider ideal.
> The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' controls
This is not true. The fact that government cannot censor speech is as critically important today as it ever was. It doesn't matter that a lot of speech passes through private companies because that is a free choice made by individuals who voluntarily push their speech through those companies and are free to take their speech elsewhere if they desire. Additionally, censorship or moderation is sometimes a desirable feature of a social media product because unbridled free-speech is sometimes abused in a way that is antithetical to the user experience and thus to business prerogatives.
But sure, there are practical angles in the US where, for example, if we could shift the popular focus to Free software, We could regain society's Freedom of Speech. Perhaps you're focused on the technicalities because you're trying to work towards that - but talk constructively rather than dismissively. It helps nobody to push a stubborn idea that there is some strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500. Whether the political bureaucracy controls corporations or corporations control bureaucracy, it's all government.
They're not public squares though, they're privately owned webservers, they don't become nationalized just because they're popular. That's like saying the dive-bar in your local town is the de-facto town-square because everyone meets there after work. Those individuals made the free choice to interact in a privately owned establishment thus they are subject to the rules of that establishment, if they don't like the rules they are free to go to another establishment with more favorable rules.
> A clique of companies is now in the position of censoring the vast majority of interpersonal speech, period.
100% false. They are within their rights to refuse to rebroadcast content you upload to the servers they own, but they cannot prevent you from rebroadcasting your content anywhere else.
> We could regain society's Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech existed before Facebook and Twitter, so your suggestion that their business practices have caused free speech to go away is incorrect.
> So perhaps you're focused on the technicality because you want to work towards that - and please do! But state it constructively rather than dismissively. It helps nobody to perpetuate a stubborn idea that there is some kind of strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500
This is pretty hilarious. You're suggesting I self-censor the "technical" truth in favor of your editorialized version of the truth because "it helps nobody to perpetuate a stubborn idea that there is some kind of strict distinction between USG and the S&P 500"... even though there is a very obvious "strict distinction" between the government using the threat of force to censor speech vs a private company operating a platform they own and pay for.
> Whether the political bureaucracy controls corporations or corporations control bureaucracy, it's all government.
So are you saying you want to ban corporate lobbying or that we should nationalize large influential corporations so that we can ensure they function in service of the people instead of share holders?
The combination of your low effort dismissal and attacks on my intellectual honesty makes me think this conversation is not worth the effort. Have a nice day.
There is a huge distinction. Facebook doesn't have a military to enforce their policies. They might be the defacto town square but it's only convenience and network effects which make that true. If there was enough dissatisfaction with the way they are running things then they could be gone tomorrow. That's not comparable to kind of censorship that, for example, the CCP imposes.
You're merely restating this assumed division in terms of a specific. Facebook has much less business need to deploy the military than say Exxon or United Fruit, but they still have the ability.
> only convenience and network effects which make that true.
Sure, but how does that make it any less real? The ability to move between states does not invalidate gripes about your current state government. Witness the volume of user complaints. If leaving were a continually-visited fictionless choice, they would have simply left.
> That's not comparable to [the] kind of censorship
They are of different magnitudes, but they're certainly comparable. I'd much rather be subject to Facebook's censorship regime that CCPs. But they're both censorship regimes - if we don't want the former to grow closer to the latter, then it behooves us to compare them.
And when independent candidates run for office and can't get their message out for being shadow banned, and the corporatist candidates are always the number one trending subject, you'll be there to finger wag for not bothering to set up their own world-class content distribution system first.
The study and control of group behavior is real. The network of educated and privileged elite is real. The power of the media run by these elite perhaps surpasses that of the justice department. The media can start wars.
This is a weird complaint. One site bans Alex Jones (after a major news event covered internationally). Media gets wind (likely due to him complaining very loudly about it) and starts asking the other major social networks why they aren't following suit.
No conspiracy required, for the same reasons multiple independent news sites writing about Fitbit today doesn't require collusion.
"Hey [person at platform company], I'm [person whose social network slightly overlaps with yours but who has more reputation], a journalist at [publication that can instantly shape public opinion on any topic]. I'm doing an article on [bad person], who once said [worst interpretation of anything person has ever said] and has been called [threat to public safety and order] by [prestigious NGO] and is also associated with [tenuously connected group that is even worse]. Are you aware your website is [assumption that company endorses bad person's content]? There has been [mention of thousands of angry and unstable people, implication of social and economic damage] on [social media platform where I myself and my friends have considerable influence] about this."
It's also interesting to think about why something becomes a "news event" in the first place, as if it were something that simply falls from the sky.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
However I'd still like to be able to view flagged messages -- maybe click to view?
More generally I'd like to be able to hear the unpopular opinions, and see them discussed constructively. Rather than them being flagged and voted off
Though I agree -- remaining constructive is essential
Shoe's now on the other foot.
Google and Facebook not being in China is not necessarily a bad thing. Both the companies are massively popular in India but make no profits off Indians yet. On other than their popularity has made Indians value these companies a lot as employers and every third Google/Facebook engineer in Mountain View is an Indian person. Google or Facebooks adventures in India (and China) if at all are nothing but a huge subsidy being delivered to these upcoming markets at the expense of American consumers.
Say China opens up its markets for Google and Facebook like tomorrow would you be fine with that ? Both Google and Facebook are then going to borrow money from american to build massive data center networks in China spending billions of dollars which may or may not be recovered in near future.
Xenophobia and divergence from free market principles in USA have made other countries better potential successors to Silicon Valley. In near future we will see more and more companies coming up from China. What USA has done with Tiktok is essentially a child like tantrum to scare other investors and chinese companies but very likely US government will end up with an egg on its face.
It must be hard for Americans to understand the need for censorship and thus feel angry when they are subject to such policies. But there are deep historical reasons. And I think ByteDance doesn't really care about whether or not censoring their product in the US. My guess is that it's easy for them to just manage one content review team than multiple.
Their censorship algorithm must be broken.
I suspect (b) can be explained primarily through ignorance.
Unless other nations began to intrude on their daily life people don't care what those nations do so they may as well not exist. Part of why China has been in the minds of (some) Americans lately is its becoming obvious they are trying to apply their censorious nature to US citizens on US soil, sometimes using US companies.
And, yeah, I'm well aware that the US does similar things to other countries. And some people in other countries on this site complain about that too. It doesn't mean they're just grinding some political axe though.
Do you think people in Hong Kong and Taiwan feel like nations are "all but obsolete"? South/North Korea? Tibet? Crimea? This idea of nations being obsolete feels like a fairly privileged position.
It's long been my opinion that you simply cannot destroy the west without mutually assured destruction, so nukes are out. You can't invade and subsequently operate because Americans will never acquiesce to foreign rule, and we are individually armed.
The only way to undo the US/west is to have it undo itself. Seed dissent and promote divisions and hatred among its people. Maybe I was shielded from this as a kid, but it seems these divisions are hatred are sharply on the rise as of late, and it's not outside the realm of possibility this is due to foreign influence via social networks.
Foreign adversaries must be loving the divide America has at the moment with our 2 party system. They are also trying to divide us by race, economic class, and create a divide with the police.
Do you think that the US Department of State, or the foreign ministries of any other country of note don't do this sort of thing?
Better than implies they are doing the same thing as the West but are more effective.
All we have to go on is the word of insiders who work for the various ministries, and all of these insiders have their own agenda. They certainly aren't opening up their organizations to outside verification of their claims!
Also, consider the context in which these negotiations take place. When NK negotiates with the US, this is the most important diplomatic conversation they have going. They are obviously going to put a lot of effort into it - as the outcome may be existential to them.
When the US negotiates with NK, it's just one of five dozen plates it is spinning at any one time. Whatever the outcome is, it's not going to be an existential crisis for the US. It's unlikely to be the most important diplomatic conversation it's going to have, and the Department of State, and the CIA will prioritize its resources accordingly.
What Russia and China are doing is child’s play compared to what corporate mass media can do.
They see a fun app, they play with it. If they're even aware of censorship issues or geopolitical power games, that seems very distant from some app that amuses them for a few minutes a day.
Everyone knows the stuff they buy is manufactured in China, and the old timers holding weird grudges from the 1970s are long gone.
There is no economic incentive for anyone to bring this up at any time during any transaction.
I've found sites that do "made in america" generally, but ideally I'd like a site that allows something like "sort by distance to manufacturer" - I'd like to preferentially support businesses proportionally to how geographically local they are.
Would also be interested in sites that have some sort of curated directory of companies that have good labor relations, quality controls, environmental impact, etc.
I myself had no idea they were Chinese, despite working in the space. I wouldn’t expect any average teen to know they are Chinese either
(B) How would the average consumer know it's Chinese? They totally rebranded it from their mainland product and in fact the social network itself is totally isolated, so you can't even find Chinese people on it.
TikTok is a better app than Vine was. It has far more features (visual effects, etc) and does a good job of making them easy to use. This all translates into better growth and retention.
TikTok was also very well marketed. Lots of slick online ads that went straight to their target demographic. I'm not sure if Vine ever knew quite what it wanted to be.
These ridiculous double standards from China are not free trade, and we should stop pretending it is.
You can believe in geographical borders while also having foreign relations.
Did any outrage machine last as long as e.g. Apple's substantial market share in China? Which one's short term is evident.
Your argument veers unreasonably so into nationalism; there's no reason they shouldn't instead start investing money in Europe, or one of the dozens of other countries that could use US funds well in Asia.
Good ol'Louis knew things were messed up and he tried to rectify things. But it was too late.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-...
When Marvin Liao, a former Yahoo executive who is now a partner at 500 Startups, a venture-capital firm, considered his preparations, he decided that his caches of water and food were not enough. “What if someone comes and takes this?” he asked me. To protect his wife and daughter, he said, “I don’t have guns, but I have a lot of other weaponry. I took classes in archery.”
...
In private Facebook groups, wealthy survivalists swap tips on gas masks, bunkers, and locations safe from the effects of climate change. One member, the head of an investment firm, told me, “I keep a helicopter gassed up all the time, and I have an underground bunker with an air-filtration system.” He said that his preparations probably put him at the “extreme” end among his peers. But he added, “A lot of my friends do the guns and the motorcycles and the gold coins. That’s not too rare anymore.”
...
Steve Huffman, the thirty-three-year-old co-founder and C.E.O. of Reddit, which is valued at six hundred million dollars, was nearsighted until November, 2015, when he arranged to have laser eye surgery. He underwent the procedure not for the sake of convenience or appearance but, rather, for a reason he doesn’t usually talk much about: he hopes that it will improve his odds of surviving a disaster, whether natural or man-made. “If the world ends—and not even if the world ends, but if we have trouble—getting contacts or glasses is going to be a huge pain in the ass,” he told me recently. “Without them, I’m fucked.”
Huffman, who lives in San Francisco, has large blue eyes, thick, sandy hair, and an air of restless curiosity; at the University of Virginia, he was a competitive ballroom dancer, who hacked his roommate’s Web site as a prank. He is less focussed on a specific threat—a quake on the San Andreas, a pandemic, a dirty bomb—than he is on the aftermath, “the temporary collapse of our government and structures,” as he puts it. “I own a couple of motorcycles. I have a bunch of guns and ammo. Food. I figure that, with that, I can hole up in my house for some amount of time.”
Huffman has been a frequent attendee at Burning Man, the annual, clothing-optional festival in the Nevada desert, where artists mingle with moguls. He fell in love with one of its core principles, “radical self-reliance,” which he takes to mean “happy to help others, but not wanting to require others.” (Among survivalists, or “preppers,” as some call themselves, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, stands for “Foolishly Expecting Meaningful Aid.”) Huffman has calculated that, in the event of a disaster, he would seek out some form of community: “Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat egotistical view that I’m a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not a slave, when push comes to shove.”
...
Why would they care if people were pissed off when they can afford not to care? Especially with enough Chinese and Saudi blood money that they could blow their noses with tissues made of hundred-dollar bills? They're above your problems, they're above everyone else's.
EDIT: Not to mention whoever built the bunker knows where it is. "Ownership" isn't going to be a real thing in the circumstances where a bunker is necessary.
The person you were originally replying to's comment.
If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points more thoughtfully when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Although... now that I think about it... underage girls twerking in tight, skimpy halloween costumes to all the latest trap beats about getting blowjobs from hoes, while swerving at 90 into the fast lane is important.
I suppose Zuckerberg wants to kill it, just like Vines, but he can't this time, and it's a threat to the lamest social media company to ever have sucked the life out of all your important friendships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinpokomon#Plot
Or are you claiming that foreign investment into local companies hurts local companies? If so, please justify our past three decades of policy towards Asia, Africa, South America, and the post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Foreign investment into those countries owns a lot of key businesses and infrastructure, but for some reason, very few firms originating in those countries have significant investments in the US.
If openness to foreign investment is a good thing, why do you care about making it quid-pro-quo? If it's a bad thing, why do we push so hard for it?
To avoid said double standards.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investm...
Complaining that American companies can't invest in China is strange, given that until fairly recently, the flow of investment was almost 100% in that direction. It's only in the last few years that Chinese companies have begun investing significantly in American companies.
As for "operat[ing] in China," American companies have a massive presence in China. Where are you getting the idea that American (or foreign) companies can't operate in China? It's the most important market for all sorts of Western companies. The restrictions on tech companies, specifically, have to do with political censorship. Companies that censor have access.
There are a few instances where that's true (there are also a few instances where Chinese companies are not allowed to acquire U.S. companies or operate in the U.S.) but you said "I would support a wholesale ban on Chinese acquisitions of American companies". So again are you insinuating that at this moment, no American companies are allowed to acquire Chinese companies or operate in China?
1. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trade-war-watch-these-are-...
this is a patent lie repeated too many times.
here are some cases i just googled.
2004 Amazon bought chinese company Joyo
Amazon buys into Chinese market https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-buys-into-chinese-market/
2015 3D Systems bought chinese company Easywa
3D Systems buys Chinese company https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/outside_the_loop/...
2018 Xilinx bought chinese company DeePhi
Xilinx Buys China AI Startup https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1333482#
Facebook probably had a dream of becoming a global political influence broker and sell mandate to the highest bidder but I think the people who control the guys with the guns are not especially thrilled to play this game.
I've come to expect falsehoods on the internet for political or commercial gain -- but I find the recent trend of using propaganda to spark hatred, outrage, and panic, to be particularly disturbing.
And likewise, those US companies have also drawn similar regulatory attention.
Today it is just a way for me to burn 15 minutes, but I see plenty of potential and make the concerns of censorship and ownership valid concerns.
Where is tactful diplomacy, cooperation and building mutual rapport when dealing with China?
The US controls its domestic market - just as China controls their domestic market - and when it comes to going back and reviewing the TikTok / Musical.ly combination it can dictate terms across the app stores which are all US controlled.
The US can say: we're going to ban your combined entity from all global app stores by forcing Google and Apple to comply with our position on that merged entity (TikTok + Musical.ly).
Google and Apple resist? Say hello to national security based sanctions. They will immediately comply, no more questions asked.
The US can instantly, globally kill TikTok, for all intents and purposes. TikTok would disappear from most global app store availability within a week, from Canada to Australia. It would probably only exist in China.
It's unfair? Tell Qualcomm - NXP that. That was blocked solely out of spite by China. This is an economic conflict with China. When China lets US Internet companies have proper, full access to their market maybe the US will relent and start playing 'fair.'
>"It’s the first company to be headquartered in China, designed in China, but popular in the US," said Greylock investor Josh Elman. "Finally we’re seeing talented people who live in that ecosystem in that world and actually transcend it and build products in the US."
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-musically-2016-5
One cofounder worked full time at SAP in SF bay area for several years before and after musical.ly was founded. The other says on his LinkedIn that he was working in Santa Monica for several years on either side of the founding. They lived, worked, and founded the company in CA.
>Primary Office 16/F, No. 127 Guodao Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai China
musical.ly appears to have always had its head office in Shanghai until the acquisition. The fact that it also had significant operations in California doesn't make it a US company. Only those operations are subject to US law and would have to be divested due to disapproval by CFIUS.
That's not true. I have not found a specific date, but the Shanghai office did not exist at the time musical.ly was founded. I have not found any references to the Shanghai office from before late 2015.
Not being able to find any reference on the English-speaking part of the web doesn’t mean it couldn’t have existed.
[1] https://www.jfz.com/pe/d-C6e3ie12gj.html
Whether any of this makes any difference, as far as US law goes, I don't know.
1. https://www.businessinsider.de/what-is-musically-2016-5
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bytedance-musically/china...
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTyg2E44pBA
"Musical.ly Inc. was founded by longtime friends Alex Zhu and Luyu Yang in Shanghai, China."
If it's a Chinese company, why is TikTok saying that China has zero jurisdiction over the app?
Besides that, the US can require that Bytedance peel off TikTok / Musical.ly. If Bytedance wants access to the US market with that app, it will have to play by US rules. That works similar to how China blocked the Qualcomm - NXP acquisition. Neither Qualcomm nor NXP are Chinese companies. If the combined entity wanted access to China they had to obey China's position on that acquisition. And given China's extreme behavior on restricting US Internet companies from their market, this is more than fair game.
ByteDance is trying very hard to run TikTok and Douyin (抖音, the Chinese version) as separate companies that happen to share the same code but not data. For one, this is because they're well aware that Western governments are suspicious of foreign companies having access to their citizens' data. Secondly, having Chinese and international users on a shared platform also makes it more difficult to maintain the narrative mandated by the Chinese government, as each cross-border interaction is a potential hole in the Great Firewall.
After the lack of data separation effectively killed Grindr, they can only hope that they've done enough and won't suffer the same fate.
They could do the shared source thing, where select people are allowed to see the source after signing NDA's and stuff.
If Bytedance wants access to the US market with that app, it will simply relocate servers outside of USA. That's it.
I haven’t checked the top sites in US list recently, but I imagine even for places that have sites on top of apps, losing App Store access will destroy a large part of the user base. Off the top of head, Google, the surviving portal sites, could survive. But even portal sites like Yahoo likely get enough traffic from apps that they’d be hit hard. Same with Reddit, Facebook, Pinterest. Maybe LinkedIn would go largely unscathed.
So, if I want access to EU market I can avoid GDPR and other European regulations so long as I keep my server out of Europe?
Except that the US always complained about this behavior from the Chinese government, but now it wants to adopt it as normal. It looks like the Chinese way of doing things is winning...
To be clear, I don't like the idea of foreign state controlled major social platforms opaque to US oversight. I'm commenting specifically on the argument that TikTok silences Hong Kong supporters.
Not necessarily, the algorithm shows you things you are interested in. I see China, Golden Retrievers and various songs I like. You see Trump because your eyeballs got locked on the screen. So you will see more Trump.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
They beat SnapChat, FB and Instagram on experience.
Censorship is something serious to consider, but these are mainly kids making music videos. They aren't using it to organize campaigns.
I think that's a dangerously naive interpretation of the platform (or any platform really), particularly when it involves children and young adult minds.
https://bookandfilmglobe.com/education/youtube-kids-videos-a...
If I had a teenage daughter, I'd feel much more comfortable with her using the Chinese tik-tok than whatever tabloid-level trash Snapchat is pushing these days. Some of these American media companies have just gotten weird
Why is it a good thing? Or even okay? Isn't it a slippery slope?
* Songs glorifying violence
* Songs about drugs
* (Partial) nudity
* Songs "belonging" to controversial groups and movements.
Nobody would care if TikTok were Taiwanese or South Korean.
Another example: trademarks allow superior brands to win over time. The enforcement of trademarks is "the government getting involved".
- They lied about national security threat from Huawei in order to get a trade deal. Trump said USA will remove all the sanctions on Huawei if china agree to cooperate on the trade deal. So, there is no threat at all.
- They lied about the chemical weapons in Iraq to start the war.
- They lied to Gaddafi and after he agreed to disarm Libya and destroy all weapons of mass destruction, he was killed.
- They promised to remove all sanctions on Iran, if they stop their nuclear program. Iran did it. After the program was stopped and all parties confirmed that Iran fully comply with all the requirements of the agreement, USA introduced new sanctions against Iran...
...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Your boy started it first. He broke mine's leg!"
"Yeah, a cracked head is not even remotely similar to a broken leg!"
Moral of the story: Broken legs are normal.
But in a world where everyone is a bad guy, hypocrisy can be forgiven, since it keeps other bad guys in check despite its self-serving intent. Hypocrisy, whether European, Russian, American or Chinese, keeps the peace.
Bhutan. Bhutan are the good guys.
For anyone else: https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/bhutans-dark-secret-the-lhot...
If you think the way western media covers things is biased and dishonest (which it sometimes is, I admit), you have no idea how bad it is over there. It is a completely different degree of delusion that cannot even be called "bending the truth", it is straight up aggressive lying and fear-mongering that can barely even be rivaled by Alex Jones and his InfoWars.
Fundamentally, those in the US can talk about what happened. We can talk about the shit we did and what we did wrong. The Chinese people can't.
Yes, in a very coarse way they're in the same place we were a while back but that doesn't mean it's ok in exactly the same way it wasn't ok for us. Moral relativism and whataboutism aren't morally sound arguments in this case.