Why We Have a 'TikTok Problem' (substack.com) 85
An anonymous reader shares an analysis: As national security expert Lucas Kunce notes, Facebook is in fact the reason we have a TikTok problem to begin with. When Twitter launched a TikTok-like product Vine years before, Facebook actively killed the product by refusing to let Vine access its APIs on the same terms other corporations got. Mark Zuckerberg personally made the call to shut off access to Vine, and Twitter eventually shut the product down. Then, Facebook allowed TikTok to advertise massively on its platform, at a time Zuckerberg was currying favor with the Chinese Communist Party to try to get into the Chinese market. In other words, Zuckerberg killed an American competitor using anti-competitive means, and promoted a Chinese competitor for his own business interests. Now we have a TikTok problem, but that's because policymakers refused to enforce anti-monopoly rules against tech giants.
Ayup (Score:2)
Probably not enough to convict for treason...but one can hold out hope, no?
Re: Ayup (Score:4, Funny)
As if i needed another reason to despise that freak. God forbid we ever digress into total anarchy, his ass is toast. Armed security wont help him or save him in that ivory tower. Whats that? The ultrarich built underground silos that can sustain them a few years? Well those things use solar cells, require hidden ventilation shafts, and still have large doors. Would be a shame if someone welded them shut while they were inside; painted over the solar panels, and capped off the air vents. That would reduce their survival time down to a few weeks tops before they had no choice but to resurface.
Re: Ayup (Score:5, Funny)
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: Ayup (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i search for the words.
tic tok trump tulsa rally.
and the ah ha moment begins
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the tiktok had as big of an effect as Trump think. Trump just doesn't want to believe that people stayed home instead of going to the travelling Trump show.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ayup (Score:2)
The Montana Militia will be the ones defending him. Tyranny is OK when they do it, dontchaknow.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely not enough to convict for treason. Read the US Constitution.
Re: Ayup (Score:1)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
I'd say the aid and comfort part is pretty clear cut. Proving intent and a lack of business purpose in open court is the part where there's a question mark.
Trump is walking dead now, along with the GOT (Score:2, Interesting)
You're just feeding a troll. Actually it's probably a herd of them. Surely just a weird coincidence that the atmosphere on Slashdot seemed to be much nicer when Putin was having all those troubles in the Far East a few weeks ago. It's not like someone had other orders, eh?
Anyway, as regards Tik Tok, if the new story from America's intelligence services is accurate, then I'm calling toast on Trump. It doesn't matter if Iran keeps on hating on Trump, they can't do squat about it. But if China is seriously pis
Re: (Score:2)
You're just feeding a troll. Actually it's probably a herd of them. Surely just a weird coincidence that the atmosphere on Slashdot seemed to be much nicer when Putin was having all those troubles in the Far East a few weeks ago. It's not like someone had other orders, eh?
Anyway, as regards Tik Tok, if the new story from America's intelligence services is accurate, then I'm calling toast on Trump. It doesn't matter if Iran keeps on hating on Trump, they can't do squat about it. But if China is seriously pissed at him, and this story is certainly one of the reasons they might be, then China can definitely do something. And how.
Trump has a really YUGE vulnerability: The election. But that's only part of his problem. It's also the fixed date of the election. China can time their response to maximize the political damage to Trump. Most obviously, if you like that sort of speculation, then you should gamble on major sickness in the stock markets. For maximum political effect, probably bottoming out at the end of October. Tell me you don't think Xi can arrange it. Straight face required.
Best part of the sick joke: It's for PROFIT. If you know when the market is going to move, then you can play the appropriate games and make money, too.
There's also the Hong Kong game. I'm still expecting mass arrests this year. Consolidate their losses in the one accounting period. When they postponed that election, it seemed to indicate the arrests are scheduled after the American election, but maybe I was wrong again. I always have trouble trying to think like an insane dictator.
Best sign I've hit a nerve when a repost seems called for, eh?
Who's that 'we'? (Score:5, Funny)
I have neither TikTok, nor Twitter nor Facebook not any other of the 65 existing social media apps.
No problem here.
They can forbid them all or burn them up, I don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Well damnit, and here I am all out of medals.
Re: (Score:2)
But you'll miss out on the Delete Facebook Challenge! How long will it take YOU to find the link?
Re: (Score:2)
I've got that link in my sig...
Re: (Score:1)
And India, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the people of Hong Kong....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You overstate the case. It wouldn't be pleasant, but we could easily survive. But we could probably do that only at the cost of cutting off ALL international trade. As I said, it wouldn't be pleasant. It would cause a depression to make the oncoming one seem mild.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
China isn't the only place with manufacturing capability
The U.S. is self-sufficient in food and fuel, China is neither. Manufacturing capability can be added quickly if it has to be: shifts added, plants converted from making frivolous goods to tools and other necessities, the currently unemployed put to wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forget India. China exports 60 billion to India and imports only 10 billion. When India govt puts the screws the Chinese cry uncle.
Facebook is bad. Delete your account. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That said, one advantage of having an account on Slashdot is that you can disable adverts if your karma is good enough. Kind of anti-Facebook approach in a way.
(Yep, checkbox there. I never checked it as I think Slashdot deserves some advertising revenue.)
Re: (Score:1)
I think that's a fairly recent policy change. I remember when one could post as an AC without logging in.
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking, one must open click-bait headlines. Yes, once Facebook knows it can 'push your buttons', it will, repeatedly, just like a cyber-bully. About one person in sixty, can't escape the cyber-bully.
Collectively, you need to stop opening articles that politicise every event and demand your old, rich, Christian arse, is a victim. "Fuck you, I've got mine" is the wrong answer: There are one billion daily log-ins to Facebook, you are not a precious snowflake.
Schools should, as a part of cybe
Age appropriate group (Score:2)
but Facebook is beyond the worst. Facebook knows how to keep you glued to the platform and dopamine doses you like a drug.
Then I guess you're around 40-50ish.
If you were 30ish, you'd be complaining exactly the same about Youtube and/or Twitter.
If you were under 20, you would bee seeing the same effect with TikTok (but be too immature to take notice and complain. instead you'd be busy posting challenge videos or making duets).
All, social media all like this.
They are all "free apps/websites", meaning you're not the user, you're the product.
To make money, Zuckerberg, Bytedance, etc. need for you to stay longer. (So they can sell
All the Conflicting Powers and Protections (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They want the legal powers to pick & choose the content that is available, like a publisher. But they expect to have the same legal protections as a public forum. Since when can a publisher be a public forum? They're antithetical to each other, you can be one or the other but never both.
Can please stop posting this nonsense. CDA - Section 230 is the law, it was voted on passed by congress, signed by the president and has survived all kinds of court challenges. YES they can act like a publisher in every meaningful way save the dead trees and printers ink, while taking on almost no legal responsibility for it. Now I think its really bad law that should very much be repealed or at least substantially amended but we are where we are because the law is terrible, not because they law isnt being
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you anti-section 230 people keep imagining we'd end up with some free speech utopia if it was repealed. Any platforms that couldn't afford a horde of lawyers would shut down, and sites would still have every right to boot you from the service completely (remember stories from back in the day of AOL's draconian TOS, where folks would get banned for using profanity?) if they didn't like your contributions.
You do not have a God-given right to access someone else's machine, and if you want an
Re:All the Conflicting Powers and Protections (Score:5, Informative)
Honest question: can you please provide a single legal source that uses the term "public forum", "public square" or "platform" ? I'm asking you to please demonstrates that those terms have any meaning what-so-ever in any law at all.
In 1996 when the CDA was passed into law, the word "platform" still meant "something you stand on." The concept of "Big Tech" didn't exist. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube ... were all years away from even existing. The idea that the protection was conditional upon neutrality is completely made up. A lie being used for political gain. It has absolutely no basis in reality. People who spread this might as well be flat earthers or UFO conspiracy theorists. It's pure fiction.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral [eff.org]
The fact is that websites needed to be able to remove spam from their comment sections, forums needed to be able to moderate (even if just to enforce topical content), people needed the right to allow others to post opinions or upload content to their websites, forums, blogs, streaming services, whatever you could possibly think up ... without being held liable for stuff that random strangers put on their databases.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Say you have a Facebook group, or a sub reddit, or a personal web page ... whatever ... that is devoted to a particular topic. Let's say it's about Halo 3, to pick something completely arbitrary. Now let's say a bunch of people who don't like you for whatever reason start flooding your group or page with irrelevant content just to annoy you. Maybe they're literally just trolls having fun at your expense. Do you have the right to remove those users and their content from your website? And if you exercise that right, should you now be held criminally liable for anything that the other, non-troll, users of your website post? What if those trolls then complain that spamming your site is them exercising their political speech and now you are "not being neutral." What then? Do you lose the right to own your website and to control it how you see fit ?
That's why Section 230 exists. Because you have the right to decide what content to allow to be posted on your own online service and the law does not consider anyone liable for something that someone else posted, with the sole exception being illegal content, such as that which depicts child abuse or is protected under copyright. Even then, as long as the website removes said content (and reports it to the police should it be evidence of a crime) they are not the liable party ... the person(s) who uploaded it is. (I should add the IANAL disclaimer here).
Just because Twitter and Facebook are massive corporations doesn't mean they don't have the same property right and free speech rights as everyone else. Take away those rights and you take away the freedom to create any kind of niche community that is limited to a specific subject or topic. User created content will disappear because it will be trivial to hold anyone, individual or big corporation, criminally liable for things that other people do. Who in their right mind would ever start such a venture in such a precarious legal environment?
We don't have a TikTok problem (Score:1, Flamebait)
We only have fanatic nationalist/populist politicians spreading FUDs from time to time [motherjones.com]. TikTok is like those elusive Iraq WMDs.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Tiktok is real. It actually exists. I don't know what it's characteristics are, but enough people have assured me that it exists that I believe them.
Also a Chinese company is being extorted to give a payoff while handing it over. So it pretty much certainly exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Flamebait above has a point. First we should have proof that TikTok is a "problem", before we start assigning blame and looking for "solutions". Solutions that will be sure to have unintended consequences.
I realize the Chinese government is evil, but I need to see more dots connected. Say, like the CIA drone-striking someone without any process, due or not.
Re: (Score:1)
Gee (Score:1, Troll)
It's almost like Zuckerberg was a cunt or something. Hold the front page.
Idiocracy... (Score:5, Informative)
Let me rephrase that quote...
"A company decided not to give a competitor a leg up and that competitor was so dependent on the charity that without it, it died. And later said company decided that to access a market, they had to work with another competitor, and both were successful."
The whole anti-trust crap gets thrown around without context or purpose. There are ways to deal with Facebook, Google, etc. Require them to be transparent up front, and have actual laws protecting personal information. Laws that treat personal information as another form of intellectual property is good enough. We do this TODAY with our faces, blood, fingerprints, and tax ids. Do the same with the crap collected over the internet. The EU when 1/2 way there.
Allow a person to extract, delete, and offer/submit their personal information across platforms and that should be good enough. You don't need to breakup or localize these "giants of tech". Because we have had giants forever from the East Indies, Philadelphia Railroad, J&J, Conoco, etc. Regulations is how we managed them. Remember, there was a time when your regional railroad was your NTP server to set your schedule to; it didn't matter when the sun was at its highest.
Re:Idiocracy... (Score:4, Interesting)
"A company decided not to give a competitor a leg up and that competitor was so dependent on the charity that without it, it died. And later said company decided that to access a market, they had to work with another competitor, and both were successful."
It's not even that. Vine isn't even really comparable to TikTok. Vine kinda sucked, then became effectively useless, then died.
For those that don't remember, Vine was originally its own "six second video" social network. You could post video up to six seconds, and that was it. Then Twitter bought it and integrated it with Twitter, so it became "the way you could post video on Twitter" back when Twitter didn't natively support video. Vine accounts sort of became linked to Twitter accounts, although I think it was still possible to have a Twitter-less Vine account. I don't really remember, though.
Then Twitter added native video support with an initial length limit of I believe 30 seconds. (I'm not going to bother looking this up, the important bit is: quite a bit more than six seconds. I believe that Twitter also didn't limit video to a square, but I can't remember if Vine did that or not.) At this point Vine essentially became useless. Vine was still a "separate app" from Twitter, but now you could just post video directly to Twitter.
TikTok, on the other hand, has a number of features that Vine simply never had. I believe that its original "big selling point" was the ability to use licensed music as your audio. It has filter support, lets you overlay text, and other fairly common "modern" features that Vine didn't back when it was new.
Vine's problem wasn't being blocked by Facebook, Vine's problem is that what it provided was a platform for making six second videos, and once pretty much every platform supported video natively, there's very little reason for a platform whose sole differentiating feature is a very short time limit. (Which didn't stop them from trying again anyway [slate.com].)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with the findings (Score:2)
I don't like facebook, I do like business.
Facebook does have the right to limit who's advertising on it's servers, and who has access to the API's.
if the goal was not to let twitter gain ground on any front, they did a good job.
Problem is the market is always looking for opportunity and tick tok took advantage of this.
Now, does Facebook need some sort of consumer regulations, most likely. what type I don't know.
Re:I don't agree with the findings (Score:4, Interesting)
I like businesses, but I don't like monopolies. And to me any company with more than 50% of a market place is a monopoly, and needs to either be broken up or regulated...and if regulated there need to be EXTREME* steps taken to insure against regulatory capture.
*Extreme as in: Nobody who works for the regulatory agency may ever again accept any remuneration from the regulated company or any company that owns it, or exchange any other favors with it. And all communications between the two must be recorded, and any communications made with any regulate company after the cessation of work at the regulatory agency must be made public. With teeth in the enforcement of those rules.
Re: (Score:2)
And to me any company with more than 50% of a market place is a monopoly,
Definitions matter.
monopoly (/mnäpl/)
noun
1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Source: Google
You say that you like business but I can't believe you based on everything else that you said. Let's say that I invent a new type of food ... I will, for a time being, enjoy 100% market-share on that food item. Same if I invent a new type of toy (the fidget spinner comes to mind) or a new technological invention. At what point should government intervene to punish me for having invented something novel?
Now let's say I have a competitor, and we are both pretty popular. And le
Re: (Score:2)
very well said,
I enjoy reading it.
I would like to point out that law's, rules and right's are usually crafted by people with a self-interest. Choice in the market is important, and the right to make more choices by forceful intervention when the entire market share is 1 company might be a good thing ( not all the time, but most of the time ).
Have a nice evening / morning
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think two of them require apostrophes but not the other one?
Re: (Score:2)
Of my entire statement, you choose to seek clarification on grammar .
Why don't you just publish the correct results?
Obviously, you need to show your grammar skills, or present to the world something, and at the same time dilute the topic at hand.
Not surprised at all.
Re: (Score:3)
My definition wasn't the legal definition, but neither is yours:
https://definitions.uslegal.co... [uslegal.com]
Deciding whether something is a monopoly or not in the legal sense is highly dependent on just how the market gets defined. I didn't go into details, but I consider everything the law considers to be a monopoly to be a monopoly, and a bunch of other things as well.
Then you get to the question of "Is it a monopoly in restraint of trade?", "Is it an abusive monopoly?", etc. What these are all about is saying "We
The "problem" with Tik-Tok (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a theory:
What if the reason Tik-Tok ( and soon to be all Chinese apps ) is being banned from American networks isn't because of some National Security issue, but rather because China refuses to allow American companies access to the Chinese digital market ?
To play in China, you have to play by Chinese rules.
This means giving Chinese engineers / developers total access to your product. They then use this access to reverse-engineer and / or copy your product, tweak it a bit and build a Chinese version of it. They then either change the rules so the company no longer wants to do business in China or they just outright kick them out.
Once they're gone, China simply implements their " homebrew " version of the same tech / application and they're done.
Personally, if I were making the decisions, I would simply return the favor.
If China won't allow foreign companies access to their digital markets, then China will not have access to ours either.
It's as simple as that.
Re:The "problem" with Tik-Tok (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe it. That would be an honest reason. If that were the reason, a law would easily pass congress. That's a reason that both parties would accept.
But really the reason I don't believe it is it would require Trump to be trying to do something good for the country, and that appears to be against everything he stands for.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it the same everywhere? If you want your app to be available in Europe you better comply with European laws. Every country expects that and when you select the local app stores your app will be in you are required to affirm that it is legal in each of them.
Sure enough American apps that comply with Chinese law are available in China. Microsoft and Apple have apps and services there.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that different countries/regions have different laws. What the OP is asking, does it make sense to play with a country that has very different rules from yours? Especially when they are making a profit due to the differences.
For example, I might say that anyone is welcome to my home. Then person X shows up and enjoys a couple of my beers. I ask him if I can visit him likewise, and he says no, he doesn't allow any visitors. It's legally OK because each of us can set our own house rules. But the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While there are a lot of reasons, I think general unfairness from the Chinese side is a big part of them.
If it is OK for China to exclude US services if they refuse to let Chinese authorities access their user data, then surely it is OK for the US to exclude Chinese services that allow Chinese authorities to access their user data. Any other policy would give Chinese services an unfair advantage in the US market. Conceptually this is a lot like labor or environmental laws. The US's trade relationships
The real problem (Score:1, Insightful)
all these dataminers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could anyone tell Trump? (Score:2)
Maybe he could hang the fucker for treason, then at least something good has come out of the hairpiece.
Give us this day our daily TikTok (Score:2)
... or, at least, a daily TikTok story on /.
Am I the only one who's tired of constant news headlines about a ridiculous app that's part Vine and part spyware? Am I the only one who's tired of seeing it in my Slashdot feed?/p?
You do. We don't. (Score:2)
Note that we also think TikTok is batshit retarded. Like Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, Flappy Bird and the Yo! messenger.
We just don't have a ... problem ... :D
In the words of those revered American role models, the Daleks: This is not war! This is pest control!
Sincerely,
the world.
TikTok problem? (Score:2)
There is no "TikTok problem". The fact that retards like to play with TikTok is a problem only for those retards. Just like Google is only a problem for those retards that like to play Google, and Facebook is only a problem for the retards that play FaceBook, and Twitter is only a problem for the retards that play Twitter.
Unfortunately it seems that their is high intersectionality amongst the various retard groups. Treatment should be provided to the retards -- elimination of the symptoms or retardation