The potential TikTok ban is being decided on by the wrong people
Here we go again. Four years after the last time the feds tried this, TikTok is on the cusp of an effective ban forged by a host of elected officials who know about money but dangerously know nothing about technology.
A state-level TikTok ban has been passed in Montana
My personal disdain for social media is clear. Should I ever leave AppleInsider, I will light my social media presences on fire, and walk away without looking at the explosion. In the short-term, I don't allow my children to have accounts right now -- and for now, they know that I will find out if they do.
I take these measures because I believe that social media is a force for both good and evil, with a tilt towards the latter in the last 10 years. What mostly started as a quick way to share cat pictures and user statuses, has evolved to be so much more.
The assorted social media venues are capable of distributing useful information very quickly to a wide audience, and we use it here to spread our own content. Because of that rapid distribution, it has already proven to help in disasters, and propagate warnings faster than ever before.
On the other hand, beyond privacy concerns, inflammatory lies spread on every social media platform faster than the truth, poorly moderated hate prevails, and the debate rages on about the mental health impact on heavy users.
Selling TikTok to US companies allegedly in the interest of national security doesn't solve any of the above, and it won't make the US safer. That TikTok sale certainly won't magically grant users privacy, as every social media platform everywhere squeezes every single dime it legally can out of data it happily harvests from users.
Of course, we live in a world where there are other, more pressing, security matters surrounding China. Outside of actual military matters, in recent days US ports have been found to have Chinese-made cranes, packed with cellular technology, and have apparently for decades.
This hasn't been discussed on the floor, nor is there any discussion about stopping the flow of cranes to the US from China. That's a hard topic, and striking down TikTok is an easier soundbite for politicians on their favored social media venues.
The elected officials and candidates screaming for a ban are all hypocrites. Nearly of them have campaign accounts to catch the TikTok faithful, which are run by assistants who actually know something about social media.
Instead, we've got officials making decisions, who are listening more to lobbyists and sources of funding than anybody or anything else.
And, the vote on Wednesday was after the bill was available for less than three days to read. I guarantee that outside of the few assistants involved in crafting, nobody read it, or discussed the implications beyond the visibility on social media and traditional media of wrapping themselves in the flag.
I know this, because most of them have said so on social media and voted anyway.
No moral stance, only a capitalistic one
As always with technological matters, this debate and vote is more about money and how to make it, filtered through willful bipartisan ignorance about technology by our elected officials, more than it is security.
Nancy Pelosi thought she nailed it when she made an absolutely ridiculous tic-tac-toe analogy, saying that a divestiture would lead to a win.
"This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. It's an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-Tac-Toe. A winner. A winner."
-- Rep. Pelosi pic.twitter.com/ExkX6bxz0O— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman)
On the other side of the aisle, presidential candidate Donald Trump is now against a ban, when he was clearly for it before while he was in-office. He's against it now because it'll help "enemy of the people" Facebook -- with the latter also a prime driver behind his prior election win and potential re-election. Trump's treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin said on live television that he's putting together a group to buy TikTok, which may or may not have anything to do with the new position.
Both takes are ludicrous, made by people who have absolutely no business making decisions on technology. They don't have the knowledge, they don't have the backgrounds, their formal education decades ago is irrelevant to the task at hand, and their time in federal service and/or blatant thirst for money aggravates the situation.
Worst of all, they think they've got the skill to make these decisions because they truly believe that they know best, instead of putting it to a popular vote. But, here we are again anyway.
Banning or restricting TikTok -- or any other social media venue -- might be the right answer to other questions, but it isn't for the one that's being posed. In many ways, selling TikTok to a US company will make many of the actual problems with social media worse.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
As for worrying about China's spying on USA computer systems, including citizens computers, this activity is done by every single country in the world against every other single country in the world. The USA spends a ton of money spying on other countries computer systems and networks. If you think I'm wrong, you're totally misinformed and have your head buried in the sand. What do you think the NSA's job is? Politicians need to admit this fact and stop blaming other country's products for doing exactly what American products do.
Sorry, but you need to stop blaming social media and giving newspapers any credit for telling the truth. Media of all kinds, including simple spoken words at "social" and un-social groupings have been lying, telling half-truths, etc., since the dawn of time. People are hesitant to actually tell the truth unless it serves them. As for influencers, I totally agree. They're the new-wave snake oil salesman of American history, trying to prop up a product they know stinks. Do I listen to influencers? Absolutely not. I do read technical articles, like those presented by Appleinsider (used to simply say AI but I can't anymore since AI means something totally different) but since I've been in this industry for 50 years, I have enough background to know which influencer/commenter is selling me garbage.
Whereas the version you get in China is science experiments and tips for successful living.
If TikTok could get a hold of that, it would be much more acceptable to the sane.
If this bill passes, the app likely will not be banned. TikTok will likely sell the app to a domestic investor, so calm down creators.
It’s time that America starts putting America first. We are so brainwashed to taking a Republican or Democrat side on things. Let’s unite as one and do what’s best for us, our children, and America’s future. Support the divesture of TikTok! ‘Merica! 🇺🇸
It’s bipartisan for good reason - TikTok is compelled to allow the CCP access to anything it wants. And they already used it to spy on US journalists. China bans US apps, why would we allow a CCP spy app? TikTok can avoid an expulsion by selling to a non-CCP entity.
Again it’s not conjecture or concern — it’s already happened. The CCP has already taken TikTok data to spy on US citizens & journalists:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-bytedance-workers-fired-data-access-journalists
Contrast with Apple who actually fought the US government (and won) to not put in backdoors or assist them in decryption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
Any a completely misguided security policy would knowingly condone a proven spy device of the CCP.
Everyone knows that the root cause behind most "bad things a-happening" comes down to people. Social media is just a tool and any tool can be weaponized, whether it's chainsaws, hammers, guns, and even pillows. The implied anonymity and absence of consequences and accountability in social media forums leaves people free to expose the worst possible version of themselves. The networking effect and pervasiveness of social media allows individuals acting out to coalesce into to collective mob mentality and engage in mob action.
What were once differences of opinions between parties around setting priorities and forming policies have transformed into competing mobs that basically want to destroy anyone that does not agree with them. Issues and perspectives are no longer argued on merit. Every argument has become an ad hominem attack intended to denigrate and subjugate the humanity of the opposition. If a mob member doesn't agree with someone based on a measurable merit, metric, truth, or facts, it's no longer a difference in perspective to be driven to resolution through negotiation, give and take, or compromise. Instead it's scorched earth, take no prisoners, the opposition must be eliminated, punished, or "killed" at least to whatever extent is allowed.
There is no quick fix. But one step in the right direction would be for people to focus more on those things that are closest, immediate, and important to themselves, family, friends, and neighbors. Being a patriot has nothing to do with waving or hugging a flag. It's being a good neighbor, respecting law and order, being empathetic to the needs of others, doing the right thing, and recognizing that you have to serve others, not just yourself. If you have never served others (in whatever capacity defines your existence), you are not fit to lead.
Not that that's anyone's fault but Washington's for not providing people with enough information (without giving away methods and sources) to make up their own minds. However, having worked at senior levels of government, I have a high degree of confidence these actions aren't being taken precipitously, or capriciously.
This article is just your hot take, and as is typical with folks who want to comment on governmental workings, is absent any real understanding of how government really works. I realize you worked in government for a number of years, Mike, but did you work at the policy level? If you had, you'd communicate a more even-handed view of what's happening here.
If you want background, I retired after 30 years of service in the Army and Air Force, which included time spent working in the office of a member of the Joint Chiefs coordinating policy actions.
Yeah, politicians are going to politick. But when something is this controversial it's nearly impossible to get so many of them to agree. The mere fact there is so much alignment on this issue should communicate just how big a deal this is.
Anyone who really believes the Chinese government does NOT have a hand controlling what Tik Tok is doing are either ignorant, or willfully blind. There is no part of that society the government doesn't try to control. Don't forget, this is the country where the government has implemented a social credit system and is using facial recognition to publicly name and shame people. I mean, Orwell much?
This is also the country that has set up 'police stations' in foreign countries to harass, intimidate, and silence any person of Chinese extraction that criticizes China.
THAT'S the country you want having access to your data? If they do this to their own citizens, how constrained do you think they'll be about taking action against the citizens of other nations?
we are following the Chinese in what they censor, since they were the first to block tiktok
i don't know about you
but its much bigger concern for me that facebook instagram etc have all the info about me than tiktok
so the chinese communist party now knows i like breasts and cars?
uh ok
thats much less of a concern to me than the US companies getting all my data and indirectly selling it to the US government
actually, if i had to pick, i would much rather the data stay with the chinese
the US government can hurt me a lot more since i live in the states
something tells me the US does not like the fact that they do not control the narrative on tiktok
and i'm sure the fact that there is a lot of news coming out of gaza thats upsetting AIPAC, so the dollars flow to the politicians and suddenly they want to block it
out of "national security"
so the chinese want to interfere in our elections?
that's not like we've never done that before
It's been a while, admittedly. Fortunately, a good percentage of the folks that I had long contracts with are still in office, so I suspect the knowledge gleaned from talking to them is still current.
No place in the piece do I say that I want China to have my data. The piece really isn't about that. There are sharper security issues with China that they just don't want to deal with because they aren't flashy, and this is low-hanging fruit with an added bonus of legislators and past ones potentially being able to make a buck with that same data.