TikTok is the most successful espionage operation of the 21st century so far, and it is based on a simple idea - people will happily give away their data and privacy if you consistently entertain them.
In my opinion the application should be shut down as soon as possible, but there are many lessons to learn from it. And most of them have little to do with technology.
Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world.
It is surprisingly that simple.
While the US and the western governments have their issues, they are still largely law abiding. China, however, is not. Additionally, under Xi, it has become more authoritarian and more willing to undo the rules based order that has someone kept the world somewhat sane since WWII.
I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this.
I am from latin america and at least neither China nor Russia have participated in coup d'etat to install a military junta to then torture and massacre anyone slightly left of the US "Democratic" Party.
China has learned from US policies and has instead opted for more insidious and less "noisy" approaches like hard to repay soft-loans, mass buying of agricultural lands, starting vice businesses like casinos etc which also result in societal changes once the businesses started by Chinese start bringing a sizable influx of Chinese to work in them. See northwest Laos for a direct example (this is not an armchair comment - I have relations there and have seen the changes firsthand over the decade during numerous visits).
Which is fairly tame in terms of securing geopolitical influence and enables more win-win arrangments. Especially with respect to Laos - a landlocked country with (to be blunt) zero long term development prospects. Laos per capital GDP growth has been on pace with booming Vietnam that has access to outsource manufacturing and maritime trade. Laos should be worse off than Cambodia that has 60% of current Laos per capita GDP. Even their largest export/growth sector - hydropower to Thailand is enabled by PRC (not to sound patronizing). PRC infra projects setup Laos to be the battery of region + rail connectivity for other exports = only real viable of short/medium term growth strategy for a undeveloped landlocked country with poor human development. Go look up gdp per capita trends of ASEAN since 2000 when PRC growth started blowing up, also LATM during same period. You'll be hard pressed to find any country whose per capita GDP increased by 8x like Laos. Many are luck with half that. As for societal changes on border regions that benefits from flow of migrant and economic development, that's what happens when countries get richer - things change. If you think that's a bad deal then I'm curious if you can find a better one, especially for a land locked country with no maritime access.
Just repeating "landlocked country" twenty times doesn't paint the clearest picture. They have a lot of untapped mineral resources. It has never been rich but people have had organic means of growth like agriculture. Sure it was never blistering growth but it was steady progress that lifted everyone. Once the PRC money started to flow, they basically bought the agricultural lands and now people who used to own the lands are working as laborers in what used to be their own land. Sure they got that initial money but they never knew how to handle that - so they blew it in the casinos, also operated by the PRC or in drugs (which were always a problem, it being the Golden Triangle area) or other things like tricked-out pickup trucks. Everybody is running after that quick PRC cash and the culture is undergoing rapid changes; signboards are in Mandarin, people prefer to learn Mandarin (even though it is English that connects them to a wider part of the world). Micro level societal changes are more subtle and hard to quantify. The country is basically becoming an extension arm of China
It is easy to look everything through the lens of GDP but it is a poor measure of healthiness of a society from sociological perspective.
Your comment reflects typical nostalgic time bubble lamentation about culture "decline" due to rapid development change. Lots of older gen Chinese miss Mao's China too and complain about the decadence and corruption caused by new wealth. Meanwhile most of country eager to dig themselves out of subsistence are running after quick growth cash and pickup trucks. It sucks being poor.
> Just repeating "landlocked country" twenty times doesn't paint the clearest picture.
...
>untapped mineral resource
Being landlocked is one of the major development traps, it's highly relevant. And the point is Laos is landlocked AND underdevelopped in both infra and human capita. They're not going to be Switzerland without generations of development, if ever. All those untapped resources can't be economically exported relative to sea trade... incidentally why PRC rail development in Laos also game changer. Improves economics of rare metals (gold, Laos other huge export) but less for bulk cargo like agriculture. Laos has zero prospect for being an ag-commodity export power. The most profitable specialty ag trade had export potential of something like 600M. There's simply a ceiling on how much ag can uplift, it's why largest growth sector in last 20 years is industry, which requires capital investments, for a poor country like Laos, it means FDI and period of upheaval caused by new wealth and modes of exploitation.
> never knew how to handle that
Yeah that's what happens to nouvel rich everywhere. That's a sign of development. Laos is not usefully connected to English sphere via geography... again they're landlocked and only large economic connector is PRC. If people want to make money therer it's only prudent to learn Chinese and which will increase integration, especially in border regions. Why would Laos look to rest of world when the fastest growing region is Asia? Learning English is one way street to being brain drained and losing your best.
> GDP but it is a poor measure of healthiness of a society
This is true, ergo why Xi prioritized correcting the excesses of Deng's unbalanced growth that had caused huge problematic culture shifts. Every country that's gone through rapid growth will need manage that transition. Per capita GDP is strongly correlated to Human Development Index for a reason, you need money to make a healthy, educated, productive society. At end of day Laos/PRC relationship enables Laos to have more omney than her geography would otherwise enable. It's not upper income but it's a path out of subsistence if managed properly by Vientiane, which they may absolutely fail at.
Cherry picking what? The op was about Laos, I talked about Laos. Debt trap meme / lie has been debunked by many academics, it's a myth. PRC refinances / renegotiate. It would be really nice for PRC security posture if they actually siezed these ports to build naval bases to gain foothold in indopac, but so far overriding geopolitical interest has been commercial / economic and for a intiative as large as BROR, some of them do poorly. It's the price of exporting massive infra projects around the world to find new markets for domestic overcapacity.
I am from eastern Europe and right now Russia is invading a democratic country to install its own government, tortures and massacres everyone left and right.
More like "US during British Colonial Times" != "USA Today", for starters USA during Reagan and USA today have the same constitution and the same governmental system even if specific laws and lawmakers have changed
This is very true. Whereas the USSR was run by one man who controlled the state security apparatus, and so controlled the country as an autocrat, Russia is run by a man who controls the country as an autocrat, having controlled the state security apparatus.
No? We finally had a president that hasn't started a new war (trump) and we are on track to having a president that hasn't started a new war and has withdrawn troops from one war. Things are changing.
Russia definitely has, just not as much in your backyard. China hasn't, but that's probably because the last time they tried that they got their ass handed to them by a country that had just been savagely attacked by (but also defeated) the us. Also it has been slowly encroaching on India and bhutan territory. China definitely declares it's intent to export it's style of polity around the world. And that does include torturing and disappearing citizens that are supposed to be on their own watch.
What was once a beautiful nation is now rife with crime, even the military of all things is told not to have cell phones out by stop lights because somebody will swing on by on a motorcycle and hijack the phone. From the darn military! Still surprised they get away with it.
I also remember hearing from a relative that Chavez would basically bring Cuban doctors over from Cuba.
Absolutely nothing about the historical bad behaviour of the US in Central and South America has any bearing on the threat the CCP poses to a billion Chinese and the world today. Nothing.
Not their actions in Latin America, but the USA did parttake in some extreme violence in Asia about 75 years ago that could be blamed for the CCP gaining power in the first place.
I'm not sure Imperial Japanese rule would be so much better, though.
Actually, they have a lot to do with each other, as the violence that the United States did to Central and South America was always justified with anticommunist rhetoric, like this. A Peter Kingsley quote, more about spiritual perception, also applies to the political:
"The only possible way to understand is by standing back in the stillness that lies underneath thinking and sees things as they really are. It's like watching hundreds of colors, each of them trying to persuade you it happens to be the most important one-then stepping back and seeing they all form a single rainbow. Thoughts in themselves are always leading to division and separation. But all thoughts, together, are a single whole." (from "Reality")
Russia has put down multiple popular uprisings within its sphere - Belarus, Kazakhstan. Invaded Georgia, and Ukraine to effect regime change. And looks to be behind the Coup in Mali and one in Montenegro.
China has supported violent Juntas in Myanmar, and Sudan. It has essentially performed a coup in Hong Kong.
And of course it loves supplying weapons to latin countries via Norinco. And it's doing economic damage and putting more of those countries in debt, just like it took Hambantota International Port from Sri Lanka.
Both are racking up kills elsewhere in Africa too.
> This is shown to be a myth, as some other comments here suggested.
There have certainly been a bunch of opinion pieces expressing that opinion coming out at the same time. Which is incredibly weird, unless... oh right, opinions can be bought and China has a history of doing that.
The case is not that such pieces appearing in uniform in short period of time.
The case is that western media is so fixitated on negative coverage on China, so much so that any positive or neutral coverage will be seen as carefully manipulated campaign.
Every thread of China topic, here on HN, will see your type of comments consistently.
The real mystery is not that there is positive or neutral report on China.
The real mystery is why US people seem cannot use their brain on China topics...
Chinese media is state controlled, and no alternative is possible. If they wanted credible positive reporting, then they have only themselves to blame.
The mystery is why you think that I think you are American.
> There have certainly been a bunch of opinion pieces expressing that opinion coming out at the same time.
I was talking about English media.
That's a reasonable assumption, since you are commenting on the HN comments, which is part of English media, and heavily influenced by mainstream English media, obviously.
You are an american or not is not relevant.
> If they wanted credible positive reporting, then they have only themselves to blame.
Wow.
Let's jail the SoB based on media reports.
This is what you suggest, right?
Ah yes, also curiously enough the US is way more prone to completely embargo Cuba and Venezuela but neither Russia nor China. (Due to political-economic reasons and not moral/ethical ones)
Edit: profile I am replying to has the following in their about section: "about: I play music and I code videogames. I live in Brighton, UK." so assuming the "hi from venezuela" was sarcastic.
I'm currently living the dictatorship in Venezuela. Ask me if you think Ciro's opinion is not valid, for whatever reason. (Don't know him btw. Epale Ciro!)
¿Crees que solo hay dictaduras bajo gobiernos anti-capitalistas o es algo en donde por ejemplo Qatar (o Reino Unido) siendo monarquías constitucionales podrían superar en autoritarismo?
That's because Latin America is nowhere near China or Russia. They aren't going to go half way around the world to harass Latin Americans. But if Latin America was in the place of Hong Kong, Laos, or Ukraine they wouldn't enjoy the same peace
You would be surprised if you polled non-US, non-China citizens about what country is the biggest geopolitical threat to the world.
Wait, I don't even need to talk in conditionals. I Googled it and apparently it has indeed been done several times, and the results are what I expected.
Let me rephrase your comment: "Eastern European opinion on Russia doesn't matter because they've suffered and continue to suffer from Russian imperialism".
Non-US, non-China citizens don't speak Chinese but they speak English (or their journalists do). US shenanigans are for the whole world to see. You probably can't read Chinese so you have no idea how the Chinese government and their citizen view the rest of the world.
That feels like a weak argument. OP is talking geopolitics, not domestic shenanigans. I think internationals news happily picks up Chinese international interventions.
The situation is like highlighting the British empire's horrible actions while downplaying Nazi Germany's because they haven't invaded anyone (yet) and not knowing what Hitler and his friends have in store because of the language barrier.
And that's not a Godwin because the CCP's rhetoric these recent years is extremely racist and aggressive. They are feeding their population with a warped view of non-Han, non-Chinese people.
CCP has always been extremely racist and aggressive, at least according to all the web novels i've been reading (translated into english, as i don't speak chinese).
The second poll is not about world peace, but about democracy. Historically, the US has been promoting democracy worldwide (and this has been a major contributor to their belligerence). With their ongoing schism between MAGA and WOKE, there is a risk they will end up non-democratic themselves, either as some kind of facisit or socialist.
THAT, and the fact that this conflict is being exported to other democratic countries is a threat to democracy, although not so much to World Peace.
2013 was before Russia's first hostilities against Ukraine and also before China started to flex their military muscles. Also, at that time, the Obama administration was involved in several wars as well as the use of drone warfare against their enemies elsewhere. I don't find it surprising that many would feel that the US was the greater threat at that time, even though the threat level overall was much lower at the time.
Well maybe those in power should have read up on their history before trying to 'take over' Afghanistan. Might have been a good idea for a country half a world a way, separated by a large ocean.
There's a lot of very nasty, bad-faith arguments in this thread, and you seem to be involved in almost all of them. It is time to take a step back and consider what this kind of derailing does to the quality of discussion overall.
The point is obvious to anyone even tangentially following the israel-palestine conflict: Israel is a close ally to the us and heavily supported by them in their brutal occupation of Palestine.
CIA helped in getting Lumumba and wanted to put a halt to his movement. They along with Belgian officers even tried killing him by poisoning his toothpaste.
CIA overthrew Mosaddegh in Iran which lead to where they are today in terms of an oppresive theocratic government.
And US military and CIA are acting as world police in Somalia.
You call the overwhelming majority of the world population unwashed savages whose opinion must be disregarded, and then sit there in disbelief that most people might dislike see your country (of which, sadly, that attitude is quite representative) as a threat.
This is wild. GP is correct. That poll is from 2013. In the 10 years since, which country has been "The Greatest Threat to World Peace?" It's Russia. Let's see how many got that right...
Only Poland.
History has actually shown how little popular opinion is accurate on this. Meanwhile, there's a swarm of sibling comments in opposition to GP? Do better HN.
The US and it's cronies have invaded more countries than Russia has since 2013. Not to excuse Russia, they'd be worse also if they could, but it's far from having been disproven - Libya is in a worse state right now than Ukraine thanks to the France, the UK, and the US (Libya in 2014, Syria continued after, then there was the sabre rattling in Iran, etc...). And of course Afghanistan, and the saga with Iraq where the US threatened military force if they were kicked out. And there's also the war in Yemen in which the US is a belligerent in all but name. And then there are also military actions in subsaharan Africa. Not to forget ongoing regime change initiatives. By all metrics the US has been more deleterious to peace than Russia in the past 10 years. Not out of inherent evil or any moral consideration of course, but mostly because of greater scope of action - which is of course an element in the magnitude of a threat.
Since 2013 US-backed wars have indeed led to more deaths and have broken the peace in more numerous countries with a higher population than Russia.
So no, you are incorrect in saying that they were wrong - they were definitely right. However, your media bias has led you to focus more on one event than on multiple others and from a different viewpoint.
> Since 2013 US-backed wars have indeed led to more deaths and have broken the peace in more numerous countries with a higher population than Russia.
Can you link to some sources here? I'm especially curious to see who initiated many of these conflicts. Because once in a while the US tries to back existing movements toward more democratic governance.
> What people think is a threat and what is a threat are completely 2 different things.
Meaningless. A threat is by definition subjective and context dependent.
> First of all average people's opinions outside of western democracies are meaningless because those people don't have access to education or information to form any real opinions.
Get off your high horse. Most of the world have a terrible opinion of the US just for the arrogance you just showed. The US education system is in shambles, the divide between can and can't do is the one of the highest in its GDP class. Poverty is just a broken leg away.
> Second of all at least the first research is more or less a complete lie. In Finland people have throughout the history without a doubt kept Russia as the biggest threat.
Russia is seen as a big threat by the Fins. However, in the next conflict: who will supply the arms? Who will benefit the most? Who is likely to incite?
> 3rd, even if we assume that it isn't would be pretty fun to ask those same people the same question again. Finland, Sweden, Australia and Ukraine are begging for the help of US now that the curtains have opened and Russia and China have either started a war already or are threatening to start one.
It's exactly 1 and 2 why the world largely considers the US such a threat.
Any disagreement is discounted as "you're just ignorant and don't have a real opinion" followed by "you need to trust The Experts, but only the ones that agree with us".
It has been a hoot to watch the US Democrats and all their useful idiots turn these arguments against the rest of the US over the last 6 years.
Probably ends as well as Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, etc.
The difference is that we don't have Hollywood movies about those.
The real reasons why people hate America so much is not US military actions (though that has contributed in some cases), but American culture.
Nationalists worldwide absolutely hate it when young people in their countries drink Coke, eat at McDonalds, wear Levi's, consume US Music, Movies and video games, social media, etc. US culture has been displacing other cultures gradually for about 100 years.
If you are a westerner, consider the impact of Tik-Tok, and multiply it by 100x, then you may even empathize with them.
Yeah westerners have so much access to information. I mean look at all those informed opinions about WMDs in Iraq. The US begged countries like Finland, Sweden and Australia to join them in their middle east occupation.
Australia has assisted US in most all major conflicts they have been involved in since WW2. Being a small democratic nation, the US is our most powerful ally and we have invested in that relationship for close to a century. We didn't just come knocking on the door yesterday 'begging' for help.
“ First of all average people's opinions outside of western democracies are meaningless because those people don't have access to education or information to form any real opinions.”
This is insane. Your arrogance and total ignorance about the rest of the world is just crazy.
Threats depend on who the attacker is in relationship to the victim. The United States is quite a big threat to PRC and the persons who claim sole citizenship there.
> all average people's opinions outside of western democracies are meaningless because those people don't have access to education or information to form any real opinions.
Please do better. This is incredibly naive and insulting.
A treat to what world? A treat to the western dominated world, with rules that only favour them.
Not abiding to whose law?
Those international laws that even the US and its allies would not respect when it's not convinient to their agenda and narrative.
This has led to the destruction of Irak, Libya, the killing of Lumumba, and scores of other exemples across all continents.
The western world has been responsible for destructions and destabilisations all in the name of ensuring the economical and political future of their countries.
The West would happily support and never critise authoritarian regimes such as Rwanda just because it's convinient to them, and in the same sentence accuse China and Russia. I've never seen calls for democracy in place of the Kagame's regime for example.
You are failing to see the forrest for the trees, and at the same time overlooking so many details just to prove a point.
> While the US and the western governments have their issues, they are still a largely law abiding.
Perhaps on an internal level. But for those of us in third countries what matters is how they act outside their borders, and the US is doing considerably more dronestriking of their political enemies than China is.
(And even if you just look at domestic aspects, the relevant area is one of the exceptions. The NSA seems to be decoupled from any oversight - its leaders lie to congress with impunity, any attempts to hold them to account via the courts are dismissed...)
you conveniently left Russia out of your “acting outside of their borders” discussion… In case you haven’t noticed they started a bloody war in Ukraine this year.
I don't care about the US in this instance, but how many of those bases are wanted by the countries they are in? In most cases it seems US citizens are subsidizing the defense of many other countries.
Define wanted? In Australia's case they're 'wanted' by the government insofar as the PM that tried to get rid of them was unlawfully ejected from parliament. Tye populace are at best indifferent, and this is after decades of pro US propaganda.
Most of these 'wanted' bases are wanted in the same way the subjects of any other protection racket want their opressor.
In a protection racket, isn't the victim paying the oppressor money for "protection"? But when the US maintains foreign military bases, isn't the US footing the bill?
The relationship is complex and contingent, but generally the host country will be making a range of concessions to the US (e.g. ceding land, giving US troops a range of indemnities, agreeing to purchase weapons systems from the US).
It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there?
> I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers?
It's generally both - they're getting both American and foreign taxpayers to pay for their stuff.
> And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there?
If you're only looking at the direct impact of the base, sure, it tends to mean there are a bunch of young American men with money to burn around (though they also tend to be a not entirely positive influence in terms of e.g. sexual assaults). But the full package of obligations that goes with it tends to add up to something that's costly for both sides, and the people with the supply contracts are the only real winners.
The entity making decisions and benefiting does not heed and does not work to benefit the american taxpayers. The US from the point of view of the rest of the world is the military industrial complex, a network of corruption/compromise of varipus governments and one sided trade treaties, and the interests of american oligarchs.
The american taxpayer only benefits insofar as they are goven crumbs so they do not revolt or use what little democratic control they have to reign in the beast.
From the point of view of the rest of the world, there is nothing really to distinguish the US from the CCP other than the CCP are slightly more forward thinking in some of their projects in terms of long term benefit to themselves and are (momentarily) more brutally authoritarian. On the US side the main downsides aee they're currently dominant and there is a real danger of the US being taken over by a literal apocalypse cult that seeks climate change as an end to seek rather than merely something to be ignored where possible as the current incumbents do.
Other than that, one imperialist is the same as another -- to some degree even for the other countries in the imperial core.
I can't take anyone seriously who says there's nothing to distinguish the US from the country that's commiting genocide against the Uyghurs and imprisons innocent foreign civilians because their country had Chinese criminals in prison.
Ah yes, because the ongoing state sanctioned systematic murder and enslavement of native and black americans is completely different from the ongoing enslavement and state sanctioned murder of Uyghurs.
Except any country hosting US military bases basically loses their sovereignty. Once you have these bases, you can not discuss removing them. You can not debate the alliance with the US. You can not say no when they ask you to fuck up your entire economy to slightly damage Russia, even tho Russia poses no threat to you nor ever had.
Since when do you need military bases to defend against economic war?
Furthermore, the US is waging economic war on half the world since I have memory of it, isn't it time the rest of the world starts to protect themselves?
> ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato
That doesn't make it right. Ukrainians are scared right now, that's not the right mental state to take decisions that will trap you for decades or more into a state of subjection to the US.
Also I don't care wether they want or not, the US must not expand further or we're basically asking for them to rule the world even more then they're currently doing. Plus I know by experience Ukraine will be better off without US bases.
My country has several US bases and this makes us a target for any US enemy and at the same time makes us a puppet state, lacking any sovereignty especially when it comes to foreign politics. Ask most people in my country, they'll tell you the bases can burn to hell.
Those bases are not there to defend us, their role is that of an offensive platform. We have many nuclear weapons ready to launch in case Biden decides it's time to fuck up some population.
I feel my safety and wellbeing are actively compromised by having foreign military bases on our soil.
Plus the American soldiers hosted in our country committed violence and rape several times and this is all documented and confirmed by our courts. Those yankees can definitely and quickly go home.
This exactly the moment that Ukrainians would like to make quick decision given information at hand. Other countries are making sam choice (e.g. Sweden, Finland).
I am from Eastern Europe and closer ties with US, although have a price, are the preferred option.
Soldiers should be judged accordingly, but it’s an incident and not US supported norm.
I think you don’t get sentiment from this part of the world.
5x more folks die in shootings per day in the USA than in that border conflict. Please note that neither Chinese soldiers nor Indian soldiers escalated to using firearms - despite carrying them - in order to stick to a mutual agreement!
I'm all about criticizing the us for the drone striking it's doing (and how our media underreported it -- try getting stats of how many strikes Obama delivered, you can only get straight answers about individual regions, not a totalled number).
I think the reason the US gets a pass in the international political zeitgeist is that it's motives serve a greater peace. In the past imperial powers have largely used their militaries to enrich their own mercantilist motives; the us has been the opposite, it has used trade and greed to bolster a security stance that has been positive for a lot of people (if you look at trade figures the beneficiaries of us-led trade globalization has mostly been other countries, ironically, mostly china, < 10% of us GDP is foreign trade).
Not to diminish the suffering of Latin American nations under us meddling, the pax Americana has directly brought peace to Europe which has basically been infighting since the beginning of time -- that's 450 million people that are not at each other's throats. Is that worth a Pinochet or two (Allende was no saint either), and bombing a few thousand innocent pashtuns, destabilizing iraq? I can't say, but at least I understand why people give the US a pass.
You didn't read the whole thing. The point is: Europe has not since WWII. That is definitely machinations of the us at work. Whatever shitty motives the us had pre-wwii, like fighting wars on behalf of dole, something has changed, and if you don't understand that and take the lazy mindset that "history never changes" you're gravely mistaken, and in fact you won't be served well in general.
>Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world.
It is surprisingly that simple.
You may want to consult the so called 'global south' on that question who represents the majority of people on the planet and seems to have quite a different impression. Undoing America's 'rule based order' isn't a geopolitical threat to the world, it's a geopolitical threat to the US. Why would billions of people on earth be afraid of living in a world where their countries have actual influence? You may want to get used to the fact that you're not going to get to define what's 'sane' for everyone for much longer.
May turn out that it’s not a threat in the same way you are not a threat to a homeless man. Until he takes over your job and puts a paid gate in his alley, of course. Then he’s fucked up, lost his goddamn mind and must be dealt with in the name of our freedom.
These days, the United States has proven they mainly follow the rules when it benefits them. So much for rules based international order. It's all unraveling as we return to a multi-polar world. History will probably look back and see the United States' global regime as starting off well. But it quickly engaged in the same brutalilty, lawlessness and arrogance as every other failed empire.
There are certainly manifold shameful aspects to US foreign policy. However, it does humanity a disservice to disregard the degree to which the US has tried to promote self-determination in the past 40 years. The US really tried to run free and fair elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban and Al-Sadr-aligned parties were allowed to stand in elections. The majority Shia and Kurdish minorities in Iraq now have much more political representation than they had under the Ba'athists. The elections in Afghanistan showed that the US installed government was closer to majority opinion than the Taliban regimes before or after.
The many shameful aspects of US foreign policy absolutely should be brought to light, but that doesn't mean retreating to defeatist nihilism. There can be something new under the sun, and US occupations of the past 40 years have been markedly different from previous empires. It's not enough progress as a society, but it is progress.
Invading a country is the opposite of self-determination, and justifying invasion based on an abstracted universalism was also used by the British empire.
Maybe I should have used the term "popular self-determinism". If the result is the government better represents the will of the populace at large, then popular self-determinism is improved, even if externally imposed.
This pattern goes back to Napoleon: the idea being that the democratic states created by the invading armies were more legitimate/self-determined than the existing monarchal states. However the idea didn't work: monarchal rule returned, and returned in a stronger and more powerful form. There's at least 200 years of experience to suggest that liberal/democratic imperialism is not viable as a strategy, and in fact, provokes more reaction.
The simplistic language if your post reads as blind patriotism or jingoism. To suggest that the US is more law abiding is absurd, considering the countless wars of agression and covert actions. The problem with any debate on this subject is that every evil action by the US is "justified" somehow, and every action by others is the work of madman dictator, and by default wrong. It's impossible to discuss.
Edit: to be clear, I don't condone China's actions. I see both the US and China as very bad actors on the world stage.
> Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world.
> I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this.
Probably because it's not that they are afraid, they simply don't agree. For many people around the world, the US and Europe have inflicted far greater problems over the past 0-100 years.
and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment, they would be prone to fall prey to china and russian influence.
If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia. At least in a democracy, there's ways to change the public opinion.
"and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment"
Yeah, who cares about the bad stuff 3-5-10-20 years in the past! All those US wars and coups are not applicable since the USA has turned into a bright, shiny fairy now!
"If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia."
Yeah, the US holding a gun to your head and saying: You are either with us or against us. Many nations want to make their own independent sovereign choice. Your diplomats actually use this language when they feel they can push folks around.
Well if you put bad things in the past 3-5 years, China and Russia have a lot on their hands
Russia: uses their natural resources as weapons, invaded Ukraine, supports dictatorship in Syria
China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years
This is just the recent stuff, China has invaded Vietnam and fought against UN coalition that was protecting South Korea against North Korea aggression
Russia has done so much ** i am going to take too long to write
And these are only what affect other countries, they have done horrible things to their domestic population as well…
I suspect the US would not be very happy had one of its states unilaterally declared independence and claim they're the real US (of one). China views Taiwan as a separatist, secessionist province that would be long reclaimed if not for support from the foreign powers.
Ukraine views Donetsk/Luhansk People Republics exactly the same.
A tiny part of Taiwan was under Chinese rule for barely 2 centuries 400 years ago. Even at that time China never cared about it nor made an effort to develop it. China doesn't have more claim to Taiwan than any other similar colonizers that came and invaded Taiwan throughout the centuries. Japan was the first invader to achieve real control of most of the island.
Eventually, beaten by Mao, Chiang Kai Shek and its army invaded Taiwan and claimed it theirs. The CCP never ruled the island of Taiwan.
Your analogy is wrong and there's no really other country with a similar history in the world. The CCP loves making claims based on dubious (i.e false) historical basis.
Thanks, I took CCP claims at face value. I'll go read more on the topic. I was convinced that the Republic of China govt and army retreated to Taiwan, as in, it was already theirs. I didn't know it was conquest.
Edit:
> barely 2 centuries 400 years ago
Wiki says it was 1683–1895, so 2 centuries but just 130 years ago. It was then ceded to Japan after China defeat in a war, so it had to be Chinese before that (otherwise, how could China cede it?).
Edit:
> [Wiki says:] In September 1945 following Japan's surrender in WWII, ROC forces, assisted by small American teams, prepared an amphibious lift into Taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese military forces there
In 1945 the Chinese civil war was still ongoing, but WW2 has already finished, Japan lost, and ~300k Japanese residents of Taiwan were expelled from the island. There was no fighting during the takeover, so I don't think it can be called an invasion.
There are important differences between that situation and Ukraine, but... I don't believe they are enough to invalidate the whole analogy. My understanding is that both PRC and ROC see themselves as continuation of imperial China, which means both have equal claim to Taiwan (and mainland). Taiwan was colonized by Japan for some 50 years, but I don't think that's enough to claim it's inherently Japanese (especially after the deportation of Japanese citizens). If not, then it has to be Chinese.
So: there was a civil war in China, then because of unrelated happenings a part of China that was occupied by Japanese became Chinese again, and then an external power chose one of the warring sides in the civil war and unilaterally gave a part of Chinese territory to that side. Is this about right?
If so - I see enough parallels to current Ukraine situation to say that I don't believe my analogy breaks down, as you said. Following 2014, there was a civil war in Ukraine (honestly, saying it was a "special anti-terrorist action" is as valid as calling Russian invasion "special military operation"). The insurgents did not get a newly reclaimed land to retreat to, so they stayed where they were. Then an external power chose one side of the civil war, and propped it up so that they won't fail. There was next to no fighting during proclamation of secession. A few years later, separatists backed by the external power were recognized unilaterally by that power as independent entities. It was even similar timeline: ROC went to Taiwan in 1945, but the island was officially recognized as not-Japanese in 1952. That's 7 years; in Ukraine it was 8 years (2014-2022).
The more successful/bigger side of the civil war in both case never considered the other side anything other than rebels and terrorists. The less successful sides claim to be freedom-fighters trying to exercise their right to self determination.
The only real difference is that the powers backing ROC didn't, for one reason or other, try to help them retake more of the territory of the more successful side - but they were arming that side for 70 years now.
I really don't think the differences make the two situations incomparable.
Japan did get Taiwan from whoever was ruling China at that time.
My point is not that Taiwan never was under Chinese rule, but a) it never was really integrated to China like most current chinese provinces (China boasts about a 5000 year long history, loosely controlling (5% of) an island for 200 years before losing it at the very end of the their these 5000 years is not a very strong claim), b) never controlled the entirety of the island because Chinese settlers stayed on the coast, the rest of the island was under aboriginal control (which were not a uniform block) c) never cared about it (it was under the rule of a former pirate turned governor - look up Koxinga) and never did anything with it.
Chiang's army retreated to Taiwan but it's a matter of semantic. It was under Japanese occupation until the end of WW2. Chiang raised the question of Taiwan to the Americans who at that time couldn't care less about that tiny island because they had so much on their plate. The Americans were like "sure, whatever, go for it", but nothing was officially signed (iirc) and Chiang and his army invaded the island and went on to subject it to an horrible authoritarian rule for the next decades.
Final words, about the R.O.C claiming China. That's a sad legacy of Chiang's lunacy. And now the CCP says that if the R.O.C dares to say that they're independant (which they are, but can't say it) they will invade. So Taiwan is stuck with this nonsense because of the threats coming from the Chinese government. Also Chiang had a chance to have a seat the UN but refused because he wanted to be the only China. The rest is history.
Most of what I wrote above comes from the book "Forbidden nation" by Jonathan Manthorpe (and other books but that one covers the history of Taiwan since the very beginning.)
Edit: I posted that before you edit (which I haven't read yet).
Edit 2: I'm not arguing against the parallel with Ukraine which I know nothing about. Just against the analogy with a hypothetical US state leaving the union.
> I'm not arguing against the parallel with Ukraine which I know nothing about. Just against the analogy with a hypothetical US state leaving the union.
Ah, ok. Yeah, I know basically nothing about the US and that analogy was indeed not a great one. I was thinking about Ukraine more, as it's both close by (to me) and happening right now.
In any case, thanks, I learned a bit more about the Taiwan history and will spend some more time reading about it, as it seems quite interesting :)
Far better that compared to Obama's "moderate", rapist rebels who evolved into ISIS. All the scenes of jubilation and crying when women were unchained from basements in Aleppo never made it to the US media and were taken down in 15/20 mins on youtube. The mind-boggling thing is that Aleppo was liberated from Al-Nusra by the Syrian Army - the US were providing weapons to folks on their own terrorist list!
"China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years"
Regarding China and Taiwan, the amount of American ignorance here truly astonishes me. When the United States moved to recognise the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognise the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.”
The recent statements by the US president seem to reverse that acknowledgement severely enflaming tensions. Washington is playing with true fire here - China has no interest in invading Taiwan as long as they can moderate Taiwanese policy and as long as Beijing is recognised as the real Chinese government. But Biden is regularly being used as a play-the-dotard puppet by the War-Hawks to inflame tensions, with a nod-and-a-wink later: oh my dear, he didn't really mean it. Until the next inflaming statement comes out of his mouth.
If the US attempts to worsen the state of affairs and keep escalating tensions with statements of support for Taiwanese independence, then YES, there will indeed be an invasion. It will be utterly brutal and Taiwan will be annexed in the end - unless the US is willing to suffer heavy casualties in the hundreds of thousands and transition to a war-economy (which they will not as that would make the donors un-happy. They need to be paid more not less for arms)
Tens of thousands of Taiwanese lives will be lost to American egos and the American military industry who are always looking for the next war to keep their billionaire shareholders fat and happy. More Transfer of Wealth from the American taxpayer to the American elite.
The US is law abiding only when it is in their interest. The rest of the time they either flout law or bend it. How many other nations have effected: directly or covertly, the change in another countries leadership only for their own selfish interests? .. . as much as the US?
> Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world.
For many parts of the world, the USA is the biggest threat and tyrant in the world causing significant pain, loss and helplessness for hundreds of millions. Usually followed by deep hatred. I know folks who have lost their entire family to the USA. Unlike Ukraine, US acts of civilian violence rarely make the news or if they do, they are glossed over.
"more willing to undo the rules based order that has someone kept the world somewhat sane since WWII"
What rules and order that justified by Invading Iraq
You have to understand that, for the rest of the world, seeing the US act is if invading another country was the worst thing anyone could do is highly hopocritical
> Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world.
If you bring together three people from USA, Russia, China then none of them will have trouble naming the two biggest threats. None of them will agree, but they’ll all name 2 of the same 3 anyone from anywhere in the rest of the world would name.
"undo the rules based order that has someone kept the world somewhat sane since WWII."
Only an American/NATO nation citizen can believe this utter nonsense. The only rules being followed were the ones the USA laid out with its military fist, crushing of the opposition and sponsored coups - all in their favour.
Now that they finally have a serious competitor, the US is getting antsy. I am frankly speaking utterly glad for China's ascent. It will keep the USA in check (somewhat).
The USA is creating a significant oil and energy crisis today by sanctioning the big 3 oil producing nations: Iran, Venezuela and Russia, leading to economic collapse and famine in several nations. But its all cool and great because the US are the "good" guys. Who cares if a few million citizens of the third world die ? They should know their place after all - being crushed under the American boot.
More people are dying in Yemen every-day thanks to US embargoes and US weapons than in Ukraine, but not a whiff about it in Western news. No photos of Yemeni mothers holding dead children. No photos of limbs being blasted off by US supplied bombs. Americans who support their military and state are ignorant, sanctimonious hypocrites of the highest order.
when was the last time China invaded another country and killed hundreds of thousands?
I really not interested in arguing good vs. evil, China VS US, but your blindness is just amazing!
The UK treated Hong Kongers as second class citizens. They censored newspapers and history books, only allowing those which agreed with imperialist Britain.
They then suppressed any autonomy in Hong Kong for decades, installing a ruthless puppet government.
I am a bit unnerved each time I read an american using this self referential logic that the US are good because the US are good.
We dont all want to live in a theocratic bi-party corporatist paradise, crushed by personal loans to cure grandma s broken leg, to exgaerate a bit. I live in China and while I dislike the communists just as much as the next guy, I'm quite unsure what's so good about the US.
It's just as much a giant country blabbering all day long about how we should be their protectorate (I'm French), a lot like China...
But yeah let s not be afraid to say China, Xi in particular, are in an endless dictator trap, covering the crimes of the past with the crimes of the present. I just wouldnt put all my bets on the US evolving better just because God wrote their constitution or whatever else they think make them so virtuous.
The extent at which so many americans are absolutely convinced they are “the good guys” of the world is simply amazing. A real testimony of the power of american propaganda.
As a US citizen, I'd rather a foreign power with no jurisdiction here gobble up my data than the local jackboots with a rubberstamp judge who can execute a no-knock raid on my home whenever they feel like, predicated on dubious suspicion elicited by whatever precrime data-mining operation they're running.
China isn't going to shoot my dog at 4am and throw me in a concrete box.
And if I were a Chinese or Russian citizen, I'd be far more wary of domestic apps than US apps for precisely the same reason. Not playing favorites here, it's just a jurisdictional arbitrage question in a world dominated by tyranny.
Why are we letting FB off the hook? Why are we letting any of the platforms that harvest data off the hook? FB tweaked their algos to literally see if they could fuck with people's moods. They know the power they hold, and they constantly refine it to keep people's attention. At some point if FB promoted via algo something that riles up a group of people against another group of people to the point of violence, how is that any less bad? Especially, since that's what has happened?
Essentially threats to folks up north. Down here (in Latin America) and other places such as the entirely of Asian and African countries, US has been a threat since it exists.
US is still moving it's pieces here in Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador. Not to mention espionage on half of the world (thanks WikiLeaks)
If you're looking at it from that perspective, tiktok should be the least of your worries. Currently The U.S. is entirely dependent on this "geopolitical threat" to survive. At least with tiktok its as simple as shutting down the app.
The U.S and China are entangled in ways you cant imagine.
Well, let me try it this way: if massively popular social networks weren’t a threat, both China and Russia wouldn’t have cared about Twitter, Facebook, or any other “western” internet company operating in their countries.
Clearly, they think that these are important sovereignty issues such that they’ve clamped down or disallowed these services entirely.
The ability to manipulate people via state sponsored algorithmic tweaks to TikTok’s ranking algorithm is a powerful tool.
You don’t need to do much to sour US’s support for Taiwan in the eyes of just a minority. Or you don’t need to do much to tweak the algorithm such that content about politicians friendly to China is ranked higher than others.
It's not just Russia and China. Most nations have realised that these large social networks have selective censoring and US tilted "fact-checking". Many, many nations are clamping down, banning, restricting or raising applicable laws to limit the damage of these social-media "services".
It is because China is the enemy. When it's Facebook or Google strangely it's never an issue. Moral is always a facade for international economic war. And some people fall for it.
While most people on HN would agree that they would like more regulation of their data on FB and Google, these are largely still separate actors from the US government. You can even indicate that something like Cambridge Analytica is starting within a party, rather than the actual governing body.
There is too much sharing, IMO, without a doubt. That being said, they are not near synonymous as TikTok is.
Data regulation, privacy, influence through exposure are real issues worldwide. Tiktok has a raised profile due to its closeness with a governing state body.
The thing is that "government = bad" is typical American mindset. As another non-US, non-Chinese citizen, the fact that those megacorporations are independent from the government makes it worse, not better.
At least governments respond to their people (especially in the case of democracies, much less so for authoritarian governments, but they still have to worry a minimum to avoid revolution). Corporations respond to profit only, everything else be damned.
When Facebook starts opening concentration camps, I'm likely to agree with you.
> especially in the case of democracies, much less so for authoritarian governments, but they still have to worry a minimum to avoid revolution
What do you think is more likely to still be relevant in 100 years from now, China or Facebook? I think a 'revolution' is more likely to affect Facebook than China
> When Facebook starts opening concentration camps, I'm likely to agree with you
I wonder. If your product is used to recruit soldiers, spread propaganda, disseminate hate speech, and organize and deploy said concentration camps or their equivalent, are you liable and culpable? If you've known for years and done next to nothing about sectarian violence and genocide, are you still blameless? When moderation could have been hired and trained for an immaterial amount of profit? SEA wages are notoriously low in dollar terms. Poorly implemented machine learning models don't suffice to halt genocide. Greed, ignorance, malevolence, sloth, arrogance. Take your pick.
If a security hole was found in Google and in the US government, which do you think would respond in a way that would make that less likely to happen in the future?
It is that government having data which allows for influence of people == destruction of democracy as the government is supposed to reflect the will of people rather than the other way around. It is an incredibly short path to: autocracy, oligarchies, dictatorships, etc.
Just because the chinese oligarchs give themselves government titles and the US oligarchs do not is no reason to believe they're not the ones in control.
That being said they are also highly disparate with a variety of motivations and are incredibly hard to whip (using this the way its used in congress) into directions that are nuanced. Things like "we wanna make more money" "regulations/unions are bad" ofc oligarchs in the US manage to see eye to eye on, but anything further nuanced - that class discipline - is harder to achieve in the US than China
Not just PRISM: Apple has actually been (presumably) forced to not publish e2e encryption software that the feds didn't want deployed, an example of prior restraint that is blatantly unconstitutional.
I think there's a difference between a private company having my data and an adversarial government. The company has a clear motive, profit. They're lawful neutral. An adversarial government may be chaotic evil. I don't know why this isn't obvious.
Wasn't everyone freaking out just a few years ago when Russian government was manipulating people with political groups on Facebook? And that's even with Facebook's earnest effort to prevent these things. With this company, there's a direct tie in with an adversarial government.
Yes, ideally I don't want anyone to have my data, but lets not pretend Zuck and CCP are the same thing
> Wasn't everyone freaking out just a few years ago when Russian government was manipulating people with political groups on Facebook?
Yes, if by everyone you mean Americans, because their country was the target. There are many countries where media has been manipulated by the CIA, too.
I'm the opposite. I would much rather have the CCP have my data then a US based company like FB. Unless I travel to China, what are the CCP going to do to the average American with their data? Whereas, in the US, the data could be used in the future to prosecute me for my political views or whatever with law changes.
The CCP could be actively trying to get you hate your neighbor and spread disinformation. That could be a byproduct of either group, but it is more likely to be an explicit goal of CCP. Here's a gem from the WHO in January 2020. This was almost certainly known to be a lie to the CCP based on their actions at the time
> Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.
Yes, private companies like blackwater, shell, bp, dutch east india, coca cola, nestle, amazon, or facebook never participate in fascist propaganda campaigns or organize coups, hire mercenaries to kill unionizing (or just competing) workers, murder, or steal. And facebook didn't promote lies and propaganda during the pandemic at all /s
The CCP is at least very indirectly accountable to their own people and holds their country's long term interests in mind even if they do not care about the people and hold the usual abhorrent views of authoritarians towards minorities. This is extremely evil, but pales in comparison to an unaccountable corporate entity with what little human oversight it has steered by a combination of narcissists, neofuedalists and literal apocalypse cultist theocrats.
I agree about the contradictions and hypocrisy but the answer can be much more pragmatic:
> As a non-US, non-Chinese citizen, is there something that makes TikTok espionage and Facebook not? Or is it just "china scary"?
There's problems with US big tech and TikTok but the case against TikTok is easier to push through.
There's nothing wrong with patching the first of many holes in your roof and starting with the one easiest to get to.
---------
My primary emotional and ethical driver is to point out my own government (the US) not living up to its marketing material, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't support eliminating a vector for another (openly autocratic) government to meddle with my country as well.
Edit: distinguish my reply to prior comment from my ramblings about my reply.
"Currently, China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail and express consignment operations environment, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States. Seizures of fentanyl sourced from China average less than one kilogram in weight, and often test above 90 percent concentration of pure fentanyl."
Presumably, if the CCP wanted to do so, they could put an end to the groups shipping this deadly substance into the United States.
>Presumably, if the CCP wanted to do so, they could put an end to the groups shipping this deadly substance into the United States.
Presumably, if the United States wanted to do so, they could put an end to the groups shipping this deadly substance from the China.
Just changed the wording a little to show the bias in this sentence. Why do think China would be more successful than the U.S. in prohibiting illegal drugs?
This is assuming manufacturing is being done by large groups... but it usually is. Manufacturing tiny amounts is much much harder than importing tiny amounts.
This just isn't true for anyone but die hard nationalists. The average citizen has no reason to care what country their products and services are coming from. It's better that the world trade and communicate beyond borders. Calls for banning Tik Tok are coming from people afraid of fair international competition.
TikTok's format is more successful at micro targeting and influencing people than Facebook. Other future social media networks will probably work in a similar way and be just as concerning. YouTube is another one that's very good at influencing people. I wonder if video is unsafe at any speed, so to speak...
Influencing sure, but espionage ? From what I can tell, people mostly consume content there in a similar fashion to YouTube, i.e. you don't really add your real-life friends and you don't post your day-to-day stuff unless you are already a celebrity
Contrary to facebook where people would literally "Follow" their political parties, workplaces, friend groups from school/work/gym/life, etc.
Espionage for the sake of espionage isn't useful. But if you're collecting lots and lots of data about what people like and what makes them angry and you have a direct line to feed them whatever information you want, having tens of millions of targets for opinion-influencing content is a very powerful tool for a state actor.
I like these kinds of replies that minimize the dangers China presents to the world while implying people concerned about the same are just ignorant xenophobes and racists.
As an ex FAANG, nothing could be more true. TikTok is just continuing what Silicon Valley started, only they're better at it. Having seen what US tech companies have done with my data, I'd much rather it was in the hands of the Chinese.
What have they done with your data? Also have worked at a few FAANGs and from what I’ve seen (admittedly not working on social or B2C products) data is subject to rules and is generally used in aggregate only.
Lets say apple engineers all have kids who use tiktok and some of the kids or engineers do something shady and someone gets blackmailed. As a consequence apple launches 3months later and in the meantime someone from china launches a killer phone with the same or almost as good tech specs. Sure the apple fans may wait it out but that could be a billion dollars of sales to china that would have went to USA
That's one of the point of espionage. To get a competitive or monetary advantage. If facebook did this to other companies within the states, at least the country isn't losing money
The other would be things used to jail innocent people but for the most part I don't think thats how tiktok is being used
TikTok is BigTech too. Chinese BigTech rather than US BigTech. That's a problem for some. As someone who is neither Chinese or American, and with no local alternative to any of the BigTech's service, I am screwed either way. With lax privacy laws and regulations in my country, both American and Chinese BigTech freely abuse our naivety and trust to harvest our personal data.
> it is based on a simple idea - people will happily give away their data and privacy if you consistently entertain them.
there’s the individual-level view, and the state-level view.
i, as an individual, don’t really care if China has my location data or shopping data. what are they going to do with it? they can exert soft power over me: propaganda; distort my worldview a bit.
meanwhile, if my own government has access to this same data, i suffer direct consequences. my odds of getting arrested for nonviolent crime (e.g. political activism; buying drugs online) go way up when my govt surveils me: far less so when it’s a foreign govt doing this.
it doesn’t have so much to do with individuals making foolish tradeoffs over their own interests IMO: the way espionage plays into this is as an alignment gap between individual and state interests.
I don't use TikTok, but I assume there's also a concern over foreign influence of a nation's voters? Whether you use TikTok or not, that'd be a potential concern. Entire countries could be subtly influenced by supposed algorithms. A finger on the scales or whatever they call it.
I've long wondered if we might (past or future) see a social media company be successful mostly because, in their infancy, they were indirectly funded by intelligence services in exchange for data access. However, I assume as operations scale, it gets harder for that sort of link to stay secret.
> meanwhile, if my own government has access to this same data, i suffer direct consequences. my odds of getting arrested for nonviolent crime (e.g. political activism; buying drugs online) go way up when my govt surveils me
It seems like an error to assume these two forms of surveillance are mutually exclusive.
At any of
> the Starbucks you’re using for free wifi
> the ISP your endpoint is using for internet access
> the data centers in which Tiktok is serving you data
> the device on which you didn’t write the OS or any background programs written on it
Presumably anyone with the power and inclination to listen or influence the design of the above can intercept any non-encrypted or not-yet-encrypted data you’re exchanging (and if they’re a state actor, probably get access to whatever information they’d need to perform decryption) - including your government.
Almost all APIs are TLS-encrypted these days, leaking only the hostname to which the client is connecting (via SNI which is as yet unencrypted).
This is not to say you're not being surveilled (as to which apps you use, etc) but there is relatively little unencrypted traffic coming out of most devices in 2022.
What if US government makes a (secret) deal with China to get data from them? It might seem unlikely today, but politics can change any time. Data markets can be fairly efficient. Once someone has your data, they can always (re)sell it to the highest bidder.
China doesn't exactly limit its activities to people within its borders. There are reports of Uighurs speaking up who get harassed after fleeing the country and speaking up: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56563449
It's certainly not direct physical violence to citizens of an established world power that is a concern. It's pushing things in one direction or another politically.
See well documented: Intelligence community v.s Trump v.s Facebook v.s Russian propaganda campaign v.s traditional "manufactured concent" of citizen.
How these players interplay is what is at stake.
If helps tremendously if some of the actors are "trying" have enough independent thought and don't suffer too much when they push things in more liberal & egalitarian direction.
More effective than Facebook or Google? Last I checked they didn’t have their “pixel” or SDK embedded in every web page or mobile app, beaming data back to them.
Not saying that TikTok is benevolent or not a surveillance operation, just that they are not yet as big, insidious, or effective as Facebook or Google.
Some naively said that it was 'The best thing to have happened to the Internet.' [0] This is an example of a user under the spell of the glorified algorithm that dictates what is seen and unseen.
So given that this [1] is the general capability of what the algorithm can do, it looks like that it is the largest and the most dystopian controlled experiment of the 21st century. Even worse than Facebook.
We have hit a new nadir on screwing with 'users' with this new digital crack / cocaine invention that Bytedance has created.
Problem is that everyone that shares their data will draw everyone in a form of co-dependence as their data will be used for governance and content decisions. Even if there is the at least one obvious difference of some users sharing data and some users not doing so.
I don't think you can close a platform like this again. It won't be the end of civilization either and perhaps another platform will at one day take its place. Arguably the privacy protection for western users are even better if the data doesn't leave China.
What people are afraid to say is that the United States arguably has a bad enough rap sheet as China, but still, even with its shortcomings, it's still not China.
People will "give away" their data when there are no laws to stop "tech" company intermediaries^1 from collecting it.
Google, Facebook and others collect heaps of data. TikTok is hardly a special case.
1. Like Google and Facebook, TikTok does not author the "content" to which they provide access that serves as the "bait". They sit in between the author and the consumer and collect. The lesson I see here is that intermediaries need to be regulated.
It's so weird Windows never gets mentioned in the privacy discussion. Competing over what people do on the Web and phone apps them might have more economic impact than what MS collects, but MS has a more ingrained view of someone's electronic life via the OS. Deleting TikTok and installing an Adblocker is an order of magnitude easier than switching to Linux or Mac.
What data are we exactly giving Tiktok? I would agree with it being called a propaganda platform, but I’m not sure about it being a surveillance platform.
You can't sign up with just an email, you need third party integration like Twitter, and surprise, you need to give TikTok full access to your account.
In my opinion the application should be shut down as soon as possible, but there are many lessons to learn from it. And most of them have little to do with technology.