> Nor would they encourage smartphone manufacturers to better sandbox users from profiling by apps, nor would they pass laws placing restrictions on the seedy data broker industry, nor would they pass laws preventing telcos from selling your data to the data brokers.
Even with this legislation, the Chinese government can just buy similar data from data brokers who aggregate it from Facebook, Google, Snapchat, Twitter and other social media outlets. Hell, they can probably just buy TikTok's data from data brokers too - the law doesn't block TikTok selling their data anymore than it blocks Facebook et al.
So... it's pretty clear this isn't really about surveilling U.S. citizens. That's just a convenient excuse. Per the WSJ's article today:
> "Lawmakers received classified briefings in which intelligence officials warned that China could use the app to spread Chinese propaganda and surveil Americans."
The other cited reason is "Chinese propaganda". But foreign governments already massively plant and promote propaganda across U.S. owned social networks - both overtly with paid ads and covertly with highly sophisticated astroturfing campaigns which manipulate social media recommendation algorithms. I'm not really sure the Chinese government theoretically having direct control of TikTok's algorithm vs indirectly manipulating the same algorithm from the outside is that big of a strategic advantage. Any manipulation has to be subtle because the TikTok algorithm has to remain highly optimized for retaining viewers as the highest priority. Pushing government favored propaganda has to be strictly limited so it doesn't nerf retention or become obvious.
Also, despite the massive resources foreign (and domestic) governments have dedicated to propagandizing social media, most experts think it hasn't been all that effective. It can occasionally shift broad public opinion a tiny bit but, like overt political advertising, more meaningful movement tends to be limited to partisans who already agreed anyway. The overall predictability, repeatability and ROI are falling while the costs of adapting to game the system and avoid detection continue to increase.
So, let me try to 'steel man' the government's case here... if the Chinese government actually does control TikTok's algorithm and data in a meaningful way, and assuming this actually gives them a significant effectiveness advantage and/or cost discount, maybe the true purpose of the U.S. legislation is to force the Chinese government to pay the same costs the U.S. government, U.S. political parties and foreign governments have to pay when trying to manipulate social media? Even assuming all that to be true, it doesn't sound important enough to be worth trying to tiptoe around the first amendment. Maybe the primary driver really is just political grandstanding and appearing to "do something" on an issue that naively appears 'important' to most voters. (As usual, it doesn't matter that the "something" being done won't change much. The important thing is appearing to do it.)
Even with this legislation, the Chinese government can just buy similar data from data brokers who aggregate it from Facebook, Google, Snapchat, Twitter and other social media outlets. Hell, they can probably just buy TikTok's data from data brokers too - the law doesn't block TikTok selling their data anymore than it blocks Facebook et al.
So... it's pretty clear this isn't really about surveilling U.S. citizens. That's just a convenient excuse. Per the WSJ's article today:
> "Lawmakers received classified briefings in which intelligence officials warned that China could use the app to spread Chinese propaganda and surveil Americans."
The other cited reason is "Chinese propaganda". But foreign governments already massively plant and promote propaganda across U.S. owned social networks - both overtly with paid ads and covertly with highly sophisticated astroturfing campaigns which manipulate social media recommendation algorithms. I'm not really sure the Chinese government theoretically having direct control of TikTok's algorithm vs indirectly manipulating the same algorithm from the outside is that big of a strategic advantage. Any manipulation has to be subtle because the TikTok algorithm has to remain highly optimized for retaining viewers as the highest priority. Pushing government favored propaganda has to be strictly limited so it doesn't nerf retention or become obvious.
Also, despite the massive resources foreign (and domestic) governments have dedicated to propagandizing social media, most experts think it hasn't been all that effective. It can occasionally shift broad public opinion a tiny bit but, like overt political advertising, more meaningful movement tends to be limited to partisans who already agreed anyway. The overall predictability, repeatability and ROI are falling while the costs of adapting to game the system and avoid detection continue to increase.
So, let me try to 'steel man' the government's case here... if the Chinese government actually does control TikTok's algorithm and data in a meaningful way, and assuming this actually gives them a significant effectiveness advantage and/or cost discount, maybe the true purpose of the U.S. legislation is to force the Chinese government to pay the same costs the U.S. government, U.S. political parties and foreign governments have to pay when trying to manipulate social media? Even assuming all that to be true, it doesn't sound important enough to be worth trying to tiptoe around the first amendment. Maybe the primary driver really is just political grandstanding and appearing to "do something" on an issue that naively appears 'important' to most voters. (As usual, it doesn't matter that the "something" being done won't change much. The important thing is appearing to do it.)