Instead of the laser focus on TikTok as a threat, it would be better for the US and Canada to have real data protection laws that would apply equally to TikTok, Meta, Google, Apple, and X. What the EU has done is far from perfect but it bans the worst practices. The Chinese can buy all of the information they want on Americans and Canadians from ad brokers, who will happily sell them everything they need to track individuals' locations.
Perhaps the way to get anti-regulation politicians on board with this is for someone to do what was done to Robert Bork and legally disclose lots of personal info on members of Congress/Parliament, obtained from data brokers and de-anonymized.
It is not about the data. It’s about a foreign government controlling the algorithm that decides what millions of people see, and their ability to shape public opinion through that.
Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish.
> Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish.
It is happening on our local platforms here. Meta, based in the US, is systematically censoring Palestinian content that would otherwise be available here in Canada.
> It is not about the data. It’s about a foreign government controlling the algorithm that decides what millions of people see, and their ability to shape public opinion through that.
Well, this is Canada we are talking about. All of the countries in OP's list are foreign.
What’s crazy is few people even talk about who currently owns major US news networks and what their motives might be. People don’t like Musk owning Twitter/X, that’s a start - but start reading about who owns the rest (especially traditional media).
At least the biases of traditional media can be audited and held to account by other journalists and researchers - and while this is barely a check on that power, it's at least something where advertiser pressure can rein in the furthest excesses of extremism.
A far worse problem is when 3 things come into confluence: (1) a lack of transparency into what content is actually shown to any individual due to algorithmic feeds, (2) an infrastructure of human editorial teams with well-established capabilities to manually and discreetly adjust content emphasis at scale, and (3) an entity with known political goals that can tightly control the composition and behavior of those editorial teams, even at the expense of profitability.
Arguably (1) and (3) apply to X, as Musk's editorial tweaks have been anything but discreet. And only (2) and (3) apply to traditional broadcast media.
But TikTok is well documented to have all 3 stages of this process, and to have the teams in (3) highly influenceable by a foreign power. It's not unreasonable for TikTok to be singled out as a risk here.
To be fair, as it relates to this topic there isn't really a need to discuss because foreign entities have been banned from owning controlling stakes in TV and radio networks without approval. A Chinese organization would never be allowed to control a news network in the way they control TikTok.
> What’s crazy is few people even talk about who currently owns major US news networks and what their motives might be.
People talk about Rupert Murdock and Jeff Bezos all the time. Who else do you feel we should talk about? There is that one conservative owner of most radio stations in the US.
> People don’t like Musk owning Twitter/X, that’s a start
After Elon took over, he deleted my Twitter account. Still not sure why, but it happened around the time reporters who retweeted #Elonjet had their accounts deleted. And I did retweet it.
Media consolidation is an issue, but Musk with Twitter is so petty, racist, and blatantly self serving. I refuse to be associated with it.
> but start reading about who owns the rest (especially traditional media).
traditional media != social media. The potential for manipulation is much greater with social media.
The difficulty here is that it has long been US policy to promote the exports of its intellectual property (such as its movies) and communications networks (such as the internet). Trade policy is almost always a two way street, particularly in the modern era in which arrangements like the "unequal treaties" that choked the Qing dynasty are highly unusual. So banning Tiktok necessarily results in reciprocal bans. Canada does not have similar concerns as the US does because it is our little gas station whose pretensions to independence we humor and they do not export IP or communications technologies at the same scale as we do.
American social networks are already banned in China and have been for a long time. Even TikTok doesn't operate in China because they have a different message they want for their own citizens. Douyin - the Chinese version of Tiktok - promotes learning about science and technology, shuts down at night, and limits how much children are allowed to use it.
As opposed to the domestic government controlling the algorithm that decides what millions of people see, and their ability to shape public opinion through that.
If you live in a democracy you have a vote and a voice to bring to the table. It’s wild to me that on this topic people seem to see their own governments as largely equivalent to an outwardly adversarial if not explicitly hostile foreign power.
I think it has been so long since the Pax-Americana West has dealt with an overtly hostile major power that we’ve collectively lost the concept that there can be real enemies with goals that run explicitly counter to our own.
It is a frustrating and often ineffectual system, but I simply cannot disagree more that I, as an American citizen, have equivalent powerlessness over the American government as I do over the Chinese government. There is a clear and storied history of people who cared about issues making real change to the American government and the lives of their fellow citizens. There are plenty of terrible things this country has done as well, but I’m not ready to give up on it yet and assume the Chinese government is equivalent.
Support for Israel reflects the broad support in the American public. You'll find that elected officials generally reflect the opinions of those that voted for them. They likely disagree with your opinions and think Israel is right to use force to defend itself against the aggression of its enemies.
That said these sorts of issues were way down the list in these elections and people have to compromise on some issues and vote on the aggregate. I do think that it's pretty clear the Republicans were and are a lot more understanding and publicly supportive of Israel vs. the Democrats. They didn't try to do a "both sides here" but clearly communicated who they consider to be the aggressor and who they consider to be defending themselves. That doesn't mean that every single republican voter feels that way but a lot of them do.
The US also supported and brokered quite a few peace initiatives in the middle east. It's not fair to say it only acts to support wars.
> You'll find that elected officials generally reflect the opinions of those that voted for them.
If you look into the data, you'll generally find that they don't.
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
This doesn't exactly contradict what I was saying. Just because elected officials hold similar opinions doesn't mean economic interests can't impact their policy decisions. Also in terms of methodology, skimming through the paper, the author uses "national survey of the general public" but my claim is whether a given official reflects the will of their voters - which is not the same thing. He does also look at what "affluent" people think as some sort of proxy for the power of money. Maybe there's something there.
I think it's an interesting area of research. However on many fundamental issues, let's say illegal immigration, foreign policy, or abortions, it's not immediately obvious that business interests hold power most of the time. If that was true then it really wouldn't matter if you have democrats or republicans in power but you see definite shift in policy when that happens.
It only serves to support wars, and most of the American public has historically been fine with it as long as the conflicts aren't on their own soil. However, they can no longer have that sense of security under Trump.
> For example, a vote for anyone is always a vote Israel and Israel's apartheid and wars.
This is provably false. The Green Party explicitly ran on support for Palestine and voters in parts of Michigan voted for the party in decently large numbers to split the Democrat vote.
Not enough voters saw the issue as big enough to switch their votes on a national scale but that’s not a failure of lack of choice, the people spoke with their votes that they don’t care about Israel and Palestine nearly as much as other issues.
I have plenty of beef with the American political system, but a loud group of motivated Americans absolutely has the ability to influence government decisions. If you, a citizen, decided you really cared about something, and gathered your like-minded fellow citizens to amplify your voice, you have a real chance at making an impact. That cannot be said in any way, shape, or form for a foreign power.
Lots of things change in China because people make a big stink about it. Probably the most notable are the lockdown protests, but there are countless examples of someone complaining about bad local governance and the national government coming in to fix it.
Chinese social media is pretty vibrant with the exception that you can’t agitate for the fall of the government.
That makes sense for Chinese citizens, but I was talking as a foreign citizen, since we were discussing the differences between having your own government vs a foreign government involved in what content you see.
From a Canadian perspective, the CBC should have a social media equivalent that is publicly run, and all social media companies should be regulated under the CRTC
My gut reaction, also as a Canadian, is quite negative to this idea. Are you interested in expanding on the idea? I'm always looking for new perspectives and to understand how my fellow Canadians are looking at issues like this.
Well, yeah actually. If anyone is going to control it, it's best to be us controlling our own messaging.
As a citizen of a country, as much as I would love to believe in free exchange of information, it's better to limit what enemies are able to broadcast directly to our phones. that's a commons with a lot of tragedies in it.
This sounds good in theory but as a Canadian I often wonder how much our government's actions are on behalf of us the people as opposed to well financed or politically powerful special interests. It looks to me like many Canadians other are wondering that as well.
However, that said, I do agree with your broader point. I'm suspicious of Tik Tok and the Chinese government's intentions and I think banning it was a good move.
I am afraid that banning tiktok would make facebook a monopoly in this area.
And facebook has a long story of disregarding privacy, mental health and rights of their users.
Making a whole generation unfit for qualified work is a serious threat for every nation.
Many of the Tiktok generation live in a world where reading for 3 minutes is a heavy effort they are unwilling to do. All information is supposed to be presented in short entertaining video clips.
In China online time for the youth has been strictly regulated years ago. But harming other nations is only in their interest.
The clearest way to look at this is through the lens of Althusser's Ideological State Apparatus(ISK). Media is one of the arms of the ISK. It's not necessarily that TikTok is foreign owned, it's that China's dominant ideology is incompatible with the western hegemony. The western ISK sees alternative ideologies as a threat and control over the arm of mass media is a concrete form of that threat. The ISK must have control over dominant forms of media in order to maintain ideological hegemony.
Actually, there is a lot more. About 30% people (of USA) use TT, ~60% under 30. You guess it, they don't to look only at dance videos. Social media had become a huge source of information for a big chunk of the population.
On TT, and on most social media (SM), what you watch is mainly determined by the recommendation algorithm. This algo can hide subjects the SM can't put ad on but also subjects the they don't like and boost the one they do (shadow ban). That how you politicize SM. That about, the first thing Musk did with Twitter (after firing people).
When it's a state controlled SM, it's more like foreign interference. There is a lot of books about that. It's documented, not a secret of something. Uyghurs for example, have been a subject of ban on TikTok, shadowing it heavily.
It’s your people who decide to see it, not a foreign govt. Chinese media like cnn and nyt exist, no need to imagine either that or the situation where China buys cnn and nyt and gosh now you have to watch their propaganda.
The essence is, by denying agency of your country’s users, you deny the whole set of ideas it bases on. If that’s a natural vulnerability of the ideology, addressing it by banning media is a patch over a bleeding wound.
Canadian teens will simply learn about VPN, like they always do in other countries which ban internet resources. Not a single one of them will leave tiktok.
Sure, so ban when they change the algorithm.
But for some political powers even a current algorithm is a threat, because they cannot control it (like they could do with the local media).
They could request an audit (and ban if tiktok refuses). They could monitor the results they are getting in the recommendations based on specific list of criteria. They could propose moderation rules tiktok would have to follow (kinda similar to how it operates in China - they have a different algorithm there). They could request tiktok servers to be in Canada.
Canadian users can still access Tiktok and are still subject to Tiktok's algorithms. They're also still subject to Meta's algorithms that, unlike Tiktok, have already helped cause at least one genocide[1].
Tiktok's Canada-based offices must have been up to some other form of skulduggery for them to have been shuttered while leaving Canadian use of the platform completely status quo.
It's extremely telling that so many Americans in this thread are comfortably talking about "our local" companies and adversaries to the US, when the article is about a ban in...Canada.
A billionaire American lives in America and generally benefits if America benefits. A foreign country is not aligned to America’s interests and may be outright hostile to them.
This right here is incredibly stupid. One of the stupidest takes and a rampid and dangerous misconception among mostly young men I see as of late. Elon avoids taxes not because he likes this country, but because he benefits from it. Anything that maximizes his personal wealth could very well be hostile to the well being of the country. You should see how he treated his own children. Incredibly naive. Many rich men end up giving back to the communities that made them (Gates and others for instance). Elon, a child of parents that cashed in on apartheid, is certainly an exception.
Elon has literally paid billions of dollars in taxes.
Yes, he "avoids" taxes by using every legal strategy available to him, as does every single person who pays taxes. This is called "paying the correct amount of taxes you legally owe".
> Anything that maximizes his personal wealth could very well be hostile to the well being of the country.
Let's look at the things that have maximized his personal wealth:
Paypal - made online payments popular and safe. Enabled millions of people to start online business.
Tesla - made electric cars popular. Reduced C02 emissions. Gave thousands of Americans good jobs. Made many employees and investors rich.
SpaceX - re-ignited space exploration. pioneered re-usable rockets. Dramatically reduced the cost of launching satellites.
Starlink - brought Internet access to rural areas.
Please tell me, which of these personal wealth maximizing activities has been hostile to the US?
Many rick men are giving back for the soft power (i.e. the politics play). Or indirectly investing into their new ventures (like giving money to buy vaccines and also making the vaccines by their other company). Plus some interesting tax write-offs.
So, thanks for the charity, but I would rather prefer them to pay that as taxes.
Canada is in North America. It is not America. Yes the two countries are adjacent and the US has a strong influence on Canada, but you cannot equate one with the other figuratively or literally. Despite the influence they are very much distinct in many regards.
Let's take this one step further, then, and ask why we should allow private media ownership if it's this important. Why should some malevolent billionaire be able to own CNN or NYT and decide what stories they could publish? Does it matter if the billionaire has a US passport or not?
I really don't see why there's this cognitive dissonance. Limiting enemy states' government broadcasting power inside your territory is pretty low on the controversial things a gov can do.
All fair complaints, but are those the standards you want to set for "banning any state-owned media from that country"? We're not enemies but I wouldn't call them our friends?
When I read comments like yours I can't but think that we are being brainwashed.
The biggest foreign meddler and spy in Canada is the southern neighbor.
We know for a fact through leaks that US has put all Canadians under mass surveillance both in communication and movement (like the wifi hacking at airports leaked by Snowden) since more than a decade, or the 2023 Pentagon leaks that were quickly scolded as "but they were trying to find Russian activity in Canada", and don't forget the AT&T whistleblower which also exposed mass surveillance on Canadians by US intelligence.
And yet..nobody cares..even though we know for a fact it happens, we don't care let alone call the US an enemy.
So, what is the difference? The media and politicians calling 24/7 China your enemy (something nobody would've done before 2018/2017), but ignoring or pretending that the real spy of all spies which hacks and spies on all of its allies, even the personal phone of the German chancellor is cool.
I find those double standards not only mind blowing, but dangerous.
We're letting the White House to dictate globally who can play by the rules and who is an exception.
<< When I read comments like yours I can't but think that we are being brainwashed.
Sadly, and I think I called that out few years ago, there was a notable turn in US foreign policy. In effect, it means establishment expects actual confrontation with China. This, naturally, means uptick in anti-China propaganda. It is a difficult position to take now in a pragmatic way given events in Ukraine and Israel, but that is clearly the direction. Hence, comments like those of OP.
They're conducting active cyberattacks on our infrastructure and allying themselves with states (Russia, North Korea) that are actively at war with our friends.
So you want the capacity to ban state-owned, or even partially state-owned, media from any country who has "allied" with a country actively at war with "our friends"? All of BRICS, anyone part of the BRI, just as the tip of the iceberg?
Yes, as long as the same government doesn't bully other countries when their own propo^H^H^H^H^H social media platforms are blocked on the same grounds.
If there is a major nation on this planet that has never done anything bad to mine in its history I can think of is China.
I can remember American, British, French troops raping and humiliating that country, I can't remember a single time the opposite happened.
While China does not always play fair and there's plenty of despicable things they do I don't like, I just don't see them as my enemy and see no valid reason to do so.
When the Elkann family (which owns majority stake in Stellantis, Juventus, Ferrari and many others) got pissed off by the largest newspaper in Italy reporting on them (despite their businesses impacting the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Italians) they simply bought the newspaper and the major critical voice of them disappeared.
"authentic" voices are sometimes not so authentic. And sometimes they start out authentic and end up being paid by foreign interests (some high profile cases of this earlier this year - "we didn't know the $100,000/week was coming from Russia")
Sure, but at least you have options and get to choose.
Long form content, unrestricted by executives telling people how to run their show, all that makes a big difference. There is no need for corporate bureaucrats to try to run things.
I'm an old-ish person (61). I started watching the news when I was about 12. I think we were better off as a society when there were basically 3 TV/radio networks (ABC,CBS and NBC) each dispensing basically the same dull, boring (by today's standards) newscast. There were newspapers, of course, and they tended to be where you'd find the more opinionated stuff, but there were limits on how many newspapers an entity could own in any particular market. The fairness doctrine reigned over broadcast news, so you wouldn't have stuff like Fox news and probably not even a lot of what's on MSNBC. It just feels to me like we had a more cohesive national vision and weren't nearly as divided as we are now. I'm sure this will be unpopular here, but I'm not sure more options has helped us in terms of being able to live together. So many families can't even meet for Thanksgiving dinner anymore, for example, because of the arguments that break out. People are living in completely different truth bubbles now which makes it almost impossible to communicate.
I'm don't want to be completely pollyannish about the past - there were probably things we weren't hearing about from those fewer outlets. But I'm also not sure how we move forward as a society in a situation where there are so many different shattered views of what is true.
I respectfully disagree. That state of affairs made people more “united” - perhaps, but it was at the expense of knowledge about the true nature of our reality.
We are “divided” now because we are basically in a battle for what is consensus reality, and the only way to have a satisfying answer to that question is to have unfettered access to the underlying facts and knowledge of who is who.
I know this is shocking, but people don't have to look at TikToc or CNN no matter who owns it. Personally, I welcome the stat of Iran purchasing CNN and Putin buying TikToc. If the public doesn't like the apps/network they can use something different.
> Instead of the laser focus on TikTok as a threat, it would be better for the US and Canada to have real data protection laws that would apply equally to TikTok, Meta, Google, Apple, and X.
The law should be against general bad behavior by social media companies, but it isn't because the unsaid reasoning is too impolite to speak: we can compromise with Western companies' spying, manipulation, and exploitation of us, but it's unacceptable if a Chinese company does the same.
These sorts of movements gain a life of their own at some point, but the cynical side of me suspects the TikTok ban animus started with big tech lobbyists, not a grassroots movement from concerned citizenry.
I think his argument holds. We should apply the same standards to Meta. Zuckerberg has explicitly harmed our democracy. Let's treat all companies that are hostile and run by those that despise America with deep hostility (look no further than his private practices in Hawaii for examples). That's my personal opinion. The same standard is the most democratic path
I''m curious. Do you think it makes sense to treat an American company - one of the biggest btw, that pays taxes and creates jobs - the same way as a foreign company?
I am not sure I understand the question. All companies should be subject to the basic rules and requirements under the law. It absolutely holds that one company should not be specifically targeted, just because it upsets current political ecosystem. If the rules allow it to exist, then the same end result is perfectly possible with other participants.
But what is happening here is different. We are saying: we don't Z company so we are going to treat them differently from the other companies in the same space.
And I am saying this as a person with minimal social media footprint.
No because the US is happy of having those giants data, sometimes without even needing a warrant. We already have multiple evidence in courts and news and congress hearings that all of those and Apple gave to various US agencies for years.
But since Bytedance doesn't dance at NSA's tune, different rules apply.
The platforms like that also provide interesting aggregates. Like hidden trends and the political mood... Interesting correlations. And having this information is pretty beneficial for any agent (for ads or to know your population better). There could be a lot of research done based on having platform like tiktok (like what kind of fake news would work the best in the specific situation). Ah, big data.
Could someone in the ads world give an estimate of how this would work? What volume of data would need to be purchased, how one individual person could be de-anonymized from that volume of data, how much it would cost to do, etc.
I've always been terrified to think about how much of my data is out there, but I don't understand enough about how it can be used, and the potential risks.
This isn’t about data. This is about pubescent brain rot and foreign influence and misinformation and attention spans and depression and anti-sociality and suicide.
By banning them from operating in the US. The implementation really isn’t complicated - it’s a simple statute outlawing the company on national security grounds, and all the tech companies (viz Apple and Google) will have to abide by it or face huge fines and criminal sanctions.
If US suspects they are breaking the law they can convince judge to sign warrant to get that information or start lawsuit and go through discovery. If they refuse the judge can hold them in contempt of court. I assume next they could just get judgement against them (assuming they are breaking the law) and that could be e.g. require seizing assets and dissolution of the US company.
You'd be surprised how many companies or individuals won't exchange money with you if doing so puts them in criminal or civil legal jeopardy. No need for even a Great Firewall.
I believe there is a legal concept at play here. If a company has an office - a physical presence - within the country, then it has what is called “mind and management” in the country. The mind and management doctrine gives the company certain rights within Canada that presumably the security folks don’t want them to have.
The public will probably never find out the scope of ByteDance’s operations in Canada for the Chinese government, but if it follows the same arc as other Chinese operations in Canada, I expect it is far more pervasive and frightening than one might expect. This isn’t about the app. This is about the offices.
> "Most people can say, 'Why is it a big deal for a teenager now to have their data [on TikTok]?' Well in five years, in 10 years, that teenager will be a young adult, will be engaged in different activities around the world,"
I’m technically Gen-Z (but just barely) and this is something that really worries me. It’s become increasingly normal in recent times to share absolutely everything online but I’ve got a pretty grim feeling that this isn’t gonna end well. People don’t realize that the AI’s being trained on your data today will act as an internet history that you can never delete.
As someone who actually didn't participate in the facebook generation (I was a straight edge Millenial who started college at the tail of the Gen X generation), I do not envy anyone trying to live in modern western society without their generation's social media of choice. The few of us 'counterflow' cannot win against the tides as long as we remain part of the larger society. At best we eke out livings generally disadvantaged compared to our brethren with social media presences and all the drama that goes with it. A few of us may get opportunities from those rare outliers in positions to make a call or introduce you to a friend of a friend. But make of the rest of us simply become one of the unspoken masses, just like say the people in Slab City, or those old rock hounds who used to live in Quartzite, AZ (now some weird mass of RV park and bedroom community for Phoenix, as I understand it.)
My point, winding as it may seem, is that this generations kids are bound to their social mediums just like the radio and then television generations were to theirs, for mainstream culture, and like the Beatniks, Hippies, Progressives(I'm not sure of the proper term here, but the non-internet groups of the 80s-00s, LGBTQA movement, the BDSM movement, etc) for the outliers. There are plenty of other subcultures out there that have waxed and waned as well, some of them crossing other boundaries, like the religious or politcal gaps in this country.
But for many of us that leaves us as the odd person out. Not being into the right hobbies or social activities or just having the wrong values and you soon find yourself distanced from those around you. The internet can give that back to you or help take it away, but in the long term the dossiers on each of us that being online produce is far less damaging than the lack of in-person connections many of us(not I) gain from social networks even as we give up our privacy and our opportunities for future dissent against the status quo, something that Eastern and Western societies alike are rapidly barreling towards an ultimatum on.
Assuming you're not YOLOing it, what will you give up for your life now, versus the lives you want to leave you to your descendants, or if you're not planning on your own and not a selfish jerk, for other people's descendants?
Footnote: This comment was written from an American point of view, although much of it still applies to our Canadian cousins and European/Australian brethren.
"As ye sow, so ye shall reap"! errm, soz for the Biblical ref.
If everyone is spewing (sorry ... sharing) pics on TikTok, X and co then you won't stand out from the crowd. Unless those pics involve something too controversial.
I have an internet history that stretches back to Compuserve and I've always used my real name, which may or may not have been a good idea. Many years ago I decided not to give myself a silly pseudonym because I thought it would be futile and counter productive.
> If everyone is spewing (sorry ... sharing) pics on TikTok, X and co then you won't stand out from the crowd
You’re assuming people are consistent. You may have been photographed doing the same thing as all your peers, the fact that your photo can be highlighted unfavourable is ample ammo for proven lines of character attacks.
People are consistent but the media is not and the audience is far bigger than anyone can imagine. This is the Brave New World. We all know things are changing rather fast. Back in the day, I'd write a letter to someone - yes pen and ink (obviously being modern, I had a cartridge pen). Nowadays I pick up the phone and shout at the little twit who tries to hide behind email. OK we had phones back in the day but a call to say Australia (I'm in the UK) had a 2 second latency and a price in the £ per minute range. I remember the handover of pulse to tone dialing.
Nowadays we have an embarrassing array of communication methods and forums to chat and shout in and be heard all around the world (should anyone care to listen).
Yes you can be picked out and I suggest you be a little careful there but this is the world that we find ourselves within.
I was forced to read 1984 in 1984 when I was a lad. We also had Animal Farm and Brave New World on the reading and discussion list at school that year.
My doorbell looks at you (1)
Cheers
Noddy871
(1) It is on a VLAN that can't see the internet and Home Assistant looks at my doorbell
One possible saving grace for Z is that, due to how expensive it is to keep around, video will probably disappear much more readily than text and photos.
I wouldn't worry about it the truth is the internet forgets quickly. Important popular things disappear quicker than you expect. User data and logs exponentially becomes less valuable as time goes out. Know you are at McDonalds now is much more valuable then that you visited 10 years ago and being able to connect this data becomes difficult when devices switch. Video from 2005's is generally not easily consumable because of format changes and quality from a few years ago makes older video painful to watch. Even facebook starts forgetting data you upload.. stops being searchable after a few years.
This is the fascinating question, because people who would normally respond on 'who cares' question, are also the ones, who know full well that even participation in an online forum is effectively builds up their profile. I am beyond redemption so I am their avatar.
ByteDance will keep no data in Canada, will not employ any Canadians, will not report any information to Canadian authorities, and will have no reason to comply with Canadian warrants or court orders. (Or even judgments.) At the same time, all Canadians can continue to use the app.
On balance, this seems bad for Canada and great for ByteDance.
> On balance, this seems bad for Canada and great for ByteDance.
It's hard to balance anything until they explain why they did it. So far they claim they aren't at liberty to share but claim it was bad enough to make a very unprecedented move like this.
The only reason I think they would do this is because of espionage, so you want to remove the offices but keep the app. But there is no proof provided within the article.
Presumably the only espionage asset ByteDance has is the data it keeps on Canadian users. (Which probably includes information on arctic military installations, etc.)
TikTok is still going to collect that data, and it will be kept in China, far beyond Canada's reach. To remove concern over the data, I reckon you'd go about it backwards: Get rid of the app, which is up to no good. Keep the offices, so that they can be spied on or forced into transparency via the courts.
Speaks volumes about perceived power balance between governments and corporations. You'd think that forcing a foreign company to operate through a national subsidiary would be beneficial to the government in terms of intelligence/counterintelligence, but apparently they worry it would be more beneficial to the company and/or its home country.
Canada has an extremely generous, massively exploited foreign worker program (it is actually one of the reasons this government is profoundly unpopular). ByteDance, like every other company, can unilaterally declare that they need to bring in an entirely foreign staff and get it rubber stamped. Given the company's alleged closeness with the party, using it as an easy vehicle to drop loads of intelligence workers of various sorts in Canada would be logical. Similarly China has a thing with running intimidation tactics against Chinese ex-pats living in Western countries.
It's not impossible, but you'd think they come up with a better front company than bytedance, of all companies. It's like China accusing that McDonalds is a spy front.
Perhaps, but China really doesn't have a lot of companies with offices in the West. When China tries to buy Western countries they are often blocked for the same national security reasons, as has happened several times in Canada.
ByteDance can't sell advertising in Canada. They can't make money off of Canadian customers, that has to hurt, although it is small potatoes compared to being banned in California, let alone the whole of the USA.
I'm not sure I follow (maybe there's other details you know about that aren't in the article, or I missed it). I don't think there's anything preventing a Canadian company from paying a foreign company for ads? In theory I'd have to self-assess PST maybe but I order stuff (both physical and digital) from foreign companies with no Canadian presence on a pretty regular basis.
It means Canadian companies can't buy ads from ByteDance. Canadian content creators can't receive money from ByteDance. That is not a win for ByteDance, who I assume wants (a) content from Canadian tiktokers and (b) wants ad money from Canadian companies.
As far as I can find, Bytedance is one of only three companies ordered to shutter their Canadian operations. The other two are both involved in the drone detection space.
This makes the most sense if Canada expects (or has) Canadian troops secretly deployed somewhere. And that is one sobering thought.
Most app developers don't have legal entities in all the countries their app is distributed. Apple is the merchant of record for apps sold and distributed through its app store.
But what's the point? It's more common for a government to force companies to have an office in the country to exercise political or legal control (see for example recent news about Twitter's Brazil office). Why banning them from having one?
If there are actual "national security concerns", they should rule that TikTok data of Canadian citizens needs to be stored within Canadian borders and can only be accessed by Canadian employees. This ban (removing the company's presence from the country while keeping the app active) ensures the exact opposite.
The point is that from a disinformation dissemination perspective, it doesn't matter where the data was stored, but the government could have possibly had more control if the data was stored in Canada. Forcing the data to be removed from Canada doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything positive for the Canadian government or people.
I remember when Trump had Canada re-ratify Nafta that Canada had to waive the right to require Canadian data stay in Canada.
I know Canada signed the agreement but I am not sure if that requirement was ever put in legislation or whether the requirement was universal or just for US-based companies.
> This has also been the catalyst behind the ban of TikTok in the US
No it hasn’t. The war in Gaza is a foreign policy issue, which means most Americans tuned out from the start, and one that was a top issue for a very, very narrow slice of the electorate.
The sad truth is we’re aware of atrocities; we simply aren’t too bothered by them. (If you’re honest about yourself, you aren’t either. Nobody sane could be. There are too many of them, and they’re all burning furiously and it has been this was for a long time.) TikTok is about China, not the Middle East.
Looking forward to Ireland following suit, and then logically following through and also banning Instagram, Youtube, Snapchat, Facebook, Pornhub, Netflix, Disney, Spotify, etc.
For too long these foreign companies have been "shaping public opinion" - to quote a sibling comment here, who I think accurately sums up at least some of the reasoning behind this kind of development.
In case there's some ambiguity here - I am being sarcastic. I hope Ireland doesn't do that. I have strong issues with some of the above platforms and companies, but governments getting involved like this is nothing to be cheered.
There's a mandatory ratio for public broadcasting. It does ensure that the (same five) Canadian bands get radio airplay (35% must be Canadian), that broadcast television airs Canadian produced shows (50% annually), and so on. So, in a sense, yes?
social media platforms are an arm of state. as much as i distrust this government and its motives, there is every reason to treat the company as a front for CCP policy.
that said, banning their operations appears to remove any legal leverage the govt might have with the company while still dealing with the app being installed everywhere, which seems clumsy. with less than a year left in office the govt probably doesn't have any remaining runway for strategy, so this may just be posturing. there are a lot of ways to look at it.
cynically I might speculate there could be a domestic surveillance/interception rationale for making them close their operations, as the app is a full communications platform and if it backhauls to a domestic regional data centre, the federal agencies need warrants to do interception and would have to give their monitoring tech to the chinese company on their premises, whereas if the traffic is international, they can do mass interception using their existing mandates.
If you're wondering how bad the situation is regarding young men perception of reality, take a look at genz reddit and at the hottest post of SubredditDrama (the one that talks about genz reddit). On one hand, we should do something at a societal level to prevent young guys go into the red pill rabbit hole. On the other hand, TikTok being banned is a big deal, and I can't say whether it will pay off or not, but sure as hell I hope it does
Edit
On a second read (it's been a long day) they're closing offices but not banning the app, my comment is worthless. But feel free to check out the genz subreddit and get appalled but what's being said there
> Citing national security concerns, the federal government has ordered TikTok to shutter its Canadian operations — but [Canadian] users will still be able to access the popular video app.
> "It is important for Canadians to adopt good cyber security practices and assess the possible risks of using social media platforms and applications, including how their information is likely to be protected, managed, used and shared by foreign actors, as well as to be aware of which country's laws apply."
Not going to lie, I find it amusing the double standard where we all know through multiple whistleblowers and courts that the US government spies on virtually every person on this planet (including world leaders like Angela Merkel) yet it's such a concern that the Chinese government allegedly spies on random Joes dancing in their bedroom.
As an European those double standards and American exceptionalism (the idea that common laws and rules do not apply to US) will never cease to bother and annoy me.
What does Canada booting a Chinese company have to do with US companies in Europe?
You do know that Canada is not the US, and most Canadians do not identify or want to be seen as American.
In any case, the solution here is glaringly obvious. If you think that American companies pose a national security threat, or that they serve as unofficial tools of an adversarial government remove them from the country using legal means, just like Canada did.
The double standard is in calling China an enemy when China has never done jack shit to Canada for allegedly spying through tik tok, but scolding off the southern neighbor which we have multiple proofs has put all Canadians under mass surveillance (from communication to movement) for which we have proofs and leaks by whistleblowers like Snowden or the AT&T guy.
That's what worries me, the easiness with which we label one as enemy, and assume the other one being normal.
China proveably opened illegal police stations in Canada. China arrested two Canadians and threw them in prison in pure retaliation when Canada detained a Chinese CEO in her mansion in Vancouver.
The issue here is that TikTok was allowing its offices to act on behalf of the CCP in opposition to Canadian interests. If we discover Google is running anti Canadian CIA ops we would have an issue with that as well.
The difference is presumably that Canada is happy to have google collect data since google is happy to cooperate with CSIS.
He waited a year after receiving the intel? He is being roasted for foriegn interference at the moment? He is about to call an election? Salt Typhoon just broke? And Trump is about to light things up on the Foriegn Affairs file?
TikTok does to the Canadian people what the rulers of Canada do to its people. That's why the govs are mad at TikTok: they can't ban its methods, for it's the same methods the govs use to fool their peoples. TikTok simply identifies your fears, likes and dislikes, and plays on them. It can divide the populace into two sample groups and run an A/B test on them.
However that's not the endgame. I believe the current phase is simply gathering data and creating personal profiles accurate enough to imitate humans. With a bit of progress in AI those imitations will be used to create videos on the fly, tailored to each user. Those videos won't be limited by laws of physics or common sense, and this will give them an impressive insidious power.
This seems like political theatre. Recently, Trudeau claimed that he has direct evidence against members of the opposition party engaged in "foreign interference" with China[1]
There are also allegations by others that members of his own party have also been implicated. And yet he refuses to release the names, or elaborate on any of these allegations for the public.
Essentially, he's using China to distract from his own policy failings at home.
> It’s not at all clear that that is even plausible.
Given this latest news about Tik Tok, i'd say it's more than likely, since this is hardly the biggest threat from China, especially if they've compromised members of the government.
You would think it would be an all out 5-alarm fire, and dealt with in the most expedient (and hopefully transparent) way possible. So that the public know they can trust all their government representatives.
> Also, the CSIS appears to be making very unequivocal statements in support of the policy approach.
The government has investigated itself, and found itself innocent, and following a divine path.
It was the same with the assasination of the Khalistan movement leader in Canada. Trudeau was quick to blame the Indian state without any proof or details. Just “trust me bro, CSIS/CSEC says so”.
Canadian here. Disappointed by the lack of transparency. First, no corporation should be unilaterally shut down without a clear explanation provided, including facts & evidence (which would normally come to light during due process).
Second, if the company is as dangerous as they say, they are doing a huge disservice to citizens by withholding that information and handicapping our ability to make an informed choice about using the app.
Pushing their operations out of Canada also reduces their accountability footprint to subsequent lawsuits or legislation.
This is a weird half-measure and I have trouble making sense of it.
Everybody needs to read Manufacturing Consent [1].
A big part of that is how the media is used to push a particular narrative. Every US tech company plays ball with the US government and moves in lockstep with US foreign policy.
The threat of Tiktok (to Western governments) is that allows users to see things that other platforms bury, downrank, outright block or otherwise censor.
A big example of this was the train derailment in East Palestine, OH [2] last year. I reember for at least a week seeing things about the chemical spill, the evacuations and the smoke from the burn (which was visible from space) and I saw absolutely nothing on mainstream media.
You see this in the last year where what's happening on the Middle East manages to get out on Tiktok in a way it really doesn't on IG, Youtube or Facebook [3]. Information simply cannot be tolerated to move as freely as this, hence the scare campaign about Chinese control of Tiktok.
That's why you don't see any effort to, say, have a data protection regime. The goal is to control what you're allowed to see.
The Canadian government needs to gain control over the internet before the internet outcompetes the Canadian government...But every effort to impose totalitarianism will be mocked, resisted, & rejected. The Canadian government is cooked.
China is a communist country, the US and Canada are liberal economies and benefit a lot from that. Should the US and Canada be allowed to behave like that, why would Europe, Asia and other countries of the Americas still allow US Big Tech to do as they please?
> why would Europe, Asia and other countries of the Americas still allow US Big Tech
Well I guess if they want access to what those tech companies offer, then that is why.
But maybe they don't want access to the benefits of US tech companies. Thats understandable.
Just like I am perfectly fine with us not getting the "benefits" of tiktok.
The problem is solved in my book if there is a decoupling of these tech industries. Personally, I think the US tech industry is better and will provide the most benefits. But if other countries don't want that, thats fine by me as well.
Title should be "Canadian government": it doesn't matter who is in which seat, if the government does something, that's the government doing something..
The CIA controls TikTok's censorship. Trudeau is doing this since Trump may change the US gov's censorship to no longer push a left agenda. Then political right Canadians that get censored in 2024 won't get censored in 2025 and beyond.
Therefore, surprise, surprise, Trudeau censors it now the day after the US election.
There is no censorship - the application is still available in Canada. The order is to close offices in Vancouver and Toronto.
In May of this year, the Canadian government ordered two drone detection companies (Pegauni and Bluvec) to shut down using almost the exact same wording.
For comparison (this is actually quite interesting), here is the ByteDance release:
Democracy means having the ability to cast a preference, and citizens have voted twice for a guy saying he would ban TikTok, not sure what's more democratic than that
Perhaps the way to get anti-regulation politicians on board with this is for someone to do what was done to Robert Bork and legally disclose lots of personal info on members of Congress/Parliament, obtained from data brokers and de-anonymized.
reply