Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 307 posts

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#161

Post by tzs »

Aaronstotle wrote: post #25
ffgh wrote: post #12

What about Snapchat, twitter, Facebook/Instagram?

Those applications are banned within China and on CCP owned devices, I don't see why a U.S. state can't ban TikTok.

That's not really a very persuasive argument.

China has rules that apply to all social media apps operating there, including rules on data storage, data sharing, and moderation. Those applications are not willing to follow those rules, and so aren't allowed in China. TikTok is willing to follow those rules, so is allowed.

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#162

Post by prmoustache »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #83

Unless I'm missing something, there is no penalty for using TikTok on an SD device, and there's no initiative for SD tech support to institute a ban. So basically, it's a pointless PR move for Noem.

If it wasn't just a PR move, it would be whitelist based instead of banning a single app.

There are likely thousands of apps on every major app store with apps whose sole purpose is to fish out data from users and sold to different criminal or governmental entities.

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#163

Post by nemothekid »

heavyset_go wrote: post #159
nemothekid wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim isn't fake. But the idea that this is some TikTok plot to poison America is ridiculous and sinophobic. Douyin is happy show low brow garbage to Chinese netizens, just like chinese gaming companies were happy to let teens play video games 24/7. The difference is the Chinese government won't let them. America could easily do what China did here: enforce regulations on what kind of content social media compani…

> The claim isn't fake. But the idea that this is some TikTok plot to poison America is ridiculous and sinophobic. Oh please, all countries do it. The US uses Twitter and other social media to instigate civil unrest all over the world. Literal revolutions and genocides have been instigated over US-run social media platforms. I don't know of a superpower that doesn't use the internet as a vector to sow discord and pro…

I think you are generalizing my claim. My claim is specifically that the claim that the Chinese is using TikTok as some American programming vector is sinophobic. The CCP could be tracking the location of government officials through tiktok; that is a legitimate concern. If you want TikTok banned in the US because you believe that they promote dumb content as part of some strategic Chinese plot and you conveniently ignore Meta and Google, I'm going to assume that your reasoning comes from irrational fear of the Chinese. It doesn't make sense to distrust the Chinese when they are doing the same thing as Americans (unless you don't like them just because they are Chinese).

If you want to ban TikTok for another reason (such as their incredibly poor data hygiene, such as tracking every action you do within their app browser), then that is fair and you can reasonably argue that point from the grounds of privacy and national defense.

My reasoning in calling it sinophobia is because if you actually care about "dumb content" the proper solution is REGULATION for ALL the social media companies. Singling out TikTok makes no sense at all.

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#164

Post by themodelplumber »

freedomben wrote: post #149
themodelplumber wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One note on that sourcing: I would not generally find Deseret News (i.e. Mormon cultural-industrial-habits-porn outlet) a credible source in this context. I also design productivity systems as part of my job, and found that watching TikTok in the laziest way possible can be an outstanding part of such a system. We are long past the Horatio Alger bootstrapping days where we condemn procrastination and laziness out of…

Why wouldn't Deseret News be credible in this context?

A combination of factors. History, ownership, culture & region, other personal experiences with contributors.

Those of us who were raised with this publication held over our heads grew up, checked it out, and do not hold it lightly in our considerations...in the right context it may be fine at face value but this is not one of those.

(Look up the name too. It has "old school industry/productivity concept" in its blood, even just as a general point of interest)

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#165

Post by washywashy »

My spouse used TikTok for a while on the app. I can’t remember if they logged in or not (I never used it), but the videos it recommended where kinda shocking. It would recommend reviews of a fridge we had bought, but hadn’t explicitly searched for on TikTok, or anywhere else that I recall. There were also some other coincidental videos that would pop up that just seemed eerie. I assume there’s some data broker TikTok uses (AAID or IDFA tokens perhaps for fingerprinting). Needless to say, we stopped using it and I don’t open shared links anymore.

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#166

Post by [deleted] »

themodelplumber wrote: post #164
freedomben wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't Deseret News be credible in this context?

A combination of factors. History, ownership, culture & region, other personal experiences with contributors. Those of us who were raised with this publication held over our heads grew up, checked it out, and do not hold it lightly in our considerations...in the right context it may be fine at face value but this is not one of those. (Look up the name too. It has "old school industry/productivity concept" in its bloo…

[deleted]

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#167

Post by Cyberdog »

sofixa wrote: post #155
Cyberdog wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t like the idea that the First (or any other) Amendment should be violated because there is already so much precedent for it.

Or maybe it could be amended to be adapted to the today's world (i doubt recommendation algorithms were on the minds of 18th century lawmakers).

No, but the broader idea of sensationalist journalism wouldn't have been a foreign concept.

At any rate, there is a process for amending the Constitution, so if you want the First Amendment to change such that the federal government has a clear mandate to do this sort of thing, feel free to campaign for that. But just repeated violation by the state is not that process.

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#168

Post by hammock »

themodelplumber wrote: post #164
freedomben wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't Deseret News be credible in this context?

A combination of factors. History, ownership, culture & region, other personal experiences with contributors. Those of us who were raised with this publication held over our heads grew up, checked it out, and do not hold it lightly in our considerations...in the right context it may be fine at face value but this is not one of those. (Look up the name too. It has "old school industry/productivity concept" in its bloo…

Kind of feels like you are explaining your own bias better than that of Deseret News

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#169

Post by ipaddr »

mcculley wrote: post #85
ipaddr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would visit in person if you were a true skeptic. It seems to come from this policy. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-passes-sweeping-re...

I am aware of these claims. The document to which you linked says, “If enforced as intended…” It is not clear to me how universally these regulations are enforced. My skepticism requires that I go there? This is a different definition of skepticism than I was previously aware of. During the Cold War, I was skeptical of many of the claims about the evil Soviets. I did not have the opportunity then to visit. Was I not…

A true skeptic might not even believe a Russia exists without visiting. A proper skeptic would need to be skeptic of both sides and all information coming out. A common skeptic would watch the news and only be skeptical about your side.

Universally? There is only one tiktok. But in general the ministry of culture and security handle that. They literally employ millions of people to assist in watching what anyone says online. You online entity is connected to your national card. Go check it out for yourself you won't believe it until you see it.

Re: South Dakota first to ban TikTok on state-owned devices

#170

Post by themodelplumber »

hammock wrote: post #168
themodelplumber wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A combination of factors. History, ownership, culture & region, other personal experiences with contributors. Those of us who were raised with this publication held over our heads grew up, checked it out, and do not hold it lightly in our considerations...in the right context it may be fine at face value but this is not one of those. (Look up the name too. It has "old school industry/productivity concept" in its bloo…

Kind of feels like you are explaining your own bias better than that of Deseret News

You want to spread fault, fine but at least make a quality argument. Keep in mind that some of us may be more resilient to casual gaslighting than you are used to, and for good reason.
Post reply on HN