Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
TikTok Ban Looking Likely After U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I truly hope this is a slippery slope and welcome similar focus on dismantling Facebook, X and other destructive platforms. Social Media is the worst invention in human history (the societial equivalent of a nuclear bomb) and doesn't deserve to exist in its current form on Facebook, X and other major platforms.
Last edited:
No it is Russian. They are also considered an adversary.
Namely?
The fact that Durov is Russian isn’t. Given his previous ownership Russian social media business (VKontakte) and how he was forced out of it, he doesn’t look like an ally or agent of the Russian government.
Last edited:
It’s funny to see some of the same people who regularly criticize EU regulation of US tech companies defend and cheer for this.
Think about how different it really is.
Think about how different it really is.
Yeah this is a major reach comparing alcohol and wearing a seatbelt to an app on your phone. And even if you wanted to compare them, the Govt doesn't completely ban alcohol or force you to wear a seatbelt. They put rules around them but the person driving can still decide if he wants to wear the seatbelt and the person buying alcohol can drink as much as they want.
Perhaps. But he is alive while every other former inner-circle who presents any real opposition to the regime has been poisoned, thrown out of a tall building, sent to a Siberian camp or neutralized in other ways. Makes you wonder why he’s the exception. 🤔
Last edited:
Maybe this is the right thing, but certainly for the wrong reasons. It's mostly an American supremacy move: if anybody is ruining children and manipulating people on a massive scale for profit, it'll be made in the USA!
Didn’t even read the whole article and already come to the conclusion they should ban Facebook and Twitter as well, this after reading the following:
“Most of the justices indicated that worry over U.S. national security overrides free speech, and there were concerns about the personal data that TikTok collects from users, content manipulation, and the influence that China has over ByteDance.”
This rings true for American Facebook, Twitter and other US based social media companies, actually, I think they are even worse than TikTok.
Musk and Zuckerberg should be put behind bars and the companies should be held accountable for spreading fake news, interfering in politics amongst other security threats.
“Most of the justices indicated that worry over U.S. national security overrides free speech, and there were concerns about the personal data that TikTok collects from users, content manipulation, and the influence that China has over ByteDance.”
This rings true for American Facebook, Twitter and other US based social media companies, actually, I think they are even worse than TikTok.
Musk and Zuckerberg should be put behind bars and the companies should be held accountable for spreading fake news, interfering in politics amongst other security threats.
I’m Canadian and I agree with it.
It’s not just a theory. TikTok’s ties to Chinese government are dangerous.
Because current laws cannot prevent complex security threats posed by TikTok’s Chinese ownership, divesture emerges as the only viable solution.
www.usatoday.com
TikToks problem isnt the app itself or the algorithm.
It's the vast amount on non-related information it sends back via the app.
Why does a video reels app need all the data it collects?
If the OS allowed you to send random system generated info back instead of real data it would be interesting to see how the app functioned. It would thwart security issues surely?
It's the vast amount on non-related information it sends back via the app.
Why does a video reels app need all the data it collects?
If the OS allowed you to send random system generated info back instead of real data it would be interesting to see how the app functioned. It would thwart security issues surely?
Short form videos is brain rot and kills your attention span regardless of the content.
Also, now China can slightly tweak your algorithm and pump content to benefit their national interests. You and millions more people.
I really do feel like an outlier on this as I have never even seen TikTok
I think I tried to click on an embedded video from it once and it wouldn’t play and that was about it
I’ve heard not one thing about it that makes me wanna look into it. That’s for sure.
Apparently, it’s a source of news for a huge chunk of people?
Just on its face that sounds a little concerning in general.
I think I tried to click on an embedded video from it once and it wouldn’t play and that was about it
I’ve heard not one thing about it that makes me wanna look into it. That’s for sure.
Apparently, it’s a source of news for a huge chunk of people?
Just on its face that sounds a little concerning in general.
TikTok’s problem isn’t the data collection.
It’s not as if Meta or Google are any different or better in that regard.
It’s simply that TikTok aren’t controlled by the U.S.
You were responding to this: "China would not approve the divestiture of TikTok and its algorithm." I wonder. What if China told Meta FaceBook could operate in China if Meta sold FaceBook to ByteDance, and Meta agreed to do so? Imagine the storm of hot criticism that would trigger in the U.S., by the government and the people.
And if they were reluctant to sell it directly, I imagine China could act through other companies with superficially legitimate purposes for wanting that data.
That's a good point...is there a difference, and is there supposed to be?
I say 'yes.' China's Communist Party has a reputation for exercising high levels of social control such as censorship, suppression of dissent and persecution of dissidents. It has excluded a lot of U.S.-based media from the country because the CCP likes to control the narrative (what the Chinese people are allowed to see, hear and inform themselves with) to maintain the party's power at the cost of the free-willed agency of the Chinese people.
So for China to ban FaceBook, etc..., is sadly no surprise. The free exchange and discussion of ideas and views would be a disruptive toxin to the way the government operates.
But the U.S. has long lauded values such as freedom of religion (to believe as you will; it goes well beyond theistic concerns and deals with value systems), free speech (to express your beliefs, however wrong they are viewed by others). Unlike Germany, the U.S. does not outlaw Holocaust denial. We don't outlaw white supremacists expressing their views. We are not totally censorship free (e.g.: slander and threats), but we tend to favor letting people express their views (cancel culture being the exception).
So I get the 'fair is fair' argument, but we don't see ourselves as the same as China. In fact, I and probably many hope Chinese people use VPNs and the like to access American and similar media to promote democracy and human rights in China.
Yes. There was considerable concern about how much power the Department of Homeland Security got due to fears after the 9-11 attacks. I imagine the surveillance power revealed by Edward Snowden appeared justified in the interests of national security. National Security makes a very convenient boogey man to justify doing sketchy things.
Do we really want the government censoring what they're allowed to say to us?
It sets a precedent. Worry.
I wish we could pressure them into allowing Google, FaceBook and X into China, but as you know it wouldn't work.
When we enact bans, it makes us look like them, and sends the Chinese people the message we consider them a threat (not entirely wrong) and want to exclude Chinese ideas from the American people. Kinda makes us look like hypocrites.
To do what? Selectively serve up TikTok videos? Are we afraid TikTok will start sending users a stream of videos and President Xi is the greatest thing since sliced bread and Communism rocks?
Ironic this discussion is in the context of our feeling threatened by a totalitarian State that paternalistically controls what people are allowed to access and use, ostensibly for their 'own good' and the food of the nation (according to the ruling party).
How many people predominantly get their news from TikTok, and would it be so hard to alert the public and issue counter arguments if it became an issue?
I get concerns about fake news and disinformation. I am concerned about the mindset that says my side is right, and it'd be easier to convince American society if those who disagree with me were not allowed to speak, so let's silence their voice. After all, the American people can't be allowed to hear both sides and think for themselves...they might get it wrong.
Yes, outcomes in the real world show there is a cost to that approach. I'm a conservative and I got every recommended COVID-19 mRNA vaccine shot from the start. A family friend and my father's cousin (and his wife) didn't, and they're in the ground from COVID-19. There is a cost to minimally regulated free speech.
Last edited:
The thing, is China sidestepped that whole issue by recognizing from the start exactly what Facebook is and not allowing it in any form.
Like most things in the USA, financially and politically driven.Eliminate the competition and allow the few that line your pockets to expand further. If you can't compete you eliminate the competition.
I agree that the TikTok problem is who controls the platform (the truth of what we’re observing). However, control is only a problem because of the data being collected (the truth behind the truth). The real problem is the data being collected and used in an essentially unregulated manner in the first place. No commercial, unregulated entity (foreign or domestic) should have this much impact on an individual’s or a society’s well being or general social cohesion.
'Data' is pretty vague, yet often cited. What are the specific concerns people have? I often see mention of 'personal data,' but that seems mainly used to inform Amazon what to tempt me with via e-mails or when I log on, and to 'cross advertise' so when I go to websites, the ad banners show things that suggest the system recognizes some of what I've shopped for before. In other words, it's about targeted ads replacing random ads.
It's my understanding that a lot of this data collection gets into aggregate data, such as what % of platform users chose to view this story, or upvoted it, or spend x amount of time watching videos vs. y amount of time sharing which memes, etc... It's not FaceBook selling Walmart my Social Security number or trying to hack into my bank account.
The profits off this data collection, along with ads, help keep some services like FaceBook effectively 'free.'
They can identify people who, by their usage patterns, might be more responsive to appeals for a product or cause and selectively reach out to them, yes. In the U.S. we have a whole profession dedicated to that very thing...it's called Marketing.
What specifically is the moral objection to companies collecting, using and monetizing aggregate data? This isn't new...social media companies are simply good at it.
I'm not asking about dislike; it can be creepy when you shop Site A and later browse Site B where the banners show things you looked at on Site A. Creepy, yes, but not clearly wrong.
This perspective whitewashes a problem that is obvious. When the issue is reduced to the specific question asked, the answer is 'Everything is fine. This data collecting is actually helpful in many ways.'
Yet, here we are: industrial scale data harvesting and weaponized A/B testing being applied to the online choices of everyone including kids; and the results of this data harvesting and personal profiling being used to target individuals and bespoke groups to coerce them into believing and acting on ideas that are often against their own interests; disinformation and misinformation being used to tear families and communities apart.
Reducing this massive obviously data-driven societal problem to the question asked is not helpful and distracts from the real issue. But I’ll share my answer to the question applied to the real, larger problem:
The moral objection is unregulated personal data collection and use with zero accountability for the individual and societal harm created or enabled by platforms profiting from it.
Last edited:
Different argument and has nothing to do with the supreme court appearance, brain rot is the least of the government's care or worry....
China tweaking the algorithm is a ridiculous argument that keeps getting thrown around without any basis. What I did see is Romeny and Blinken's frustration with it during their sit down interview together and that wasn't China.
Minors are a legitimate and separate issue, since individual informed decisional consent is not presumed.
Hadn't heard of A/B testing. A quick grab off Oracle.com: "A/B testing—also called split testing or bucket testing—compares the performance of two versions of content to see which one appeals more to visitors/viewers. It tests a control (A) version against a variant (B) version to measure which one is most successful based on your key metrics."
That's...common in marketing. Years ago I saw a video where people where shown photos or videos of 2 grocery store multi-product displays for a time, and then I think quizzed on which had them remember a specific product better. Taking marketing to improve selling a product or idea and calling it 'weaponized' sounds like a bit of a stretch.
I don't think they're in a position to coerce anyone into doing anything. To the extent there is free speech, and ready online access to myriad resources, people aren't coerced.
To grab an example from the recent past, many were frustrated with the seemingly intractable stance of some of the more diehard COVID-19 anti-vax people. But they weren't forced to believe as they did.
As for 'bespoke groups,' I think in marketing they call those demographics.
Maybe the 'their' people should get to decide about that?
There's a disturbing trend in U.S. culture to believe it's better for paternalistic media managers to decide which messages ought to get out (if you want evidence, sign up for a free The Economist account online and read the article When The New York Times Lost Its Way - a liberal editor got ousted for letting a conservative senator post an article with an unpopular (to liberals) point of view), rather than let free discussion reign and people decide for themselves.
It's like when I read some complaining about the conservative bent in rural areas and stating those people 'vote against their own interests.' But when an affluent urban leftist votes for those who'll likely raise his taxes, they don't say that...they'd say he's voting his conscience and his values.
Maybe it should be up to consumers to decide what to consume?
Again, if people want to learn the truth, it's usually out there waiting to be found. On some issues, like climate change, there's enough legitimate debate on some specifics that it takes more review and thought, but eventually the mounting evidence should direct the legitimate truth seeker.
As for things tearing families and communities apart, I don't think Social Media is the cause of that, just a reflection of our culture. A 2008 book The Big Sort delves into the progressive polarization and self-segregation of Americans into ideologically concentrated (and exclusion-prone) areas, and factors contributing to that. I'd heard of the ideological echo chambers in social media derived from friends lists and algorithms, but that book showed it goes way beyond that.
Is there a real world example of TikTok videos tearing a neighborhood apart?
Some families seemingly fly apart at the drop of a hat, like finding out somebody voted for the other side's guy.
Aside from minors, what should be regulated? They shouldn't be giving away our social security numbers and credit card info. What else?
Accountability judged how? This is a big issue. In the U.S., vendors have large latitude to offer products to the public, which the public is free to partake of or not. As long as the product is not defective and it's evident what it is, we don't tend to blame the vendor for back outcomes.
It's not Toyota's fault if I run over somebody.
It's not McDonald's (or Sonic's, or Chick-fil-A's, or Little Caesar's) fault I'm fat.
It's not La-Z-Boy's fault my big leather recliner's too comfy, encouraging me to be sedentary with health risks.
It's not FaceBook's fault if I spend too much time scrolling my feed, Sony's fault if some people spend too much time playing video games on PlayStations, Netflix's fault if I waste time binge watching junk, etc...
FaceBook, TikTok, X and others are not obligated to only put out a product if it appears to be a net benefit to society according to your (or my) personal values, anymore than McDonalds or Burger King are.
All these platforms and vendors are voluntary. Nobody ever forced me to eat a Big Mac or log onto FaceBook.
So far, it sounds like TikTok does nothing objectionable that FaceBook doesn't, and the only concern is that China could have them introduce content with pro-China propaganda (which they could do on FaceBook anyway, simply by having people post content to it), and in theory the Chinese government could get broad aggregate data on usage patterns (e.g.: what trends)...which shouldn't be that hard to come by for an entity with the resources of the Chinese government anyway.
P.S.: It amazes me the people on this thread who'd like to prohibit the mainstream social media platforms, basically preventing anyone from having the choice to use them. Big Brother much?
We are interrupting your cute cat video to bring you important late breaking news...Taiwan sucks! It's not a country!
I think the real issue is that in 2016, the presidential election was close, mainstream media is produced in cities and it and they lean left, there was shock Donald Trump won over Hillary Clinton and in the 'Why, cruel world, why!' aftermath analyzing, there was a belief Russian meddling on FaceBook might've tilted the needle in Trump's favor. From the article on Tablet another member posted a link to earlier, it sounds like that was overblown, but it stuck in the public awareness.
Which is interesting. If you recall the Internet's earlier days, our sadness when China excluded mainstream U.S. social media sites and coverage of the Arab Spring, it was hoped U.S. cultural/political ideas would influence foreign societies and governance.
But I do get the concern. On the other hand, if Russia wants to do such a thing, is it really that hard to get some of their people to immigrate here legally, set up shop and start dispensing fake news and deep fakes online from inside the U.S.? If Byte Dance sells TikTok, and China wants to get pro-China policy content on there, can they not do it anyway?
First, to address something you said, unless you live in New Hampshire it is the LAW to wear your seatbelt. A driver can't choose to wear it or not without also choosing to break the law or not. So strange to call it a choice. Technically yes but practically no.
However, I think you might be missing the point of the comparison. Seatbelts were added to vehicles because it made people safe. People weren't using them, despite being told of the safety issues, in large enough numbers that a law was put in to address public safety. Decade upon decade upon decade there have been laws that have been added because the public is terrible about making choices when it comes to these types of matters. People MOST OFTEN do not make choices that are for their safety, just take the current obesity epidemic as a prime example.
The gov has determined that there is a national security threat from TikTok. They are putting a law in because they already know people won't stop using TikTok if made aware of the safety issues because history has shown they won't (eg. seatbelts, alcohol, gambling, smoking, etc...) and they know they CAN make this law and easily enforce it, unlike a law around drinking too much.
But again if you are saying that even if we know people make terrible decisions en masse, but "just let them" I would still say that since we live in a society and not in isolation, it is ridiculously selfish to ignore the fact that many choices affect others and can't be made without consequences to the larger society and therefore SHOULD be under some sort of scrutiny. I would never argue our current system is great, but neither is stating that no oversight is needed and that the current system is "overreaching". It isn't. Maybe the system sucks, but until we replace it, the system is doing its job.
Also, if the argument would be the gov is lying about the national security threat, it would ALL conjecture and conspiracy theories until a lot more information would be made public, which is tough if you are truly battling a foreign nation. So we can WORRY it is a lie, but we can't KNOW it is a lie. Based on the past issues with Huawei and how those were proven security threats, there is more evidence that there IS a national security risk than there ISN'T.
A/B testing for marketing messaging and A/B testing for personal profile building are two completely different things - if the distinction is unclear some homework is in order; but here’s the cliffs notes: A/B Testing in personal profiling allows the identification of conditions under which a person is most likely to take a prescribed action. This information can be used to engineer individualized contexts for information presentation to drive desired behavior. Actions taken under these conditions are the result of coercion not free will.
Anyone believing people on social media are exercising free will and believing they have it all figured out should watch The Social Dilemma documentary and listen the informed perspective of the people who actually built it and now will not allow their kids to use it.
If we really want to understand the world we are collectively building for future generations read Atlas Shrugged and contemplate Ayn Rand’s definition of Evil, then take another look at Social Media through sufficiently calibrated lenses.
Last edited: