* Most notable is that the baseline for determining whether a hashtag has been boosted or deboosted on TikTok comes from Instagram---hardly an unbiased source of ground truth, especially in light of the recent allegations that Meta deboosts pro-Palestinian content and other controversial political content.

* Worse is that there's no statistical analysis showing that generic political hashtags are significantly different from China-sensitive political hashtags between TikTok and Instagram. There is large variance within categories, and even some of the generic political hashtags show a bigger difference between platforms than the China-sensitive political hashtags. Statistics would help determine whether a real difference exists beyond sampling error, but none are to be found in this report.

* No explanation of how the hashtags were determined. They were apparently chosen a priori by the authors, but no criteria for inclusion or exclusion are mentioned.

* Other small details like discrepencies between Fig 2. and Fig 3. in describing TikTok as having half the hashtags as Instagram and Instagram has having double the hashtags as TikTok.

Overall, this report just seems like fodder for the anti-TikTok crowd, not a dispassionate inquiry into how TikTok trends relfect CCP narrative building.

Can confirm, I do belong to that crowd and I did share it after reading it. An hour later, it dawned on me that this report is maybe kinda cool, but really isn't enough to draw any conclusions from and I should not have shared it.

> Our presentation of data starts with Uyghurs and Tiananmen Square because those were two topics specifically called out at the March 2023 Congressional hearings, and TikTok’s CEO explicitly denied that in either case were posts on those topics suppressed or in any way demoted on the platform

Their methodology (comparing hashtag counts) does not make sense for detecting whether content is systematically promoted and demoted to fit some agenda. I can make one video, have it artificially promoted to reach a million viewers, and that's a hashtag increment of 1. Or I can make ten videos that are all unfairly demoted and therefore barely get any views, and that's a hashtag increment of 10.

The discrepancy for Kashmir-related hashtags makes me think there are a lot of Pakistanis on TikTok who never use Instagram...

Of course it's possible that users self-select: those who are pro-Tibet won't post on TikTok as they know that content won't work there.

Would be good to compare other western platforms: is there similar discrepancy between Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon? I'm sure there will be some discrepancies.

Also, India banned TikTok, so there's no Indian TikTok accounts pushing alternative viewpoints/hashtags. It's not hard to imagine how that might have led to the observed results, and it's a little odd that ctrl+F-ing "India" produced no result in that report.

> ... we replicated TikTok’s own methodology used in its November 13, 2023 letter.

So Tiktok's own methodology doesn't make sense? Goes on to say:

> NCRI analysts examined the volume of posts on TikTok by hashtag, using the platform’s own ads manager portal. We performed the same analysis using Instagram’s explore feature.

Are your 10 shitty videos aren't going to show up on the ad manager portal?

> In addition, the number of videos associated with a hashtag, alone, do not provide sufficient context. For example, the hashtag #standwithIsrael may be associated with fewer videos than #freePalestine, but it has 68% more views per video in the US, which means more people are seeing the content. And, some hashtags are newer (e.g. #standwithIsrael) while others are more established (e.g. #freePalestine)–the vast majority (9 in 10) of videos tagged #standwithIsrael were posted in the last 30 days in the US. A difference in views and posts is expected.

I would assume that my 10 shitty videos (fyi they're actually very good, just unfairly withheld from viewers) would nonetheless show up in the "number of posts with this hashtag" provided by TikTok's ad manager portal, but I haven't tested this.

But what else do you call it when (if) TikTok makes it 5% more likely you see efficient factories and farm workers in China, and 5% more likely you see the tide pod challenge or whatever dumb self destructive behavior in the US? Such a thing is almost impossible to prove or disprove, yet it would be shocking if the CCP wasn't doing this, considering they do exactly this to their own population.

Twitter and Instagram Reels is far worse at surfacing destructive trends, it seems like a misstep for the CCP to try and push TikTok in this way when our own homemade companies are more than capable of doing it themselves. Between TikTok and IG, only one of them has a "STEM" feed; and it's unclear why its the CCP trying to push more US kids into STEM.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/@cnliziqi/videos

It's very simple: Chinese — including but not limited to the CCP — value education, especially in science and technology.

Things make a more sense if people stop looking for nefarious reasons behind everything and stop looking at China as some sort of world-devouring boogeyman.

I'm Chinese.

If they don't care for this kind of content, they simply won't see it. It's the same the other way around.

And nothing else? Show me the data.

The problem is that it feels like they just show users what they want, that there are no thumbs on the scale, but then they hide the scale! There is no transparency.

>There is no transparency.

Hey Google! What is Project Texas?

What is it saying, then? Are you saying TikTok is doing Good Stuff (aka propaganda) for the US government and other western governments? Because that sounds an awful lot like doing what those governments would want TikTok to do, and the opposite of what TikTok gets accused of doing.

That's probably one of the reasons why tiktok is being criticised so heavily; that's where they want everyone looking right now, anything that detracts from that is problematic.

The fact that almost all other social media outlets are wall to wall algorithmically pushed hysteria on this topic should perhaps give you a clue. Even here, where political threads are usually promptly removed, the topic is left open for people to pour in the most insanely inflammatory rhetoric you've ever seen. There are multiple posts in this thread alone openly advocating genocide.

So much for musk calling out other social media network for inhibiting freedom of speech for his camp.

Concerns about "factual views" are orthogonal to which side is getting more press. It is likely (increasingly so, considering the number of times Israel has had to walk back serious claims like the alleged Hamas command center under al-Shifa hospital) that the facts do not support the Israeli narrative and that the level of presence of those claims in the current discourse have come to reflect the news media's skepticism of such claims.

What an asinine argument. 5 minutes on Google and you would not even be able to tell which side you yourself are talking about. Started it? When? This time? Last time? 20 years ago? No matter which side you support, you have lost the argument when you cherry-pick the two minutes of history that you deem most important. The fact is one side kills a lot more innocent civilians than the other side, and it is the same side that have the best weaponry to actually avoid civilian casualties.

>Casualty counts are irrelevant if we aren't looking at who the casualties are and who started what.

You seem to point out that your own argument is completely irrelevant, as you do neither of those things. History didn't start a few months ago.

That's right, it began in 642 CE ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine

Extremely relevant with each passing year:

https://youtu.be/hhMAt3BluAU?si=URc2oDbqWRptJm0s

On the other hand, give them a framework to think for themselves, expose them to inconvenient perspectives, and this will endanger livelihood of so many powerful opportunistic people.

yeah, maybe we could create a state-controlled social media app to educate via subtle influ-

But seriously if someone has found a strong, repeatable, almost flashcard-like vector for transmitting information to millions, its going to beat your education plan. And even then, even highly educated people are not immune to propaganda.

TikTok is currently running a commercial on Twitch (and I assume elsewhere) which shows people explaining what good they themselves are doing and it is "because of TikTok" with a final message that (possibly paraphrasing) says "TikTok Does Good".

The government would not only need to educate their citizens against the lies of capitalism, but their own lies, as well.

Imagine if 350 million people became resistant to the messaging of capitalism?

The world might actually be a better place!

I think mandatory transparency into the algos is a start but that assumes nobody tampers behind the scenes which would be trivial w/ software.

If TikTok skews young and they have a viewpoint that's different from entrenched power, we can just blame the Chinese.

I'm not from the US and to me it sounds completely batshit insane to have anything military in the school - career wise information or not. Never in my many years in the education system have I seen anything from the military. Why should I? It is not a recruiting ground (or is it?!). Private enterprise, the military, etc. have absolutely nothing to do in the school system.

https://theintercept.com/2023/04/16/georgia-army-national-gu...

Just pointing out what a wonderful boogeyman they make if you want to discount the viewpoints of young Americans.

Any left-wing viewpoint that's common on TikTok could probably be spun as "aligning with CCP strategy" if we don't like it.

Sweet summer child

That US ruling class would not last long (much like the Chinese and the Russian, etc). The US has been in near continuous war or financing continuous wars for over 70 years. You don’t have to look far to find a citizen who’s lost something dear. And somehow the pattern continues.

Watching some of the WW2 propaganda videos put out by the allies is very eye opening. Our elites have gotten very good at convincing us to fight to further their goals (which only loosely align with the commoners).

I do not know why this is news. Every single large company in every country has strong ties to the govt and works in sync with it. It's not a big secret.

Use Matrix, Masterdon, email, phone for communication and only see these platform as publishing platforms to target these specific geopolitical camps.

And for journalists and the government to investigate suspected ties and announce their findings loudly, so that people can make an informed choice.

But actually banning the app, even though it would be a good thing for users, seems like a fraught choice for a free country.

In theory this sounds nice, but in practice it has a very pro-western bias.

For example:

Under BBC videos, the warning is "BBC is a British public broadcast service."

Under NPR videos, the warning is "NPR is an American public broadcast service."

Under CGTN videos, the warning is "CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the Chinese government."

The BBC and NPR are also "funded in whole in part by the [UK/US] government", yet it comes with a much nicer warning.

China has a separate app like TikTok and TikTok is not allowed inside China. I don’t see where in the PDF they address demographics but could you explain how you think that factors into this analysis? The numbers indicate they’re global like other massive social networks.

Also, is the issue with Instagram political in nature like TikTok and China? At first glance it looks like the distribution is controlled based on their publicly available content guidelines. Doesn’t that make it inherently different than non-public content manipulation?

The first line of the article is:

>analyzed hashtag ratios between Instagram and TikTok

While I don't use TikTok, its been fascinating watching the US lose its marbles over the idea that there is an avenue for mass dissemination of ideas that they cannot control. It really became real when the Pro-Palestine content translated into mass protests all across the west. Israel really dug themselves into a hole and I sometimes wonder, if this trend continues, what are they going to do once the Boomers die and down the road we get a Gen-Z president?

Sure you have state sponsored channels like RT that try to provide alternative views but they dont have anywhere near the eyeballs TikTok gets and they can be easily discredited.

The last time the US had a major competitor was in the 80s. Finally someone has come along that is challenging the US on many levels, not just social media apps.

I had always wished Europe to get their act together and serve as a democratic counter balance to the US but these days they are not even in the conversation. But at least China is trying despite the fact that they are less than savory.

We will continue to have access to American social media apps pushing their nonsense and acting like they provide freedom while quietly suppressing content they don't like (ex. anti-Israel). Meta/Youtube/X platforms are not going away. I love the fact that the mass market has some choice now.

Tiktok is not in that situation at all and that is a new paradigm we haven't had in a while.

To the degree war and competition are hypocritical, sure. All you’ve done is expanded the definition of hypocrisy to meaninglessness.

China’s a geopolitical adversary. We didn’t need to go to war with the Soviets for the Cold War to be real. (Also what on earth is a “culture war” in geopolitical terms?)

> If we censor the CCP just like they censor us then we are just as authoritarian as them

Only to someone with no sense of scale. Again, you can do that. But you expand the definition of authoritarianism to cover just about any human activity.

So start referring to America as "softer authoritarians than China" instead of this charade you put up now. Then people would be less miffed by your hypocrisy.

Everything political that comes out of America is such self-serving slop that I don't understand how anyone above age 30 buys it. When mass-censorship and consensus manufacturing is enacted on mainstream social media (oh sorry, when the US does it it's just "the algorithm" and "alignment", not a mean evil dictatorship), when Americans are forbidden from having a chance to vote for their preferred president in Colorado, when you wage a proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian man, when you get Ukraine to ban all opposition political parties, when you bomb countries for decades in the Middle East, every time it's done in the name of democracy.

It's a bit exhausting and frankly, pathetic, to watch people literally talking it into existence out of thin air.

Freedom of speech != freedom to operate a company or platform.

I think most people are aware of the CCP influence on TikTok. I hope reports like these make people question if they’re being manipulated on the platform. People should always question the validity of the media they consume.

It would be nice if people universally rejected smoking, but there are social/economic benefits to banning it because statistics.

Foreign adversaries do not have free speech rights in the United States.

You win a war of ideas by presenting better ideas, not by censoring bad ideas.

The biggest tragedy in america right now, one that fuels the apathy and national self-destruction is the lack of gratitude and appreciation of just how precious and priceless the peace, stability and prosperity we have now (not decades ago but today) is. Americans just simply don't know the levels of poverty and desperation much of the world has seen, it is just impossible here. They don't know that just in the 70s and 80s China was having mass starvations. Their appreciation of their government's ability to lift them out of that and the century of humiliation they had before that is not small (unlike americans).

The world is not a nice place, the CCP is much worse than putin and their goal is not to coexist with the west.

And if tiktok ends up giving the CCP an advantage, whether in the 2024 elections or future cold/hot conflict with the PLA, I for one would lay significant blame on HNers who rallied against Biden's attempt to block tiktock because of b.s. slipperly slop fallacies. They already ban US social media there! This would have been reciprocal, it might have been one of the smallest things that could have been done to avoid possible chaos and carnage in the future. The government does have power to censor foreign companies's speech. Matter of fact, the first amendment does not apply to companies, it applies to people, and no one who uses tiktok would be prevented from using another platform to make the same speech!

This about tech companies and startups worried about "what if I am next".

Your opinions have consequences because people consider many of you on HN knowledgable or experts in tech.

The mass starvations in the 70s and 80s were because of that same government; while Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong were rapidly developing, China was putting people in jail for trying to sell their goods and agricultural products on the private market. The GDP per capita of Taiwan is still three times higher than that of mainland China, which wouldn't be the case if China didn't have a government that made private enterprise illegal for a few decades.

Japan was already industrialized prior to WW2, and was basically complete in its industrialization by around WW1 if not earlier by a couple decades.

S. Korea could serve as a comparison, but there's a big difference in that it got massive influx of foreign investment from the US, with a major reason being that it serve as outpost against Communism spreading.

When the geopolitical situation started to change between US and China in the late 60s-early 70s, Mao sensed it and already started to have talks with the US as seen with Nixon + Kissinger, which later became the foundation that allowed the influx of foreign capital into the country. Prior to this, China was basically like NK today, with absolutely no outside support whatsoever, with an economy, infrastructure, etc., which includes even basic stuff like irrigation destroyed from civil war, WW2, etc. It was extremely capital deficient. People act like China prior to '49 was some wonderland, and that once the Communist came in, they destroyed everything and therefore there was mass starvation. Not really. China sucked prior to '49, and reading e.g. some statistics from American sinologists like e.g Jonathan Spence, you know that the basic peasant (which represented the large majority of China's population) daily diet consisted of almost no meat, and simply what they called gruel, every day of the year. A peasant normal diet would simply be e.g. sweet potatoes flour mixed with water everyday with maybe some vegetables.

This sounds entirely ripped off from a Joe Rogan podcast. Sounds like you are in the WASP bubble. You likely haven't experienced living in the hood, having to be treated like a Muslim in the US, having to deal with MAGA people bitching about your existence as a Mexican migrant and many other scenarios. There is plenty to improve in the US and your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.

Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change. Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history. They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.

Yet African Americans are WAY better off than those in Africa, and Muslims and Mexicans migrate to the US for better conditions.There is plenty to improve in the US, sure, but it's a better place than the majority of the world, why on the world do you think people go there in the first place?

Hell the US is outstanding precisely when it comes to racism, do you have any idea of how racist people are in Asia? Africa? Even Europe?

My poorest (growing up, as in not concerned about no food, but actually no food and sometimes no housing) friends who travel internationally come back grateful for where they are.

> your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights

100% agree. That said, there is middle ground between bootlicking gratitude and cynicism that borders on complacency.

> There is plenty to improve in the US

What part of anything I said disagrees with that? You sir/madam are a prime example of the people I am talking about.

> would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.

And you would have made sure those things would be the least of anyone's concerns as the japanese enslave half of america and the nazis genocide the crap out of all those people you listed. And if it so happens that none of that happens, if you got your way none of those things would happen because america would be too poor and miserable. Or perhaps you don't realize that the civil rights changes of the 60s were a result of post world war prosperity and peace (yes, despite vietnam). Do you think americans in the great depression would even tolerate the civil rights discussion? Do you think they'd share jobs with minorities and women or allow cheaper immigrants from other countries as they are starving?

Or so you think current civil rights can't be taken away? Do you undersrand that the civil part implies civilization? Hungry desparate people, cooking their own children for food out of despair (almost always happens in desperate prolonged famine) do not care about civilization.

> Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change

Yes it is, the good kind. This wonderful country allowed all the change you mentioned in the 60s without a single civil war, out of the kindness and compassion of a people who can afford it. A century earlier, millions who love their country died for the concept that all people are born equal.

> Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history.

No, it was the rebels in america both in the 1860s, 1960s (US military escorting kids to school because states rebelled against civil rights) and 2021(jan 6) who love their race/tribe more han their country who opposed and failed against all things you hold precious there. Rebellion is always disgusting and treasonous. You must not have heard the speeches of MLK who very much liked America just not all the things horribly wrong with it. He understood that the civil rights movement must work within the system and through civil disobedience and democratic means enact change. Loving your country and appreciating it does not mean you love the politicians or even the government in its current state. It is because you people don't get any if this that you merely pay lip service to progress and all you end up doing is alienating people and dividing up your country and increasing the number of people who share your hatred for their country except they want to do the opposite of you.

> They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.

What they are called and what they said and did are different things.

Hating your country until you see change is not how democracy works.

Perhaps you should learn from immigrants who come to america seeking a better life despite their financial situation and like them find your way to a better life if you think there is one to be found.

Your problem is that of perspective. It's usually people who volunteered for a long time in poor countries or military service members who similarly been to those countries that seem to have the perspective I tried to share. A homeless, jobless person in the hood in america has a better quality of life and opportunities than an educated doctor in sub-saharan africa. Forget that, pick a single poor country randomly and and try finding a place where a poor uneducated black gay woman can be treated as a human being to begin with right along find jobs (good ones), be able to actually buy goods with money, be safe and be treated with a semblance of fairness in the work place. That rules out most of asia and easern europe. Maybe south africa (if considered poor),maybe some south american countries but that rules out the jobs and opportunities being good (perhaps brazil? But even then their black people are having an even harder time than american counterparts).

I have many comments about all the things that need changing in america far beyond what you listed. But every single one is because I think this amazing country is worth working on and improving not because I don't like america. And funnily, people have the opposite response to me thinking perhaps I should find another home. Perhaps it is our perspective that is different not what we believe needs changing.

The CCP has honestly been fine. (See: Jintao and Xiaoping.)

The problem is Xi. He is a dictator. He repeatedly makes decisions that benefit him in the short term and the expense of China’s long-term prospects. This is very different from his predecessors, and requires treating China differently than we did when they had political competition and the capacity for reflection.

Let us not forget about Facebook / Myanmar

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

The west calls it "pursuit of profit", i call it intentional social engineering, since we all know most of the social media apps have for "content moderation" team former CIA agents, and part of their existence is due to CIA/NSA research grants/programs, and the US has clear interests in that region, for that one specific case

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...

This is why it is important for parents to properly educate their children when it comes to social media, i would personally prohibit them all

But let's be honest, TikTok is the least harmful of them all, Twitter and Facebook comes to mind first when it comes to political propaganda, as well as disturbing content

Wanting it banned without expecting all the other ones to follow is disingenuous, to say the least, or it is perhaps "propaganda" ;)

Sincerely a europeean that has seen reports coming from Gaza on TikTok when the media has been adhering 100% to American blood dripping hegemony and forever wars.

Does Meta's (or other similar actors') actions align with potential countries' geopolitical objectives?

Can we look both of them objectively and say both are bad (I think so), or is there us vs. them mentality?

China is quite good about filtering out which propaganda interests they want their citizens exposed to, and of course are more active in influencing operations globally as well.

We can argue if that model of propaganda and control is good or not, but regardless they are smart enough to know that they don’t want to open up their youth to US propaganda machines but are happy to have us open ourselves to their propaganda. It’s asymmetrical, and that causes a lot of consternation. It’s also risky.

The Chinese aren't just competing against the US for control of some islands and sea lanes here and there, they are putting their political system -- which is de facto a dictatorship selected periodically by a small ruling clique -- as an alternative model to democracy. One that can compete with and defeat democracy, in fact.

And to be blunt, it's not clear to me that they are losing. We in the US have put ourselves at a disadvantage w/r/t China over and over again, relying ostensibly on the magical power of democracy to always win the day. As far as I can tell, it's straight-up magical thinking.

If we do not take China seriously as a threat to democracy, not just internally to Asia but as an aspirational model of society and the basis for legitimate government, I think we risk losing.

Why we would allow a propaganda outlet of what is effectively an enemy state to operate in the US, and why we would allow technology transfers and other advantageous trade arrangements, is mind boggling to me. Sure, the 'marketplace of ideas' sounds great on paper, but not when the other people don't believe in the same things. That sort of treatment -- access to the US market, both economically and that of ideas -- should be reserved for polities that at least have signed-on to the basic concepts that the US is built on.

Then again, by the same token, why should the EU allow Meta to operate on its territory?

China is not to be taken lightly. They are a legitimate threat and strategic competitor. But they also face enormous problems due to unfavorable geography, lack of key natural resources, corruption, malinvestment, and demographic collapse. These problems are not getting better, and I won't be surprised if there's a violent civil war in 30 years (as has happened many times over millennia of Chinese history).

As far as political systems go, the collapse of China seems to always be around the corner. But in reality, the U.S. seems to be much closer to civil war. No faction stormed the Capitol in Beijing when Xi was appointed. And even if our political system is not overthrown, it may die the death of 1000 cuts. How much can you honestly say Congress represents the People’s vs lobbyists (professional bribery) and PAC interests?

Oh please. Just because you people in the west are stuck in the 20th century and have an unyielding urge to reformat other nations and instill a political system you're familiar with, doesn't mean anyone else cares for this kind of idiocy. Stop projecting.

You're just like USSR with its obsession with "global revolution" and counterproductive dichotomies. And just like it happened with USSR, everyone else is getting pretty pissed with all that zealous crap that doesn't amount to anything but guised political opportunism IRL.

It's not like your specific approach to governance looks any less shitty to other cultures. Grow up, embrace diversity, learn to play nice with others - yours is the last civilization that needs to take a long hard look at itself. Either naturally, or through some major political crisis, or, worst case scenario, everyone else will just gang up on you like Saudis, China, US, WEU and many others did on USSR, if god forbid all that global (outside NATO and its few aspirants) distaste for bullshit "holier than thou" attitude reaches a boiling point.

Srsly, grow up. Traveling and meeting new people is extremely helpful in that regard.

Queer folk

Women

Pro-Palestinian people

Maybe it’s time to question if your democracy is at a point to be exported to the rest of the world (?)

Let’s start from a point of common understanding: I agree that it is a bad thing to oppress minority groups.

Maybe let’s start with the basic one that’s abortion?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Ab...

This is a map of democratic countries:

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18737.jpeg

You might notice a resemblance. Want to do gay rights next?

The USofA is labelled there as not very democratic, grouped as with "Flawed Democracies" and the premise put forward was that US Democracy was stripping rights (eg: abortion) and perhaps wasn't a great example of a good democracy.

Yes, it is. By god, something needs to be done about the absolute stupidity that is making its way through American universities. This is tragic.

The extremes are closing in on the excluded middle which doesn’t have much of a voice at all as nonextremist views are attacked as supporting the other sides.

They are not always doing this in the same ways and in the same places, but there is a definite trend.

I’m not making excuses for one side by saying the other side is doing it, both threaten the republic and world peace.

Strictly speaking then, Meta is banned in China for not complying with Chinese law.

False. It has already been banned in multiple jurisdictions, companies, and many government agencies.

It's not about exposing the west to chinese propaganda (sure, they'll promote the CCP view of any global topic, but that's often the same as our governments) it's about brainwashing western kids so they grow up to be useless and not a threat.

Would you rather your youths learnt how to cook or do stupid 10s dances? Guess which content gets displayed in China vs the West.

Not to mention the instances of mental illness spreading through tik tok via emulation (eg DID)

We restrict foreign ownership of media properties to 25 percent (without review) [1]. Expanding that rule to social media would make sense.

Beijing requires TikTok run itself differently within China, after all [2]. That’s the difference in care that matters. (Facebook’s lack of care in Myanmar comes to mind as analogous [3].)

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/14...

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/tech/tiktok-douyin-bytedance-...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

Other countries should logically do the same. If Burma/Myanmar doesn't like what Facebook is doing there, they have demonstrated the capability to shut it down on multiple occasions. Setting aside that their government is a basically-illegitimate military junta, if I was them, I sure as fuck wouldn't let a US tech company operate within my country without a significant local presence that I could exert influence on.

No, in fact, many international newspapers, particularly those in Europe, report more honestly on the US than outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post. El Pais has far more integrity than either of those and it’s owned by a Spanish media conglomerate.

Yes and no. They report with different biases. It’s interesting to read. But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.

I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms.

I wouldn’t. Most plainly, because they’re read (and responded to) by policymakers.

What are you basing this on? From the people I know in federal and state government, this is totally backwards.

> than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity

Sure, whatever. The point is is there signal in the noise. And for those publications, there is. In part because they create the signal.

That said, they’re written for decision makers and the civically and commercially engaged. For casual readers, a less-frequent and more-entertaining format is probably a better fit.

If you read the Times, you'll notice that for the first week the mostly print the establishment view (america war good) but then after that, they start publishing the more critical articles.

Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda (which is mainly meant to capture the hearts and minds of the young and naive) to understand the underlying reality.

The parent already cited the Iraq War coverage, in which they incited the country to violence with known lies, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. If this isn’t enough to swear you off their coverage, I honestly don’t know what else would.

But to your point, the NY Times has millions of readers and this is a very small subsection of their audience. Which do you think is a more important function of journalism: lying to the masses in a way that is understood to be propaganda by your so-called “experts” or telling the majority of people the truth in the first place?

Not only has the PRC never done this, they take the public stance that they have absolutely no interest in this, and publicly espouse the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The only obvious Chinese global objective is a world where they exist as a non-ideological economic partner willing to profit from trade without strings attached, like America's enforced austerity and privatization "reforms".

China is a geopolitical enemy ruled by a communist dictatorship that wants to diminish America's power, standing, and influence in the world to advance their own. American power and the mere threat of bringing it to bear on our adversaries is what enabled the past three decades of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, and China is actively working to undermine and diminish it in favor of their own.

Asking for some kind of balance or symmetry here is like saying it's unfair that fighter jets drop bombs on the enemy and not their own side. Yes, that's the whole point. We win, they lose.

I wouldn't choose China over the US any day of the week, but over the last 3 decades they've objectively been more pacifist and prosperous than most US client states. Please tone down the jingo.

Also, the fact that Meta employs lots of spooks is commonly perceived as "Meta is accountable to the US government", which is no less reductionist.

Presumably because Palestine is one salient issue, being moderated at a time of extreme engagement, while the linked article asserts a pattern of such moderation across the site.

It's the difference between "This subreddit doesn't allow political discussion" and "conservative topics are banned on Reddit".

So, I just wanted to ask and learn.

This is rude. You’re implicitly valuing everyone else’s time less than yours. (Not bad. Just rude.)

If I didn't value your time or anyone else's, I can write short/snarky answers and/or leave you hanging.

Lastly, insinuating that someone didn't read the article is also rude, and against the guidelines, too.

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

Have a nice day, and a nice year.

This nonsense was created as fodder for incompetent and dishonest politicians.

You’ll now hear the least competent ones exclaim things like “a rutgers study says China bad, China spy, China control of social media not same as US government control of social media ugg ugg fire fire”.