Writes Julia Angwin, in "TikTok Could Disappear but the Problems It Poses Remain" (NYT).
"Sure, maybe in the worst-case scenario, the Chinese government is spying on my viewing of TikTok videos.... But TikTok doesn’t have much more data than any other app — all it knows is that I spend too much time watching cooking videos and makeup tutorials..... [B]ut what about the Chinese propaganda that is being spread through TikTok?... [A]nyone can set up a TikTok account to target anyone during an election.... Russians set up accounts on Facebook to try to influence U.S. elections in 2016. And they didn’t have to buy Facebook to do that.... All of the social media platforms are information minefields, rife with deceptive content from state actors, corporations, paid influencers and others...."
Angwin says what we need are "base-line privacy rules that prohibit companies from exploiting our data and that give us control over the algorithms used to manipulate us."
What I'll say is that rules of law need to be generally applicable. That's a check on unfairness and repression. Let Congress isolate and define the behavior it wants to control. I don't think it can, and I don't think, if it could, it would want to impose this regulation on Google, Meta, and Microsoft.
Posts
26 comments:
I am slowly divorcing myself from social media and the Internet of things. At 71 I'm whistling pass the grave yard but it does feel good to irascible.
The problem with TikTock is the Chinese Communist Party. Eliminate that, and TikTok becomes just another personal data aggregator like EVERY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.
They lost twitter. They need something new. Plus, the adolescent reactions to the Gaza conflict and Osama Bin Laden can't be stood for. The proposed legislation banning it will also be used as an entryist-legalistic argument to attack other forms of media outside their control. It's perfect. A double-whammy.
Die zeitgeist manipulieren uber alles.
TikTok should have the same status in the USA as do Facebook, Instagram, etc. in China: NOT ALLOWED TO OPERATE
The Ds usually hate this kind of consolidation; monopolies, etc.
But seeing as how most social media is run by the intel agencies, they would be all for this.
Rumble has tossed their hat in the ring as a potential buyer of TT.
Look what my Smart Phone is making me do !
While the data they have is a problem, it isn't the problem. The problem is how it chooses what videos you will see. All social media pushes some things and holds back other things. I don't think American-owned companies which show me some things for my own good is any better for me than a Chinese company which may be showing me things in their best interest.
If the American companies hadn't gone all in to manipulate what we saw regarding COVID and the 2020 election, I might be more inclined to favor them.
"The videos I watch on TikTok are, in fact, among the few things it doesn’t have."
If the American Alphabet Google, Microsoft and Facebook don't have it, you know who else might not have it? The American Censorship Complex. It's the American Gov that cannot allow a vast swath of eyeballs on something they can't instantly influence and ultimately control. Think Twitter Files.
Just because New Twitter uncovered what the censorship complex was doing doesn't mean they closed shop and went home. Indeed, Matt Taibi is predicting they are going to impact the 2024 elections.
If you aren't aware of Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald and a few others, who closely monitor the censorship complex, you are missing the biggest pieces of this puzzle.
Althouse says: "I don't think it can, and I don't think, if it could, it would want to impose this regulation on Google, Meta, and Microsoft. " You are right. They are less concerned with the data collection and manipulation that TikTok engages in than they are with the fact that it is not working for them. Google, Meta, and Microsoft have become arms of the intelligence community and the bureaucracy. So, there's no need to pass a law to control that which you already rule.
TikTok is meant to be the distraction from the fact that we don’t have meaningful privacy legislation. This whole thing is our legislators pretending to do something, because if they did what they should actually be doing, they’d upset their donors.
What is the relationship between algorithm-driven information dissemination and the operation of First Amendment-based free speech? Does algorithm-driven information have free speech rights?
What is the role of foreign-controlled algorithms on domestic US information dissemination? Do American-owned algorithms have some intrinsic superiority or privilege over foreign-owned algorithms?
Why Fox and not Beijing? How do you tell the difference?
The bill states the definition of a foreign adversary as:
"a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity."
The same people pushing this bill claim all their opponents are subject to the control of a foreign adversary. for example:
Trump
Musk
X
Rumble
Tucker Carlson
JD Vance
Speaker Johnson
Most of the Supreme Court justices.
The entire Republican Party except the never Trumpers.
All supposedly controlled by Putin.
The list goes on and on.
1) TikTok is a malign influence and a bad actor.
2) This bill is an overreach and creates enormous opportunities for abuses of power.
The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is most likely that both are true.
The bill gives the executive branch power solely "on a relevant determination of the President" to define any platform/website as foreign owned even if it's domestic and gives the executive branch the power to censor/control the content.
When the proponents refuse to argue the bill on it's merits and instead call the opposition traitors, it's a tell. This is how they keep pushing us into stupid policies and unnecessary wars. You'd think this "trick" would eventually stop working on Americans, but it never does. I think it's working on less of us than it has in the past, but it still works on far too many.
Any user with data utilized by a company should be paid for by the companies accessing it, everytime it is accessed. Anything less is digital slavery.
The strawmen in that article are ridiculous.
TikTok's issue is foreign hostile government ownership and direction, including direct data storing on our citizens en masse. That is NOT the same thing as a private company doing the same.
Russia paid a few million in ads in 2016 to create antagonism in the election. No one can point to precisely what interference occurred, other than they bought both pro clinton and pro trump ad placements seeming to want to inflame tensions. And yes, in the 8 years since little to nothing has been done to stop other foreign governments from doing the same. That is not the same thing as a hostile government owning an entire platform.
....
I could go on, but I hate when writers don't even try to present the issues at hand.
People seem to think they pay their sixty bucks for internet access everything they access should be free. Nothing is free. Not even this blog. Here's the data collected by Google every time you visit this site. There's your screen size, the unique site identfier, a bunch of cryptic numbers that mean nothing to you but mean billions to Google. You're getting tracked everywhere, there is no escaping it. Enjoy the ride.
v: 1
_v: j101
a: 1605017312
t: pageview
_s: 1
dl: https%3A%2F%2Falthouse.blogspot.com%2F
ul: en-us
de: UTF-8
dt: Althouse
sd: 24-bit
sr: 2560x1440
vp: 1587x734
je: 0
_u: AACAAEABAAAAACAAI~
jid: 896067512
gjid: 1647524369
cid: 1065181197.1642264734
tid: UA-1703852-1
_gid: 213568600.1710437004
_r: 1
_slc: 1
z: 1135190074
One of the major problems is that we have an 18th century conception of "The Press" written into our Constitution and our laws. In that world the principals were the publisher and the reader and freedom was (within limits) applied to hem. Now we have three principals, the publisher, the reader and the data shepherd who mediates between them. What was once a relatively straightforward shipping and distribution channel for printed material concerned with a mass market is now creating curated individualized connections at a mass scale.
We have not worked out what the rules are for the data shepherds and reasoning forward from the 18th century practice leads to false analogies and policy mistakes.
“Why Fox and not Beijing? How do you tell the difference?”
Buy a clue.
The former Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, said he was interested in buying TT. And he can do it.
$84b is not that much money to the Street.
I agree with the author that an American buying TikTok would not make user data more secure. However, I would prefer it to be not secure under the ownership of something other than the People's Republic of China, which is obviously using it as a spy and propaganda tool.
I also agree that user data on social media is not secure in general, but that is not really relevant to the topic at hand.
Add language to the bill that says this applies only to (insert language that says TT without saying TT). Application to any other company will require a separate bill addressing that company.
Then see the resulting enthusiasm level.
Kamala Harris visits facility where human beings who are not afforded the protection of the homicide statutes by order of the government are intentionally killed in brisk, industrial fashion.
crowd fund the sale? democratic dispersal?
crowd fund the sale? democratic dispersal? does it need to be operational after?
Steven Mnuchin says "Thank You" for all the hard work building up the business that he will now get handed to him.
So much for a "free market economy". It seems those only work when things are going well, not so much when things get a little tougher.
Whenever China creates a level playing field for Western social media companies we can start talking about a free market economy.
Post a Comment