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

271–280 of 307 posts

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

#271

Post by derbOac »

onetimeusename wrote: post #111
wildrhythms wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People in the US believe that the top science and engineering roles should be filled by immigrants Huh? Anecdotally, I have never heard this sentiment before.

Ya I wrote the reasoning following that. Look at these statistics[1]. It shows the ever growing number of foreign people earning both undergraduate and graduate STEM degrees in the US. foreign students accounted for 54% of master’s degrees and 44% of doctorate degrees issued in STEM fields in the United States in SY2016-2017. We rely on tens of thousands of H1-B visas per year to fill STEM roles which has been debate…

Part of the foreign STEM graduate degree phenomenon — not all of it — is that foreign students bring in more money to universities. This is one reason why universities were worried about the sky falling during the pandemic, because they wouldn't be able to fill their seats due to the foreign student flow being cutoff, and even if they did refill the seats with domestic students, it wouldn't be at the same net 'profit" level in many cases, as they usually end up paying more in net tuition per credit.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/09/1025193562/the-u-s-attracts-f...

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

#272

Post by yorwba »

andsoitis wrote: post #267
nemothekid wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are concerned about the content that American's consume, there is no reason to single out TikTok. Instagram has been shoving the same garbage into the feeds of teenagers for nearly a decade and Reels is nearly exact clone of TikTok. There is little "educational" content on Instagram Reels. The solution would be regulate all the social media companies, like how China does. If the problem is solely TikTok, then…

> The solution would be regulate all the social media companies, like how China does. Twitter and Facebook are both banned in China, isn’t it? Is that because the CCP is afraid of western ideals if freedom? Or is it protectionism? Put differently, is it because of ideological or because if commercial reasons or perhaps both? Because, to follow your thinking, why does the CCP not simply regulate them using the same ru…

> why does the CCP not simply regulate them using the same rules as is uses for homegrown companies like TikTok?

They do, which is why TikTok is blocked. Only Douyin, a separate content silo with shared codebase, is allowed to operate. Products by American companies like Facebook or Google Search that are now blocked used to censor the content they made available in China, but then stopped.

Other products by American companies, like Microsoft's Bing and Google Ads, continue to censor and continue to operate.

People on the English-speaking internet often seem to think that American companies' difficulties operating in China stem from them being specially and unfairly singled out, but the thing is that Chinese companies operating in China have to fight the same obstacles. And the majority of companies trying to make it big in China are Chinese, so they bear the brunt of the burden.

When a company building a platform for user-generated content gets more users and more content, that would usually be something for them to celebrate, but in China it also means they need to spend more resources censoring content to remove everything that might displease the government.

E.g. HelloTalk, a language-exchange app made by a Chinese company, restricted their Chinese users' accounts in 2020, most likely because some were using the app to talk about censored topics: https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/glf14q/wh...

Other Chinese companies abandon the Chinese market completely and focus on the rest of the world while blocking Chinese users from accessing their product so they don't have to fear getting shut down by the government over lacking censorship.

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

#273

Post by sidlls »

scarface74 wrote: post #218
sidlls wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look at it differently: tech companies get away with paying our immigrant peers less because they can, and we should work toward addressing that so that all of us benefit.

From looking at my companies internal “anonymous” #pay-equity Slack channel. I don’t see that as being the case. The Slack channel is anonymous via a Slack workflow that posts on your behalf. As part of the workflow, it allows you to self identify your ethnicity and location.

Those self-reported salaries would be higher, on average, if companies didn't have access to a labor pool with workers willing to work for less.

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

#274

Post by philliphaydon »

chrischen wrote: post #257
philliphaydon wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not even compatible. I can criticise my government safely. You cannot say anything negative about the CCP without repercussions. So it’s probably better you stop trying to defend and justify the CCP. It just makes you look like a supporter of an authoritarian regime that commits genocide to its own people.

Philip you’ve already showed your hand and revealed your biases by assuming things about my background… sorry but wholly unrelated as I am a US citizen and I can in fact freely criticize the CCP and I often do. But here in this thread we were talking about something specific. Since it’s not even possible to say something that doesn’t criticize the CCP that doesn’t get you labeled as “a supporter of the regime” there’…

> I am a US citizen and I can in fact freely criticize the CCP

You cannot criticize the CCP while living in China and you know this.

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

#275

Post by _tik_ »

mlindner wrote: post #266
_tik_ wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you tell whether they hate the govt or xonophobe? Some racists use the same excuse to justify their behavior. There is some CCP scheme to use TikTok to turn American society lazyand teach some Stems sounds very conspiracy to me. Paranoia and conspiracy thinking are the symptoms of xenophobia. In my home country, Youtube recommendations are mostly related to porn and I have to use VPN to access good-quality co…

> How can you tell whether they hate the govt or xonophobe? Some racists use the same excuse to justify their behavior. Most xenophobes tend to be pretty clear what their opinions are and rarely deny them. Also occam's razor applies. Why assume that they're xenophobic when they repeatedly deny being xenophobic and say that they don't like the chinese government (which is the more rational opinion to take)? Ask such p…

Based on my personal experience with racism. There are different type of racism. Some are extreme, some are conscious and some are unconscious. Some are in denial. Other social media, western news, etc also show different things from country to Based on my personal experience with racism. There are different type of racism: some are extreme, some are conscious, some are unconscious, and some are in denial. Just

YouTube recommends different things from one country to another. It is the same for news and other entertainment site. For some content I have to use VPN. I think it is either due to legal issue or recommendation algorithm not brainwashing.

I was recommended porn-related stuff maybe it is because of my usage pattern or my geo locations , and maybe it is the same things with Tiktok, American like to see stupid things.

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

#276

Post by georgedegennaro »

hammock wrote: post #5

The bigger deal (bigger than the tracking that people usually focus on) might be how the algorithm is specifically tuned to reward dumb content in the US, compared to rewarding STEM and other educational content in China. One minute video that explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hus9fWz0RRk Further reading: https://www.opindia.com/2022/07/tiktok-china-engineering-oth...

Alternative hypothesis: US is a developed country, China is a developing country ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#277

Post by NLPlatypus »

croes wrote: post #243
causi wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CCP is not a race. Working against companies under the control or influence of the CCP is no more "Sinophobic" than working against companies under the control or influence of the Nazi government was "Germanophobic".

To think everything a company does is from CCP just because there are ties to the CCP is sinophobic. That chinese users get STEM content is because of the enforcement by the CCP, that US users get stupid content is because of their freedom of choice. People loved stupid stuff on FB and YT way before TikTok.

You realize the CCP forces companies to accept CCP members into their board and leadership, right? It’s even affecting foreign companies operating in China. It’s not “sinophobia”, it’s just facts.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-21/hsbc-form...

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

#278

Post by NLPlatypus »

bjourne wrote: post #253
causi wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CCP is not a race. Working against companies under the control or influence of the CCP is no more "Sinophobic" than working against companies under the control or influence of the Nazi government was "Germanophobic".

It's jingoistic and sinophobic since the purpose of the "work against" is to strengthen your own team's position. By and large, Chinese human rights activists do not think banning TikTok strengthens human rights in China.

You’re right. It’s very racist and bad to not support the government enslaving, neutering, force aborting, and imprisoning Muslims, supporting a government currently invading your allies, one that said it wants to make a new world order without you, take taiwan by force if needed, heavily censors content, etc…

It can’t be any of that! No! It must be sinophobia!

> Chinese human rights activists do not think banning TikTok strengthens human rights in China.

Source?

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

#279

Post by scarface74 »

sidlls wrote: post #273
scarface74 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From looking at my companies internal “anonymous” #pay-equity Slack channel. I don’t see that as being the case. The Slack channel is anonymous via a Slack workflow that posts on your behalf. As part of the workflow, it allows you to self identify your ethnicity and location.

Those self-reported salaries would be higher, on average, if companies didn't have access to a labor pool with workers willing to work for less.

Yes you’re right. We need to unionize. How are we going to feed our families and have and live the American dream only making $160K+ straight out of college up to $350k+ and the tech company I work for is considered the “frugal FAANG”.

If you stymie immigration, what’s to stop companies from just expanding their overseas offices?

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

#280

Post by dirtyid »

NLPlatypus wrote: post #277
croes wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To think everything a company does is from CCP just because there are ties to the CCP is sinophobic. That chinese users get STEM content is because of the enforcement by the CCP, that US users get stupid content is because of their freedom of choice. People loved stupid stuff on FB and YT way before TikTok.

You realize the CCP forces companies to accept CCP members into their board and leadership, right? It’s even affecting foreign companies operating in China. It’s not “sinophobia”, it’s just facts. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-21/hsbc-form...

> CCP forces companies to accept CCP members into their board and leadership

Except they don't?

1993 company law stipulates party committees are formed in any org with 3 or more CCP members... Trivial conditions to meet when party membership is like 1/8 of workforce and committees have been limited to dumb shit like organizing staff picnics not influence operations. Many chinese high up enough in company leadership/board will naturally be CCP members as you'll find democrats/republicans in a US board who has political affliation for upward mobility. And with respect to Chinese leadership / board members, they're not wasting their time doing party committee duties. Committee chores gets pawned off to nobodies, who more often then not don't do shit outside of keeners advocating for benefits and better working conditions, which was why these committees were conceived in the first place. Recent Euro chamber of commerce surveys concluded there's no push to strengthen party influence in foreign companies.

"Party committees" is a non issue and hasn't been for 30 years, thinking otherwise, because bloomberg, known for pushing anti-PRC hitpiece is more or less eating "sinophobia" bait. Misattributing said reporting to insinuate CCP is forcing members onto board and leadership even more so. It's just facts.

Post reply on HN