From "The Problem With Taking TikTok Away From Americans" by Glenn S. Gerstell (of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, former general counsel of the National Security Agency and Central Security Service).
Now look here! We blithely allow Fox to spew disinformation and lies all to the detriment of our democracy and domestic peace yet the idea that China is using TikTok in order to do unto us as Fox does unto us is so alarming that an outright ban against TikTok is being contemplated. The hypocrisy is galling. Some may say well China is a foreign nation but that ignores the fact that Rupert Murdoch is a foreigner committed to his economic interest over the interests of the American people. Ban TikTok? Ban Fox network for the same reasons. Fox has demonstrably harmed America and continues actively doing so but what harm has TikTok done?
People aren't keeping the issues separate. The op-ed writer worries about taking personal information from users, but that commenter, Roberto, is worried about propaganda — that is, not what taken in, but what is put out.
And there's a third — completely different — concern, expressed by the commenter Chloe:
For me, the potential addictive quality of TikTok is at least as concerning as the points raised in this article. For many, it is difficult to regulate the amount of time spent on this application. From what I understand, TikTok’s algorithm—and similar iterations of it, as exist on platforms like YouTube and Instagram—is designed to keep users active for as long as possible, and can « learn » to pinpoint what kinds of videos keep one watching with ever-increasing accuracy. Willpower and self-control can only go so far when set against an algorithm that taps into our psychology and offers us content that, for many, is « too interesting » to resist. I believe that we need to seriously reflect on the place that we want such technologies to have in our lives—particularly in the lives of children and teenagers.
That is, it's not about the information TikTok takes from users or the propaganda its owners push at its users: it's the sheer mesmerizing effect of the overall experience of using this miraculously effective video experience.
Those who make other social media apps — and those who make conventional media (TV shows, movies, books, newspaper) — try as hard as they can to draw us in and keep us glued. They just haven't figured out how to do it as well as TikTok.
To ban only TikTok is like banning the Beatles or banning Brad Pitt.
I remember when Prince sang the line: "A body like yours oughta be in jail." He was kidding around, doing art, and I fully support his singing that. But only an oppressive political force would put a woman in prison for being so sexually attractive it was dangerous to onlookers. Are we to be deprived of the most desirable things?!
Posts
73 comments:
The problem isn't supposed to be security but steering content into youthful minds. Stuff which says stuff without saying it.
In the Soviet Union they tried to control the flow of information to the citizenry by banning copy machines, faxes, and VCRs. But info flows like water around such barriers. It also increased the citizens cynicism about the regime.
America is living its own Brezhnev era.
The blog post title should be "TikTok is the Reefer Madness of this generation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0
“ We blithely allow Fox to spew disinformation and lies all to the detriment of our democracy and domestic peace….”
How could a rational American write that?
“Scratch a Leftist and you find an authoritarian.” James Woods
Sometimes the Times readers surprise me with clearheaded thinking despite the manipulations of the Times content. Then there's this...
The most upvoted comment is one that demonstrates in inability to look past partisan politics no matter the issue, even to the point of giving aid and comfort to our country's enemies. No doubt every one of them thinks happy thoughts about their willingness to put country before party, unlike those icky Republicans, even while they choose virtue signaling about Fox news over peace and prosperity at home.
Was the second most highly upvoted comment about Trump?
"the next best outcome would be for ByteDance, recognizing that the status quo is untenable, to sell the app to an American company."
I for one am willing to consider for a few seconds that maybe, just maybe, all this commotion is being whipped up for precisely this reason. Never attribute to malice what can also be attributed to greed, and American tech companies are malicious, jealous, and greedy.
that's RIGHT sheeple!
It's FOX News, not the NYT's, WaPoo, pMSNBC, CNN.. That is spreading the 'disinformation' and lies!
'disinformation' like cotton masks and mrna 'vaccines' !! LIES! like the Hunter Biden laptop.
"The problem isn't supposed to be security but steering content into youthful minds. Stuff which says stuff without saying it."
There are 3 rationales for censorship cited in this blog post.
You have cited the second but simply asserted that it's the real problem, as if the others are wrong.
The question on the floor is whether any of them justify censorship.
I think the demand for censorship is something that the censorship-supporters are not admitting to: There is a dominant competitor in the market and they want it taken out.
That Congress should be concerned about China acquiring detailed information on the bad habits of our citizens is laughable or perhaps a deflection- this is a Congress that makes no apologies for sleeping with Chinese spies, remember...
To ban only TikTok is like banning the Beatles or banning Brad Pitt.
To ban TikTok is like banning Jerry Springer or Real Housewives of New Jersey...
I’m for less government. You can turn off Fox News, I have. You can avoid Tik Tok, I have. No government was necessary. Both commenters would have the government tell them what to do, so long as everyone else had to do it too. Screw that philosophy.
What Althouse and ridespacemountain said. Forces in San Jose want tiktok, and if they can't have it, they want it destroyed.
Those who make other social media apps — and those who make conventional media (TV shows, movies, books, newspaper) — try as hard as they can to draw us in and keep us glued.
Don't forget blogs
Reply to the comment, “ It's absurd to worry about tiktok when Fox news has in fact eaten the brains of plenty of formerly rational adults. Propaganda works. Once Reagan ended the the Fairness Doctrine and allowed Ruporch Murdoch to operate a propaganda channel we started down a slippery slope. At least on Tiktok there is a multiplicity of views and content creators.”
My Jesuit-educated brain has been eaten!
Ann Althouse said...The question on the floor is whether any of them justify censorship.
TikTok is owned (and ultimately controlled) by the Chinese government. And the more we learn about TikTok, the more we learn that it is, at least in part, psyops against Western countries. It's not censorship to limit the actions of the Chinese government within the borders of the United States. America's children can still say and post whatever they want. Just not on TikTok.
Is it censorship if the Chinese aren't allowed to set up US school curriculums?
The urge to define "censorship" narrowly betrays a lack of faith in freedom of speech. It doesn't matter what the word "censorship" means though. I use it rhetorically to stimulate memories of the long lost golden value: freedom of speech. It's sad to see how far this value has fallen in the minds of conservatives and liberals. Did it ever have predominance or am I remembering a dream?
I love how no matter how deep the evidence piles of that the beloved mainstream outlets, who made their reputations decades ago, have now devolved into simple megaphones for liars, it always comes back to "Fox News!" ... "Tucker Carlson!"
That's because it's a nonstop propaganda firehose to make sure you never question what you are being told. Chris Hedges calls it POLO, the "power of leaving out." but it goes way beyond that, it's often pure lies, usually based on projecting the weaknesses of Democrats onto Republicans, who have plenty of weaknesses themselves, BTW.
@Althouse, now go look up “steganography” and you can figure out the issue of concern. If you use Wikipedia, be aware that it mostly covers steganography as cryptography, so skip straight to the subsection titled “Computer Malware.” Video files — Hell, even simple JPEG images — can be used to infect a computer with a virus or Trojan horse, able to monitor your keystrokes and report back useful information, like you credit card data (if you buy something online) or PayPal account or bank account, or if there is something in a file on your machine or some Email content that could expose you to blackmail.
So let’s see if a professor can still learn something.
It'll make people mad, so let's continue letting the CCP gather information about citizens.
It is spyware controlled by the CCP. Why is this a question?
The problem is that no one had the cojones to ban it before it became big. they knew it two years ago.
For the dems it’s russia and for the gops it’s china.
" It's sad to see how far this value has fallen in the minds of conservatives and liberals."
It's about war with China for conservatives, and the enforcement of the 'consensus' that war is inevitable in the case of a rising competitive power. Liberals are not so open about that aspect of it, but there is no daylight between the two parties' elites on this matter in the halls of power. Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer are in complete agreement, as is Keven McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi.
The Twitter Files show how important our elites consider the matter of controlling social media speech. Most of the free speech and anti-censorship arguments are coming from independent journalists who have often been pushed out of their jobs at the New York Times or even outlets like The Intercept, which pushed out Glenn Greenwald because he wanted to write the truth about Hunter Biden's laptop; they are mostly from an earlier generation.
Ann said:
The urge to define "censorship" narrowly betrays a lack of faith in freedom of speech.
I'm stealing this, Ann (with attribution of course). It cuts to the quick. Do we trust our fellow Americans to discern what is what is true, what is good, what is right?
There is a dominant competitor in the market and they want it taken out.
Sounds like they'd prefer to just get control of it. It's like the mob saying, "sell us your business or we'll burn it down."
Or a gang saying, "This is our turf. Nobody sells digismack* in this neighborhood but us."
They want the money, sure. They also want it to be a platform for American Globalist Empire propaganda, information control and surveillance, not CCP propaganda, information control and surveillance.
Right now we can pick our poison...which is nice.
* I just coined that word.
Ann Althouse said...
The urge to define "censorship" narrowly betrays a lack of faith in freedom of speech. It doesn't matter what the word "censorship" means though. I use it rhetorically to stimulate memories of the long lost golden value: freedom of speech. It's sad to see how far this value has fallen in the minds of conservatives and liberals. Did it ever have predominance or am I remembering a dream?
Worth repeating...
I don't understand how we're supposed to get from ---> China learning bored Americans watch the goofy dances of other bored Americans to ---> China world domination. I think I'm missing a few steps...
Banning TikTok sounds like a wag the dog. Either tech wants the company, the CIA wants the data, or the government wants us to look away from its mess.
To ban only TikTok is like banning Ricky Gourmet and mossyrockk.
What Leland said @ 7:22 am.
The commenter Cloe is equating the use of TikTok with the use of deleterious, habit-forming products such as drugs, cigarettes and alcohol. If and when society is in broad agreement that TikTok is both addictive and harmful in some way (wasting time? dumbing down?), then what do you do about it? Ban it completely (drugs)? Restrict it to certain situations (cigarettes, alcohol)? Or try to make it socially unacceptable (drugs, cigarettes)? Are any of these approaches likely to be successful? I'd say only the last one, where 'socially unacceptable' equates to stress on both self-limitation ("only dumb people spend a lot of time on TikTok") and for minors, limitation by parents on both time and the particular content being followed.
The flaw in the 'beautiful woman in jail' analogy is that in that analogy, an actual person is being put in jail (severely rights restricted). Banning TikTok is a form of censorship, but it doesn't incarcerate a person. Restricting TikTok somehow would be treating it like one of the above vices.
Ann, your golden dream is as up to date as updates about Laverne and Shirley.
I had dozens of hours of content banned from YouTube several years ago. It was contrarian and criticized both political parties: it represented a decade of hard work, credible, and footnoted.
I was banned from academia before that. My last job was in a grocery store. The one before that, adjunct teaching, so the mere handful of people like you could wallow in benefits with a slave labor class you created doing the hard lifting for pennies.
You chose that.
I could name 20 people, easily, who were similarly shadowbanned, denied access to PayPal and bank accounts and had their careers and income destroyed.
Despite perfect credit, I was denied a mortgage at the last minute when Wells Fargo learned I made 1K the previous year from a shadowbanned source.
We are legion. You are safe and paid by taxpayers.
When are you going to actually comprehend the millions who have already been harmed? And from your safe haven, do more about it, if you care so much?
Or, do more about it for Americans, if you care so much about tic toc, which is a communist information gathering and mild demoralization entity, despite the cute puppy videos?
Step out of the shelter. Do something. You can. I can't.
Step into the arena.
Blogger Michael said...
[Ann said:
The urge to define "censorship" narrowly betrays a lack of faith in freedom of speech.]
"I'm stealing this, Ann (with attribution of course). It cuts to the quick. Do we trust our fellow Americans to discern what is what is true, what is good, what is right?"
If it weren't for the fact that indoctrination is so pervasive and pernicious in our educational systems and mass media, I'd agree, but considering the current state of things I'm not so sure.
Either tech wants the company, the CIA wants the data, or the government wants us to look away from its mess.
And, not or.
TikTok isn't just an app.
If I type tiktok.com into my browser and the US gov stops the website from loading, that's bullshit. By what principle would they not do that to https://althouse.blogspot.com/ ?
Will circumvention via VPN be illegal too?
Seems like the US wants to be more like China because China is bad.
I also tend to agree with Leland at 7:22am. That said, there are other things at play here.
For instance, parenting has to come into the use of social media for the kids. Somehow. Cutting the hours of use by kids needs to happen, but how do you even begin to go about that? You can cut off TikTok, but the addiction will still need to be filled by something else. And it IS an addiction.
I use my computer and/or phone far more than I want to or need to. I'm hooked. I know it, yet I'm still here reading this and commenting. Here and other sites. And my own work. It's mesmerizing and also...dulling. Now put it onto kids and imagine the dulling of young minds.
And there's this. TikTok in China vs US. IF TikTok (ByteDance) is using it's app to gather data on millions of people and trends, to force other trends, then it's pretty much the same as all other social media. But if it's looking to both dull our kids mind and being used for dumbing them down as they build up their own kids, that's something different.
The entire internet and especially social media, is an addictive product. It will continue to evolve and at some point soon, we'll have something that far outpaces TikTok in it's impact. (AI of some sort? Augmented Reality?). The next level thing will make TikTok seem like childs play.
One might think that all the years of listening to the media spread unfounded propaganda about Fox would lead people on the right to be a little skeptical about unsupported propaganda that TikTok is "spyware" or a "psyop," and to at least ask for some evidence.
"freedom of speech. Did it ever have predominance or am I remembering a dream?"
I think there was indeed a time when "free speech absolutism" was dominant in respectable opinion. I remember all the law review articles saying that nude dancing had First Amendment protection because it was "expression". I think people actually believed what they said.
But there was an inherent problem, which Ronald Coase brought up at the Winter 1973-4 American Economic Association meetings, later published as The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas. (It's short and Coase writes well; it is well worth reading.)
Respectable opinion said that markets for goods had lots of problems and needed lots of government regulation. But it said markets for ideas should have almost no regulation. However, just about all the arguments for the former could be used against the latter. It really was not logically possible to believe that the government was competent and required to regulate in one and not competent and required not to regulate in the other.
If you believe in some sort of soft socialism, in which government is the benevolent provider and protector, it needs to control not just what people buy but what they see and hear. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can hurt even more. Look at all the people who listened to Hitler and then did awful things.
"To ban only TikTok is like banning the Beatles or Brad Pitt."
Or Donald Trump, yet the left had no problem with that.
Making me nostalgic for the battle over Saturday morning cartoons. Some of those shows looked just like the commercials to kids....
Security is a real issue. I think we all agree Apple and Google and Facebook know too much information about us. They do it to sell us things and so we grumble, but shrug and keep feeding them the data. However, I think we all realize because of January 6 these companies will give anyone up to the government if we're "bad" people. Now imagine another country has access to that same data? Not great.
Should we also be looking into scaling back what Google and Apple collect? Sure, but the threat is different and it's harder to claw back existing protocols than establish a new gate.
The Chinese Communist Party will surely follow the will of congress if a law is passed.
One hundred percent.
Problem solved.
"We blithely allow Fox to spew disinformation"
As if we needed reminding, domestic adversaries matter more to progs than China.
"We . . . allow": the prog view of speech and the press.
And Murdoch is a U.S. citizen, if I am not mistaken.
Is it censorship if you're not allowed to offer to exchange a huge nickel for a child's tiny dime?
I thought Tiktok was "The free market". How can Conservatives suppport cancelling it?
A "third of the population"?
If true, we really have become a nation of idiots.
The most hilarious thing about the Left's obsession with Fox News is that most true Conservatives today consider it to be CNN lite. Gutfield and Carlson are the only things remotely conservative on Fox these days.
The entire internet and especially social media, is an addictive product. It will continue to evolve and at some point soon, we'll have something that far outpaces TikTok in it's impact. (AI of some sort? Augmented Reality?). The next level thing will make TikTok seem like childs play.
VR. Once virtual Reality gets anything close to realistic and affordable (populated by NPCs run by AI?) things are going to get nuts. There will be stories about people starving to death in real life because they stayed in VR and didn't eat, etc. Imagine a world in which you can interact with your dreams and fantasies, including deep fakes of the famous, in seeming reality. Then throw in the porn aspect.
Ban anything that has even a smidgen of association with the ChiComs.
The main problem is ChiCom.
@rehajm said... "To ban TikTok is like banning Jerry Springer or Real Housewives of New Jersey..."
Exactly right.
"Do we trust our fellow Americans to discern what is true, what is good, what is right?"
No, no, and no. Why would I, after the last few decades? (And the sort of commentary the Prof drags here from the other place.)
Still less do I trust Red Chinese Gizmolords.
OTOH, if you have a computer you're all in when the hand is called whether you like it or not, and the only thing you can decide is how much to attempt to use the stuff for your own purposes before it all crashes.
@Big Mike said...
"@Althouse, now go look up “steganography” and you can figure out the issue of concern. If you use Wikipedia, be aware that it mostly covers steganography as cryptography, so skip straight to the subsection titled “Computer Malware.” Video files — Hell, even simple JPEG images — can be used to infect a computer with a virus or Trojan horse, able to monitor your keystrokes and report back useful information, like you credit card data (if you buy something online) or PayPal account or bank account, or if there is something in a file on your machine or some Email content that could expose you to blackmail."
In other words, every single image and video on the Internet is a threat. Yes, really! That's really true. So, if we, or they, should ban TikTok, then they, or we, should ban all Internet content that's not simple text. Like go back to CompuServe, why don't we. ;-)
"Do we trust our fellow Americans to discern what is what is true, what is good, what is right?"
Hell no. Just look at Roberto. He is not an outlier. Then compound that with the fact that with our corrupt media it can be hard for even an honest, thoughtful person to know what is true.
HOWEVER, I still do not support government censorship. The cure is far worse than the disease. They will not act in the best interest of the citizens. The government is made up of people, and those people will act in their own self-interest, which they will perceive as very narrow and only in the short term. Is this not obvious?
"We blithely allow Fox to spew disinformation and lies..." Any bids on how much Fox News that writer has actually watched in the past year?
When Gen X fades from power, I will be glad that I have stuffed the ole mortal coil. Who wants to live run from psy-op to psy-op? Millennials, GenZ, and whatever is coming next.
Look at it this way and see if the argument is convincing:
"Given the AR-15's use by about a third of the U.S. population and its association with the everyday expression of political and personal views, outlawing so-called 'assault rifles' would constitute a disproportionate response to demands from anti-gun activists."
We rightly criticize China and other authoritarian regimes for blocking their citizen's access to 'subversive' websites.
We shouldn't then go and follow their lead.
Note that the government has every right to ban it on government owned computers, same with businesses.
@Big Mike, look up non-sequitur.
I thought Tiktok was "The free market". How can Conservatives suppport cancelling it?
What part of "owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party" do you not understand?
By the way TikTok is severely regulated in China by the Chinese Communist Party, especially for children.
I'm not seeing any rational argument for banning tiktok.
They are stealing information? (or words to that effect, posed as 'privacy' concerns). How? This seems like a phone/device problem as every app would be able to do the same.
They are harvesting the information for monetary gain? Just like every social/media app out there.
Influence from a foreign entity? Is this any different from the 'influence' of any other corporation? As the 'Fox' argument states, it would apply to every single news organization, every media organization, every social platform.
TikTok gets eyeballs. YouTube has/is trying 'youtube shorts' in the TikTok format. This is evidence to me that it's nothing to do with privacy, influence, etc. It's about getting people on your platform, and using whatever data is farmed. Who farms the most, wins.
Currently, American parents are pathetic when it comes to setting limits on their kids' use of tech. Total failures.
But my main concern with a TikTok is the spying capability of the app.
They keep telling us that China's population is collapsing. So most likely that means that they will call off their plans to conquer the world, it's one of those problems that solves itself if you ignore it long enough.
A steering engine, to garner a Google of perception, to influence per chance to direct.
In other words, every single image and video on the Internet is a threat. Yes, really!
Yes, really. I taught data security as an adjunct professor after I retired and in a pre-retirement life I was the architect for computer systems where the security or privacy of the data was critically important. You learn a lot about avenues for penetrating systems. You can’t make it impossible but that’s no excuse for not making it as hard as possible.
So, if we, or they, should ban TikTok, then they, or we, should ban all Internet content that's not simple text.
The point is that TikTok is operated by an entity that views itself as being in an adversarial relationship with the citizens and government of the United States. An intelligent person would recognize that. One should take extra care in that case.
"If you believe in some sort of soft socialism, in which government is the benevolent provider and protector, it needs to control not just what people buy but what they see and hear."
Modern schools try to play the role of benevolent provider and protector, and make sure students know what is "appropriate" and what is "not appropriate".
To the question "would you support or oppose your school ALLOWING a speaker on campus who promotes the following idea: **Transgender people have mental disorders**", 88% of female undergrads and 63% of male undergrads said "oppose". 74% of females said "strongly oppose" as did 42% of males.
To the question "would you support or oppose your school ALLOWING a speaker on campus who promotes the following idea: **Black Lives Matter** is a hate group**, 84% of female undergrads and 62% of male undergrads said "oppose". 69% of females said "strongly oppose" as did 39% of males.
The principle involved is a children principle, not can adults read it.
They keep telling us that China's population is collapsing. So most likely that means that they will call off their plans to conquer the world, it's one of those problems that solves itself if you ignore it long enough.
What happens if there is a Chinese Nero in charge at the end and he decides to try and take the rest of the world with them?
To be fair, the body of the woman in the Prince song was on the verge of being obscene.
Adam curry and John C Dvorak have been talking about tiktok and its competitors for some time on their podcast at noagendashow.com
Every Sunday and Thursday.
No ads or subscriptions. Listener supported on the value for value model.
I don't think I've missed an episode in 15 years.
John (sir John to you) Henry
That's rich...
"Do we trust our fellow Americans to discern what is what is true, what is good, what is right?"
Norm Macdonald couldn't have said it better.
Explains Biden/Harris to the "T".
Yes, @Big Mike, TikTok is "an entity that views itself as being in an adversarial relationship with the citizens and government of the United States." And perhaps Google, Microsoft and others are entities hostile to non-Progressive citizens of the USA. So, why pick on TikTok to the exclusion of other potential bad actors. (Actually not just potential. They have already taken actions hostile to other US citizens they disagree with.)
Whiskeybum said...
The commenter Cloe is equating the use of TikTok with the use of deleterious, habit-forming products such as drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.
Equating all of these things is appropriate because inside your brain it is the same chemical reactions being caused and the same chemical neurotransmitters being released. Whether you get your dopamine from tik tok or drugs it is still dopamine.
The government is obviously the wrong tool for this problem.
This is just corporate greed and government bureaucrat lust for power teaming up.
@SteveWe, you make a good point. Perhaps everyone should use DuckDuckGo and Linux.
The way I do.
AA said "The urge to define "censorship" narrowly betrays a lack of faith in freedom of speech. It doesn't matter what the word "censorship" means though. I use it rhetorically to stimulate memories of the long lost golden value: freedom of speech. It's sad to see how far this value has fallen in the minds of conservatives and liberals. Did it ever have predominance or am I remembering a dream?"
I think that what has changed has been how we have been teaching our children to be tolerant of other viewpoints. Even then, we taught that some viewpoints were "bad" by calling them bigoted or some other term fraught with negative connotations. But now, we don't seem to be teaching any tolerance for other viewpoints... or so I've heard - but I'm not in school nor am I a parent so I don't really know one way or the other.
I recall a skit from the 60's by some guy called Tom Lehrer about "National Brotherhood Week" where he noted there were some people who did not love their fellow human beings and that he hated people like that. What we giggled at back then now seems to be no laughing matter any more.
Post a Comment