this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
261 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3168 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
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 63 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Isnt that pretty damn suspicious? We'd rather just shut down than sell it as a going concern?

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 60 points 6 months ago (5 children)

It's obviously pretty valuable. How would we feel if say, China decided Microsoft/Google/AWS/Oracle had to sell to a Chinese company on the grounds of national security? They'd rather pull out too, despite China being a very large market too. Or what happens if other countries starts demanding the same?

Pretty sure ByteDance would rather keep their IP.

And if they sell, do they keep the rights for the other countries or it belongs to the US now?

[–] Yaztromo@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago

AWS already had to effectively do this. AWS only exists in two regions in China because they licensed much of the AWS software to be run by a pair of Chinese-government affiliated ISPs inside China (that is, Amazon doesn’t run AWS in either of its China zones — it’s run by a pair of Chinese companies who license AWS’s software).

This is why the China AWS regions are often quite far behind in terms of functionality from every other region (they either haven’t licensed all the functionality, they don’t keep up-to-date at the same cadence as Amazon, or Amazon is holding certain functions back), and why you can’t really access them from the standard AWS console.

So in effect, Amazon did have to give their software to Chinese-government affiliated companies in order to continue operating in China.

[–] vinniep@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How would we feel if say, China decided Microsoft/Google/AWS/Oracle had to sell to a Chinese company on the grounds of national security?

But no one is saying that ByteDance has to sell TikTok to a US company. Just divest it to an owner that is not beholden to the Chinese government and obligated to share any and all data upon request. Compared to the legal requirements that China puts on US companies operating in China, this is a pretty tame ask.

[–] yaaaaayPancakes@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Yeah but the 5 Eyes and their friends are everywhere outside of the CCPs borders. So if they really don't want to let the US have that algorithm, and probe the interfaces the CCP propaganda arm used to access the TikTok backend, there's few places overall that have a reason to buy it, and can also afford it.

[–] Truth_Hurts@lemmus.org 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They don't let our stuff operate there. It's only fair we treat them the same.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

To me this is the biggest thing.

I'm under no illusions that the US is pursuing this for altruistic reasons, but fundamentally I do think it's ridiculous that China bans western competition, yet the west rolls over and allows Chinese companies, or even the Chinese government, to buy out western companies, to enter the market and compete, and to compete using massive state subsidies or slave labour that kill domestic competition.

IMO it's entirely fair for a country to say "you're banning our companies? Ok then we're banning yours."

And I do also agree that China uses the data they collect for nefarious purposes. Be it training language models so they can better track and shut down dissenting voices at home, or spreading misinformation amongst other nations. I just wish the US would also clamp down on the privacy policies of domestic companies too.

[–] ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

Paradox of tolerance, blah blah

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Except that is what China already does. Cloud providers with regions in China have to utilize a local partner company which gives access to the whole tech stack. It’s a reason that AWS China regions were always so far behind in service offerings to the rest of the AWS regions.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

They wouldnt have to sell their IP even just the userbase and videos would be valuable enough to let someone else plug in an algorithm. Then again, i suppose this could all just be bluster.

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The article talks about why they'd prefer to shut down if you take their word it. Essentially the US is such a tiny portion of ByteDances revenue, it would be more optimal to shut down then to risk the sale of their algorithm. Assuming they're using relatively similar algorithms on Douyin, and they don't want whoever they sell to to turn around and sell to their Chinese competition, which is where the real money is being made for ByteDance.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Bullshit, they're bluffing at best.

Average revenue per user is a pretty common industry benchmark, and the US absolutely slaughters the rest of the world. We're the fat, dumb, brainwashed cows the advertisers can't get enough of.

Is that really justified, or an example of selection bias?

Does it matter to a shareholder?

[–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not really. It depends on what it is. There are entire games and items that aren't available in the US, but make a killing in Asia.

Like, here's Genshin Impact numbers from 2023.

On that game, the US comes in at 7th, is less than half of the top country (Japan) and is notably behind Switzerland.

For Tik Tok specifically, we can look at their annual reports.

Let's look at average annual users per region. 682M in Asia Pacific, which does not include China. 192M in North America.

China's numbers are 750M daily.

I don't think most of their money comes from the US.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -1 points 6 months ago

There's a reason you couldn't actually talk about the ARPU, and that's because an American user is worth literally 7x more than a Chinese user on average. Which is why TikTok had a revenue of 16.1b in 2023, with a growing user base, and ByteDance's total revenue was 40.8b.

[–] HessiaNerd@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Maybe the CCP is paying the difference?

[–] exanime@lemmy.today 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think it's a gamble... Too many people love tiktok (don't ask me why) that they know the pressure on the gov would be terrible

More importantly, a forced sale (with a time limit to boot) is bound to fetch them the worst deal ever

I think they are calling their bluff

And before anyone comes at me with some stupid fallacy, no I don't love the Chinese government or I'm trying to imply tiktok has nothing to hide and it's the source of rainbows and warm sweet buns

[–] huginn@feddit.it 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

They love tiktok because the algorithm works extremely well.

No other social media actually targets you as well as tiktok does. Instagram is constantly trying to shove you in the direction of whatever makes them the most money even if it's entirely unrelated to your interests. YouTube is clueless to what you like with shorts. Tiktok surfaces new content that is basically unseen anywhere else (thousands of views not millions) that perfectly fits your interests.

Could other platforms do the same thing? Probably: but they're too short sighted to do so.

[–] exanime@lemmy.today 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Good to know .. I have honestly kept away from most social media after a stint in Reddit that pushed me here

I have never had a Facebook, insta, Google whatever social, tiktok, etc so I don't really get what people like there

[–] huginn@feddit.it 3 points 6 months ago

Yeah I've deleted Facebook and affiliated products since 2017.

Google social never made sense to me but even just for content YouTube does a terrible job showing me what I want to see.

Tiktok had honed in on things I found funny or interesting within an hour of picking it up. And I'm not talking mainstream sports or TV type content, I'm talking niche sub communities and creators with less than 1k followers.

Idk how they're doing it (besides the obvious data collection) but they've got a well tuned algo.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

YouTube was going down that route but whole terriost pipeline deal durning the hight of the war on terror put big breaks on it. TikTok doesn't. Its actually wild how vastly different friends of mines tiktoks could be. Just all the most extreme version of anything their into. Had them all asking completely nuts things thinking it was everywhere. Like no sis I don't about the witches that are supposed to be doing something tonight, that was just an old qanon thread with new dates, wth is boy love anime?

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think “shortsightedness” is the difference. The sheer amount of privileges TikTok requires on your device speaks to Cambridge analytica levels of personal profile knowledge.

Couple that with the endless scroll, hot people doing thirst traps, flashy idiocy, flashing icons hugging the full screen image, no discernible window with controls tempting you to back out or log off…it’s the “perfect” tech product. One that’s endlessly addictive. That’s what makes tech good. They know you better than you know yourself, and they will shamelessly serve you exactly what you didn’t realize you wanted to see.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The sheer amount of privileges TikTok requires on your device

The fuck are you on about?

Tiktok has a total of 0 granted permissions from me.

By default it has the same perms as other similar apps: Google Advertising ID.

That's it.

You can't opt out of that: it's Google.

If you give it a fuck load of perms that's your fault. By default it has less access than Discord.

You're just parroting bullshit you've heard elsewhere.

I'm a professional Android developer: Tiktok isn't requesting anything strange. It asks for camera, audio, and storage access when you record a video. That's exactly what you'd need to ask for: nothing more or less.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

lol k.

I just looked it up again because you made me second guess myself. But i distinctly remembered a laundry list of permissions on the App Store. My lemmy client isn’t letting me upload he screen grabs for some reason, but the detailed tracking information took up four screenshots. So…you might wanna double check that.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Let's play a fun game:

Which of the following 2 screenshots is TikTok's permissions?

Is it the one that can prevent the phone from sleeping and runs at startup? The one that sends sticky broadcasts?

Or is it the one that accesses the AdId Api?

I'll give you a hint: I already told you which one it is.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s the second. But the Apple App Store alerts you to it reading up browsing history, your physical address, “other user contact info” besides name, phone, email, and physical address, whatever that could mean, as well as your “other financial info” besides your payment to them, “other diagnostic data” besides crash, performance data, and app use…

Maybe this is just a matter of opinion but those few things alone are way too much. But hey, you do you.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Are you talking about the App Privacy page specifically?

Because that page is about as useful as "known to the State of California to cause cancer"

Any social media with advertising will have similar alerts as to what it might be collecting.

How would it be collecting that you might ask?

It's not on your phone: Your browser and your apps are sandboxed from each other. They cannot read from each other. It's a constant pain in the ass for session persistence, you end up having to use wonky nonce patterns to maintain sessions from app to browser & vice versa.

They're collecting it from advertising ids that are on your browser. It's the Google Ad Api - That's it.

Go ahead, look at Instagram or Youtube. They'll have the same laundry list of "Browsing history, Physical Address" etc.

TikTok isn't conjuring that from thin air - It's just that it, like any other advertising app, is using the publicly available data about you to advertise.

Again a side by side:

Which one is TikTok and which one is Instagram?

TikTok isn't doing anything that the other apps aren't also doing - The other apps are just fucking awful at knowing what you want to see.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I really wish I could post those pictures. I opened the “learn more” page on the App Store. It does list some of the same info under a few different headers, but I take that to mean it’s more detailed info to apply to their multiple tracking desires.

As soon as a user starts using TikTok, the company begins building a profile about them, including their interests, political leanings, sexuality, and every other variable that could impact the selection of videos they see. TikTok also collects information about users’ keystroke patterns, location information, browser history, and even biometric information (face and voice print).

https://www.thequill.ca/features/2023/2/17/five-reasons-why-tiktok-is-a-privacy-nightmare

I’m not a social media person, so I was never going to use the app anyway, but I’m also pretty strict about what apps I’ll download. It’s probably a security blanket, but I try to do what I can. I’ve changed my mind about downloading a couple of apps that required way fewer permissions. So maybe my opinion is different than others’.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My point here is less that TikTok is totally cool with privacy (they're not)

It's that tiktok is just as invasive as all other mainstream social media but they provide a better service than any other social media.

That's it: They do more with the exact same.

You can drop instagram straight into that sentence and it reads the same. Except Facebook tracks you even when you don't have an account.

As soon as a user starts using Instagram, the company begins building a profile about them, including their interests, political leanings, sexuality, and every other variable that could impact the selection of videos they see.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I see. Maybe that’s true. I don’t think we even know the true extent of their snooping. Any of them. It’s probably much more extensive and creepy than any of us could ever know.

Although, I do think them providing “better” service is subjective. It’s basically vine, right? Vine had an “explore” page, right? I would definitely agree they provide a more stimulating service than any other social media company.

But if you asked them their mission statement, their answer would be “providing customers with a great experience.” Though, if you could actually get the non-PR answer, their goal is to maximize engagement with an app people have a hard time turning off, while maximizing profits by dominating the data broker market.

Would you say they’re providing customers a better experience? Or that they’re the most effective social media company? I’d argue that probably every new iteration of social media, and every year they exist, they get more invasive. They’re finding new ways to streamline their profit centers. And they’re…free apps. So….

That’s all I’m saying. I don’t know for certain who’s more invasive, but I will say it’s a race to the bottom and we’ll never know who actually won until there’s a whistle blower. That’s…not a good sign. I’m sure we can agree on that much.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Although, I do think them providing “better” service is subjective.

Sure, better is always subjective

But there's a reason it's way more popular for short form video than anyone else despite coming after them.

It’s basically vine, right? Vine had an “explore” page, right?

Sorta. It's short form video but vine was locked to 7 seconds. TT is anything up to 3 minutes.

But beyond vine: the "for you page" of Tiktok is an algorithmic beast unlike anything else. It is miles better at training to your likes than anyone else manages.

It seems like their main money plan besides ads is shopping. That's been their major push for a year or so now.

With social media companies and ad tech in general it's safe to assume that they're all merciless and cutthroat. They will do anything to profile you better, short of the existentially illegal shit (IE the company would cease to exist if they were caught. Think breaking into your house).

That's why it's always hilarious when people tout whatsapp being e2e encrypted

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

the “for you” page of TikTok is an algorithmic beast unlike anything else. It is miles better at training to your likes than anyone else manages.

And maybe this is me being a pessimist and something of a Luddite lite, but I take that to mean the data they’re extracting from users is way more invasive than other companies.

They’re not hand selecting things they think you’d like, like you said, it’s an incredibly advanced algorithm that is scientifically creating the most effective content service they can.

And yeah, def agree people who trust WhatsApp are dumb af. I don’t trust meta any more than I trust the people who own TikTok’s algorithm.

I think we’re basically saying the same thing, but just looking at it differently. I take what you’re saying to mean they’re more invasive. You are more or less saying they’re as invasive as any other SM company, and they’re all pretty much neck and neck.

I’d agree in some senses, but think TikTok has mastered that profiling to the heights anyone could even imagine. And I also think, with ties to the Chinese govt—a ruthlessly authoritarian state—that it doesn’t bode well for user privacy, probably going beyond that threshold you mentioned. I would say the exact same thing if Facebook were owned by the US govt and was operating in China, Russia, etc.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah seems like we're just of different opinions there.

I firmly believe that American companies have excruciating detail on every single user, as well as most non-users. That's how they can do things like predict pregnancy before the rest of the family has been told...

And that was Target more than a decade ago.

And I also think, with ties to the Chinese govt

It's worth noting that ByteDance has a board that is 3/5ths American. The company has a communist committee like all Chinese megacorps.

China has blocked Youtube because it contained content around Free Tibet & Tienanmen Square. American Congress has decided to ban Tiktok because it might have content that China wants people to see (maybe). There is no credible reason why besides "No totally, trust me it's a problem".

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Right. I mean, I’m no fan of china. I’m no fan of the US govt either. But I would say that China banning YT because it told the true story of Chinese oppression and the US trying to ban TikTok because it might be used to sway American opinion are starkly different…I mean, there have been coordinated disinformation campaigns in recent years. It’s not completely crazy to imagine china would use this incredibly powerful tool to spread their influence. Their track record isn’t amazing.

Also, yeah, most definitely, the data broker situation is waaaayyy the fuck out of control. It’s terrifying. Us companies are absolutely not innocent. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that US companies were the first to really “create” this new market. I haven’t looked that up though.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

No?

The way you are speaking it's as if they mean to close down the whole thing. There is a whole rest of the world for them to operate in. Sure losing the US market would be a huge detriment, but the owners still might rather have it everywhere else, than keep it running in the US in someone else's hands.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

They aren't being forced to sell their operations in the entire world, just the US. So, doesn't it make better financial sense, if all legal options to keep control fail, that they sell their US operation to another company, and at least get billions of dollars before exit, than to just lose the market and get not billions?

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

They don't want to seed a competitor with their tech.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

They are going to get one when a western tech company copies them to fill the vacuum they left. Their only real advantage is their leg-up with their earlier footing. There is nothing particularly interesting in their software, it's easy to copy, and someone likely will. If they do not get a copycat, their crowd will move on to some other thing and, being in the same industry, will still be a competitor.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They are going to get one when a western tech company copies them to fill the vacuum they left.

When? Instagram/Facebook Reels are already a blatant copy. And YouTube Shorts is trying.

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

They don't want to compete with tiktok, they want them gone so they win without trying to make their own service better, which they could do, but they don't want to change what likely ends up being a more lucrative algorithm for them if they aren't dealing with competition. You know, American free market economics 🙄

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

A thing never mentioned in these debates is that noone in the world is buying tiktok without buying the underlying algorithm, the same algorithm the app runs on worldwide, the algorithm is the special sauce. They are not going to sell the basis for their app just for a single payday in the US market, which after buying it, they could rebrand and then once successful in the US, compete in the global market against tiktok but with the income of the most lucrative app market in the world behind them. It's an extremely stupid business move.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

But what if the US version becomes a different version than the rest of the world's? What if the rest of the world wants that version and demands it?

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

They have a leg up, they would have to use their early footing to compete. If they go, the vacuum of their loss of presence will open a spot for an american tech company to copy them. Either way, they are going to get competition from an american tech company. Nothing they are doing is esoteric in a way that would make them hard to copy. There really is no secret sauce, so to speak, in the software. If they are doing it to hide something then then it lends credence to the US's accusations, at least it leaves a grey area for that speculation. This gives the US a big avenue to push that they are right and everyone should be cautious of their media business.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Then they change it to match.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

How does that work? 1 app 2 companies. Who will follow whom?

[–] Davidchan@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Makes the children screaming we are taking their toy away seem even more oblivious when the billion dollar corporation gives absolutely zero shits about losing the business.

[–] steve_floof@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

We? Are you in congress being lobbied by Alphabet and Meta?

[–] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

It’s a scare tactic. You as a customer won’t care if the business gets a new owner but if they threaten to shut down all the kids they have will start kicking and screaming to make the government dial back the decision.