alt Hacker NewsThe thing is, doing it domestically is also a national security concern. We know that data leaks and breaches don't only happen, they are commonplace. Banning TikTok but continuing to allow domestic social media companies to amass hoards of the same kind of data without any real oversight is like saying, "Sorry, you can't have this on a golden platter, the best we can do is silver."
Replies
> "Sorry, you can't have this on a golden platter, the best we can do is silver."
Right, and silver is better than nothing.
I think many of us on HN would agree that US social media companies having the means to manipulate user sentiment via private algorithms is a bad thing. But it's at least marginally better than a foreign adversary doing so because US companies have a base interest in the US continuing to be a functional country. Plus it's considerably more difficult to pass a law covering this domestically, where US tech giants have vested interests, lobbyists and voters they can manipulate.
So yes, a targeted ban against a foreign-owned company isn't the ideal outcome. But it's not difficult to see why it's considered a better outcome than doing nothing at all.
Tiktok was banned primarily for influence, secondarily for data.
The influence is what law makers care far more about. Remember what Russia was doing on facebook in 2016? Now imagine that Russia actually owned facebook at the time.
You're not wrong that domestic threats exist as well. But perhaps the biggest thing to know that may help you understand, is that the national security apparatus operates within the paradigm of what is called 5GW, or Fifth Generation Warfare[1]. 5GW is all about information, and a foreign adversary controlling the algorithmic news feed of 170 million Americans for an average 1 hour a day is important in that context.
That's not forgetting the ability for them to just straight up 100% legally purchase a lot of this information from data brokers.
It's not leaks and breaches that are the immanent concern here. The concern is deep, adversarial manipulation of public sentiment -- a psyops asset that gives a competing nation significant leverage as they pursue ends that challenge established US interests in the Pacific.
You don't have to agree that protecting those interests is worth the disruption to the global market, free speech ideology, etc. But to engage in the debate, you need to recognize that this is the core concern.