They are both security risks. The difference is the SA oligarch has already successfully infiltrated our national security and installed himself in a position of power so we can't do anything about it anymore.

Honestly the way he did it was pretty perfect. Create technology and weapons and R&D for the country you want to infiltrate, ingratiate yourself to it's people, government, and military. Then start throwing money into politics to buy yourself a spot on the cabinet.

This is a game any bad state actor with a huge wad of cash can play thanks to Citizen's United.

They are all problematic. My disagreement with the removal of TikTok is that it should not stop with TikTok. Meta's apps are an absolute nightmare. Google, Xitter, Amazon, etc., they all need to be curbed when it comes to data collection.

Data brokering needs to be made illegal or VERY tightly regulated.

I mean, if that’s the question you want answered…

X uses a native browser controller when you open a link, so the app can’t see what you do in there.

Whereas TikTok uses a managed webview… which they have been caught injecting keyloggers into.

Back in the olden days, we called this a cross-site scripting attack.

I find it funny that if TikTok was sold to an American it wouldn't be a security risk anymore.

Because tiktok data goes to China, and China is a competitor/geopolitical adversary to the USA. If tiktok was russian, it would be the same story. Besides, tiktok has been proven to be by far the worst data miner you can download from an app store.

Maybe both are bad?

"Facebook should be under incredibly strict regulation or killed outright" is also a position I'm fond of.

Tiktok aren't giving Trump loads of money

It's not, there's no evidence that it is, and even if the Chinese were trying to get all of our data they could buy it for far less trouble and expense from any of the American data brokers happy to sell it. They don't need an app to obtain our data, they just need money.

The influence argument is similarly baseless. Cambridge Analytica demonstrated that existing American social media capabilities already permit foreign interference in American public opinion. TikTok is remarkably expensive to run, and the influence campaigns that they could run on Facebook would be much less expensive.

TikTok is competing with American social media companies. It's no better or worse than any other social media company, but because it's not based in the US it's labeled a national security risk. We're happy to let any company collect and sell personal information, so long as they're based in America.

Well, the TikTok lawyers kinda said the quiet part out loud during their SCOTUS brief:

Mr. Francisco contended that the government in a free country “has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda” and cannot constitutionally try to keep Americans from being “persuaded by Chinese misinformation.” That is targeting the content of speech, which the First Amendment does not permit, he said.

It's not a great look for your app when your argument before the Supreme Court is "yeah, we're a propaganda machine for a hostile foreign power, but free speech says you can't stop us. Neener neener."

Just something to think about when it comes to the influence social media has on society

TikTok has already transformed how Americans communicate, influencing language and behavior in ways that may have broader implications. The Chinese government, known for using censorship and language control to maintain social order and suppress dissent, leverages euphemistic language as a tool for manipulating public opinion and silencing critical discourse.

Phrases like “unalive” for suicide or “grape” for rape dilute the meaning and impact of language, making it easier for powerful entities to control narratives and obscure uncomfortable truths. This process, known as “language laundering” or “semantic bleaching,” strips words of their emotional weight and original meaning, making it harder to address sensitive or urgent issues effectively.

This trend has extended beyond language to visuals, with people obscuring letters or censoring words in pictures and posts—using terms like “s**cide” or “r*pe.” While this may help users navigate algorithms designed to suppress certain keywords, it completely erodes the clarity and impact of critical conversations.

The normalization of this behavior on TikTok has permeated Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, and other social media platforms, spreading a culture of diluted language and indirect communication. These practices hinder meaningful discourse, desensitize users to serious issues, and ultimately make it more challenging to engage with sensitive topics in a direct and effective manner. Recognizing and resisting this shift is essential to preserving the integrity of public discussions and fostering authentic engagement.

Serious answer: because it's owned by a US citizen and is operated and HQ'd in the US, so the the US government has effectively full control over it and can monitor it.

That's not a lot better from an end user privacy and security point. But is wayyyyyyyyyy better from a national security standpoint.

This was never about national security. It’s about money. Most of congress owns Meta stock and meta lobbied the fuck out of trying to get the app banned. It’s extremely annoying that people buy this crap about national security.

Ask yourself when in the history of our country did 85% of congress agree on something? 85% of these fuckwads agreed that banning this app is more important than literally anything else. Stopping school shooting, fixing our economy, providing affordable healthcare or housing, are all not important.

They are all a security risk

Look, the problem isn't China getting your data.

The problem is they're not paying a US oligarch for it.

No.
No one can explain.

Money.

$5 says Elon or Meta buy TT and turn it into yet another GOP echo chamber.

The cynical answer is that the people who run the government like the South African because he helped them win elections.

Simple. The South African has a vested interest in keeping the US extant so that he can rule it. The CCP does not share that same interest.

Serious question: do you consider it worse to be tracked and profiled by a foreign government or your own?

China is an authoritarian government that is able to take direct control of any Chinese company. Like, explicitly. More or less all Chinese companies should be treated with suspicion.

Musk is a shithead but not, to our knowledge, an agent of a foreign hostile government. Turning twitter into a place that promotes hate speech is legally protected free speech, although specific statements that provoke violence may not be protected. Contrary to popular belief, there are many exceptions to free speech.

One's run by a white guy .... the other is Asian

When it comes to choices in North America ... it always goes to the white guy

If we were in a commercial passenger jet at 30,000 feet and the pilot and co pilot suddenly died and the crew had to choose who should fly the plane .... they'd think twice about the 300 Asian passengers and instead choose the only white guy in first class.