Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
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.

> A Chinese company cannot take the CCP to court and win. There is no separation of powers in China

Why should a company take the CCP to court though?

They are in business together and have grown immensely in the past 30 years.

> There is no constitutional protection held on place by a group outside the ruling party

Where is that protection in the US though?

Call them parties, a faux bi-headed system instead of an honest one-headed one, and you get the same outcome.

> China has a faux free capitalist society

They never wanted US capitalism though, so it's business as intended.

> Chinese companies are the way they are

because the people of China like them like that.

Believe me, they do not want to be like you. The opposite is true in fact.

>Why should a company take the CCP to court though?

Someone's internet is monitored...

loading story #42758600
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.
Sure, I'm not arguing that propaganda is ineffective. I'm arguing that people should at least have access to the facts and be allowed to make their own decisions. In this case the important facts are simply that TikTok is a Chinese app and the CCP almost certainly influences them.

When it comes to children that is a different story, but the debate should be whether we enforce an age limit on social media. There is at least precedent (for better or worse) for an age limit on things we think children aren't ready or able to consume.