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

EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 350 posts

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#181

Post by willis936 »

logifail wrote: post #85
lolinder wrote: post #3

> Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally. These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature, increasingly so in the age of LLMs. They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astrot…

> They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astroturfing the platform and/or manipulating the algorithm (either through paid advertisements or by owning a platform and controlling the algorithm outright) Anyone willing to take a good-faith stab at why this couldn't equally well be a description of traditional media too - say - the WaPo?

I challenge the notion that they're equal. Social media at least provides vox while traditional media is completely one-way. How much is astroturfing and illusion can be debated forever, but any positive value is greater than zero. Traditional media acts as programming first. Journalistic integrity and trust in institutions has been sold off for shareholder value.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#182

Post by washadjeffmad »

tmnvdb wrote: post #176
gunian wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a cool phenomena tbh if I was rich enough to go to college I would love to do a thesis on it We know both China and the US are nation states with global ambitions so it would be logical for both to use digital platforms to surveil and perform social engineering. We also have had whistleblowers on both sides that have come forward and said this is a common practice. We also know based on simple game theory it is…

The obvious answer is that the US is still a democracy with free media and rule of law. That means you're likely to be found out and have a huge scandal if you try to use government resources to manipulate the public at scale. This is somewhat confirmed by the huge scandals causes by relatively small scale manipulations, which form the somewhat worn examples commenters on this website like to bring up whenever critic…

I think Hitchens' short "Why Americans Are Not Taught History" (1998) provides a more compelling understanding:

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/history/goodbye-to-all-that-wh...

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#183

Post by troupo »

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #174
troupo wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it. We've seen how well it worked with Fox News, ONN, Alex Jones...

And how well did kicking them out of the mainstream social platforms to hide them under the rug do? Rumble, Truth Social, Kick, and how many more echo chambers? You even gave the example of Alex Jones, he was silenced by the mainstream social media sites. Yes, fake and misleading news is easier to spread than issuing corrections or fact checking, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend they don't exist, because…

Because none of them really were kicked out, or silenced, or banned.

Though I do agree, it's an insanely slippery slope: where do you draw the line.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#184

Post by eastbound »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #112
mmooss wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted That's not at all obvious to me. On what grounds, moral or legal, should the US government tell anyone what to publish or promote?

I read what you quoted as a matter of fact statement, not an assertion of what is ethically righteous But with that, I don't agree that it's a fact, maybe the FCC regulates what you broadcast on radio and TV, but if you don't take federal funding, the government doesn't really have a pull in what is created or prompted AFAIK. Journalists in the press pool may trade subservience for access but that's about it.

[flagged]

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#185

Post by uludag »

tmnvdb wrote: post #96
uludag wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically this is exactly why I think TikTok is so important. Obviously every media site is used for manufacturing content, from NYT to Facebook. Also, obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted. Wouldn't it be good then to have checks and balances to this, by having media not under the US government supervision? Unless are you suggesting that the US government doesn't misinform the pu…

You are glancing over the fact that American media platforms are not really controlled by the US government except for legal restrictions on hate speech and violence, and that there is an extremely diverse set of voices that can be heard on the 'American' (or rather non-Chinese) internet. It is also not clear to me how TikTok is supposed to provide better "checks and balances" just because it is owned and manipulated…

So I'm definitely not saying that TikTok itself provides better checks and balances, but TikTok, in an ecosystem of other media providers under different governments, would be a much healthier for civil society.

For example, US social media companies were vital in kicking off the Arab spring. How different would such movements be if they only had access to a media monoculture controlled by their respective regimes?

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#186

Post by glimshe »

I can no longer send money to the EFF due to their obvious misreading of the situation. They will lose $100s/year from me, I hope it was worth it. Clearly, a naive take that doesn't understand the nuances related to Tiktok's situation.

Tiktok can still exist and keep showing their garbage to Americans, but it can't do so while being owned by a foreign adversary that attacks us almost continuously.

Sure, they can still buy our information elsewhere, but this is like saying I shouldn't put a lock on my door because thieves can break in through other means. Just check the looting happening in Los Angeles as a result of the reduction in the barriers for theft. Cost matters and if we increase the costs for China's data theft, their ability to steal from us will be reduced.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#187

Post by blitzar »

lolinder wrote: post #3

> Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally. These platforms are fundamentally anti-democratic in their very nature, increasingly so in the age of LLMs. They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astrot…

Now do twitter.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#188

Post by blitzar »

lolinder wrote: post #37
Barrin92 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only sense in which banning one is anti-democratic is that it's selectively applied to tiktok instead of to all such platforms. This logic applies to all media publications, not just internet platforms in the United States. When people say "anti-democratic" in the US I'm pretty certain they take it to mean "the government interfering in the speech of a private entity", not failing to uphold the principle of "1 t…

There's a major difference with the modern social media platforms, which is that the way in which they manufacture consent gives the illusion of popular consensus. That illusion makes them much more powerful than anything that came before, to the point where they are different in kind, not just in degree. When a mainstream media outlet takes a position, most people are able to distinguish between that outlet's positi…

> which is that the way in which they manufacture consent gives the illusion of popular consensus

Sounds no different to Fox News and CNN to me.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#189

Post by blitzar »

quanto wrote: post #123
fulafel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact that such a tool is in a foreign country's arsenal is itself a massive danger to America's national security This implies people outside the US should relate the same way to Meta, X, etc. (Which seems fine to me, just pointing it out)

yes, and they do. Even the US allies in Europe don't completely trust the US with their citizens data, hence the on-shore data requirements. This is despite the US is footing the bill for Ukraine and, by extension, defending Europe right now.

Incredible real time demonstration of how the algorithms deployed by the US social media companies can destroy the brain of and otherwise inteligent person.
Post reply on HN