I'm risking losing a limb for saying this, but I would be much more comfortable if the EO clearly stated the main reason for the TikTok and WeChat ban is a retaliatory tit-for-tat against China's long time behavior of banning US tech companies operating in the Chinese market, which sounds like the main reason why many here support this ban.
Whether or not that tit-for-tat behavior leads to a net benefit for the US is up for debate. But the fact the EOs cite "national security", "privacy violation", etc. as the main reasons for banning makes you wonder "are those the real reasons behind this ban?" If they are, then questions raised by OP's article is perfectly legit, and makes the ban look either misplaced or hypocritical. If the ban really is tit-for-tat, what's stoping the EO from just saying so? Honestly, this whole situation makes the White House/Department of State look like they don't even believe those allegations themselves, which weakens their ground in any legitimate discussion around"national security threat" , "privacy violation" etc.
I don't really know how international trade law works, but a country can claim a national security exemption and avoid litigation in the WTO. National security has been cited throughout the trade war, including justifying steel tariffs on Canada.
This is simply guity by association. No matter what TikTok does, just because it's created by a Chinese domestic company, then all the political will are aligned behind the idea to automatically assume guilty, with even the slight trace of proof of the claimed misconduct.
Then there is guilty by association on China/CCP, based on their association with communism. Which by all accounts is largely nothing but name nowadays. CCP itself looks more like a capitalism organization than a communism party, on the spectrum from communism to capitalism. But most time, one random netizen wholeheartedly claims that CCP is evil, just based on it having communism in the name. Then anything Chinese people doing are tainted as well. Like I was called associated with Chinese government in [2], because I stated that "五毛" is being used too abusively, and "government hired net moderator" is probably better [3].
For god's sake, I am now routinely worried my future at this country, just because I come from mainland China...
The headline seems to be getting a more attention than the content of the article; that's disappointing, especially here on HN.
It seems like the author is expressing opinions that others in the comments also hold:
> We should be worried about private companies and governments potentially collecting data on millions of unsuspecting people and censoring content they don’t like. But those based in China represent just a sliver of that threat.
> The answer isn’t to dismiss the potential menace of China’s surveillance programs, or to cheerlead for a rival set of tech oligarchs who simply happen to live in California and speak English.
> We should broaden the concerns and criticisms of TikTok and its relationship to China to tech firms more generally, and push for an across-the-board guarantee of online privacy and free speech for all of the world’s people, whether they’re more worried about being tracked and manipulated by people in the United States or China.
A bit utopian? Sure, but as so many here have already pointed out, this is Jacobin ;)
This is why the US is going after TikTok. It's social media that the US can't access and a foreign government can.
The Europeans and the Indians who both have social media markets big enough to support their own should play the same game that the Chinese and the Americans are. That is, if there is any indication that foreign governments can access the information and that your own government cannot they should ban the social media application, search applications and mail applications and build their own.
Right now there are effectively two countries in the world that have big internet companies. The US and China.
It appears that China's protectionism in the internet has worked. It also appears that the US is practising similar protectionism in regard to TikTok. It's not completely unreasonable from either party.
The next step is that the other potential majors, the Europeans and the Indians do the same.
It might even make a more interesting world. European and Indian TikToks, Googles, Facebooks, AliBabas and so on.
I'm a broken record, but this is a great time to modularize "social media" and break it apart into a sub/pub protocol, an interoperability protocol, a client, a data store, standard data sets, data portability, and a sorting algorithm (including anti-evil, spam etc.) Splitting whatsapp or instagram from facebook is a fools errand.
A client should be something much more agnostic, that anybody can use on any platform. The platforms would need to agree to an smtp/http like protocol allowing a person to upload and download data. Nations seeking sovereignty can be more protective of data stores and ranking algorithms, BUT as end users, WE would benefit from being able to plop different ranking algorithms between the data set we are connected to, and client we use to view. If I dont like my client, ranker, data provider etc, I can swap out the component, WITHOUT losing my friends or access to my own graph.
Innovation can happen independently at the client and ranking levels, new winners can rise and fall more naturally, where everybody isnt "stuck" with the lowest common denominator default.
In my view, anything else will continually lead to a few titans owning the whole network stack and graph, and governments can peruse antitrust and security angles all they want, but the same problem will just keep happening as long as they incentivize isolated proprietary silos over choice.
Why restrict it to silicon valley? Aren't there data collection companies all over the country? Many of them are not visible to the public as they don't offer any public facing functionality, so they get to do anything they want and there is no hope of them getting twitter shamed either. The only answer is a federal level law. To be fair, the article says this but the title somehow calls out Silicon Valley.
Perhaps because the largest data collecting companies are situated in the Bay? The article mentions FANG as key examples, but literally says "Oppose It All".
I can understand a layman bashing Chinese companies for alleged spying but any engineer should know better if they're not interested in addressing similar issues in American companies and government. I think the best way would be to require all software products to be open source (the source-available flavor, not duplication), and additionally create a culture that refuses to accept invasive tracking. A more ambitious approach would be to create a corps of engineers that develop high quality open source alternatives to the current tech stack with privacy as a paramount value - at bare minimum a new OS and browser. Dunno if either would be successful but this jingoism about which country's apps are more intrusive is obfuscating the problem.
I suppose that this is consistent with Jacobin's worldview, wherein the US government is morally similar to the CCP. But for the rest of the rational world this just doesn't compute.
False False Dilemma. The article doesn't present data collection as an either/or situation, the article takes the position that it's all bad regardless of origin.
You never know who is going to buy who, data leaks and hacks are rampant. Over time this adds up.
So its safest to assume any digital data anywhere will eventually be in the hands of any significant actor who really wants it. Its just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
Data collection by domestic companies worries me, but it's much easier to control/litigate/regulate issues domestically than abroad, especially if we're dealing with geopolitical adversaries.
They happen to be situated in USA specifically. It's the world's traffic relay.
For Europeans, the best strategy is to arbtirage between the two poles in this new Cold war. Some data goes to the US, some to China, this is useful when either of them becomes too demanding.
1 - "China vs America AI Race" by Eric “If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear” Schmidt. (note: all AI requires "spying", a-la Tesla Autopilot, smart-watches etc)
2 - Eric Schmidt's Pentagon Offensive: "..through his own venture capital firm and a [$15] billion fortune, Mr. Schmidt has invested millions of dollars into more than half a dozen defense start-ups.. The former Google C.E.O. has reinvented himself as the prime liaison between Silicon Valley and the Military-Industrial Complex.
Although there’s no hard evidence, there is more than a good chance that the data TikTok collects is, at the very least, accessible by the Chinese government. As this ProtonMail report points out, not only does TikTok’s privacy policy assert the right to share information with members of its “corporate group,” which would include its parent company, but ByteDance’s CEO has already promised to “further deepen cooperation” with official party media, on top of the ideological censorship it has already engaged in on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). What’s more, a 2017 law lets the Chinese government force companies to secretly hand over data, including data on foreign citizens.
Again, because of all the places, it's most tiring to have to repeat this in HN:
[...] ByteDance’s CEO has already promised to “further deepen cooperation” with official party media, on top of the ideological censorship it has already engaged in on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
What’s more, a 2017 law lets the Chinese government force companies to secretly hand over data, including data on foreign citizens.
I really doubt it has much to do with messaging at all. It's more about the ability to disseminate and control messages the public sees, especially in a "narrowcasted" way.
Political forces in the US are constantly trying to influence facebook and twitter's content control policies. What does that look like when it's the CCP doing it?
Think creatively here, it's not just going to be Chinese flags overlaid on everything. Just amplifying stupid/criminal/vulgar/etc. content (more than the internet already does) could have a subtle but significant negative effect.
Silicon Valley's data collection should worry most US citizens more than TikTok's, yes, totally, 100% agree, break them all up, ban all that crap, burn it all down, yes, I am with you.
... but one hopes data collection concerns aren't the real reasons for going after TikTok, but instead that it's part of tit-for-tat action aimed at getting China to accept and enact more aspects of the bargain for joining the global free-market economy, rather than just the parts that help it. They've chosen "defect" for like 2.5 decades, which I'm pretty sure was basically expected to happen back when they were allowed to join the club, but had better not be tolerated indefinitely.
Isn't this obvious? What's China going to do with an American's data? Mine it and store it. What can the US do with the data it grabs from US companies? Land you in jail or worse. What can other US entities do with that data? Raise prices. Blacklist you. Sell it to other companies to do the same. Sell it to the government to put you in jail. Unless someone has ties to China or lives/visit China, the Chinese can't do shit. They could have a data breach as can anyone, but I bet they have better security practices and worse consequences for disclosure (so nations can't get proof of the data collection) than any US entity. This should all be quite obvious.
Geez, people are really going the extra mile trying to justify something that 100% happened because Trump heard about how the TikTok Teens ruined the Tulsa rally.
[+] [-] fredliu|5 years ago|reply
Whether or not that tit-for-tat behavior leads to a net benefit for the US is up for debate. But the fact the EOs cite "national security", "privacy violation", etc. as the main reasons for banning makes you wonder "are those the real reasons behind this ban?" If they are, then questions raised by OP's article is perfectly legit, and makes the ban look either misplaced or hypocritical. If the ban really is tit-for-tat, what's stoping the EO from just saying so? Honestly, this whole situation makes the White House/Department of State look like they don't even believe those allegations themselves, which weakens their ground in any legitimate discussion around"national security threat" , "privacy violation" etc.
[+] [-] peacefulhat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] star-trek-fleet|5 years ago|reply
Then there is guilty by association on China/CCP, based on their association with communism. Which by all accounts is largely nothing but name nowadays. CCP itself looks more like a capitalism organization than a communism party, on the spectrum from communism to capitalism. But most time, one random netizen wholeheartedly claims that CCP is evil, just based on it having communism in the name. Then anything Chinese people doing are tainted as well. Like I was called associated with Chinese government in [2], because I stated that "五毛" is being used too abusively, and "government hired net moderator" is probably better [3].
For god's sake, I am now routinely worried my future at this country, just because I come from mainland China...
[1] https://legaldictionary.net/guilt-by-association/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23494968 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23494950
[+] [-] lukewrites|5 years ago|reply
It seems like the author is expressing opinions that others in the comments also hold:
> We should be worried about private companies and governments potentially collecting data on millions of unsuspecting people and censoring content they don’t like. But those based in China represent just a sliver of that threat.
> The answer isn’t to dismiss the potential menace of China’s surveillance programs, or to cheerlead for a rival set of tech oligarchs who simply happen to live in California and speak English.
> We should broaden the concerns and criticisms of TikTok and its relationship to China to tech firms more generally, and push for an across-the-board guarantee of online privacy and free speech for all of the world’s people, whether they’re more worried about being tracked and manipulated by people in the United States or China.
A bit utopian? Sure, but as so many here have already pointed out, this is Jacobin ;)
[+] [-] sien|5 years ago|reply
The Europeans and the Indians who both have social media markets big enough to support their own should play the same game that the Chinese and the Americans are. That is, if there is any indication that foreign governments can access the information and that your own government cannot they should ban the social media application, search applications and mail applications and build their own.
Right now there are effectively two countries in the world that have big internet companies. The US and China.
It appears that China's protectionism in the internet has worked. It also appears that the US is practising similar protectionism in regard to TikTok. It's not completely unreasonable from either party.
The next step is that the other potential majors, the Europeans and the Indians do the same.
It might even make a more interesting world. European and Indian TikToks, Googles, Facebooks, AliBabas and so on.
[+] [-] basch|5 years ago|reply
A client should be something much more agnostic, that anybody can use on any platform. The platforms would need to agree to an smtp/http like protocol allowing a person to upload and download data. Nations seeking sovereignty can be more protective of data stores and ranking algorithms, BUT as end users, WE would benefit from being able to plop different ranking algorithms between the data set we are connected to, and client we use to view. If I dont like my client, ranker, data provider etc, I can swap out the component, WITHOUT losing my friends or access to my own graph.
Innovation can happen independently at the client and ranking levels, new winners can rise and fall more naturally, where everybody isnt "stuck" with the lowest common denominator default.
In my view, anything else will continually lead to a few titans owning the whole network stack and graph, and governments can peruse antitrust and security angles all they want, but the same problem will just keep happening as long as they incentivize isolated proprietary silos over choice.
[+] [-] DevKoala|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalogin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|5 years ago|reply
1. Silicon Valley is a metonym and does not exclusively refer to the companies in it.
2. Silicon Valley is where the most important and powerful new-era data collection companies are.
[+] [-] whydoyoucare|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GaryNumanVevo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devmunchies|5 years ago|reply
How about worrying about all big government/business collecting data.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] peacefulhat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ejz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brandonmenc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GaryNumanVevo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mooneater|5 years ago|reply
So its safest to assume any digital data anywhere will eventually be in the hands of any significant actor who really wants it. Its just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
[+] [-] jimbobimbo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|5 years ago|reply
They happen to be situated in USA specifically. It's the world's traffic relay.
For Europeans, the best strategy is to arbtirage between the two poles in this new Cold war. Some data goes to the US, some to China, this is useful when either of them becomes too demanding.
[+] [-] zarkov99|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredds|5 years ago|reply
2 - Eric Schmidt's Pentagon Offensive: "..through his own venture capital firm and a [$15] billion fortune, Mr. Schmidt has invested millions of dollars into more than half a dozen defense start-ups.. The former Google C.E.O. has reinvented himself as the prime liaison between Silicon Valley and the Military-Industrial Complex.
[1] https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-versus-am...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/technology/eric-schmidt-p...
[+] [-] euix|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bassman9000|5 years ago|reply
Again, because of all the places, it's most tiring to have to repeat this in HN:
[...] ByteDance’s CEO has already promised to “further deepen cooperation” with official party media, on top of the ideological censorship it has already engaged in on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
What’s more, a 2017 law lets the Chinese government force companies to secretly hand over data, including data on foreign citizens.
[+] [-] Uhhrrr|5 years ago|reply
Is it possible that the NSA and other Five Eyes can't spy on its messaging?
EDIT: Or maybe just that they're worried about that possibility in the future?
[+] [-] creato|5 years ago|reply
Political forces in the US are constantly trying to influence facebook and twitter's content control policies. What does that look like when it's the CCP doing it?
Think creatively here, it's not just going to be Chinese flags overlaid on everything. Just amplifying stupid/criminal/vulgar/etc. content (more than the internet already does) could have a subtle but significant negative effect.
[+] [-] spanhandler|5 years ago|reply
... but one hopes data collection concerns aren't the real reasons for going after TikTok, but instead that it's part of tit-for-tat action aimed at getting China to accept and enact more aspects of the bargain for joining the global free-market economy, rather than just the parts that help it. They've chosen "defect" for like 2.5 decades, which I'm pretty sure was basically expected to happen back when they were allowed to join the club, but had better not be tolerated indefinitely.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|5 years ago|reply
The President has spent his term undermining such concepts.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mnm1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] messick|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheBobinator|5 years ago|reply
This is why I don't read articles like this. 2nd sentance in and we're bashing the president for what purpose exactly?
[+] [-] thebeefytaco|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justicezyx|5 years ago|reply
And why do you think CCP has control over TikTok?
Edit: What are you implying here?
Some CCP members are having party activities inside a private company.
Are they plotting a plan to force Mr. Zhang Yiming to spy on US teenagees?
Or are they just doing the typical CCP "study" activity to learn the retheroic from Mr. Xi?
Who are these guys, are they senior executives in the company? Or random employees who are CCP members.
In the end, what do you want to get from the picture, depends a lot on your prejudice.