Vdawgp

Vdawgp t1_jcitb9n wrote

I respect and agree with the argument that we need comprehensive data protection and algorithm transparency laws. That makes sense.

My fundamental disagreement with you is the level of concern about TikTok specifically. The fact is that ByteDance has to, whether willingly or unwillingly, do what the CCP asks. There is evidence of algorithm manipulation. The CCP does have those levers. We’ve seen ByteDance work with the CCP very openly. As Ben Thompson says, China is using their access to push their ideals. And as Matt Yglesias says, allowing TikTok would be no different from the US allowing the Soviets to buy NBC during the Cold War.

For me banning or forcing TikTok to divest is a five alarm fire we have to take care of, while comprehensive user protection laws are the asbestos in the walls of the house next door that probably should’ve been removed a while ago, but not the main concern with the fire going.

1

Vdawgp t1_jcinwb7 wrote

Got it, so you’re resorting to technicalities. Obviously the version of Google that would be in China would have to play ball with the CCP and follow their rules on things like data governance and local control. So I ask again, if China is going to treat Western companies as adversaries on this topic, why should we lowering our walls and allow them to export authoritarianism through TikTok? It’s pretty simple; if TikTok is willing to sell off their US arm so that it’s not required to follow Chinese law (either implicit or explicit), than it should be banned for both the data and influence issues.

1

Vdawgp t1_jchu9vo wrote

This isn’t a personal freedom or free speech issue, it’s a data and influence issue. If China doesn’t trust Western social networks having their citizen’s data or subject to their algorithms, than we shouldn’t trust the CCP’s either. We wouldn’t have allowed the USSR to buy NBC, and I fail to see how this is any different.

1

Vdawgp t1_jcgy4s0 wrote

First off, there is proof of algorithm manipulation.

Second, I don’t understand how bringing up China banning Western social media is an argument against banning TikTok in its current state. Why are we playing to a double standard where they can ban our apps but we can’t ban theirs? If China does this because they believe Western social media would manipulate its contests to cause unrest, then they’d have no issue using TikTok to do the same and we shouldn’t allow it.

1

Vdawgp t1_jcgb5f4 wrote

Even if all the US data was sequestered perfectly and never got back to the CCP (something I have severe doubts about), banning it unless they sell is the right move IMO because, due to the CCP issue, the algorithm is subject to the changes China wants. We’ve already seen examples during the Hong Kong protests of different videos showing up based on if you searched about demonstrations in English vs. Chinese characters, and we should not be comfortable allowing the CCP to easily manipulating what we’re paying attention to.

−1

Vdawgp t1_ja5oj4s wrote

Ahem; as a Bostonian parachuting in I would like to say that in the context of what was being done, the Big Dig was well managed. They used the existing Elevated Artery as support struts to tunnel underneath, extended 90 under Fort Point to Logan, reconnected the North End to Boston, all while not shutting down any roads. They performed the equivalent of brain surgery on a patient while still awake. Is there certain things I’d like them to have done better? Yes (don’t source screws from a negligent contractor, actually build NSRL while your at it, built housing on the useless green space). But by and large, I think you can argue it was the most successfully run mega project in the US since LBJ.

6

Vdawgp t1_j6n6cz8 wrote

If we’re really swinging for the fences, then I would include some bored commuter rail tunnels out to Logan so that the Newbury/Rockport line can have an Airport stop. And while we’re at it, may as well add each terminal onto the Blue Line.

3