618
US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I generally think that TikTok sucks but do agree with this argument. It’s silly to say that domestic companies can be evil but foreign ones no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    That's not a silly argument if your argument is about national security. For the exact same reason, China blocks almost all western apps. It gives a potential route for whatever nation is considered hostile to influence your population, and TikTok has actually activated this influence at least once directly. They tried to activate their users to protest congress from passing laws restricting them.

    Basically, they have the ability to influence users, and they also have the will to do so as they've already shown. In what world eould they not be a national security threat? It's also really hard for me to accept this argument from a Chinese company when China has the great firewall to "protect" it'd citizens from outside influence.

    You can argue that it is not to benefit the citizens and rather just the state, which is fair. You can't reasonably argue that the state has nothing to fear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Laws don't exist to protect the state, they exist to protect the people.

    Also, what another country decides to do shouldn't really impact what we decide to do. If China blocks our apps, fine, their loss I guess. But if we start blocking their apps in retribution, that doesn't make us any better than them. We should be fighting disinformation with information. This means better education and transparent government-funded research and information. But when the US government is secretive and frequently caught spreading its own disinformation, it makes it hard for me to agree to block other countries doing the same.

    TikTok should be allowed to offer its services here, but US companies shouldn't be obligated to host them on their services, and the government should publicize the negative information it has about them so journalists can help the public digest it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    National security interests are the interests of the people though.

    The fundamental issue is that, assuming I'm not leaking national security information, I can say nearly anything I want on Facebook, Twitter, etc. (as long as I'm not in violation of their terms of service). The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov't. If I am an authoritarian communist, I'm more than welcome to spread these views on any American social network that I choose without gov't interference. I can spread anti-vax and Q nonsense if I wish, and the worst-case scenario is that my neighbors will stop talking to me. I can attack the very foundation of the country if I want, as long as I'm not spreading military secrets.

    This is not the case in China. Spreading pro-capitalism and pro-democracy messages can quickly get you arrested. Trying to share accurate information about what really happened in Tianamen Square in 1989 can result in you disappearing. Words and phrases are actively censored by the gov't on social media. The Chinese gov't takes a direct role in shaping social media by what it promotes, and what it forbids. Anything that's perceived as an attack on the political system of the country, the party, or any of the leaders (remember the internationally famous tennis player that abruptly disappeared when she accused a local party leader of sexual assault?) will put you at risk.

    This isn't a case of, "oh, both sides are the same".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    National security interests are the interests of the people though.

    In a broad sense, sure, but "national security interests" are a huge excuse for bad policy.

    assuming I’m not leaking national security information

    That only applies if you are in a position that has access to classified information, or have reason to believe that a certain piece of information is classified. If you acquire information without access to classified information (i.e. if you see something on government property with binoculars or something), you are free to share that information.

    The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov’t

    Not individuals, sure, but there are backroom threats for journalists that can significantly impact what the average person sees. If you get a big enough audience, you'll start to see these threats.

    Here's the press freedom index the RSF posts, and while the US is better than most, it's not at the top, and it's a big reason why I like to read news publications from other areas (Canada and UK).

    And yes, China is way worse, that goes without saying. But that doesn't mean we should completely block them, it means we should be taking an active role in pointing out the propaganda so the world can see through their BS.

    This isn’t a case of, “oh, both sides are the same”.

    Never claimed it was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users--and they do--then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent