A bill that will force the app’s Chinese owners to sell will soon become law.

The times dives into an intelligence report on how TikTok’s political algorithm anomalies align with the CCP’s Geostrategic Objectives https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf

This report highlights major differences in the prevalence of hashtags related to subjects like Hong Kong Protests, Tainanmen Square, Tibet, the South China Sea, Taiwan, Uyghurs, Pro-Ukraine, and Pro-Isreal when compared to other major social media platforms.

Additionally the times cited a Wall Street Journal analysis (https://www.wsj.com/tech/tiktok-israel-gaza-hamas-war-a5dfa0ee) which “found evidence that TikTok was promoting extreme content, especially against Israel. (China has generally sided with Hamas.)”

  • stanleytweedle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    196·
    7 months ago

    Thanks for posting this. I admit I’m of the opinion that this kind of evidence is moot because even the potential for a foreign adversary to have this kind of public manipulation and intelligence gathering tool in place is an unacceptable risk. But it’s good to see people taking the time to dig into the data to make an even clearer case.

    And the chorus goes: “But whatabout Facebook!”

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      93·
      7 months ago

      And the chorus goes: “But whatabout Facebook!”

      Amusingly the crowd that seems to care the most about this TikTok situation is generally the same crowd that supports government controlled censorship of US based Social Media like Facebook!

      The cognitive dissonance between “TikTok should be free to do whatever it wants!” and “Facebook / Twitter / Insta / Snap need to suppress things I don’t agree with.” is amazing.

      • trebuchet@lemmy.ml
        111·
        7 months ago

        That’s not what I see at all.

        Normally it goes more like instead of targeting TikTok specifically, we should pass a broad bill that targets all social media companies regardless of who owns them.

        The point isn’t generally that TikTok should be free or Facebook et al need to suppress but that we should treat all of their problematic behavior in the same way.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          43·
          7 months ago

          …but that we should treat all of their problematic behavior in the same way.

          That’s the part I’m referring too. In this context “Problematic behavior” refers to “Allows opinions I disagree with / doesn’t allow opinions I do agree with.” and the only fix for that is censorship of the domestic platforms while allowing TikTok to continue doing whatever it wants.

          I believe the “problematic behavior” you’re referring to is the collection and sale of user data but that isn’t what the provided research or my comment were about.

          • trebuchet@lemmy.ml
            5·
            7 months ago

            Isn’t the solution you’re implying (and the solution pushed for by OP) if I’m not misunderstanding the exact mirror image? I.e. we should disallow TikTok from platforming opinions you disagree with (aligns with China) while allowing Facebook et al to continue because they mainly show opinions you happen to agree with (aligns with Western interests)?

            I think the main opinion I see on Lemmy is that we should either force them all to regulate speech the same way, or not regulate free speech on any of them, but either way with a clear rule that is applied fairly and equally.

            • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
              34·
              7 months ago

              Isn’t the solution you’re implying (and the solution pushed for by OP) if I’m not misunderstanding the exact mirror image? I.e. we should disallow TikTok from platforming opinions you disagree with (aligns with China) while allowing Facebook et al to continue because they mainly show opinions you happen to agree with (aligns with Western interests)?

              There’s a significant difference between platforming an opinion and secretly boosting friendly content while suppressing contrary content. ByteDance has apparently been lying to everyone’s face because they claimed they WEREN’T adjusting content like this when it turns out they are. That isn’t platforming it’s manipulation.

              Then there’s the idea that “aligns with China” is somehow equivalent to “aligns with Western interests” when the former represents a single political party in a single country (CCP) while the latter represents literally dozens of nations with hundreds of political parties that are loosely coalesced around a very generalized idea of Liberalism. The West simply doesn’t have a singular opinion or interest on anything.

              For example I can hop on Twitter or Insta or Lemmy and get everything from “Israel is da’ bestest!” to “Israel is a monster committing genocide.” and even though its diametrically opposed it can still be considered “Western Interest”. Meanwhile over in TikTok land, at least according to the study, the exact opposite is happening. There’s one correct opinion, the CCPs, and if content doesn’t align with it then it gets pushed down.

              I think the main opinion I see on Lemmy is that we should either force them all to regulate speech the same way, or not regulate free speech on any of them, but either way with a clear rule that is applied fairly and equally.

              A lot of people will claim that right up until they run into content they feel strongly about and then they’ll call to have it boosted or censored, whichever aligns with their opinion. We’ve watched it play out over and over and over in Social Media the last few years.

              In the end ByteDance / TikTok is a new and unique problem for the United States; for the first time ever we are being challenged by a tech platform from a rival nation that has vastly different policy goals and ideas about society and social management that are incompatible with our own.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.ggOPEnglish
      54·
      7 months ago

      I largely agree, but when I got the email from the times this morning I went “Why aren’t you guys posting this front page!? People need to know about this research. This isn’t just a hypothetical risk anymore!”