[rwarfield]

The big issue isn't data security; it's propaganda. Irrespective of whether the government has control of the narrative on Facebook (I would argue they pretty clearly don't) there is no reason to let a foreign adversary have a deniable propaganda line to millions of Americans. Would we have let the USSR acquire a major television network?

And even if you disagree with the national security reasons for disallowing China to control a major U.S. social network, there is still the issue of trade reciprocity - nearly all of the U.S. Web companies are banned in China.

[jeromegv]

Looking forward to Europe banning Meta and X considering how their CEOs are meeting weekly with their government overlord, quite clear those social networks are in the pocket of the new US government.

[kklisura]

No, no, you can't do that. Than they'll come after you and claim how you're not free, you don't support free market and whatnot. Banning is tool for them, but not for you.

[zeroonetwothree]

The US didn’t “ban” anything. If the EU required Meta to divest I imagine they would do that rather than shut down and lose billions.

[Aunche]

This ban only applies to foreign adversaries (e.g. China, Iran, and Russia).

[marcosdumay]

Hum... Brazil already demanded explanations about the new Meta moderation rules. I remember reading the same about the UK, but I'm not sure.

[cscurmudgeon]

1. CEOs meeting the President is not evidence of govt. control.

2. Europe is an ally and under US govt defense umbrella .

[kryogen1c]

You know this was happening before elon bought Twitter, right? Secretly?

Members of congress were texting and emailing with execs from Twitter and Facebook to request post suppression. During an election.

[pjc50]

Musk making threats against the UK government has gone down badly: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/uk-counter-ext...

[Ikatza]

The US is not an enemy to the EU, while China is a clear enemy to the US.

The difference is quite easy to easy to spot.

[segasaturn]

> Irrespective of whether the government has control of the narrative on Facebook (I would argue they pretty clearly don't)

Posting pro-Palestinian content on Facebook will get your account terminated for "supporting terrorism". The pro-western censorship regime on FB is extremely strong. US lawmakers specifically cited the amount of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok as why they were banning the app.

Sources:

https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest...

https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...

[directevolve]

The HRW report’s list of complaints starts with censorship of praising Hamas (a designated terrorist org) and “from the river to the sea” (a call for the elimination of Israel, which lies between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea).

[Karrot_Kream]

Here's my big concern: If every big social media provider has to bake American policy position into its algorithm, what's going to happen to approaches like Bluesky or Mastodon/ActivityPub which allow users to choose their own algorithm?

[wk_end]

Speaking anecdotally, this doesn't really ring true for me. I see lots of pro-Palestinian content on Facebook and Instagram, ranging from the sincere to clear disinformation/propaganda. I have friends who post frequently in support of Palestine with zero repercussions.

Attempting to reconcile that with HRW's article: on the one hand I think HRW might be unrealistic about what FB should be expected to tolerate (for instance, they criticize FB for taking down posts praising designated terrorist organizations); on the other, Meta's approach to content moderation - which combines automated systems with overworked and underpaid humans exposed non-stop to awful content - is notoriously fickle and subject to abuse (including, perhaps, by state actors).

Beyond Israel/Palestine, I regularly encounter content on Facebook that the Powers That Be would censor if "the pro-Western censorship regime on FB [were] extremely strong". I think I subscribe to only one political (left-leaning) group (along with a bunch of local and meme pages), but nevertheless my feed is full of tankies demanding we bring back the guillotine and install full communism.

[msteffen]

Not just trade reciprocity, but ideological reciprocity. The argument that the US should allow TikTok because “free speech”—while China bans American platforms because of censorship and also dictates content on TikTok because of censorship—seems obviously broken. Seems like the rule should at least be something like “Europe is welcome to blast propaganda at our teenagers for as long as we get to blast propaganda at their teenagers.”

[whimsicalism]

we should probably start banning books from China too, for the same reason

[leptons]

>Would we have let the USSR acquire a major television network?

Yes, there are millions of US citizens that would rather have a Russian TV station in their neighborhood than one run by Democrats. I don't understand it, but that seems to be the way it's going lately. And considering who's POTUS now, a Russia-run TV network in the US isn't that far-fetched. I mean, Fox News practically already is.

[whimsicalism]

i absolutely reject this great firewall style of thinking. I’m an American, an adult, and I can read and watch whatever I want.

[tremon]

Cherish it while you still can.

[protimewaster]

But is there actually any evidence that the US's foreign adversaries can more effectively deliver propaganda on Tiktok compared to other platforms?

I understand the concern over foreign propaganda, but this feels like it's not going to remotely impact the ability for foreign governments to deliver propaganda to Americans. It's perfectly possible to deliver propaganda on US-based social networks.

The best outcome of this is just that Americans find the other social networks so boring that they spend less time on social networks altogether, thus reducing their propaganda intake (at least, from social networks).

[aaomidi]

Literally same arguments used by Iran.

It’s fascinating honestly. Soon we’re going to have “we need government to be able to DPI and block propaganda!”

[shlant]

> Literally same arguments used by Iran.

All governments/nations have some level of self-interest. That doesn't mean they are all equal in their motivations or approaches.

China is literally controlling the narrative through TikTok. Why shouldn't the US respond to that?

[ramblenode]

> there is no reason to let a foreign adversary have a deniable propaganda line to millions of Americans.

I don't think this is a useful distinction in a world where a handful of ultra-billionaires control most of the remaining media channels. People like Rupert Murdoch, Musk, and the others have very different interests than the average American, and at least several of them openly push their own (divisive) viewpoints through their media. Why is Rupert Murdoch less of an adversary to the average person than the CCP?

The Western media are already doing everything that TikTok has been accused of being hypothetically able to do: sowing social division, brainrot, encouraging lawbreaking, undermining confidence in the government, promoting dangerous or fake products, etc.

The real difference is that TikTok threatens to boost an alternative to the consensus message of the political elite. A US with TikTok would see actual pushback against something like the early 2000s media shennanigans that got the Iraq War and Patriot Act smoothly approved with little public debate. That is the real reason Congress banned it and why the homegrown brainrot isn't seen as a threat.

[whalesalad]

So many people keep missing this. It's not about data harvesting. It is about influencing huge portions of the population and controlling that narrative. Of course any social media app can do this, but ostensibly it is worse coming from a foreign adversary who don't play by the same rules.

[eunos]

> propaganda

It's so amusing seeing the society that lionizes itself as the paragon of open society and can't stop boasting about the effectiveness of free-speech soft-power compared to sclerotic communist propaganda now having panics over short video apps.

Bush Sr. or Bill Clinton could never think that.

Well, maybe we will be on yeltsin-on-supermarket stage soon?

[rwarfield]

The propaganda on TikTok comes disguised as Americans sharing points of view that just happen to serve CCP interests. Often the creators are expressing a genuine (but rare) viewpoint that China just needs to amplify. This isn't about keeping Americans from reading Pravda.

It's not hard to imagine the messages China will be pushing to weaken support for assisting Taiwan in a conflict. "Don't waste money propping up the corrupt Taiwanese government, spend it on health care /tax cuts at home!"

Then China gains control over TSMC without a fight and much of the American economy is at their mercy.

[tevon]

We haven't allowed a foreign adversary to own a media company since 1934.

This is just updating the standard. TikTok is clearly a massive threat, how is that not obvious?

https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli....

[SpicyLemonZest]

What? Bush Sr. or Bill Clinton would never have allowed a hostile foreign government to own a major communications platform.

[herbst]

Meanwhile the rest of the modern world is not banning apps because of propaganda. China and USA is.

[whatevaa]

I just want to remind everyone that China/Russia is doing everything you dislike the West doing right now. Please talk when China/Russia opens up. Right now they spew propaganda into our societies with no way for us to retaliate. I don't like censorships but these one-way attacks are a weakness to democracies, not strengths.

Open internet only works as long as everyone is friendly. The world is increasingly becoming not friendly.

[LinXitoW]

Yes, but at least in the USA, I constantly have to hear shouting about how "free" everything is whenever I ask for sane regulations (guns), or something like universal healthcare.

If USA was actually so free, that would at least be consistent. But now I don't get TikTok, AND kids have to run around with bullet proof vests? I get all the bad, none of the good.

Every voting citizen should remember that this TikTok ban was bipartisan. That means they all cared more about this than ANY other sensible legislation. Banning child marriage? Nah! Protecting the childrens physical bodies in school was not as important as a hypothetical "mind attack" from TikTok.

They've literally said "Better a dead kid than a red kid"

[dns_snek]

Where's the evidence that TikTok is being used by China to spew propaganda?

Conversely there's a mountain of evidence which strongly suggests that US officials are going after TikTok specifically because they're not in control of the truthful narratives that paint the US in a bad light.

> Please talk when China/Russia opens up.

Careful with this sort of rhetoric. China's constitution enshrines freedom of speech as a constitutional right, just like the US, but they're both taking this freedom away by invoking "national security".

Why would we wait until we're as oppressed as the people of China before we speak up? By then it's going to be too late.

[tokioyoyo]

You know the whole idea of “oh, all of our problems are actually because X, Y, Z boogeyman!” thing? Yeah that. Watching from outside, it feels like political landscape of the US knows that they have lost the global competition and scrambling to get back on its feet. Everyone just keeps yelling “no, no, don’t look what’s happening inside, because everything is so much worse in other countries, they’re about to completely fall down! Those europoors with no ACs, China is about to collapse for the 50th time in the last 10 years, Japan is basically dead etc etc.”.

[3vidence]

Elon Musk seemed to leverage Twitter to try to manipulate the US election along with a myriad of other underhanded actions.

Should Twitter be banned as a propaganda / risk to US democracy?

[munificent]

Yes.

[leeoniya]

like that one US billionaire who has a 15% stake in ByteDance?

[gruez]

>Speaking of foreign propaganda, does anyone remember when one of the most destructive advocacy organizations in the US was found to be heavily influenced by Russian spies?

"heavily influenced by Russian spies" seems like a stretch. The BBC article you linked basically says she attended some NRA conventions/events, and got some NRA officials to travel to Russia. There's no indication those activities actually changed anything.

[will4274]

> one of the most destructive advocacy organizations in the US was found to be heavily influenced by Russian spies

Your links do not back up this claim. Both indicate that Butina was likely a Russian spy and desired to influence the National Rifle Association (NRA). However, neither article gives any example of successful influence, however minor.

[Spivak]

> Would we have let the USSR acquire a major television network?

They don't have to, Fox News does it for free /zing. But for real I wouldn't see a problem with it. Less now that the world is more globalized than ever, I can get news from every corner of the globe both from our allies and enemies.

Could they be subtly pushing a narrative of communism or something, sure but this kind of "news is biased towards its owners" is beyond commonplace at this point. Jon Stewart just did a whole bit about why he couldn't criticize Apple or China.

[spencerflem]

To be clear, Russia pays those right wing trolls a fat chunk of change