118
What a TikTok Ban Would Mean for the U.S. Defense of an Open Internet
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
118 points (92.8% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4264 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think one difference is Google is a pull system: you query Google and get results. The short form video streams are push mediums. They feed you a stream of content that it thinks you want. They are fundamentally more susceptible to pushing a particular agenda.
The evidence from the reports in the above article certainly looks pretty daming that tiktok is pushing a particular agenda. The comparison to broadcast which often does have licensing requirements is probably apt.
I don't buy the arguement that this gives cover to repressive regimes to censor more views because frankly they are doing that already.
Isn't broadcast licensing specifically about partitioning radio spectrum space, which isn't applicable here? US-based social media isn't licensed and applying radio era law to internet may not be appropriate.
From the UK perspective broadcasters have a license to broadcast and are regulated by ofcomm. I thought the FCC had similar oversight of the US broadcasters - for example not being keen on swearing and sex on TV. For UK news programmes there is a requirement to be balanced for example.
Most assuredly, the licensing of the spectrum comes with requirements and strings, so those broadcasters are regulated. They must follow the rules or risk their license.
However, radio licensing came about to avoid broadcast "collisions" for amateur radio operators in ~1912. Regulations came later under the FCC in 1934.
These same collisions are not applicable to the internet (or rather, we've already used methods to avoid them, like DNS).
In my country every platform is pushing some kind of bias from the government.Government can ask to remove any kind of content from YouTube, Facebook, tiktok, etc. Especially political ones.
I have seen YouTube favoring one party in particular in their breaking news section even on a new account.
On a sidenote, its good for tiktok to be banned, I hate short form content.
What evidence? What reports?
See up-thread: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf
No. It isn't that. Google absolutely will build a profile around you with "your anonymized" data for the purposes of ad aggregation. They collect information about everyone who uses their services. They do this in order to push ads not agendas. That's a major difference. In addition you can and many people do go out of their way to degoogle or not use any Google services. Making it so that Google does not have an effective or even viable way to build a profile on those people. You can't do that with tik tok.
Even if you're like me and have never actively used the tik tok website, app, or service, everyone you know who has the tik tok app is feeding it your information. It has system level permissions to a lot of apps. Asks for a lot of access to things the app doesn't need in order to run. Each time they use the app it takes information from all the other apps on the device. Including things like your texts phone logs, what banking apps you use, what medical apps you use. And it buys data from other brokers to build profiles on not just its users but anyone it's user's know and communicate with using that device. It then collates that data to build better profiles of non-users.
This information doesn't have to be stored on American servers because it's not the information of users. It's the information of non-users. And even if it were it would still be accessible by the company and the CCP.
We already know that some bad actors in the company have tried to use the data bytedance collect in order to track journalists with the intension of finding out who their sources are. The company called that bad judgement. I call it a major red flag to add to the stack.