https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/
Dialing up things to cause unrest, dialing down stuff critical of the CCP. It’s not an issue about data, or even an issue about speech, it’s an issue of ownership of a media company by an adversary that will weaponize it against you.
Who controls and owns media companies is a reasonable national security question. The CCP knows this risk, they don’t play fair.
These aren’t new issues, there are certain types of corporations where there is a national security interest in American ownership and capability (see also: Intel). Ownership of airlines is another example, you can’t have a foreign controlling interest in a domestic airline (Richard Branson couldn’t save Virgin America due to this).
There are good reasons for a nation to have rules about foreign control in certain types of companies that carry a national security risk.
your argument to me sounded like : > Brave people don't fear heights, you are brave and hence you should jump from empire state building. And you don't need protection, remember you are brave.
While fake news and undue outside influence absolutely must be protected against, the line is hard to draw. For instance, would Snowden have been considered undue influence, would Wikileaks have been considered fake news, at least sufficiently enough to cross the ban threshold?
There are pros and cons to both approaches, and it really doesn’t come down to whether or not people agree with a statement that contains such vague terms. It comes down to interpretation of those terms.
It's funny it's not there already, with all the talk of the "need" for more critical thinking.
Democracy theatre.
It’s not like we would let the Soviets, Nazis, British, Prussians, etc just buy the New York Times.
And non-news media has been protectionist too.
We allow foreign news distribution - but there are limits.
Or here's a better idea: The Golden Rule. Eye for an eye is how you run a war, not a civil society.
It has a really nasty history.
It’s not common for tolerant societies to descend into despotism. Liberal deco meadows are very resilient.
Allowing intolerance is usually better than systematic political suppression.
From various recent polls, it looks like somewhere between 30-40%, somewhere under 2/3 of Republicans and Republican-leaners and basically no one else.
Millions use TikTok. To them, you’re not removing their “adversary”, you’re removing their fun.
From the outside, this looks like the United States is controlling the media - something it’s already accused of by 1/2 of Americans.
This action will reiterate that for some and make it true for more.
It shouldn’t have gotten to this level, but it’s where we are. Users will move to reels or something else that takes its place without the national security risk.
> it’s more the ability for CCP to leverage influence.
Well, no, that’s more Maximum Bone Saw’s purview than the CCPs, and that foreign influence isn’t (at least per the initial list written into the proposed law) considered adversarial.
(EDIT: That’s specific to Twitter, not Facebook and all the rest.)
but perhaps i am missing some obvious point?