American politics, in a nutshell
- Thread starter superrific
- Start date
- Replies: 49
- Views: 455
- Politics
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
If you rely on someone saying, "this is **a** justification for the law," and then you debunk the justification, then that's all you have done: debunk a justification. You haven't debunked the whole argument or demonstrated anything about the law.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
Well, whatever it's used for, ByteDance can get access to almost everything on your phone.
SnoopRob
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,700
Sure, that's an issue. But I would imagine that China would have a lot of other ways to learn that same information. And there are a lot of other companies - American and international - who would have the ability to discern that same information.
Nothing in your summary makes me think that is anything more than scapegoating TikTok by Boomer politicians against a Chinese company that primarily appeals to Gen Z and Alpha. If the US government were really concerned about data privacy and security, it would have to take on an almost unfathomable revision of laws that would affect nearly every piece of IT hardware and software that we use in our daily lives today.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,387
Im not trying to “debunk” anything. Just offering an explanation for something that has eluded me for a while.
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,212
I mean, I agree with you on the first part, but just because one or two bad actors already have access to our data doesn't mean it doesn't matter if other bad actors get it too. In that sense it's obviously still bad for Musk and Zuck to have our data, but it would be worse if Musk and Zuck AND the Chinese government had our data.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,387
Oh, I agree. That’s why I don’t use any of the platforms. It just makes the argument to ban the app ring hollow to the vast majority of its user base, and young people more generally, since the government has done zilch to address our privacy concerns otherwise.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
1. None of those other countries have a legal obligation to a foreign adversary to share sensitive data.
2. That last sentence quoted above is categorically false. It's like saying, "if the US government was really concerned about smog, it would ban all automobiles." That's obviously wrong because of cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, your last clause undermines the whole claim. That the alternative would be an "unfathomable revision of laws," is a good reason to take a lesser measure. The failure to be perfect does not imply the failure to be good.
3. I think you're arguing like a MAGA. "I would imagine" is an extremely weak basis for an argument. The national security community has been worried about tiktok for almost a decade. It is implausible to think that they would focus on that danger if it in fact were true that China could easily get the information in another fashion.
In general, the question you should ask yourself is, "wtf do I know about this?" And when the answer is "basically nothing," you should be reluctant to dismiss the views of experts as little more than sour grapes or scapegoating. You've admitted that there are in fact national security concerns, and you dismissed them with a waive of your hand -- with essentially no basis. It is just mind-boggling to me that you would basically write off the opinions of the national security community, President Biden, leaders from both parties in Congress, based on what you would imagine.
And for the record, I often ask myself, "wtf do I know about this?" And when the answer is "basically nothing" -- as it is on this issue! -- my inclination is to avoid forming a strong opinion. Why would you? Isn't this part of the problem in politics, that people form strong opinions based on essentially nothing?
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
But you're shitting on the explanation you offer. You're not saying, "they are doing this because X and X is a valid reason." You're saying "they are doing because X and X is a lot of bullshit." That makes it imperative for you to demonstrate that X is in fact the reason.
And what you cited is not the reason. It's not remotely the reason. If you look at the actual law -- and I had a chance to do so glancing over the Supreme Court decision -- it says nothing about AI. Moreover, there are ways for TikTok to evade the ban that would not affect the AI application, which strongly suggests that the AI application is not the issue. For instance, if TikTok was sold to OpenAI, it would no longer be banned. And that would be true even if OpenAI was sharing its tech with China (which I assume it isn't). And if that presented national security concerns, they would be addressed with conduct remedies on OpenAI. But to say that this is about AI training data, when the remedy has nothing to do with AI training data, seems obviously false.
Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the law was valid. In so doing, they had to make determinations of what the law was doing. The Supreme Court focused on the data collection issue, writing:
"But TikTok’s scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the Government’s national security concerns."
12 judges have agreed with that assessment. Among them: Elena Kagan, Sonia S, K. Jackson, Sri on the D.C. Circuit. Those are powerhouse jurists. Meanwhile, zero judges have disagreed -- not even Naomi Rao, a right-winger. This unanimity is striking. Maybe they have more insight than you do? I think we can say for sure that there are lots of smart people who have concerns about tiktok that aren't about training AI. And if that's true, then your claim as to what this is "really about" is wrong.
This is, btw, a trope that I hate on both left and right: the "X is really Y" move. Just because a law helps a big business doesn't mean that assistance is why the bill passes. And if you were to apply that reasoning consistently, you'll quickly find yourself tied in knots. For instance, the US passed a law in the 90s to regulate fishing practices, requiring all nets to feature turtle-excluding devices. Well, you know who was a big supporter of that law? The U.S. fishing industry, because it raised the costs of small fishing outfits in Pakistan and Malaysia and thus prevented them from undercutting American prices for seafood. Obviously that's why the law passed, and the environmentalists and animal welfare activists who proposed it and championed it were just useful idiots and/or stooges.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
Well, maybe those young people should try to learn a little bit instead of glueing their eyes to social media.
And if they learned a little bit, they would realize that the First Amendment is a big obstacle to "addressing our privacy concerns otherwise." And indeed, the Supreme Court today was very clear -- well, maybe not *very* clear, but pretty clear -- that this law would fail but for the issue of Chinese ownership. So it is simply wrong to say, "Congress is acting in bad faith here because they haven't addressed our privacy concerns otherwise." There are obstacles inherent in that otherwise that are real, even if the young people don't know about them.
eternalheel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 73
It's not. It's essentially the news, mini documentaries, and talented ppl sharing their art.
SnoopRob
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,700
1. If this is the justification for banning TikTok, then the law should be to ban all apps (and possibly hardware created or made in) from China. TikTok is obviously the prime example of the security issues presented by both the way technology is now embedded into our daily lives and that Chinese apps (and hardware) present a specific higher level of danger due to potential security issues, but TikTok itself is not the entirety of the issue.
2. The last sentence is possibly hyperbole, but isn't categorically false. To use your smog example, banning TikTok is the equivalent of government taking on the problem of smog by only banning Ford trucks (because trucks create more smog than cars and Ford trucks sell the most of any brand). Just like banning only Ford trucks wouldn't actually impact smog levels, only banning TikTok won't significantly curtail national security risks that exist due to malware introduction possibilities nor mass data acquisition issues.
3. I have taken a somewhat strong opinion, but I'm holding to it very loosely, precisely because I recognize that this isn't my field of expertise.
A lot of what I read from national security experts say that TikTok is a problem, but is only the most prominent of a whole host of national security risks presented by the role technology plays in our life. It's not that TikTok isn't an issue, but by itself it's only a small part of a much larger issue.
I'm not hand-waiving that TikTok is a problem, but I'm certainly pushing back on the idea that taking action against TikTok actually plays a significant solution to the greater problem. Nothing I've read suggests that banning TikTok alone is anything other than solving one prominent example of a much, much larger scale national security risk, with the larger scale being so much larger than TikTok that merely solving the TikTok portion of the problem isn't actually a significant step toward a real solution. Again, it's like trying to address smog by just banning Ford trucks rather than implementing a solution that addresses all automobiles.
The question that I present is: Unless TikTok is somehow materially different than the risks presented by any and all other IT-related risks to national security (which I can't find evidence of in anything I've read), then why is banning TikTok considered a solution to the risk of national security IT-related issues?
My current answer is that it's not an actual solution, it's a PR-based solution centered around scapegoating the largest app produced by a country within one of our most prominent geopolitical "foes".
What makes me very different than MAGA-level thinking is that I'm very, very open to the presentation of evidence that shows why I'm wrong. But the problem I face thus far is that no one I've yet encountered seems to be able to present such evidence.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
1. You are right that openness to evidence distinguishes you from MAGA, if in fact you are open to that evidence.
2. Do you remember Huawei? Tiktok is by no means the first Chinese company that has been targeted because of these concerns.
3. I just don't understand why the perfect has to be the enemy of the good. To use your smog example: I mean, the government ALREADY does that. It doesn't discriminate against Ford trucks, but it does discriminate against new cars. Environmental statutes almost always exempt existing items, while putting restrictions on new items (this was, incidentally, what the famous Chevron case from 1984 was about). It also discriminates in favor of trucks (which are held to lower emissions standards), diesel engines (which in some cases are exempt entirely), heavy-duty vehicles and other exclusions.
So on your telling, the EPA's NOx and SOx regulations are bullshit because they don't address the full scope of the problem. I don't see how that is at all a sensible solution.
4. As I said above, the main reasons to distinguish tiktok are a) that it and it alone among big social media companies answers to the Chinese government; and b) the government can't do this to American companies because of the First Amendment. So it's not like banning Ford trucks but not Chevy.
SnoopRob
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,700
2. I do remember Huawei. Do you also remember that the same law that took action against Huawei also took action against ZTE, Dahua Technology Co, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co Ltd, and Hytera Communications Corp Ltd? That was a broad-based solution against a macro-level problem. Banning only TikTok would have been the equivalent of only banning Huawei but leaving all the other companies off the list.
3. This isn't "perfect is the enemy of good", this is "scapegoating is the enemy of real solutions". As to your smog example, when the US wants to address smog created by cars, it addresses all cars (albeit not always in an equivalent way). To bring that example to our case, if Chinese app companies all present a significant risk to US national security, then all Chinese apps should be targeted. US apps could be treated differently (like trucks or diesel engines are with smog) due to different risk assessments, but the action should be against all Chinese apps. But the fact that our government is only targeting TikTok rather than all Chinese apps suggests that his is more of a "show pony" piece of legislation rather than a legitimate solution to a legitimate problem.
4. This argument does nothing to suggest that this is more about scapegoating TikTok to attack China rather than a legitimate action to address a legitimate problem. Yes, addressing TikTok would have some impact on national security, but not enough to actually address the national security issues created by either social media apps or by Chinese-created apps. It's the equivalent of trying to stop a superyacht from sinking by bailing water with a lone five-gallon bucket.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
All right then. All Chinese apps are targeted. The law specifically applies to tiktok, but it also applies to any:
entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that—
(i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and view text, images, videos, real-time communications, or similar content;
(ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B);
(iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and
(iv) enables 1 or more users to view content generated by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application.
if that entity is controlled directly or indirectly by a foreign adversary.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
Why does your disagreement with the wisdom of the law imply that it's about scapegoating?
You're saying that this doesn't do "enough to actually address the national security issues." Enough is the key word there. That's your private judgment. And maybe you're right. I've said I don't know enough to have a strong opinion here. But when you say, it doesn't do enough, it really undercuts your contention that it's really about scapegoating TikTok. Maybe it's really about TikTok, coming from people who have a different (and more informed) view of national security.
Now, if you want to say that the effect would be to scapegoat TikTok, that's much easier argument to make. There, your judgment can stand on its own merits, as opposed to being used to invalidate all other judgments as bad faith bullshit. You can say, "in my view, this won't do what it purports to do," and that's fine. You're playing in the conceptual space of "this is what I observe" rather than the space of "these people are acting in bad faith and I know their private motivations because reasons."
- Messages
- 258
According to ChatGPT:
There is an ongoing debate about whether TikTok poses a national security risk significant enough to warrant a ban in the United States. Below is an argument highlighting some of the potential dangers and reasons why the U.S. government might consider banning the platform:
1. National Security Concerns
TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company, and under Chinese law, companies are required to cooperate with the government when requested, potentially including sharing user data. This raises concerns about:
Surveillance Risks: TikTok collects vast amounts of user data, including location, browsing habits, and device information. If this data were accessible to the Chinese government, it could be used for espionage, influence operations, or to track sensitive individuals.
Cybersecurity Threats: TikTok’s integration with U.S. devices could provide a vector for malicious activity or vulnerabilities that might be exploited to compromise networks.
2. Propaganda and Influence Operations
TikTok’s algorithm has significant power to amplify certain content, potentially shaping public opinion. Critics argue that:
Content Manipulation: The Chinese government could exploit TikTok to subtly promote content favorable to its interests or suppress narratives critical of China, influencing U.S. discourse on critical issues like Taiwan or human rights.
Political Influence: During elections, the platform could be used to spread misinformation, polarizing voters or undermining trust in democratic institutions.
3. Data Privacy and Exploitation
Even beyond national security, TikTok’s data practices raise concerns:
User Data Misuse: The platform has faced allegations of collecting biometric data like facial scans and voiceprints. Such data could be exploited for commercial or nefarious purposes.
Vulnerability of Minors: TikTok has a young user base, raising ethical questions about how their data is collected, stored, and potentially exploited.
4. Cultural and Behavioral Impact
Beyond security, TikTok’s addictive algorithm and viral trends can contribute to:
Mental Health Issues: Studies suggest TikTok’s short-form content can exacerbate attention disorders and foster unrealistic standards through curated, idealized lifestyles.
Risky Behavior: Viral challenges on TikTok have sometimes resulted in physical harm or even death, particularly among impressionable teenagers.
5. Precedent for Economic and Cybersecurity Defense
Banning TikTok would set a strong precedent that the U.S. is willing to take decisive action against foreign platforms that pose potential risks. This could bolster efforts to safeguard critical sectors against threats from adversarial nations, demonstrating a commitment to protecting both economic and national security interests.
Counterarguments and Conclusion
While critics of a TikTok ban highlight concerns about free speech and economic repercussions for creators, the U.S. government has a responsibility to prioritize national security. If adequate safeguards, such as U.S.-based data storage and independent oversight, cannot guarantee the platform’s safety, banning TikTok may be a necessary step to mitigate risks posed by foreign adversaries.
There is an ongoing debate about whether TikTok poses a national security risk significant enough to warrant a ban in the United States. Below is an argument highlighting some of the potential dangers and reasons why the U.S. government might consider banning the platform:
1. National Security Concerns
TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company, and under Chinese law, companies are required to cooperate with the government when requested, potentially including sharing user data. This raises concerns about:
Surveillance Risks: TikTok collects vast amounts of user data, including location, browsing habits, and device information. If this data were accessible to the Chinese government, it could be used for espionage, influence operations, or to track sensitive individuals.
Cybersecurity Threats: TikTok’s integration with U.S. devices could provide a vector for malicious activity or vulnerabilities that might be exploited to compromise networks.
2. Propaganda and Influence Operations
TikTok’s algorithm has significant power to amplify certain content, potentially shaping public opinion. Critics argue that:
Content Manipulation: The Chinese government could exploit TikTok to subtly promote content favorable to its interests or suppress narratives critical of China, influencing U.S. discourse on critical issues like Taiwan or human rights.
Political Influence: During elections, the platform could be used to spread misinformation, polarizing voters or undermining trust in democratic institutions.
3. Data Privacy and Exploitation
Even beyond national security, TikTok’s data practices raise concerns:
User Data Misuse: The platform has faced allegations of collecting biometric data like facial scans and voiceprints. Such data could be exploited for commercial or nefarious purposes.
Vulnerability of Minors: TikTok has a young user base, raising ethical questions about how their data is collected, stored, and potentially exploited.
4. Cultural and Behavioral Impact
Beyond security, TikTok’s addictive algorithm and viral trends can contribute to:
Mental Health Issues: Studies suggest TikTok’s short-form content can exacerbate attention disorders and foster unrealistic standards through curated, idealized lifestyles.
Risky Behavior: Viral challenges on TikTok have sometimes resulted in physical harm or even death, particularly among impressionable teenagers.
5. Precedent for Economic and Cybersecurity Defense
Banning TikTok would set a strong precedent that the U.S. is willing to take decisive action against foreign platforms that pose potential risks. This could bolster efforts to safeguard critical sectors against threats from adversarial nations, demonstrating a commitment to protecting both economic and national security interests.
Counterarguments and Conclusion
While critics of a TikTok ban highlight concerns about free speech and economic repercussions for creators, the U.S. government has a responsibility to prioritize national security. If adequate safeguards, such as U.S.-based data storage and independent oversight, cannot guarantee the platform’s safety, banning TikTok may be a necessary step to mitigate risks posed by foreign adversaries.
SnoopRob
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,700
Apps that "generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users" aren't the only apps with the high potential to distribute malware nor collect user data on a mass scale.
This largely just prevents situations where TikTok rebrands to avoid the law or a TikTok clone arises that otherwise wouldn't be covered by the law.
I get that social media companies present a specific concern and that Chinese apps present a specific concern, but this still feels as if it is not really targeting anywhere near the real problem, but is more of a PR-based action that gives the appearance of creating a solution.
It's also telling to me that everyone is now trying to run away from it like a fart in an elevator. I think it passed because there were no incentives to stand against such a ban when it was mostly theoretical and there were election-related PR gains to be had, but now that the consequences are upon us no one wants to actually carry through with it.
I acknowledge banning TikTok helps one very specific security risk, but I also posit that it doesn't do much to address the overall larger issue. My remaining question is why should we only target TikTok (and other potential Chinese clones) rather than actually addressing the real problem of data privacy/security at a much, much macro level.
- Messages
- 258
From my perspective, this is mostly just a list of concerns about large scale social media platforms in general... granted, I can see why one under direct control by the Chinese government would be of more concern. But I think it's silly to ignore the dangers of the others if we truly feel TikTok is a danger.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,037
OK. So this is an implied retraction of your claim that the law is about scapegoating TikTok. It appears your real position is that the ban isn't very effective. Fine. I have no problem with that argument. Let's just be precise about what we are arguing -- and that, of course, is a purpose of discussion. It's not bad that your views have been clarified. It's in fact a good thing.
The answer to your question is the First Amendment as interpreted by this Supreme Court. Well, that's at least part of the answer, depending on what you are referring to as "problem of data privacy."