131–140 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta is different because of the US fails as a state, they lose. China doesn't. Meta might still be a shitty company, but their incentives are not to gather intelligence against US citizens that could be used to conduct cyber attacks or plan for military operations.
> Meta is different because of the US fails as a state, they lose. China doesn't. Oh, so it's us vs them . Gotcha.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this collection different from, say, Meta? I believe they collect all the same information via Instagram. And before someone says Meta is an American company, not controlled by an adversary, let me recall that it’s controlled by Zuckerberg who spent $419 million to influence US election administration in a seemingly partisan way (“democracy hacking” as another commenter said). Meta may not be YOUR adversary, but t…
> let me recall that it’s controlled by Zuckerberg who spent $419 million to influence US election administration in a seemingly partisan way For more context, from: https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/zuck-bucks-consp... > He offered nearly half a billion dollars in grants to any election official who wanted one, as long as those officials spent it on what a lot of people would consider mundane essentials: b…
That it is represents a failure in whatever party seeks to restrict voting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's TikTok. Funny jokes and dance videos. And they're collecting no more than American IT companies are doing. "I just can't believe that a powerful country like America is letting a not-so-friendly military/civilian complex infiltrate it for somewhat unknown purpose." Are you for real? The one country that fits the description of not-so-friendly military-complex is the U.S. itself. A more pressing problem and quest…
This comment makes it pretty clear you don't use tiktok or have a very clear understanding of its content. A huge portion of content is political, and especially divisive. People are constantly targeted with content that either reinforces or insults their more extreme political beliefs. This is exactly how personal data is being used against individuals - to target divisive political content and maximize political an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta is different because of the US fails as a state, they lose. China doesn't. Meta might still be a shitty company, but their incentives are not to gather intelligence against US citizens that could be used to conduct cyber attacks or plan for military operations.
> Meta is different because of the US fails as a state, they lose. China doesn't. Oh, so it's us vs them . Gotcha.
It’s incredible that the US allowed TikTok (which is by all measures a chinese spy tool) to become such a dominant social network. India got it right from the beggining by banning TikTok. They saw the immense threat and didn’t hesitate. China, by principle, has always banned all foreign information technology companies. What seemed hostile for us, it’s a reasonable play if you understand the unmeasurable power of mas…
The fact that India would consider TikTok a threat but not Meta leads me to believe that it wasn't done on a purely espionage basis. The threat of TikTok, today, it still theoretical, while Facebook has done measurable harm to India's neighbors.
Unlike China, US is not an adversary of India and US didn't kill Indian soldiers just two years back. So it makes sense they would go after Tiktok.
The harm is just not espionage, it is also manipulation of sentiment by propoganda.
Also, I am not really sure with all the equivalence to Meta in this thread. Sure, Meta has things to be criticized about but if one thinks West has threat from Meta on the same level as Tiktok, that seems delusional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that there is a non-zero amount of friction in the US. We also know that many companies in the US say “no” and have the legal ability to do it. For example, when the FBI asked Apple to unlock a phone for them, they said no, and they never did. In China, your company doesn’t say “no” because the CCP members forcibly installed on your company’s board always vote “yes”. And in fact, the CCP holds the i…
The few legislative protections apply mainly to U.S citizens. I guess the europeans and the rest of the world is doomed. Of course CCP is not same as the U.S government but we know that when money/interests of U.S corporations or U.S government is at stake bad things happen(i.e data is/could be weaponized).
It's a ticking time-bomb. Tick-tock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> let me recall that it’s controlled by Zuckerberg who spent $419 million to influence US election administration in a seemingly partisan way For more context, from: https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/zuck-bucks-consp... > He offered nearly half a billion dollars in grants to any election official who wanted one, as long as those officials spent it on what a lot of people would consider mundane essentials: b…
Expanding and insuring ballot box access shouldn’t be considered partisan. That it is represents a failure in whatever party seeks to restrict voting.
>On average, Biden counties received $2.85 per vote, compared to Trump counties that only received $0.89. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10090603/Mark-Zucke...
I don't understand the argument that we shouldn't ban tikTok because Meta/Google/etc.. also collect data. I would rather ban all three, but tikTok is in a whole different league based on how that data is used. The difference is that the CCP is literally on the board of bytedance and uses this information to arrest, imprison, and harvest the organs of political, ideological, religious, and other dissidents. Yes, the U…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this collection different from, say, Meta? I believe they collect all the same information via Instagram. And before someone says Meta is an American company, not controlled by an adversary, let me recall that it’s controlled by Zuckerberg who spent $419 million to influence US election administration in a seemingly partisan way (“democracy hacking” as another commenter said). Meta may not be YOUR adversary, but t…
> it’s controlled by Zuckerberg who spent $419 million to influence US election administration in a seemingly partisan way Like all US billionaires, then? > Meta may not be YOUR adversary, but that fact is not necessarily true of all (or even most) Americans The US government and ruling class doesn't see Meta as their adversary, even if it this the adversary of some Americans.