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.
Israelis can do whatever they please and kill hundreds of people everyday, they literally destroyed 8 buildings full of people with many children to kill a single Hezbollah leader.
But how can I be surprised when more than a decade ago the same things where happening on US hands towards Iraqis or whatever. Drone kills 200 people in a market? Yeah but an Al Qaeda operative was there buying spices, so worth it.
We became numb to those tragedies. In particular when violence and death is happening by drones and bombs rather than someone pointing their rifle at you, it seems like it makes it less violent when I find it absurdly evil, cold and detached.
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).
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.
This is patently untrue. The American Federal government is not swayed by votes directly in any reliable way.
For example, a vote for anyone is always a vote Israel and Israel's apartheid and wars. Sure, you can disagree with what they're doing there, but isn't it funny that we ALWAYS support them no matter what?
So, no, we can't just decide what we see, consume, or do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, ban it when you have any proofs of manipulations. Or when there are clearly defined regulations in the law.
Oh, and don't forget to ban ig/youtube... ah wait, giving the same rights to the foreign corporations is fine.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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", and it is what every single law-abiding taxpayer does.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> "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 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.
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 companies, but governments getting involved like this is nothing to be cheered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Details:
* https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
* https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...
For a very recent example, one of the few remaining prominent Palestinian journalists, with a following of over 1M on Meta, was banned today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/11/7/al-jaze...
Didn't you read the memo from the government?
Israelis can do whatever they please and kill hundreds of people everyday, they literally destroyed 8 buildings full of people with many children to kill a single Hezbollah leader.
But how can I be surprised when more than a decade ago the same things where happening on US hands towards Iraqis or whatever. Drone kills 200 people in a market? Yeah but an Al Qaeda operative was there buying spices, so worth it.
We became numb to those tragedies. In particular when violence and death is happening by drones and bombs rather than someone pointing their rifle at you, it seems like it makes it less violent when I find it absurdly evil, cold and detached.
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).
I would argue that has been a persistent topic of conversation for my entire life!
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.
This is patently untrue. The American Federal government is not swayed by votes directly in any reliable way.
For example, a vote for anyone is always a vote Israel and Israel's apartheid and wars. Sure, you can disagree with what they're doing there, but isn't it funny that we ALWAYS support them no matter what?
So, no, we can't just decide what we see, consume, or do.
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.
The US political system is very undemocratic and most of us Americans have no more means of influencing it than we do China's.
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.
The Succession quote, “ I love you, but you are not serious people” comes to mind
But what is out there on TikTok that's so dangerous to the state? Dance videos?
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.
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.
Important to note that they didn’t ban TikTok in Canada.
They booted TikTok corporate from the country as a threat to national security.
Given how China operates globally and especially in Canada, I’m completely fine with them getting told to beat it
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.
That's fair, as long as you (as in country) won't cry foul when somebody blocks your outlet because they want to control your messaging.
If you're going to cry foul, maybe you shouldn't block the other party in the first place.
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.
>It’s your people who decide to see it, not a foreign govt
The threat is that it silently engages in manipulation, rather than something like RT or New York Times where the bias is well known ahead of time.
You might reasonably be describing the current TikTok algorithm, but companies often modify algorithms over time.
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).
But how would the gov't know they changed the algorithm? It's not like TikTok sends newsletters to the House of Commons.
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.
[1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
We have foreign born billionaires that own mainstream media outlets in the US so not sure it’s that much different
So, ban it when you have any proofs of manipulations. Or when there are clearly defined regulations in the law. Oh, and don't forget to ban ig/youtube... ah wait, giving the same rights to the foreign corporations is fine.
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?
You reminded me of a fun fact.
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.
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.
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.
What's an "enemy state"? We're not at war with China.
China is known to be actively spying and meddling in Canadian domestic politics in ways that are not legal or the normal diplomatic channels.
Describing them as an enemy might be too far, but you certainly wouldn’t describe China as a friend.
They're conducting active cyberattacks on our infrastructure and allying themselves with states (Russia, North Korea) that are actively at war with our friends.
We're not "at war" but that doesn't mean much.
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?
Since when is China my enemy?
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.
This is one of the main reasons we're seeing the legacy media lose legitimacy. People want to hear authentic voices and go to where the new ideas are.
"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.
That can be a threat, but a billionaire American or South African with similar power and motivation is also a threat.
And also the guy who bought a bankrupt radio network, right? Or is that one okay?
What about that African weirdo who bought the #1 political announcements channel on the internet? /s
China's motivation, as a geopolitical adversary to the US, is to tilt the geopolitical power balance in its favor.
Our local billionaires goals are not in the same category.
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", and it is what every single law-abiding taxpayer does.
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.
This is a post about Canada.
Canada is America, literally but also figuratively
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.
This is a needlessly antagonistic thing to say.
Imagine if Russia owned Fox News. Oh wait
Now you know what the rest of the world (not all of it obviously) feels about Radio Liberty and friends.
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.
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.
Safe to assume China already bought most of what’s available, but why give them additional video tokens / training data
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
How can the US actually enforce laws against Bytedance? Are they going to allow us to audit their operations?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> "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.
Full circle from early Facebook and Twitter over sharing.
"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.
"You’re assuming people are consistent."
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)
People can attack character over anything.
Just saying that I have seen zero evidence over the last 10 years of anyone getting more tolerant of others being, in their opinion, stupid online.
So which of these is your real name?
Gerdesj? Or Wonky231?
My real name is knobbly223
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.
What about 10 years from now, it came out that some politician liked (or "engaged with) a bunch of racist videos when he was a kid?
But the fact that you prefer McDonald’s will not forgotten and will be part of some data profile on you , sold and resold by data brokers.
and saved into weights.
Sorry, but who cares?
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 companies, but governments getting involved like this is nothing to be cheered.
To be clear, they're not banning the app, they're banning ByteDance from having offices in Canada
Isn't it all rather self-defeating, then?
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.
Intelligence agencies aren't known for their history of providing proof to the public. This review has been in process for over a year though.
"We came to the conclusion that these activities that were conducted in Canada by TikTok and their offices would be injurious to national security,"
Really not saying anything, but that's the line they are going with.
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.
What do they think is happening inside TikTok offices? It's not like they're embassies filled with spies.
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.
That means that users can’t be advertised to?
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.
It goes both ways.
... and Bytedance will not have any recourse if Canada bans the app.
Can .ca App Store still offer the app legally if no biz entity operating in Canada? If no, then it's the same as ban the app
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?
What is the strategy here? Why does banning ByteDance from having offices in Canada do anything?
Could it be the start of a series of legislation to make it impossible to operate the app which would be more palatable to the public than a ban?
1: Ban presence in the country
2: Add data provision requirements that personal information be stored in the country.
3: TikTok can’t meet requirements? Well that’s on them, guess they can’t operate here.
What if ByteDance operating outside of Canada stores the data in ca-central-1?
> What is the strategy here
1. Show the current government is doing something after the CSE said the Canadian government has been breached by China's MSS [0]
2. A response to China for breaching Canada's systems.
3. A way to get a quick win to make bipartisan China hawks across the border in the US happy.
[0] - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cse-cyber-threats-china-1.7...
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.
Canadian citizens can still be brainwashed even if their data is stored within Canada.
If any app is brainwashing people it's the zombie of twitter. Not tik tok.
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.
So then why aren't they banning the app?
Can anyone confirm the following?
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.
They're angry that TikTok made people aware of the atrocities their governments are supporting across the world.
This has also been the catalyst behind the ban of TikTok in the US.
> 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.
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.
This is quite possibly the stupidest ban I've ever heard.
They should insist that the data doesn't leave their borders; this is the opposite of a ban. They're insisting on having all their user data leave.
Government being stupid. Imagine that.
This might be related to CANCON rules. If TikTok can’t have Canadian offices then they can’t qualify for Canadian content.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content
They are banning offices, not the actual app though
I think that the idea is that once they ban the offices, then they might have stronger legal justification to ban the app.
If related then media from all other countries but Canada should be banned from distributing in Canada?
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?
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.
“Bans ByteDance” might be better wording.
> "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."
I am sure that Canadians will totally do this.
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.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[2]: https://www.wired.com/story/east-palestine-ohio-train-derail...
[3]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
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.
Anything to read into the timing?
Doesn't hurt to proactively appease the next leader of the US. Especially an ornery one looking to settle some scores.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this news broke a day after trump's election.
what timing? I have no idea what you are referring
Perhpas a response to Canadian government network being hacked by Chinese intelligence:
https://therecord.media/canada-20-government-agencies-hacked...
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?
I actually have no idea either.
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.
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.
As a Canadian I’m just left wondering what scandal the Liberals are trying to cover up now.
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.
[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-he-has-list-of-...
> he's using China to distract from his own policy failings at home.
It’s not at all clear that that is even plausible. Also, the CSIS appears to be making very unequivocal statements in support of the policy approach.
> 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.
Yes, this data is for American and Canadian companies to collect and sell!
What data does china allow American and Canadian companies to collect and sell regarding Chinese citizens?
The citizens should be making that choice, not the government. You speak of them like serfs.
If it walks like a duck
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?
China hasn't been communist since Deng Xiaoping. It's not liberal, though, it's a tightly controlled economy.
> 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.
I wish you were the president then, nobody in the white house agree with you
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...
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..
Why all the handwringing about TikTok, but not about X?
If they only had remote workers this wouldn't be a big deal. Shame on you tiktok for making everyone return to the office.
> "in wake of national security review of popular social media app"
Where is the outrage then?
The outrage is probably posted on TikTok.
so it's a problem already solved from the legal government's standpoint?
Exactly.
Hell yeah, screw TikTok and the horse it rode in on.
(Canadian founder in unrelated domain)
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:
https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-develop...
And here is the Bluvec/Pegauni release:
https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-develop...
So, there’s no censorship but the releases are extremely similar to drone detection companies.
Same goes for the U.S, if citizens are banned from using an app you don't live in a democracy.
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
but ordered society also means "elections change nothing, there are rules"
so then, under this premise, what changes things? a vote in congress