Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks China Facebook

Meta's Clegg Invokes Anti-China Rhetoric Against TikTok (bloomberg.com) 100

Posted by msmash from the words-of-war dept.
Meta's head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, called into question the values of TikTok by invoking the anti-China rhetoric that's become a trademark of lawmakers that want to expel his company's rival from the US. From a report: "TikTok, a hugely successful, highly dynamic and innovative Chinese company, is able to operate in the United States, but companies like Meta are not able to operate our social media services in China," Clegg said in an interview Tuesday with Bloomberg TV. "So there is this issue of a kind of lack of a level playing field. And in the end, there's always an underlying issue of values: What values are the underpinning of new technologies?" TikTok, owned by Chinese tech giant ByteDance, has said it's not a Chinese company and is walling off sensitive US operations to house all data and employees in America. The app also isn't available in China. Still, it hasn't been able to shake concerns about its ownership and whether that opens up the app for influence or data collection by the Chinese government.

Clegg's comments echo the hawkish sentiments that have swirled around China and TikTok's connection to the country. In the US, where the social media platform has amassed 150 million users every month, the company is facing a national security review and legislation that could limit its availability in the country. There are "pretty profound differences in values" in how China views technology and individual privacy, Clegg said, including the country's willingness to seal off most of its internet from access by foreign companies. This has also expanded to discussions about new artificial intelligence technologies where, he said, "Chinese authorities are already rushing to insert their values and the way in which those AI systems are developed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta's Clegg Invokes Anti-China Rhetoric Against TikTok More

Meta's Clegg Invokes Anti-China Rhetoric Against TikTok

Comments Filter:

  • Glass Houses (Score:3)

    by snookerdoodle ( 123851 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @09:47AM (#63477792)

    I'm a little surprised that Mr. Clegg is so out of touch with Meta's reputation that he'd deign to even mention the word "values". He had a decent point about the level playing field and should just stick to his good point.

    • I hear you. I think they're desperate and are throwing every piece of spaghetti they have at the wall.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Indeed! The "value" thing just made him sound like a troll.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Nice FP branch and I'll invoke supporting documentation in the form of AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order by Kai-fu Lee (formerly head of Google in China). I hope to finish it today, but it's already been an excellent ride (for reading values of "ride"). He mostly says kind things about Facebook, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't politically assassinated on Facebook without explanation. (That's what happened to my ancient identity of Facebook. I didn't even get a kangaroo court. Ju

    • Re:Glass Houses (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheWorstTakes ( 10347040 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @10:27AM (#63477952)

      That's not true, ByteDance wants to give your data to their government overlords for free, whereas Meta wants to sell your data to your corporate overlords for a profit. That's completely different! /s

  • What's "Anti-China" about it? (Score:3)

    by jma05 ( 897351 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @09:48AM (#63477798)

    He just talked about the obvious hypocrisy here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      the whole context is anti-china, the plot of depicting tiktok as a menace against other countries (particularly the us, the safest power in human history by far) is just laughable. and hypocritical, if you consider that china has rarely reached beyond their borders, as opposed to the us which has fucked up several countries just in the last two decades for no reason, and is recklessly playing with fire that might ignite a global war just right now.

  • I mean... China *is* actually doing those things. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xevioso ( 598654 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @09:50AM (#63477806)

    That Clegg accuses them of. Is it "Anti-China" rhetoric when you point out facts? It makes it sounds like this author has a "Pro-China" stance.

    • many people seem to feel that China and the CCP are two distinctly different things, not linked to each other.

      In that case they call some anti-CCP things, anti-China things. personally, having spoken to many mainland Chinese in my past, I feel they (in the great majority) support the CCP, thus they are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from the CCP.

      People are ignorant of the fact that the CCP has a desire to destroy the West, as stated by the CCP/PLA Generals. CCP Politicians say other th

    • It is strictly speaking "Anti-China Rhetoric", by definition. The question that should be asked is whether it is justified.

      I don't see how the answer can be anything other than yes. There is literally nothing about China's stance on this issue that is not hypocritical. Most notably, they insist that we permit their social network, while they do not permit our social networks. This is consistent with their overall economic policy as relates to foreign corporations, which cannot buy land or even have a presence in China without partnering with a Chinese corporation. They historically have provided no meaningful protection for foreign IP, and literally built a consumer goods industry on disregarding international copyright law while complaining loudly about any perceived infractions of their copyrights.

      Is that anti-China rhetoric? Sure. It's also factual. China wants everyone else to play by rules that they explicitly refuse to play by. Doing so would be kowtowing to emperor Xi. Hard pass.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        Well I kinda hate to defend China, but in a lot of ways China says - play by our rules in our market place, play by your own rules in your market place.

        Which isn't unreasonably, the assumption always was though that at some point China was going to make their rules more like our rules or at least offer some reciprocity for like kinds of activity. They have never delivered on that!

        The real question we should be asking ourselves is why we give Chinese nationals and Chinese entities access to our market at al

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          (arguable hostile)

          hostile how? show us on this puppet where that weather balloon touched you.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          the question was how is china "arguably hostile" in your opinion?

          crickets?
          thought so :)

      • It is pretty sad that China produces the only social networking application in the US that promotes free speech. Maybe you should stop drinking corporate kool-aid and actually try the product that you deign to criticize with zero actual experience.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • If the USA outlaws TikTok, keep in mind who pushed such legislative fixes... https://www.theverge.com/2022/... [theverge.com]

    • It's not that meta can't compete, it's that they are not allowed to compete (in China, by the CCP).
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Hold on, I'm not sure if you got the point. Facebook is not allowed (by the CCP) to sell their product in China. But, a Chinese company (Tik Tok) is allowed to sell their product in the US. You can sell to me, but I can't sell to you? That is not a level playing field, all business goes in one direction.

    • There is no need to outlaw TikTok if we simply create firm data privacy laws. Then again, that wouldn't benefit Facebook, so their puppets won't vote for it.

  • Fuck Meta AND Tiktok.

    With any luck, the sword Meta is urging the government to stab Tiktok with can be turned back on Meta next.

  • Rhetoric? China is a dictatorship FFS (Score:3)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @10:53AM (#63478030)
    There is no need for rhetoric, the decent people need to bring democracy to the world by boycotting the dictatorships.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Western world has exactly zero actual democracies. Corporatist oligarchy is merely a dictatorship of the few, rather than the only.

      • Western world has exactly zero actual democracies. Corporatist oligarchy is merely a dictatorship of the few, rather than the only.

        It's not a dictatorship, because of the few. It's arguably not fascism by the same logic, as there's no strong leader. It's some other, newer thing. I like corporatocracy, because it describes the environment, or kleptocracy, because it describes what it actually does. But I bet there's a much more accurate term, and I just don't know what it is.

      • Western world has exactly zero actual democracies. Corporatist oligarchy is merely a dictatorship of the few, rather than the only.

        Huh?

        The western world supports having multiple parties, freedom of movement, individual rights, free speech, blind justice, independent unions, independent courts, independent policing, and religious freedom. You won’t find any of that China.

        While it’s arguably true that corporations exert too much political power these days (just ask Vivek Ramaswamy), that doesn’t also make your “zero actual democracy” true. Nor does it recognize that the west’s freedoms give everyday ci

        • The western world supports having multiple parties

          And you've got to fight for your right to party.

          You know what the difference is between the parties in the US? One is a quick trip to fascism, the other is a slow trip. Both are selling our future to corporations. As far as I can tell, that's how it is pretty much everywhere.

          While itâ(TM)s arguably true that corporations exert too much political power these days (just ask Vivek Ramaswamy), that doesnâ(TM)t also make your âoezero actual democracyâ true.

          The corporations write the laws, sponsor their sponsorship, and conduct advertising campaigns to shape public opinion. There's no democracy there. In the US we have several whole systems literally designed to prevent actual democracy, n

          • 1 - Not sure which party is a “quick trip to fascism”. But I do know that the far left has bred far more fascists, impoverishment, and genocide in modern history than any other philosophy. Look up “red fascism” in Wikipedia. This shouldn’t be a surprise as Marxism specifically opposes individual rights and blind justice (just like CRT opposes same), while it concurrently openly advocates for terrorism and collective punishment.

            2 - The electoral college is a good thing overall.

            • The electoral college is a good thing overall.

              How many times has the EC disagreed with the popular vote? What were the results on those occasions? I think you'll find that 4/5 times it handed us a shitlord.

              • The electoral college is a good thing overall. It specifically prevents fascism as it is designed to limit, or at least slow, the “tyranny of the majority” that Alexis de Tocqueville so elegantly warned about. Only extremists think minorities should be ignored. Or do you think minority viewpoints don’t matter?

                How many times has the EC disagreed with the popular vote? What were the results on those occasions? I think you'll find that 4/5 times it handed us a shitlord.

                Interesting question. It happened twice in the last hundred years according to Wikipedia, and it’s a toss up as neither of the losers, Al in 2000, nor Hillary in 2016, were notably strong candidates.

                Al was a wooden tag-along who was greatly overshadowed by Bill Clinton and who has subsequently petered into a squib in national politics - getting not much more than token support from his own party - and he has developed a clownish habit of doom sayer prognostications that haven’t even come close t

                • Interesting question. It happened twice in the last hundred years according to Wikipedia, and itâ(TM)s a toss up as neither of the losers, Al in 2000, nor Hillary in 2016, were notably strong candidates.

                  The winners were super shitbags. Al Gore wasn't a strong candidate, but as boring as he was he was the best candidate we'd had in years. I'm not a Hillary fan either, but the alternative was clearly worse.

                  • The electoral college is a good thing overall. It specifically prevents fascism as it is designed to limit, or at least slow, the “tyranny of the majority” that Alexis de Tocqueville so elegantly warned about.

                    How many times has the EC disagreed with the popular vote? What were the results on those occasions?

                    Interesting question. It happened twice in the last hundred years according to Wikipedia, and it’s a toss up as neither of the losers, Al in 2000, nor Hillary in 2016, were notably strong candidates.

                    I'm not a Hillary fan either, but

                    Here’s where tribal partisan politics clearly come into play. Hindsight is 20/20.

                    Trump was liked by the left up until the second he started running as an R.

                    Policy wise he did fine, but re-election-tantrum and tweet-wise?

                    Not good at all.

    • You think the US is an exemplary democracy?! Bwah hah ha. It is nothing but Vanguard and Blackrock in every direction. You are so blinkered by their oligarchy that you don't even see it.
  • Sorry, I might be having a stroke. Did someone from Meta just suggest someone else is anticompetitive and a privacy risk?

    Dude should sit back down.

  • What he said is true. What China has in TikTok is (i) a powerful communication channel for disinformation, and (ii) a tool for harvesting personal data of people in civilized countries.
    Can you do the same in China?
    Before labelling him a hypocrite, answer this question: CAN YOU DO THE SAME IN CHINA?!

    • No, you cannot do the same in China. So here's a question for you...

      Mark Zuckerberg, a multi-billionaire famous for saying, "They trust me, the dumb fucks", has in Meta a powerful communication channel for disinformation, and (ii) a tool for harvesting personal data of people in civilized countries. Do you trust Zuckerberg more than TikTok?

      Now answer this question to remove all doubt about whether or not you are a jackass: DO YOU TRUST Meta MORE THAN TikTok?!

      • Now answer this question to remove all doubt about whether or not you are a jackass: DO YOU TRUST Meta MORE THAN TikTok?!

        I distrust Meta differently from TikTok. Both are spyware. One is more hostile to the country I live in, and the other is more hostile to a country I don't live in. Both countries are competing to see who can eat more of the world. Welcome to the dark future.

      • Wrong question. Even if I (evenly) distrust both, there is a huge difference in the damage they can cause.
        OK, greed is wrong. But it is not INHERENTLY evil - contrary to communists who are evil pathologically.
        Look, I spent three decades of my life under a communist regime.
        Trust me, I can compare. Greed-driven evil is nothing compared to how evil communists are.

        • If Meta and similar instruments of disinformation, outright propaganda and privacy destruction are allowed to continue in their current form, you may have to reevaluate your beliefs. In fact, as all our democracies spiral down toward total corporate capture and fascism, the trend is becoming impossible to ignore. The evidence is everywhere. In its early days, you could easily make a case that communism was the lesser evil.

          • You can fight all the symptoms. Or at least you can escape them by moving elsewhere. Under a communist regime, they will make you vote for them. And they will close the borders and shoot you with your family if you try to escape their self-proclaimed paradise.
            Yes, there are many problems, you're right. What you lack, however, is a sense of the scale.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Sure.
        And on top of that, governments of civilized countries must take protective measures against threats.
        Both TikTok and other social media pose a threat; the difference is that Western-based firms can be regulated while Chinese companies can not.
        It boils down to what they fear the most. Western firms fear fines for non-compliance, and Chinese firms' managers fear they will disappear or find themselves in a concentration camp.
        Again, TikTok is a weapon for Chinese communists and must be treated as such.
        I sp

  • Hmmm, Facebook or TikTok? Herpes or syphilis? I am sure the competition will be a race to the bottom.
  • He has some fair points, but the motivation for making them is pretty transparent. Getting rid of their fastest growing rival. Facebook's record on privacy and manipulating users to their own detriment is atrocious. They are the platform of choice for attempts to influence foreign elections or spread conspiracy theories and are happy to cooperate with the draconian policies of authoritarian countries to further their business across the globe. What is remarkable about TikTok is how little of the content is
  • I haven't checked in with any of them lately (nor will I), but last time I looked, Facebook/Meta was a Russian propaganda orgy. And TikTok? No point even getting started on that cult compound of fake-fuckery.

  • ... pretty profound differences in values ...

    Your privacy is for sale in the USA (excepting limited medical history) and China obviously doesn't have to protect you.
    'Trial' (meaning defamation) by media (USA) versus guilty until proven innocent (CHN).
    Political censorship (CHN) versus right-wing beat-down (USA).
    'I have more rights' activism (USA) versus social credit (CHN).

    There's not a lot of difference when their respective cultures are destroying themselves.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Facts are stupid things." -- President Ronald Reagan (a blooper from his speeach at the '88 GOP convention)

Close