Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Therefore, this power to influence younger generations should be restricted to US government and US big tech Corporation. They know what is best for them.
Nothing in your comment changes this:

"If China controls the recommendation system that decides what content people consume that, then they can influence the narrative of the country."

And China propaganda is so powerful that US propaganda cannot counter this, even within US borders, following rules chosen by their own country, US propaganda is losing.

What makes Chinese propaganda so powerful, even in the form of silly 30 seconds dancing? Or perhaps the real problem is not this? But the existance of a single non western source of consent manufacturing?

Strange take. Some kind of philosophical purity says that we should allow foreign adversaries to influence domestic audiences because we should be able to counter that influence with out own?

It’s like saying you should allow someone to punch you because you “should” be able to punch yourself harder.

Consider how this spat looks from the perspective of a European.

The US controls Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp.

Owner of Twitter has office space in the white house, and is calling for the overthrow of elected European governments and deliberately spreading misinformation.

Then the US sees one non-american-owned social media network and decides it's got to be banned.

Perhaps those Europeans should consider whether they want foreigners influencing domestic audiences?

>The US controls Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp.

Not in the way that the CCP controls ByteDance. ByteDance cannot win a lawsuit against the Chinese government.

China, Russia and Iran are designated adversaries and will be treated as such.

And I think Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Whatsapp should be also be far more regulated.

Musk won't be in the White House for long.

Yes, they should.

The mistake here is seeing the US action as a universal moral statement and therefore hypocritical.

The US action was simply pragmatic. There is no claim of universality or morality.

I very much agree other countries should also look at US hegemony through a pragmatic lens: is this a net harm? It’s kind of funny that you raise it as a gotcha.

So, letting divergent opinions from other countries and from different entities is like being punched? You know that most world uses social media from foreign entities, right? Curious how until few years ago, when there were no relevant competitors outside US, the dominant discourse was that only tyranical countries would do this.
> What makes Chinese propaganda so powerful, even in the form of silly 30 seconds dancing?

TikTok is as much about silly 30 seconds dancing as Twitter was about posting 144 character messages or a prime time news program is about 2 minute clips with a voiceover.

The way you fail to even frame the problem suggests you either are oblivious about the problem or you're doing your best to avoid discussing it.

You are really arguing that US should improve on its propaganda game?

wtf

How about as little propaganda as possible?

Because it will not happen. And cannot be enforced.

No, im not arguing this because US already uses more propaganda than China. I was asking why americans are so afraid that chinese propaganda will be so more powerful than the Inês that they already have.

It got enforced today.
loading story #42760427
{"deleted":true,"id":42757768,"parent":42757275,"time":1737300226,"type":"comment"}
The West does not have to tolerate the intolerant. When China opens its Internet to the world like it always should have, they can continue to play their little CCP “China good, Collective West bad” game in the West.

To really be fair, we should lock our Internet from China for 30 years and let the Chinese people have the full wide un-CCP-censored Western consent Internet you’re talking about. We can start with old favorite topics like T-square, Winnie the Pooh, that COVID doctor the CCP suppressed and then martyred.

Then we can sit down and have a frank discussion on what the terms of Internet use should be.

Until then, China should be grateful their State enterprises were allowed in at all.

But to answer your question, US propaganda isn’t countering because it just doesn’t exist. We have a free press. It can criticize the government, and does it every single day. The U.S. doesn’t do military parades, and its self marketing sucks because it’s not an imperative, unlike China.

Furthermore, China clearly thinks propaganda and intense censorship is the way to go. What else can explain the efforts to A. Block Winnie the Pooh B. Block the sale of TikTok? Profit clearly isn’t the motive now, which is very suspicious of such a large ostensibly for profit company.

The fact that the consideration to sell it to Trump/Musk in particular is floating around points to the political value of TikTok in the first place. Bribe the incoming admin, extract some favor in return, I.E. back down on Taiwan or relieve semiconductor tariffs.

It’s all obvious.

Sure, US propaganda do not exist. Not in Hollywood. Not in games. Not in social media and news sources. Makes one wonder then how people got so propagandized.
{"deleted":true,"id":42758608,"parent":42758046,"time":1737304913,"type":"comment"}
This is an excellent example of a Straw Man argument.
Why do you trust that an app based in China would actually comply with American rules? Facebook voluntarily disclosed that misinformation was spread on their platform. They cooperated with the DOJ to connect this misinformation campaign to thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian nationals. Would you expect the same cooperation from TikTok?
Anyone can influence those narratives. Owning the system just makes it more efficient than astroturfing, puppeteering and trolling.
Agreed.

But owning the platform makes influence far, far more efficient and that is why we should not allow our adversaries to do so.

"If the US controls the food system that decides what content people consume, then they can kill an entire country."

Hysteria or ban McDonald's/Pepsi/Coke/Subway/etc?

I think that this is an example of the Weak Analogy Fallacy.
It might come off as a "weak analogy" because it sounds weak to you ... to make the point that there are valid grounds (the epidemic of obesity & diabetes) for Xenophobic Asians to think addictive Coke / McDonald's are part of some sinister plot by the Americans to impoverish them. And that line of reasoning is ludicrous, or "weak" as you put it because it is (unless we are Xenophobic ourselves, then it isn't)!

If you desire a strong analogy, do Hollywood, YouTube, Netflix etc, which are banned by the other side citing similar reasons to TikTok, I am sure. But the other side is totally authoritarian and we aren't, right?

US government is literally accountable to US citizens. If it is not, you have a bigger problem.
Aspirationally yes. In practice US can't even rid itself of civil forfeiture or federal weed laws despite consistent majority against them. We can't get rid of overbearing housing regulations despite it destroying our youth. Hell the democratic party presidential candidate wasn't even chosen in a primary, just installed in without a public vote to ensure viability, handing a default.
We do have a giant problem with the policymaking community being very narrow, but the only way to solve it is by having communication platforms that aren't being influenced by that same community.

When I say narrow, I mean narrow. The toppling of the Guatemalan liberal democracy and subsequent replacement by a dictator was performed at the behest of a handful of people who wanted to and did retire to a sinecure at United Fruit, and without the full knowledge of the president.

They're a puppet for lobbies and businesses.
Hasn't been for a while now. Our government is only held to account by the Oligarchs that own our politicians.
And somehow a majority votes for the candidate that puts an oligarch in power of an 'unofficial' position/department. It was clearly vote for people with a lot of money.

Something about The government you elect is the government you deserve.?

"Vote for people with a lot of money" describes both parties for I don't even know how long. It's obscenely disingenuous to pretend that's new. Both parties have been bankrolled by corporate interests for longer than I've been alive for.

The Elon thing is way more brazen, yes. I also think many people would rather have than instead of two dozen faceless lobbyists sitting behind superPACs, at least you can point to the guy when he pushes for policy. If it was the norm that companies were completely public about showing up to influence politics that might make a better world, really.

Not a fan of the whole thing mind you, but if it's going to go down, I'm not sure this is actually worse.

Both parties have been bankrolled by corporate interests for longer than I've been alive for.

Sure, but this is quite a different scale. Apparently the net worth of Trumps (official) cabinet, so excluding Musk, is 7 billion. For comparison, the net worth of Biden's cabinet was 118 million dollar.

Source: https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/amerikaanse-ambtenaren-...

(Sorry for the Dutch source, searching the numbers gives English sources as well.)

The Elon thing is way more brazen, yes. I also think many people would rather have than instead of two dozen faceless lobbyists sitting behind superPACs,

The super PACs will continue to exist as well. I am pretty sure this will give some of the PACs only more influence/power.

at least you can point to the guy when he pushes for policy

In the same way you can point to the guy when he tries to interrupts peaceful transition?

Which brings me back me to my original point, the majority of Americans voted for a crook (interrupting peaceful transition amongst other things) and oligarchs. We'll see where it ends.

The votes are following the propaganda, and Trump won the public opinion war. Democrats have been slow to learn this lesson and get their messaging and public relations under control.
If only we trusted in people to make their own decisions, but that's crazy talk.

Its widely known at this point that TikTok is a Chinese owned business and that the CCP has a history if forcibly influencing companies to do their bidding. If people still want to use TikTok I don't see what the real problem is.

> If only we trusted in people to make their own decisions, but that's crazy talk.

You're talking about people who say Haitians are eating pets and having the CCP dictate what content you consume is preferable than not having the CCP dictate what content you consume. Make it make sense.

Yes, plenty of people say crazy things. So what? If we want to uphold free speech we have to take the good with the bad. If we don't, Congress can cross the aisle and write a new amendment.

I don't want the CCP, or any government, dictating what I see. Thankfully they really can't. They can dictate what is online on various sites and apps, but they can't dictate what I consume. I've never used TikTok personally, the CCP hasn't dictated anything to me at least on that front because I can choose what I look at.

Propaganda works even if you know. Otherwise we wouldn't have the advertisement industry we have.
You can't effectively regulate away propaganda though, otherwise we wouldn't have the advertising industry we have.
The fact that we allow advertisement is a choice. Some countries choose to forbid advertisement for cigarettes, for example.

And yes, there is big difference between the US advertisement industry, which is at least in principle regulated by the US legal/government system and thus, US citizens, vs. the essentially unregulated propaganda-machine that is Tik Tok.

This is not to say that a ban is the only option here. But I am not convinced that other control options are effective, or less of a danger.

> This is not to say that a ban is the only option here. But I am not convinced that other control options are effective, or less of a danger.

We're definitely in agreement here, there are other options and all have their pros and cons.

The major risk I see with the TikTok ban is that it wasn't actually a TikTok ban, it gave the president new powers to unilaterally ban services in certain situations.

As far as TikTok goes the ban may be more effective. At a minimum I wish the law was specific to them though, and I can't support it simply for the new executive powers created.

Oh i can dream about a world without the advertising industry we have. It honestly seems to me that targeted advertising is the root of so many evils
It's widely known by Hacker News audience. A quick poll of 16 to 22 year old nephews, nieces and their friends around me is met with blank, completely uncaring faces.

(Not saying one way or another about banning the app, but discussion should start from a realistic assessment)

If it isn't well known that's a great reason for the government to focus on making that clear. Banning the app really doesn't help anyone long term, and giving the president even more power is always a risky game.
And these are mostly the same children given the right to vote a few decades ago. (I was one of them.) This has always saddened me.
It's the same with the US, haven't you seen how some topics were encouraged with the Biden administration and supported by our Californian "neutral" friends in LLMs and medias ? and suddenly there is Trump, and they all start to switch sides ?

It's the direct effect of political pressure.

You nicer you behave to the government, the more carrots you get.

Yeah, I totally expect a 14 y.o. girl who joins TikTok to check trendy dance move to be aware of dangers of CCP propaganda.

What percentage of population understands that propaganda can be subtle? Sneak some ragebait here and there to make it look like situation is worse than it is, exaggerate, radicalize people...

America is handing this opportunity on a platter by practically outlawing child independence.

A kid should be out exploring on their own, shooting squirrels, riding their bike to the next town, bailing hay for cash at the farm at the edge of town. I didn't become a staunch supporter of most American classical liberal principles because an app told me to, it's because it's how I lived when I grew up. If you shut me in or chained me to a parent all day, well maybe you grow up with whatever tiktok tells you since you see it as the only way to stretch your legs.

Well, it sounds like you may have grown up in the country. Personally i think it's a bad idea for children to have guns in densely populated cities, searching for small animals to kill in the one park within "dangerous but still walking" distance. Regardless of what you believe or how you grew up, it's simply impossible to replicate that kind of freedom and safety for a large majority of American children.

Our cities are run by cars, children are notoriously bad at sensing them. I'm sure there's things that could be done but nothing, nothing can give a kid in Brooklyn the opportunity to "bail hay at the farm on the edge of town".

The big city equivalent is closer to a bus pass, $5 for a hot dog, and see you at dusk. The danger of dodging cars arguably is less than being locked in with TikTok. Maybe kids hawk chicharones in the city instead of bailing hay, obviously it won't be a direct translation.
{"deleted":true,"id":42757711,"parent":42757265,"time":1737299822,"type":"comment"}
I had a CS grad student very confidently tell me that TikTok was not owned by a Chinese company.
Well they can believe that if they want, it won't hurt anyone. For better or worse, free speech means anyone can say what they want and free thought in general means people can happily be wrong about a fact that seems very easy to check.
This sounds like a libertarian idea of defense: we don't need an army, everyone can just buy a gun.

The idea that people can just choose to resist a foreign propaganda machine is just as comical.

a Chinese company, yes, but backed by some of the major investment funds in the west, the Chinese own 20%, Chinese government is under 1%.
> a Chinese company, yes, but backed by some of the major investment funds in the west, the Chinese own 20%, Chinese government is under 1%.

ByteDance not only blocked the sale of TikTok to a US company but also TikTok unilaterally decided to shut down operations in the US to strongarm the US government to prevent it's sale.

If the CCP actually had no control over TikTok and at most they only held a residual non-controlling position, then how do you explain the scorched earth strategy that is only aligned with the CCP's strategy and throws all other shareholders under the bus?

The Chinese government has a majority of the voting stock.

More importantly, the company based in China, and the engineers working on it's recommendation system are based in China, and both are subject to the laws of China.

From a national security perspective, it's controlled by the Chinese government.

This seems a bit like splitting hairs.

There is quite a bit of naivete regarding how the Chinese government controls Chinese companies.

It is very different from the US.

> There is quite a bit of naivete regarding how the Chinese government controls Chinese companies.

I happen to know how China works, have you got some example to present?

> It is very different from the US.

Actually, not really.

Can Facebook keep alive their "fact checking" program, now that Trump is president and not Biden, whose administration ordered it, probably more against Trump himself, than any other adversary of the USA?

Are Vanguard and BlackRock free to invest in whatever company they want?

For example: why are Vanguard and BlackRock backing Unicredit to buy Commerzbank, one of the few European banks not owned or heavily funded by American funds?

A Chinese company cannot take the CCP to court and win. There is no separation of powers in China. There is no constitutional protection held on place by a group outside the ruling party.

China has a faux free capitalist society. Chinese companies are the way they are because the government lets them be that way, not because they have the right to be that way.

loading story #42758232
That sounds like a reasonable argument to create an age limit for social media.

It also sounds like an argument for parents to step in - every child is different and a parent should be doing the parenting rather than Congress and the White House.

Adults are also quite susceptible to propaganda.
loading story #42758574
U.S. government isn't perfect, therefore we should let some other government just run wild in our country. I follow your logic.
The propaganda has worked perfectly.