Trump to Ban TikTok – and Tencent?

[Asle Leopolka]

I'm at the point where I just want Tik Tok to die because of how annoying and cringe it is.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why would Facebook give data to the PRC government when Facebook is subject to US, not PRC laws and is banned in the PRC?

What laws a company is governed by absolutely does matter.

It’s really bizarre to suggest facebook has the same potential to give data to China, when China has met facebook with open hostility

Why would China's public statements make any difference at all? Companies that "share" data in anything but an equal way, are just doing it wrong. Information is worth money! All China would have to do to get information from Facebook would be ... to offer money.

You know when it says in a User Agreement ... "I agree that Goliath Corp can use my information for marketing purposes" it means they can sell it to Google to help target ads at you. And if it say "share with our partners" it means sell to any other company they choose?

[Novus America]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. They have already destroyed millions of jobs and stolen trillions in IP via market manipulation. What is so bad about us (finally) fighting back a little?

"Finish" implies they have nearly crushed you already.

And it was US capitalists who could have invested in new factories etc, who invested in China instead ... they're the ones who "destroyed millions of jobs". Blame your government for not stopping that and putting a tighter leash on US corporations. Blaming China for providing a better investment target than you can, is shifting the blame from enemies at home.

IP is a pretty questionable thing btw: its value can only be measured by sale if it is sold, or by the holder's own estimation which is quite frankly bogus, if it is not. That's why I'm not asking you for a source on "trillions in IP". It's going to mostly be IP that has never changed hands in a sale, and will certainly be inflated ridiculously by the owner. Whether they're claiming it was stolen or not.

I do recognize that IP has some value however. China shouldn't steal it, but nor should US corporations take it to China and then for some reason think it won't get stolen while they're operating a joint partnership with a Chinese government company. That's beyond naive, actually you'd think that a half-way competent capitalist would sell the IP out the back door and then tell US regulators it was stolen. It's not like they'd get caught. In China.

Market manipulation, is that like banning companies from operating in their country? Or do you mean tariffs? I hope you're not talking about "currency manipulation" because if you are, the US does that on a massive scale, and by doing it better to deflate the US dollar could solve offshoring and the balance of trade in under ten years.

I mean the PRC already destroyed millions of jobs, thousands of factories, and depressed our real wages enough. A lot of damage is already done. We should have shut them out 30 years ago. Thirty years of damage is a lot of damage.

Again why can you not see more than one party can be guilty?
Making a better “investment” enough by having the lowest wages and weakest pollution standards is a good thing now too? See I care about workers and the environment. We cannot protect them if we allow an unrestricted race to the bottom.

But it is much more than that:
https://itif.org/publications/2018/02/2 ... industries

The PRC openly subsidizes their manufacturing to give it an unfair advantage.

Yes many of our capitalists are guilty too for being accomplices, but just because a criminal has an accomplished crime does not mean you should only punish the accomplice.

But sure currency manipulation is a potentially useful tool, I am open to using whatever tools are available. The best policy is to use a diverse combination of tools, not just rely on any one tool.

[Ifreann]

Banning Tiktok for national security reasons is about as smart as bailing water with a straw while your ship is going down. The data that Tiktok gathers is nothing more than Facebook gets, and Facebook is already incredibly lax in who they allow to see that data (generally anyone with a check for their pocket).

Basically, if we're worried about Tiktok we should be worried about every social media platform out there*; they all have the same potential to give information to China (or a company employed by China, as is vastly more likely). What are they getting? Your phone's location when you take a video, your phone details (make, model, IMEI, etc.). It also gets access to your storage and your contact list. But guess what? That little crappy game you downloaded to waste five minutes while you're bored at home gets that same data. Clash of Kings or Rise of Kingdoms or Fight of Nations or whatever have all that information too, and no one's even paying attention to them.

Banning Tiktok in govt devices? Smart move. Anything that takes video and posts it online should probably be banned on govt devices. Making Tiktok out to be some horrible over-the-top program is stupid, and just another evidence of the Trump Administration's focus on things that are perceived to hurt it rather than governing.

*https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-protection/understanding-information-tiktok-gathers-and-stores - If any of the info in this article seems alarming, look at the last paragraph: "TikTok should be treated like any social media app: one that can be used with relative safety if you’re aware of the information it gathers and what it does with the data."

A company run in part by the Chinese government has the same potential to give information to the Chinese government as a company not run by the Chinese government?

A company in the business of selling user data isn't going to turn down perfectly good money from the Chinese government.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm at the point where I just want Tik Tok to die because of how annoying and cringe it is.

A common opinion on this thread. Imagine how much cooler it will seem when it's owned by Microsoft ... I give it a year.

[The Rich Port]

I'm at the point where I just want Tik Tok to die because of how annoying and cringe it is.

Guess what. Trump trying to ban it is now going to make it a hundred times more popular and a hundred times more cringe.

Nothing but k-pop, and tween girls dressed up as Trump as far as the eye can see.

[Novus America]

It’s really bizarre to suggest facebook has the same potential to give data to China, when China has met facebook with open hostility

Why would China's public statements make any difference at all? Companies that "share" data in anything but an equal way, are just doing it wrong. Information is worth money! All China would have to do to get information from Facebook would be ... to offer money.

You know when it says in a User Agreement ... "I agree that Goliath Corp can use my information for marketing purposes" it means they can sell it to Google to help target ads at you. And if it say "share with our partners" it means sell to any other company they choose?

Facebook makes money by market access. The PRC does not allow Facebook to make money in the PRC. Ergo Facebook does not get money from the PRC. Facebook is not moral, but why would they give something for nothing in return?
Also Facebook is bound by US laws, so they would lose more money in fines and lawsuits than the PRC would pay, even if hypothetically they would be paid, which they will not be.

Businesses often have to follow laws, because breaking the law can be very expensive.

And the PRC does not have to even pay TikTok to get data, because it simply can demand it without payment and TikTok must do it or face fines and prison for its executives.

[Novus America]

A company run in part by the Chinese government has the same potential to give information to the Chinese government as a company not run by the Chinese government?

A company in the business of selling user data isn't going to turn down perfectly good money from the Chinese government.

But the PRC government is not offering money to Facebook. They are preventing Facebook from making money in the PRC. And yes they will turn down money, if the cost of taking that money is greater than that money.

If I offer you $5,000,000 but you know it will cost you $10,000,000 in fines, lawsuits and lost business you would be crazy to take my $5,000,000.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A company run in part by the Chinese government has the same potential to give information to the Chinese government as a company not run by the Chinese government?

A company in the business of selling user data isn't going to turn down perfectly good money from the Chinese government.

There's probably some limit to what they'd do. For instance if China was seeking location data on a Chinese American that (US) TikTok knew to be a dissident. They'd be thinking of the worst case scenario: the dissident gets murdered, the murderer is caught, and they work at the Chinese embassy. The US negotiator would have to be really sure the deal was secret, not to get their personal ass in line for conspiracy to murder.

On a lighter note, I bet MS rename TikTok in the US. I know they can do it. Microsoft can make anything more cringe!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A company in the business of selling user data isn't going to turn down perfectly good money from the Chinese government.

But the PRC government is not offering money to Facebook. They are banking Facebook from making money. And yes they will turn down money, if the cost of taking that money is greater than that money.

If I offer you $5,000,000 but you know it will cost you $10,000,000 in fines, lawsuits and lost businesses you would be crazy to take my $5,000,000.

Fines, lawsuits and lost business only happen if the deal gets out. And why would it? Neither side has any reason to blab.

[Novus America]

But the PRC government is not offering money to Facebook. They are banking Facebook from making money. And yes they will turn down money, if the cost of taking that money is greater than that money.

If I offer you $5,000,000 but you know it will cost you $10,000,000 in fines, lawsuits and lost businesses you would be crazy to take my $5,000,000.

Fines, lawsuits and lost business only happen if the deal gets out. And why would it? Neither side has any reason to blab.

By that logic nobody would ever get caught for a crime unless they openly said they did it.
Stuff still often gets out. Someone at lower level in the company finds out about it and leaks it to the press or government. Big organizations leak like a sieve.
The PRC government also has leakers and defectors who expose things. They tried to hide their concentration camps amongst other things but people still often find out.

And the US Treasury monitors financial transactions, assets and the like.
If you suddenly have a million dollars or a million dollar house you did not have before they start to ask questions. And prosecute you for tax evasion.

It is too risky to probably be worth it. Given Facebook already makes hundreds of billions in the US and Mark Zuckerberg is already rich, why would they risk it all to get a little extra money?

Besides ever heard of Google Dragonfly?

[Stellar Colonies]

It would be odd for a single company to own both Minecraft and TikTok.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Businesses often have to follow laws, because breaking the law can be very expensive.

Individuals in businesses break a lot of laws, because IF they get caught it's the company that loses money. And I don't need to tell you that business people don't often go to jail.

The same applies to them as any crime punished only with fines. If you can do the same crime five times before you get caught, and you only have to pay the fine once, the fine has to be five times the reward to be a real disincentive (and that's only the disincentive of wasted time and effort, they're not even out of pocket).

Now consider how few top business people get caught. It's pretty much impossible to stop fraud and theft in business, using only fines. Individuals need to be winkled out from behind the corporate veil, and punished individually.

And the PRC does not have to even pay TikTok to get data, because it simply can demand it without payment and TikTok must do it or face fines and prison for its executives.

Ah well, I've never disputed that. I've just been disputing your idea that the US should "strike back". The only way to win a war is to not get in one, and I'll just say this again: it was US capitalists not the Chinese who shut down factories and opened new ones in China. You have no grounds to complain that the Chinese government demanding partnerships to allow investment into their country is unfair. In fact, if you concede that it has worked really well for them, the correct and capitalist way would be to come up with an US version of it. If you can't beat it, copy it ... OK I'll stop now.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Fines, lawsuits and lost business only happen if the deal gets out. And why would it? Neither side has any reason to blab.

By that logic nobody would ever get caught for a crime unless they openly said they did it.

Quite often that IS how they get caught. The ones who get caught clearly aren't very good at it, and that includes boasting or accidentally talking about the crime they committed. And even so, most crimes are never solved.

Would it be odd to think that senior executives might be a bit smarter than the average criminal?

Besides ever heard of Google Dragonfly?

Potential profits from China, to Google. An export. Something Trump says we need more of.

I suppose you want to shut it down?

[Juristonia]

Banning Tiktok for national security reasons is about as smart as bailing water with a straw while your ship is going down. The data that Tiktok gathers is nothing more than Facebook gets, and Facebook is already incredibly lax in who they allow to see that data (generally anyone with a check for their pocket).

Basically, if we're worried about Tiktok we should be worried about every social media platform out there*; they all have the same potential to give information to China (or a company employed by China, as is vastly more likely). What are they getting? Your phone's location when you take a video, your phone details (make, model, IMEI, etc.). It also gets access to your storage and your contact list. But guess what? That little crappy game you downloaded to waste five minutes while you're bored at home gets that same data. Clash of Kings or Rise of Kingdoms or Fight of Nations or whatever have all that information too, and no one's even paying attention to them.

Banning Tiktok in govt devices? Smart move. Anything that takes video and posts it online should probably be banned on govt devices. Making Tiktok out to be some horrible over-the-top program is stupid, and just another evidence of the Trump Administration's focus on things that are perceived to hurt it rather than governing.

*https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-protection/understanding-information-tiktok-gathers-and-stores - If any of the info in this article seems alarming, look at the last paragraph: "TikTok should be treated like any social media app: one that can be used with relative safety if you’re aware of the information it gathers and what it does with the data."

Can we stop pretending that tiktok is no worse than FB and the likes?
https://www.boredpanda.com/tik-tok-reverse-engineered-data-information-collecting/

In fact, can we stop the whole "Well X does it too" argument in general?
We learned that wasn't an excuse when we were in grade school.

[Novus America]

Businesses often have to follow laws, because breaking the law can be very expensive.

Individuals in businesses break a lot of laws, because IF they get caught it's the company that loses money. And I don't need to tell you that business people don't often go to jail.

The same applies to them as any crime punished only with fines. If you can do the same crime five times before you get caught, and you only have to pay the fine once, the fine has to be five times the reward to be a real disincentive (and that's only the disincentive of wasted time and effort, they're not even out of pocket).

Now consider how few top business people get caught. It's pretty much impossible to stop fraud and theft in business, using only fines. Individuals need to be winkled out from behind the corporate veil, and punished individually.

And the PRC does not have to even pay TikTok to get data, because it simply can demand it without payment and TikTok must do it or face fines and prison for its executives.

Ah well, I've never disputed that. I've just been disputing your idea that the US should "strike back". The only way to win a war is to not get in one, and I'll just say this again: it was US capitalists not the Chinese who shut down factories and opened new ones in China. You have no grounds to complain that the Chinese government demanding partnerships to allow investment into their country is unfair. In fact, if you concede that it has worked really well for them, the correct and capitalist way would be to come up with an US version of it. If you can't beat it, copy it ... OK I'll stop now.

Sure crimes still get committed, but actually most people in businesses are reluctant to commit crimes, because going from being rich to federal prison is not fun. Now sure we need stricter punishments and such, but the point remains it is harder for them to get something from Facebook than from TikTok. Something you do not dispute.

Something does not need to be 100% effective to be valuable. Simply making it harder for them to get it is good.

And you are missing the point. Imagine you are playing a sport. The other team uses a good play to win the game. Even if that play was a perfectly legitimate play, you still will need a way to counter it, either making it harder for them to do it again or maybe using it yourself.
It is not necessarily about right or wrong always. Everything is not a moral decision.

The PRC is perfectly in their rights to place demands on US businesses to gain access to PRC markets and we are perfectly in our rights to do the same to the PRC. In that case neither side is necessarily right or wrong.
Both are tryin to win. But you want us to forfeit the game!

See if I am playing soccer, I want to kick the ball into your goal. You want to keep me from kicking it into yours. You want to kick it into mine and I want to stop you. You are perfectly right to block my ball but I am going to block yours.
You are saying because they were right to block my kick, I should just stand aside and let them score on me. That makes zero sense.

And you cannot avoid a war if you have already been attacked. If the other side starts the war you have to fight to win, or you will lose.

What is so hard to understand about that? You just want us to surrender. I want to fight back.

[Chirenai]

Why would Facebook give data to the PRC government when Facebook is subject to US, not PRC laws and is banned in the PRC?

What laws a company is governed by absolutely does matter.

Tiktok Inc. is the US arm of the company and is governed by US laws, so yes, while what laws a company is subject to does matter, that argument isn't relevant here. The more relevant problem is that it's not illegal for that type of data-sharing/selling to happen in the US. We've seen a lot of this over the last decade or so. That's the whole reason it needs an executive order in the first place; the US is about 20 years behind in this area of law. My point was that to do this to this specific company while ignoring the morass of other apps that do the exact same thing is pointless and shows little to no understanding of the issue.

[Chirenai]

Can we stop pretending that tiktok is no worse than FB and the likes?
https://www.boredpanda.com/tik-tok-reverse-engineered-data-information-collecting/

As soon as you stop linking to articles with claims and pretending they're the same as facts. (If you're unsure of the difference, compare the link in my original post.)

In fact, can we stop the whole "Well X does it too" argument in general?
We learned that wasn't an excuse when we were in grade school.

That wasn't my argument, but then you already knew that. The problem is thinking that banning this one app is going to do anything at all. It's a stupid action that isn't a solution for anything.

[Novus America]

By that logic nobody would ever get caught for a crime unless they openly said they did it.

Quite often that IS how they get caught. The ones who get caught clearly aren't very good at it, and that includes boasting or accidentally talking about the crime they committed. And even so, most crimes are never solved.

Would it be odd to think that senior executives might be a bit smarter than the average criminal?

Besides ever heard of Google Dragonfly?

Potential profits from China, to Google. An export. Something Trump says we need more of.

I suppose you want to shut it down?

Sure it is not 100% foolproof. But that is not a good argument. It is still easier for the PRC to get data from a PRC company than a US one that does not operate in the PRC. We are still making it harder for the PRC.

And most people do not commit serious crimes. For most people it is not worth it. Why take such a big risk for relatively little reward? If you have a lot to lose, and make billions legally, why go into crime? It makes very little sense for Facebook to suddenly start cutting illegal businesses deals with the PRC.

Actually I am not all that interested in exports. More making products for domestic consumption.
And export based economy has problems. And Trump is too mercenary at times. I want the US to make money yes, but not by enabling our enemies to oppress people.
Selling your enemy a gun is usually not a good deal, when they use it too shoot you or shoot other people. Yes we could make some short term money selling out people out to the PRC but should we? No.

And the point about Google Dragonfly is simple. It was supposed to be secret, it got leaked, and Google had to kill it because it caused them more damage than it was worth.

Everything is a cost benefit analysis. Not just a benefit analysis. You have to measure the benefit times the probability vs the cost times the probability.

Say for example option A has a 50% chance of me getting $1,000 in gain and only a 1% chance of losing me $1,000,000. The probability adjusted benefit is $500 but the probability adjusted loss is $10,000. Option A is a bad deal. Do not take it.

And the gain from the Facebook cutting an illegal deal is thus simply not with it. The probability adjusted gain is not going to be worth the probability adjusted loss.

[Novus America]

Why would Facebook give data to the PRC government when Facebook is subject to US, not PRC laws and is banned in the PRC?

What laws a company is governed by absolutely does matter.

Tiktok Inc. is the US arm of the company and is governed by US laws, so yes, while what laws a company is subject to does matter, that argument isn't relevant here. The more relevant problem is that it's not illegal for that type of data-sharing/selling to happen in the US. We've seen a lot of this over the last decade or so. That's the whole reason it needs an executive order in the first place; the US is about 20 years behind in this area of law. My point was that to do this to this specific company while ignoring the morass of other apps that do the exact same thing is pointless and shows little to no understanding of the issue.

But TikTok is still subject to PRC laws as well. Facebook however is not.

Sure the US needs better domestic data protections BUT we also need to crack down on the PRC.

The are related but not identical issues, and we need to work on both at the same time.

[Asle Leopolka]

I'm at the point where I just want Tik Tok to die because of how annoying and cringe it is.

A common opinion on this thread. Imagine how much cooler it will seem when it's owned by Microsoft ... I give it a year.

I don't give a shit about "how much cooler it will seem," I just want my $MSFT shares to grow.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

What is Tencent? What's it for?

[Ifreann]

What is Tencent? What's it for?

It's a business, it's for making money.

[-Astoria-]

What is Tencent? What's it for?

One of China's biggest companies.

[Juristonia]

As soon as you stop linking to articles with claims and pretending they're the same as facts. (If you're unsure of the difference, compare the link in my original post.)

The irony here should make you at least slightly dizzy.
Even outside the irony, your own link indicated some pretty shitty practises and privacy concerns.

Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of indications that tiktok is lying about its data collection policies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/07/25/beware-tiktok-really-is-spying-on-you-new-security-report-update-trump-pompeo-china-warning/#67032efb4014
https://protonmail.com/blog/tiktok-privacy/?utm_campaign=ww-en-2a-generic-coms_soc-social_organic&utm_content=&utm_medium=soc&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=1595520917

That wasn't my argument, but then you already knew that. The problem is thinking that banning this one app is going to do anything at all. It's a stupid action that isn't a solution for anything.

If it's not your argument, than it's not something you should be saying. Which you did. More than once, even.
See, saying things you think you're not saying is a very poor way of making a point.