this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
524 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
3300 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 123 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

It’s going to be to their advantage to claim that they’re shutting down, even if they actually want that $50B buyout. If they say they’re going to sell, they’re going to lose what little leverage they have left. The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 67 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I read it as a bluff too.

They’re between a rock and a hard place, their best position is to play hardball and rile up their users.

Yeah, it means nothing to us to leave. We’re losing money!

If that were really the case why are they in the US at all? Because they know they can make money and their market position is strong.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Because China is trying to influence the US and they need to be in the US market for that

[–] Defaced@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

This is why the whole situation exists, IMO if there was a reason to believe China is trying to influence united states citizens, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. There are probably hundreds of Chinese companies that operate in the US, why is tik tok signaled out? Because there's probably a reason they're being singled out. It might be nothing, but I'm inclined to think that the people who signed the bill know more than what they're letting on for national security reasons.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 7 months ago

Look at any security analysis done on it and you'll see the insane amount of information it collects from every single user is absolutely stunning. They definitely use their influence and knowledge of individuals to drive opinion of those who use their platform.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

There are probably hundreds of Chinese companies that operate in the US, why is tik tok signaled out?

Because it's an enormous company with a lot of influence on people. If they actually influence people in that way, I don't know but they could quite easily.

Personally I don't care about TikTok.

[–] Woozythebear@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago

Yeah I watched this dude show me a video of a device that opens jars and now I am thinking about becoming a spy for the Chinese government.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But they can't continue to make money this way. It will be seen as control. So they're stuck creating a competitor or just writing off the US market.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I think they're angling for a reversal, if not they'll sell and probably take some massive non voting share of the venture along with a bunch of billionaires.

[–] Woozythebear@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

They won't sell lol, like why would they? If they truly are owned by the Chinese government why would they sell it to an American company?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The public [who] wants TikTok will get TikTok

In my family and peer group, the people who want to use tiktok and the people who could get and use a VPN to access a side-loaded tiktok app, has no intersect group. It's just a bridge too far for all of them.

I'll push them onto the fediverse yet.

[–] WillySpreadum@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Worst part about Lemmy being a tech heavy space is that so many users spout shit like “They’re not banning it, just deplatforming it” like yes, dipshit, that’s effectively a ban for something like 99% of people. You think 100,000,000 people are gonna fucking sideload the app? Love this place but it can be a bubble sometimes.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 months ago

Deplatforming is equivalent to banning in basically every instance. The public town square doesn't exist in the digital world we all operate in. Change my mind.

[–] qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 7 months ago

Situations like this are a good opportunity to increase the rate of tech literacy in a broader population or to promote decentralized solutions, but unfortunately that's a pipe dream.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 7 months ago

Fediverse TikTok = TikToot?

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The public that wants TikTok will get TikTok, and the public is going to stop pestering politicians about it.

Has their user base mobilized at all? Maybe it's just because I don't use TikTok but I haven't really heard much from their users about the ban. Which has been kind of unexpected.

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 35 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Apparently TikTok sent out push notifications telling users to call their representatives. Minors were being provided instructions with their representatives' phone numbers and contact info, but didn't even know who they were calling and were asking basic questions like "What is Congress?"

Kind of shows the amount of power TikTok has over American youth.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I love how they demonstrated they aren't influencing people by sending out a mass message telling people what to do. It doesn't get any more comical than that.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Malign influence. Telling people to participate in democracy isn't a bad thing.

[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes but telling an army of thirteen year olds doing dance videos to call representatives is worthless, if anything it hurts TikToks argument since it proves they’re doing the influencing of Americans that the government wants them not doing

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You missed the entire point. They declared 1) We are not doing anything of that sort, then: 2) they did exactly things of that sort. It's like a slap stick comedy show.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (3 children)

And facebook tells its users to vote. Encouraging people to make their voices heard and engage in the democratic process is a good thing.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'd say absolutely, if Cambridge Analytica wasn't a thing. I'd honestly rather have people not vote than be motivated to go vote because they think the liberal communists are putting fluoride in water to make frogs gay.

It's somehow always the organizations and individuals who are trying to manipulate people that seem to care the most about people's voices being heard in politics. Churches, social media, daytime TV, that crazy uncle you don't like to talk to at family gatherings...

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hey some of us are the crazy cousin saying you should vote while also advocating pissing on the floor when your job tries to deny bathroom rights.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'd prefer to have you as my cousin instead of the one I have who hates brown people and believes Trump won the 2020 election.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

Only if ya can deal with ranting about how modern cars suck due to overuse of electronics and half crazed rants about guns and how we should bring back neighborhood militias.

[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 7 months ago

"Vote to participate in democracy! Here's some local voting resources"

vs

"Vote to protect our interests! Tell your representative that they are killing free speech if they don't listen to me"

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

An enemy state giving kids a script of nonsense to harass politicians with is absolutely not a good thing.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Rival is better than enemy, but yes. We're as friendly with China as we are enemies. It's complicated, but I don't want the simple version to be the narrative.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

They're not a rival. They're a hostile power.

We are both dependent on each other because that's how the global economy works, but we are not friends and there is no possible path to friendship unless one of our countries has an extremely bloody revolution and completely changes our mechanism of government.

Our core ideologies are not compatible.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

When you're forced to participate in capitalism, your only option is to play the game. I agree, this is mostly just a bluff.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why though? Why would they give up their trade secrets? They have a global market.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

They could sell the user accounts and content and let another company clip that into their own recommendation algo.

I’ve been a part of a few tech acquisitions that have worked this way. They keep their secret sauce but hand over the community.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The question is if anyone would buy it without the algorithm and the other stuff worth money. Users by themselves aren't very useful if everyone leaves after a day.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It would come down to price. I’m sure someone would pay for the content, accounts, and brand. But what dollar amount are we talking about when the algo isn’t on the table.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

The algorithm either isn't as valuable as they believe or the government's concern is legitimate and we have a real problem.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Yeah that's certainly possible. I just don't think it will go the way people are thinking.