[jzmorganchase]

if you believe China is a dystopian state why would a Chinese tech product that isn't even allowed in it's international form within China not itself "dystopian"

imo the most dystopian thing about TikTok is the fact that China intentionally exports a highly addictive product that they don't allow their own people to use

[nequo]

TikTok does exist in China. It is called Douyin. The reason that they have a separate service domestically is most likely not the addictiveness of it. From the introduction section of Wikipedia's article on TikTok:

  TikTok and Douyin have almost the same user interface but no access to each other's content. Their servers are each based in the market where the respective app is available.[11] The two products are similar, but their features are not identical. Douyin includes an in-video search feature that can search by people's faces for more videos of them and other features such as buying, booking hotels and making geo-tagged reviews.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok

Edit: I see what you mean. For all intents and purposes, I stand corrected.

[jzmorganchase]

This is not true. The recent 60 minutes story specifically says the type of content is completely different because it is heavily moderated in China which is the total opposite of what we see in the US or elsewhere outside of China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY&ab_channel=60Min...

[time_to_smile]

I'm consistently surprised that many people in the tech community treat China as some unknowable country that we only get a few snippets of insight in from our media.

If you work in tech, you most certainly have a few Chinese citizens as coworkers and colleagues. Talk to them about what life is like if you're curious, don't rely on "60 minutes".

TikTok in China may be moderated but only to keep anything controversial from the government perspective off. I've seen this myth floating that somehow tiktok in China is much more wholesome, which is ridiculous. As far as the ill effects of social media, TikTok is arguably worse in China as it's almost entirely people trying to sell things and make a quick buck, flooded with get rich quick schemes and scams.

All of the things mentioned in that 60 minutes video can be found in the US version of TikTok, there is plenty of educational content. The idea that everyone in China is watching scientific experiments on tiktok while its corrupting American youth is ridiculous.

[jzmorganchase]

You're saying China doesn't have a time limit on daily use for children? Or the content that is available to kids vs adults isn't different?

There might be some half truths to the 60 minute story but AFAIK the time limit is real and the content available to children is different which is what the piece is referring to. It might be more similar for adults.

[weinzierl]

Do you know if it is possible to access Douyin outside of China? I think it would be an interesting experience to see it first-hand and also I guess the language barrier would no be a huge issue if the content is similar to TikTok.

[housel]

A lot of Douyin content ends up on YouTube Shorts if you know where to look.

[fragmede]

You can just install

https://apps.apple.com/app/id440948110

[weinzierl]

Seems to be Kuaishou, similar but different to Douyin. Surprisingly it works and it doesn't look like I even need to log in to use it.

At a first glance the content is disappointingly similar to TikTok. Also, as I expected, with this type of content language is a non-issue.

Does anyone know if I can get the real Douyin? A search in the AppStore shows Kuaishou first and TikTok second.

[jzmorganchase]

the 60 minutes piece was focused on how they moderate content for kids not everyone eg adult coworkers.

compare to the US where there’s no separate experience for kids and there’s no time limit.

[remoteworker111]

Do you have tiktok? You can clearly tell that it promotes inflammatory content if you use it for a few days/weeks. This is legislation against the CCP, not against the people of China.

[kristopolous]

China isn't some monolithic automaton. It's a complex society with multi-faceted incongruities and contradictory rationalizations for conflicting piecemeal systems Just Like Every Other Society that has ever existed.

It's 4 times the number of people as the US. Imagine having 200 states instead of 50. I mean heck, they have over 300 languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China).

[jzmorganchase]

we’re talking about the government not the Chinese people here but nice bad faith response

[kristopolous]

Maybe I'm misreading things ... let me try again based on your initial comment:

> if you believe China is a dystopian state why would a Chinese tech product that isn't even allowed in it's international form within China not itself "dystopian"

^^ The classification here as "chinese" tech product is the first issue

> imo the most dystopian thing about TikTok is the fact that China intentionally exports a highly addictive product that they don't allow their own people to use

^^ second issue is "china intentionally exports"

At least I read this as if there's an assumption there's some centralized bureau of dictats speaking with one voice in orchestrating policy as opposed to an $18 trillion economy with 1.4 billion people consisting of 43 million companies and a parliamentary system with 3155 members representing 10 political parties including 480 independents.

Everything is actually a confusing complicated hot mess and I reject such attributions and framings.

That's not to say there aren't policies, of course there are. It's more to say that if you are not only describing but also attributing intentionality and goals to an international policy in a way that takes under say, 10 words, I'm going to be suspicious of the accuracy.

[akomtu]

The centralized bureau is called CCP.

TikTok's main power is creating associations. For example, CCP may dislike some US politician because he is a trouble for Huawei, so TikTok starts subtly pushing videos that associate that politician with bad stuff. In a few weeks 150 millions US citizens have a strong negative reaction to that politician. TikTok may do the same for targeted high-profile individuals, e.g. family members of congressmen or high rank CIA officers. That is an immense power.

[kristopolous]

Have any direct, verifiable, falsifiable and testable evidence with clear a audit trail?

I'd love to see it

Sorry for the high bar. Remarkable stories of secret vast networks of communist mind control have a long history. I claim aggressive skepticism of supposed international plots by a cabal of communist puppetmasters is warranted.

I mean Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, real spies. Not saying this stuff is impossible, there's just a lot of noise here.

Hell there's the long forgotten 1980s espionage by the Japanese stealing stuff from IBM https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/02/09/Hitachi-pleads-guilt... stuff does happen... Espionage in the Silicon Valley, a book published in 1984, is a pretty good summary of them if you're really interested. You'll have to toss about $20 on the used market to get a copy though. (I should send mine to internet archive)

[akomtu]

You're surprisingly passionate about defending TikTok and CCP.

Also, I want to note how your comment is structured:

1. Demand an impossible proof.

2. Gaslight with remarks about vast spy networks, mind control and illuminatis.

3. Distract with an irrelevant, but true story.

Like I said, you're defending TikTok & CCP with surprising passion and competence.

[babypuncher]

Why ban TikTok by name and not by legislating away the specific bad things it does? I don't see anything in this legislation that would affect Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts, both of which are using their own engagement-focused algorithm for recommending content. If being addicting is the reason we don't like TikTok, then why are we OK with it when a domestic company does it?

Because Facebook lobbyists don't want that, they just want to eliminate the competition.

We don't need to regulate TikTok, we need to regulate Social Media as a whole.

[kube-system]

This legislation does not ban TikTok by name. It:

> [prohibits] all transactions from any social media company in, or under the influence of, China, Russia, and several other foreign countries of concern.

(After a quick read of the bill, it sounds like it may also ban VK. Although, it is already sanctioned.)

[LarryMullins]

Check page 4. This legislation provides a list of companies which are social media companies. TikTok, Bytedance and any company that may be owned by either of those are the companies listed.

What other social media companies from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela might they have explicitly listed as a social media company? There are probably some.. maybe Yandex has some social media? WeChat? Regardless, only TikTok/Bytedance are explicitly named as examples. Obviously they have it in for TikTok specifically.

[kube-system]

Of course, TikTok is clearly the impetus for the bill. My point is that it isn't a bill that only applies to TikTok.

[blsapologist42]

On page 7-8 they explain how "social media company" is defined. It's common for laws to have some examples along with the general rule. It doesn't mean it only applies to TikTok.

[jzmorganchase]

Because the biggest concern is still Chinese ownership of US customer data. Not just the addictive features within the app.

[LarryMullins]

> Because the biggest concern is still Chinese ownership of US customer data.

This legislation doesn't ban all Chinese government controlled apps that users might share their data with, only those that are social media specifically. If users cannot view content generated by other users, then it isn't social media and isn't banned by this bill. If the app doesn't sell digital advertising space, then it isn't social media (according to this bill) and isn't banned.

A Chinese government "backup app" that lets you upload all your documents to a server in China would presumably not be banned by this bill because it lacks those social media features. Maybe it would be banned by another law, but not this one. Or consider a Chinese "keyboard app", that logs everything you type. That's not social media, so this bill doesn't ban it.

[jzmorganchase]

Ok what’s your point?

[LarryMullins]

That this is not the real motivation of the bill: "the biggest concern is still Chinese ownership of US customer data."

The bill doesn't address Chinese ownership of US customer data. The bill is specifically about social media, and doesn't apply generally to other Chinese companies that also suck up US customer data.

[posterboy]

It would be a tough sell. Think of the children works so much better.

Yet you admitted, another kind of services would "presumably not be banned by this bill because it lacks those social media features. Maybe it would be banned by another law, ..." which is in agreement with comments saying that this bill is targeted at Tik Tok.

The irony is that the pedagogic aspect is secondary if those comments are right, but because data which documents how much the people are lacking impulse control is at ridiculous levels, if I am projecting myself for a second. The why you don't face book and study meme applies.

[babypuncher]

I'm not any more comfortable with Facebook owning that data than the Chinese government. We've already seen the harm that comes from that.

[jzmorganchase]

Ok...so the solution is to allow China to own the data and not more closely regulate how data is stored and used at any social media company that stores US customer data?

[worik]

Unless you are of Chinese extraction, with relatives still in China, and are politically active.

Not a small group, and a very vulnerable group.

[lostmsu]

> imo the most dystopian thing about TikTok is the fact that China intentionally exports a highly addictive product that they don't allow their own people to use

This comment made me think that TikTok (and Facebook before it) are somewhat like an attempt at hacker attack on the simulation we live in, where the analogue to the "simulation" is the system where freedom of speech is an absolute law, but the system is running on susceptible components: people, and is therefore vulnerable.