Also if you check the AndroidManifest.xml of TikTok app you'll see they are tracking persistent device identifiers coupled with phone #. Then if you uninstall TikTok you'll still have a bunch of their files in shared space that other Chinese apps can pick up were you to install them, presumably so they can track you even if you uninstall the app.
Is there a way to prevent an app from leaking data put like this, e.g, some kind of sandbox disk where files written with one app cannot be accessed by another app (until the user allows it - like photo sharing etc)?
Android has this but it works on the app authors side. Each app has its own private storage space where other apps and even the device owner(!!) can't access. There is then a shared /sdcard folder which apps must request permission to use (Access device storage). Tiktok is requesting this sdcard folder access and dropping trackers in it. Android does allow you to deny this permission but the app will probably require it to share images (Even though I'm pretty sure android provides a ui for sending images without storage access)
This would be enforced in the next version of Android IIRC. If you happen to have a rooted device and trust closed-source app you can also try Storage Redirect ( https://rikka.app/storage_redirect/ )
Is that so? I decompile the v7.4.6 APK file through javadecompilers.com and only find out they ask for several devices permission. Also, I think if they want to do this they will not put it in the AndroidManifest.xml because this file is not able to store the ID of devices and it will make it super easy for us to sue them.
Who are you? You only registered to make this one comment, denying the claims without any backing information and while promoting a random website / service. I'm not sure you're acting in good faith and I wonder whose payroll you're on.
In fact, this is the first news I'm interested in because I use TikTok often. I'm sorry and I'm really just a beginner in programming. The website is used to decompile the APK file so that I can see through the XML file, but I just haven't figured out how they track persistent device identifiers in the XML file. Maybe just because I am not familiar with Android and I should do my research first...
Beijing ByteDance Technology Co Ltd. is a Chinese Internet technology company operating several machine learning-enabled content platforms, headquartered in Beijing. It was founded by Zhang Yiming in 2012.
What's to be surprised about exactly? This sort of thing is the norm.
It's not about surprise, it's about spreading awareness, and not allowing this kind of behavior to be normalized. If you think news is only worth spreading if it's a surprise, then you've been totally taken in by the shock-mongerers and by those who want this kind of behavior to be ignored, allowed, and encouraged.
We already have social media platforms for 20+ years. Everybody says they don't want to be tracked when asked, but also a lot/majority don't care if they can stay in touch with their families or get those social media dopamine shots(likes and stuff)
The article doesn't mention a key point: The TikTok that's available internationally is a completely separate service instance than Douyin (the Chinese version). Content/users from one aren't accessible on the other.
It doesn't mention it because it isn't really relevant. The international app is still being censored according to the same rules as the app in China.
It still prohibits users from discussing topics the CCP doesn't want brought up. (e.g. Tiananman Square, Falun Gong, organ harvesting, and Xinjiang)
The main differences are that outside of China you're not bound by their laws requiring users to sign up using their legal name and provide identification to prove as such. In addition to which people aren't being disappeared or arrested for their posts.
Or maybe TikTok just want their platform to be filled with cheerful silly jokes and 10 second dance moves? And not politics, religious stuff or anti this and that ...
Maybe it is even a businesss strategy and not something the CCP actually has forced upon them.
I'd be over the moon if Twitter banned political discussion. No matter what side you're on, if any, you have to acknowledge that having discussions in 240 character bites is not going to convince anybody of anything. The only thing Twitter is really good at is letting people dunk on other people and showing their followers how smart they are. There's no nuance and no motive to actually persuade others, it's just basically a bar fight over the Internet.
or maybe posting simple things like any reference to a certain quadrilateral in online games like league of legends is enough for any Chinese player to be removed from the game
games are fun and completive things arent they? there shouldn't be any politics around them, yet, China decides to censor references to a certain quadrilateral by removing players from a game
Algorithmic sorting / curated content has no place in services like TikTok, Twitter, Facebook. If I subscribe to someone I want to see all the content. I've been fighting with twitter switching to curated content for some time now, and finally recently Twitter stopped switching me back to curated ordering.
The issue here is the spread of Chinese Censorship beyond China. With WeChat, so far, users outside of China are not subjected to the same level of censorship when communicating with other non-Chinese users.
This is different because it subjects all users to a Chinese "standard" which basically means any conspiracy crap about how evil America is and typical whataboutism videos can be prioritized via "algorithms" while a whole range of "sensitive" issues can be blocked. It gives the Chinese government tools that slowly enable it to "guide" discussions online. What is interesting about TikTok is that unlike WeChat, it seems to have users beyond the Chinese diaspora which gives Beijing far more "soft power" influence to craft a "positive image of China"
TikTok's developers should be ashamed of themselves.
I have nothing but derision for employees who take part in implementing something so obviously horrible but do not make an attempt to move out of their job or even acknowledge what they are doing wrong.
There are people going to work every day in China doing the job of censor and they reckon they are doing something good and patriotic. Even at the level of policy makers, the censorship is there in the first place and continues to be there because many legitimately think it is good for the country.
Without being educated on a topic, you're unlikely to figure out most things about it on your own. Without an education in rights and civil liberties, you're unlikely to conclude on your own that censorship in principle is bad.
If you want to make a difference, get off your high horse and construct an argument against censorship for someone who wasn't educated in a Western country like you were.
Even a significant chunk of educated Chinese with exposure to Western democracy and political system often justifies the censorship with "most Chinese people are not educated and get easily influenced by things on the internet and this results in social instability". I can see the reasoning behind that, and can't think of a satisfying counter-argument.
It would be a good argument if censorship were actually used to protect the uneducated e.g. from scammers selling miracle cures to the desperate, but that's not what happens. Instead, the scammers are better organized than their victims and can co-opt the censorship mechanism for their own purposes. Someone sceptical of the scam might check Zhihu to find out whether it is legit, so the scammers can ask a question and answer it themselves, claiming that it totally works. Then when a burned victim tries to post their own answer to warn others, the scammers report it for illegal content, causing an account suspension.
The government is too busy hiding embarrassing mistakes like confusing 农 and 衣 to even think about benevolent uses of censorship.
They should indeed, but I guess it's hard for those engineers in China to find a domestic company that allows them to do differently.
Moving to a foreign company in China may not actually solve the problem, and moving to a different country may not be an option at all, so they end up keep doing the bad things and pretend not to know. I have a friend there who seems to be like this.
TikTok/ByteDance has offices in both the Bay Area and Los Angeles here in the US. I know a former colleague who is not Chinese who works there. Point is there are certainly many non-Chinese citizens who work there that are complicit in enforcing such rules.
I didn't know ByteDance was the same company, they've been pushing their analytics api on mobile developers... no idea what data they are phoning home with that or what they are doing with it.
> TikTok's developers should be ashamed of themselves.
Well, there are enough developers from Western companies like FAANG and alike on here, which do not acknowledge that they are doing something wrong, either. Why should Chinese developers be more to blame?
The FAANG developers that engage in similarly destructive policies should be similarly ashamed. More, even, because they have more context on what our freedom means to us.
Their solution to brain drain from foreign educated students in the 90s was in fact to send even more students to the States.
It’s actually worked very well for them as now they have a huge number coming back after studying abroad. And as our immigration policy becomes more restrictive, China will be getting even more of their best and brightest right back.
From a quick web search, these seem to be more about foreign nationals being detained in China for political reasons or to compel compliance. Not great, but also not really relevant to what I thought we were talking about (ie. Chinese businesses having to make concessions to the government in order to operate).
All societies censor. China censors Tienanmen square and gays, the West censors child porn and terrorist videos. All "for the good of society", we just happen to disagree what "the good of society" is.
So the real blame doesn't fall upon developers, but on their encompassing societies / governments, and on us, because we have to decide what technological platforms we want to use, and which society's standards of morality to import.
Another incredibly vague investigation. Description of leaked guideline basically amounts to no divisive politics. Guardian yellow peril narrative: "TikTok, is advancing Chinese foreign policy aims abroad through the app". What I see from the guidelines: TikTok is an app designed for kids and No Politics policies make the app friendly for kids, which is preferable to the Youtube radicalization treadmill model. IMO, the internet needs a different standards for children. Sometimes I think 90% of fights online are some variation of anonymous kids screaming at kids, adults screaming adults but is actually a kid with dumb naive hot takes. This is the right policy of kid oriented apps like TikTok and Youtube kids IMO. Not broader social media like twitter, facebook or weibo.
Original allegations by Guardian [1].
>In every case, they are placed in a context designed to make the rules seem general purpose, rather than specific exceptions. A ban on criticism of China’s socialist system, for instance, comes under a general ban of “criticism/attack towards policies, social rules of any country, such as constitutional monarchy, monarchy, parliamentary system, separation of powers, socialism system, etc”.
>Another ban covers “demonisation or distortion of local or other countries’ history such as May 1998 riots of Indonesia, Cambodian genocide, Tiananmen Square incidents”.
>A more general purpose rule bans “highly controversial topics, such as separatism, religion sects conflicts, conflicts between ethnic groups, for instance exaggerating the Islamic sects conflicts, inciting the independence of Northern Ireland, Republic of Chechnya, Tibet and Taiwan and exaggerating the ethnic conflict between black and white”.
TikTok claims these are deprecated guidelines:
>The old guidelines in question are outdated and no longer in use. Today we take localised approaches, including local moderators, local content and moderation policies, local refinement of global policies, and more. We also consult with a number of independent local committees and are working to scale this at a global level, including forming an independent committee of leading industry organisations and experts to continually assess these policies.
> TikTok is an app designed for kids and No Politics policies make the app friendly for kids, which is preferable to the Youtube radicalization treadmill model.
I think this is a false dichotomy. You are mentioning two companies that play this game in bad faith. There is a middle-ground.
What is the middle-ground? The end goal is behaviour modelling of some kind that requires selective information or censorship. I'm partial to unrestricted free speech 8chan / edge-lord internet openness, but western society broadly is drifting towards censoring extremely divisive content, aka the China model. The question is where do you draw the line? DOTA conduct points that banning the most toxic players (kids) that seems to be well received? Oh no that's social credit. I predict that western and eastern social media will converge on the same censorship solutions, maybe even overlap.
You may not be American. American HN folks tend to take it for granted that their beliefs are universal.
The controversy isn't as much that TikTok bans political speech or divisive content, it's that TikTok selectively enforces it based on whether or not it is in one particular country's self-interest.
Being a private platform does not absolve you of social responsibility. When you take on the role of a public forum or place of communication, you also take on some social responsibility, whether you like it or not.
Whether you choose to ignore it with carefully crafted "Community Guidelines"-based legalese or you choose to respect and acknowledge it, it doesn't change the fact that the responsibility exists.
The problem with this kind of statement is "social responsibility" isn't one thing. To their social group this is what being socially responsible is. To your/my social group it isn't.
Saying "you have a social responsibility to not do that" is only one step better than arguing "I don't think you should do that" as a reason someone shouldn't do something.
The newsworthy part of this story is that the censorship is extending beyond Chinese users. The journalists based in England were unable to find trending topics on Hong Kong. That is unprecedented for other popular social media platforms outside of China.
Which article do you mean? Neither the Guardian nor the BBC article submitted originally show any indication of trying to verify their anonymous source beyond just asking the company for a statement.
The fact that someone owns a platform does not mean we are not free to criticize what he chooses to do with it. Saying we could not would be a greater violation of speech.
I hate companies that abide by the ideological positions of the country they're from. Hopefully the US can pass a law that bans the use of any social media app that harms Freedom of Speech through the insidious use of "Community Guidelines"
This account has been using HN primarily for political and national battle, which is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We warned you about this before and ask you to stop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20727426. If you can't or won't stop, we're unfortunately going to have to ban you, because this is an abuse of HN. The site exists for intellectual curiosity, which is not compatible with political agendas. Would you please take the spirit of this place more to heart? That means posting on a variety of things that gratify your curiosity, rather than on just a single topic that you're fighting about—regardless of what that topic is or what your position is about it.
Thank you for your comment, moderator dang. I understand HN is a place of great intellectual curiosity where the Freedom of Speech is valued. In the context of potential contentious political issues here in America, however, I also understand the very idea of "freedom of speech" has become a hot button idea used by many who advocate for hate speech. I will refrain from commenting on sensitive issues like these from now on to honor the spirit of this place.
Use of HN should be based in intellectual curiosity. That leaves room for discussing sensitive issues some of the time, just not all of the time. And of course the discussion should be thoughtful rather than flaming.
and my mention of "Community Guidelines" was in reference to Tiktok's, not HackerNews. Sorry if there were any confusion that caused any offense! I like HackerNews' guidelines.
I think they’re serious but obviously poking fun at the incongruence where we castigate Chinese apps but are fine having domestic companies engage in similar behavior except it's not at the behest of the gov.
What I mean is, unlike the CCP, Congress isn't dictating what is permitted and not and what gets erased in a rather low-latency fashion. They're not telling the WaPo and Reddit and Buzzfeed to delete all posts or telling all apps and sites to remove content which makes Trump (or previously Obama) look bad... for starters and they're not controlling public opinion on social issues either as another example.
They have agendas, but they’re not dictated by the gov., although sometimes their respective agendas coincide.
I agree there's not the blatant censoring of info, but the government does put a lot of resources into controlling public opinion. Troll farms are a big thing, as well as exploiting connections in big tech and the media. There are also a lot of NGOs and political parties doing the same thing.
A 'town square' law where a communications medium is ruled to be essential or of great influence (eg, Twitter) ensuring that free speech can continue to exist would be a positive thing.
