> Observers have said the new law forces companies doing business in Hong Kong to provide user data to the Chinese government as well as to comply with censorship requests.
This is striking, I have not heard of this interpretation of the new law before.
If that’s actually true, any global company (Facebook, Google, Apple, etc.) that remains operating in HK can be assumed to be sharing private communication data/metadata with CCP, regardless of what its privacy policy says.
GCP and AWS both have regions in Hong Kong. If anyone was storing data for serving it to any place outside, I guess this might be a good time to shift it to some neighbouring region.
Additionally many western companies have their offices in Hong Kong. Does this mean any privileged access that these offices/employees had with data is also now susceptible.
Apple operates its services inside the great firewall, where the CCP has complete access to its servers. The Hong Kong change is therefore relatively minor for Apple.
Actually the law force any company in the world to comply with it regardless of whether or not its in HK or not. So if you say something in the US critical of china then go to HK you'd still be in trouble
also if they stopped[1] sharing it indicates that they did so until now (including during the protests):
> And another one. Twitter just confirmed that it stopped all data and info requests from Hong Kong authorities as soon as Hong Kong’s national security law went into effect. That leaves Apple and Google...
What were they handing over last year when many protesters were relying on Facebook products for secure messaging?
It could be true, because that's just the nature of an autocratic state. Former Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany also suspected their citizens conspiring against them. Which is why they need to tap phones and surveil internet.
> The company has said that TikTok has not shared data with the Chinese government nor would it, a position that would be difficult — if not impossible — to maintain under the new law.
Are we expected to believe that it was pulled because they were uncomfortable sharing data with the CCP? There is approximately zero chance of this. So why did they do it?
ByteDance has a different version of TikTok (called Douyin) for the Chinese market, which complies with their censorship restrictions. My guess is they pulled TikTok out of HK to replace it with Douyin.
Lack of purpose: social media app that is allegedly heavily spying on its global users in favor of CCP would not be useful in a territory where Chinese government already forcefully requires anyone to disclose user data to them.
External and internal optics: anything available in Hong Kong yet unavailable in China is liable to make Hong Kong appear separate of China.
Collective mindset: Western UGC, even if censored to a degree, carries values and notions that threaten CCP’s power and influence over given territory. (I wouldn’t be surprised if TikTok’s Chinese sibling is going to be heavily promoted in Hong Kong, if it isn’t already.)
First; remember there are two "TikToks": The Chinese version which is mostly in Chinese and operates mostly in China and then the western version which we all know and love.
The first one you can be sure operates under Chinese law and shares data with the Chinese authorities.
The second; my bet is that ByteDance wants to sell it off probably through an IPO on an American exchange. That is why the have hired an American CEO. And that is why they make announcements similarly to Facebook and Google on Hong Kong.
What will happen in Hong Kong? Will all these American social medias be banned because they refuse to follow what is now Hong Kong law?
Essentially expanding the great firewall of China to include Hong Kong ... we will see but my guess is probably not.
I’ll never understand why Twitter killed Vine. It was everything TikTok became but years earlier. Everyone loved it and everyone would immediately start using it again if it came back. My only conclusion is that Twitter was heavily influenced by China so that the Chinese could push their product.
It was one of the most bizarre things. It lost like 100 million users. Its not like twitter did not introduce videos and stories later on. I was particularly sad on reading that one of the co-founders died in 2018
Vine was 6 second long video clips. Comparing Vine to TikTok is somewhat like comparing TikTok to YouTube videos. They are different.
Lot of TikTok popularity has come from offering songs/lip syncing functionality (done better by their acquisition of musica.ly). That wouldn't have worked on 6 second Vines.
Vine wasn't that long ago - eight years ago we were at the beginning of the hype cycle.
Nobody heard of it until Twitter bought it and then it was only people that care for Twitter that knew what Vine was. Only a minority of these people saw the point of Vine and only a minority of them thought to record a 'vine' for novelty value.
This minority may have appeared to be 'everyone' for the teenagers of the time. But Twitter was not for the teenage demographic. Think of the most famous user of Twitter - Donald Trump - and how old he is and how skilled he is with technology. Okay, he is an outlier, most Twitter users are younger but not that young.
When Vine was getting started the wider web industry were encouraging clients to get a social media presence. Adding Vine videos was never seriously proposed whereas hosting actual video on Youtube, Vimeo or even Instagram was very much part of a social media strategy.
The money just was not there for Vine with the silly six second limitation. Those that had made a name for themselves making content were able to move elsewhere and to 'grow up' into longer length video that did bring them income.
Vine was a failed product once the novelty wore off and the other social media applications had offered their own ways of hosting files that needed a video CODEC to play. Twitter had the good sense to close it down, moving with the times to have video work just fine in the main Twitter product.
There was absolutely nothing to do with China in any of this story. The Chinese Communist Party did not have a fight with Twitter about six second videos so that their all conquering Tik Tok could take over the world. That is an absurd idea. The only conclusion as to why Vine had to go was because it was not profitable.
Side note, in my YouTube feed recommendations I got 3 videos lately that were all very clearly Chinese state propaganda.
YT normally doesn't recommend anything outside the limited few topics I have subscriptions for. I shall don't follow anything political or "Asian" at all... the feed is tightly the same few things.
I think there needs to be more reporting in this article about how TikTok is structured. India just banned tiktok because of its links to China and there is a news report today that the US is considering the same. Who owns TikTok and what are its links to the Chinese government?
Interesting turn of events. Amazon AWS recently opened a region (Apr 19) in Hong Kong. I wonder if it'll have any impact for them and that industry in general. Perhaps Hong Kong will be inside the great firewall in the near future, too.
Most likely a futile move. I think ByteDance will learn very soon that when the political will is ample, no amount of technical or legal maneuvering can avoid a state crackdown, in the US or elsewhere.
I think ByteDance is in an unresolvable situation, on one hand they absolutely can't afford losing the China market, that means they have to stay Chinese and loyal to the party; but on the other hand, if they don't sever with China completely, a global ban looks inevitable.
As for the public opinion in China, the majority thinks this is unfair, coz FB, YT and Twitter "wasn't banned, they themselves pulled out coz they don't want to respect Chinese laws".
It matters where the servers are hosted. It’s not possible to even host a server in the Chinese region without Chinese government issued identity card. If they had servers in Hong Kong, then they Now fall under Chinese security regulations. (It might be that they had servers in Hong Kong, they are needing to turn them off to avoid their servers falling under the new laws)
TikTok can just continue with their censorship of Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, Falun Gong [0], Uighur [1], and Hong Kong protests [2].
Even without this law, their moderators already banned contents “endangering national security” or deemed “uglification or distortion of local or other countries’ history” [3].
I wonder what that means in practice. Are they going to block HK IPs, take down their app from the local app store, close accounts of HK users or will they simply dissolve whatever business presence they have there and claim that means they're no longer operating there?
All a publicity stunt to make it look like they are not under Chinese control when in reality no one in HK trusts the app so they have nothing to lose as very few users there
Are we supposed to believe that TikTok cares about the privacy of its users and protects them from any inquiry from the chinese officials, or that is even starting a privacy fight with the CCP?! Laughable, c'mon.
[+] [-] strogonoff|5 years ago|reply
This is striking, I have not heard of this interpretation of the new law before.
If that’s actually true, any global company (Facebook, Google, Apple, etc.) that remains operating in HK can be assumed to be sharing private communication data/metadata with CCP, regardless of what its privacy policy says.
[+] [-] hker|5 years ago|reply
Hong Kong security law: Police handed power to do warrantless searches, freeze assets, intercept comms, control internet
https://hongkongfp.com/2020/07/06/breaking-hong-kong-securit...
Note that more details are just being released (and hence newer interpretation of the law, or at least part of it):
“On Monday night, the government gazetted the details of Article 43 of the controverisal legislation”.
[+] [-] gundmc|5 years ago|reply
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whatsapp-to-suspend-processing-...
[+] [-] actuator|5 years ago|reply
Additionally many western companies have their offices in Hong Kong. Does this mean any privileged access that these offices/employees had with data is also now susceptible.
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmcn2020|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DeonPenny|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|5 years ago|reply
> And another one. Twitter just confirmed that it stopped all data and info requests from Hong Kong authorities as soon as Hong Kong’s national security law went into effect. That leaves Apple and Google...
What were they handing over last year when many protesters were relying on Facebook products for secure messaging?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/technology/tiktok-google-...
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pankajdoharey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sova|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baylearn|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/12803650546557911...
[+] [-] terenceng2010|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ur-whale|5 years ago|reply
For some definition of the word "free"
[+] [-] raverbashing|5 years ago|reply
(Including a certain two letter propaganda "news outlet" from an Eurasian country)
[+] [-] reactchain|5 years ago|reply
Are we expected to believe that it was pulled because they were uncomfortable sharing data with the CCP? There is approximately zero chance of this. So why did they do it?
[+] [-] paxys|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strogonoff|5 years ago|reply
External and internal optics: anything available in Hong Kong yet unavailable in China is liable to make Hong Kong appear separate of China.
Collective mindset: Western UGC, even if censored to a degree, carries values and notions that threaten CCP’s power and influence over given territory. (I wouldn’t be surprised if TikTok’s Chinese sibling is going to be heavily promoted in Hong Kong, if it isn’t already.)
[+] [-] benliong78|5 years ago|reply
This move feels very very weird.
[+] [-] illustriousbear|5 years ago|reply
Maybe it is a strategy to deprive HongKong protesters of a platform to post content on?
[+] [-] Kinipio|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chvid|5 years ago|reply
The first one you can be sure operates under Chinese law and shares data with the Chinese authorities.
The second; my bet is that ByteDance wants to sell it off probably through an IPO on an American exchange. That is why the have hired an American CEO. And that is why they make announcements similarly to Facebook and Google on Hong Kong.
What will happen in Hong Kong? Will all these American social medias be banned because they refuse to follow what is now Hong Kong law?
Essentially expanding the great firewall of China to include Hong Kong ... we will see but my guess is probably not.
[+] [-] peacelilly|5 years ago|reply
No, we don't all love the spyware app called TikTok
[+] [-] ComodoHacker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] syspec|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbob45|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobar_|5 years ago|reply
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tech-whiz-behind-vine-and-h...
[+] [-] what_ever|5 years ago|reply
Lot of TikTok popularity has come from offering songs/lip syncing functionality (done better by their acquisition of musica.ly). That wouldn't have worked on 6 second Vines.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Theodores|5 years ago|reply
Nobody heard of it until Twitter bought it and then it was only people that care for Twitter that knew what Vine was. Only a minority of these people saw the point of Vine and only a minority of them thought to record a 'vine' for novelty value.
This minority may have appeared to be 'everyone' for the teenagers of the time. But Twitter was not for the teenage demographic. Think of the most famous user of Twitter - Donald Trump - and how old he is and how skilled he is with technology. Okay, he is an outlier, most Twitter users are younger but not that young.
When Vine was getting started the wider web industry were encouraging clients to get a social media presence. Adding Vine videos was never seriously proposed whereas hosting actual video on Youtube, Vimeo or even Instagram was very much part of a social media strategy.
The money just was not there for Vine with the silly six second limitation. Those that had made a name for themselves making content were able to move elsewhere and to 'grow up' into longer length video that did bring them income.
Vine was a failed product once the novelty wore off and the other social media applications had offered their own ways of hosting files that needed a video CODEC to play. Twitter had the good sense to close it down, moving with the times to have video work just fine in the main Twitter product.
There was absolutely nothing to do with China in any of this story. The Chinese Communist Party did not have a fight with Twitter about six second videos so that their all conquering Tik Tok could take over the world. That is an absurd idea. The only conclusion as to why Vine had to go was because it was not profitable.
[+] [-] evbpcapfxy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bovermyer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fermienrico|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
Would it be a net loss for the world? It seems it would add enough pressure to be somewhat useful.
[+] [-] ridewinter|5 years ago|reply
The lack of error correction in the ability to replace bad leaders and freedom of speech isn't just a cultural preference: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/fr...
[+] [-] boring_twenties|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easytiger|5 years ago|reply
YT normally doesn't recommend anything outside the limited few topics I have subscriptions for. I shall don't follow anything political or "Asian" at all... the feed is tightly the same few things.
[+] [-] honksillet|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aficiomaquinas|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yurlungur|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balola|5 years ago|reply
As for the public opinion in China, the majority thinks this is unfair, coz FB, YT and Twitter "wasn't banned, they themselves pulled out coz they don't want to respect Chinese laws".
[+] [-] zadokshi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmaxpro|5 years ago|reply
Even without this law, their moderators already banned contents “endangering national security” or deemed “uglification or distortion of local or other countries’ history” [3].
Business as usual. No need to pull out.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/tiktok-says-it-doesnt-censor...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/15/tiktoks...
[3] https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/tiktok-once-again-come...
[+] [-] yorwba|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amriksohata|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Copenjin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whydoyoucare|5 years ago|reply