Submitted by mamawoman t3_1264vgh in explainlikeimfive
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7lihl wrote
It isn't. Not really, especially since most government employees are now barred from using it.
Trying to ban it outright is a symptom of pretty obvious xenophobia, and politicians looking for some kind of victory to claim without actually accomplishing anything.
It's possible that TikTok being owned by a Chinese company with ties to the state means that they have a means of getting user information. But if you're so important that your personal data is worth discovering, especially on the state level, there's no way you can protect it from every vector, from silly little video apps to your bank and investment accounts to the discount card at your grocery store.
There IS a danger of TikTok being used to deliberately spread misinformation. But again, if someone with the resources of an entire country wants to do that, they have plenty of options to accomplish it, none of which require backdoor access to a social media app. Merely spreading a few posts on Twitter or getting a sensationalist headline on Fox News will accomplish far more, and it's essentially free.
States are already engaging in these disinformation campaigns. Playing whack-a-mole with individual apps will not stop them.
dontautotuneme t1_je7mlri wrote
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7myp6 wrote
Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. and dozens of other companies all collect the same data. If China wants to spy on you, they're already spying on you.
But you, random Reddit poster, are very literally not worth their time.
jnemesh t1_je7o7bo wrote
Depends on who you are. If you in the military, they might want to know your movements, where you go to work, where you live, how often you go to a particular place, what networks your phone connects to, what your bank balance is, etc...
Even what we would consider "inconsequential" data, in the wrong hands, can be used to devastating effect! It might also let them know who might be vulnerable to being compromised.
Let's say, as an example, you worked in a top secret facility developing software for the new F-35 fighters. Let's also say that you were in an extra-marital affair with someone. You had better believe that foreign agents who learn of this would use it to try to blackmail you...this literally happens ALL OF THE TIME.
Just because YOU, PERSONALLY aren't aware of what is going on doesn't mean the US Government is also ignorant. There may be knowledge that the CIA or NSA picked up on that indicates that Tik Tok is a security threat.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7oihn wrote
>Depends on who you are. If you in the military,
Uh huh. Which is why I said:
> especially since most government employees are now barred from using it.
Next...
>Just because YOU, PERSONALLY aren't aware of what is going on doesn't mean the US Government is also ignorant. There may be knowledge that the CIA or NSA picked up on that indicates that Tik Tok is a security threat.
If they had that information, they'd have already shut down the app with existing anti-espionage laws.
Congress banning it legislatively is a performance, nothing more.
jnemesh t1_jea8ap0 wrote
Not true at all. The government doesn't always telegraph what it knows or how it knows it...and they ARE working on legislation to enact a total ban.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_jea8lyq wrote
> and they ARE working on legislation to enact a total ban.
Walk yourself through it. C'mon, what comes after that...
Got it yet?
Need some help?
Here it is:
...because they can't accomplish it with current anti-espionage laws.
Because federal law enforcement agencies can't find anything the app does that's against the law.
dontautotuneme t1_je7nmj5 wrote
Your evidence of Tik Tok not spying on anyone is: other social media is? You sound like someone who is employed by Bytedance.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7nuh1 wrote
I didn't say TikTok isn't spying on you.
I said that if China wants to spy on you, it will, and it doesn't need a video app to do it.
And that you are not that important.
>You sound like someone who is employed by Bytedance.
You are the definition of paranoid.
ToxiClay t1_je7rkjw wrote
> But you, random Reddit poster, are very literally not worth their time.
Individually, no. None of us are.
But we're not talking individuals; we're talking about broad access to all sorts of data, unimaginable data.
>Trying to ban it outright is a symptom of pretty obvious xenophobia,
Nope. It would be xenophobia if we were looking to ban anything outside of our shores, but we're not -- we're very specifically targeting a certain set of foreign entities who are demonstrably against American interests.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7thn6 wrote
"Unimaginable" is a weasel word. If you can't enumerate a specific threat, then say so.
ToxiClay t1_je7tvq3 wrote
No, because you're going to take that and pooh-pooh anything anyone tries to say.
The threat isn't specifically enumerable because the threat space is that large.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7uh4i wrote
Like I said, weasel word.
I already laid out specific threats. And why a video app isn't necessary to exploit them.
But if you're so desperate to believe that Congress is actually accomplishing something, while we drown in medical debt and wait for our next scheduled mass shooting, so be it.
ToxiClay t1_je7utgr wrote
> Like I said, weasel word.
Like I said, no.
>I already laid out specific threats. And why a video app isn't necessary to exploit them.
And what about all the other data China is picking up? Or the money that China is making from TikTok?
>...wait for our next scheduled mass shooting...
Oh, come on. Don't try to pivot to that fucking chestnut.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7vc5r wrote
Lie to yourself all you want. I don't have to indulge your delusion.
Who is more likely to actually hurt you, the terrible Red Communist menace, or the nutjob who bought a gun with no trouble and decided he needed to rob a 7-11 for his next fix?
And which of these problems is Congress more interested in actually fixing?
ToxiClay t1_je7zql8 wrote
> Lie to yourself all you want. I don't have to indulge your delusion.
Fortunately, I'm not lying, and there's no "delusion" you have to indulge.
>Who is more likely to actually hurt you, the terrible Red Communist menace, or the nutjob who bought a gun with no trouble and decided he needed to rob a 7-11 for his next fix?
Let me guess: your solution lines up roughly with what's coming out of the Democrat thoughtspace.
>And which of these problems is Congress more interested in actually fixing?
The deadlock is because Democrats don't actually want to "solve a problem," and they get pushback on it, as they rightfully should.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je80dqz wrote
Delusional people are often unaware that they're deluded. For example, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be manipulated by a bunch of jingoist politicians taking straight from the McCarthy playbook, just two days after our latest all-American homegrown slaughter.
A slaughter that doesn't happen in civilized countries.
New century, same dumbasses.
ToxiClay t1_je80i1j wrote
> Delusional people are often unaware that they're deluded.
People who aren't delusional are also often unaware that they're deluded.
>For example, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be manipulated by a bunch of jingoist politicians taking straight from the McCarthy playbook, just two days after our latest all-American homegrown slaughter.
Damn, then it's a good thing I'm not being manipulated in such a way, isn't it?
Listen, if you want to talk guns, I'm game, but calling me deluded and stupid isn't a good opener.
Nor is implying that America is somehow "uncivilized" for not doing things like banning "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" and whatnot.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je80zp2 wrote
You're the one listening to the same politicians who've literally told you they won't solve any problems.
And yet you think they'll protect you from the big, bad, foreign boogeyman.
I'm tempted to say something like "you can't possibly be that stupid," but clearly you can. How unsurprising it is to find that you're also a gun nut.
ToxiClay t1_je834ve wrote
> I'm tempted to say something like "you can't possibly be that stupid," but clearly you can.
Again, a terrible opener if you're actually looking to have a discussion.
>How unsurprising it is to find that you're also a gun nut.
I'm not, unless you're really reaching with your definitions. How do you define "gun nut" for the purpose of casually dismissing people?
>You're the one listening to the same politicians who've literally told you they won't solve any problems.
And yet you want them to solve gun violence.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je83o1d wrote
>if you're looking to have a discussion.
That presumes that I'm talking to a rational person. On that note...
>How do you define "gun nut" for the purpose of casually dismissing people?
Great question, shockingly! A gun nut is someone who values their own guns and/or access to guns above the lives of other people.
I've answered your question. Now you answer mine. How many school shootings has, say, Canada had this week?
Several gun nuts have outright refused to even consider this question. Let's see if you can do better.
ToxiClay t1_je84e03 wrote
> That presumes that I'm talking to a rational person
You are, and because I'm so rational, I'm concluding that you're not actually interested in having a conversation, but instead punching down. This is evidenced by, among other things, your use of "shockingly" in your next sentence -- and your over-broad definition of "gun nut."
By your definition, to not be a "gun nut," one should want guns banned outright. That'd make a lot more people "gun nuts" than are actually warranted.
Now that I've actually had a chance to briefly experience you, I'm not actually sure I want to have a discussion with you if this is the kind of person you are, and how you interact with people.
Can you tell me I'm wrong?
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je84r5m wrote
>By your definition, to not be a "gun nut," one should want guns banned outright.
Point to where I said "in order to not be a gun nut, one should want to ban guns outright."
Bet you can't. It'd be an awfully hypocritical thing to say, since I own guns myself.
>Several gun nuts have outright refused to even consider this question.
The streak continues.
>Can you tell me I'm wrong?
You still haven't answered my last question.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments