It baffles me that people can seem to comprehend that only the United States government has interests in its media outlets, and the authoritarian second to the US in the global stage don’t. 1. TikTok in the westernized form is banned in China. 2. When some people tried to move to rednote (the in the open Chinese app), they were getting banned in the first few hours for being gay and other ideas that came with them, so it’s very entirely plausible that also TikTok is heavily regulated from the officials of a foreign actor.
US is the only state that pretends to champion absolute freedom of speech, to the point of citing violations of it when imposing sanctions on other nations.
There's plenty of openly gay Chinese RedNote influencers, as there have been for years now [1]. I don't know why you're pushing disinformation. The Americans getting banned probably just violated their ToS, since they were in Chinese and they couldn't understand them.
"Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."
I don’t imagine discussion of what’s happening to the Uyghurs is getting much traction in TikTok either.
Movement against TikTok started started with the Trump admin well before Oct 7, 2023 [1].
I think this is less Israel / Palestine and a better explanation lies elsewhere. Namely, that anti-China sentiment has been growing for a while now and Meta has plenty of money to burn (on the Metaverse, Lobbyists, etc.)
The actual law was passed after accounts of spying on Hong Kong citizens were made public [2].
This reminds me of the Al Jazeera America (“AJAM”) news channel. They weren’t banned per sé, but it’s obvious they were doomed from the start. An Arab news network operating in the United States… if you think TikTok had a target painted on its back for being Chinese-owned…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_America
They arent "just" an arab media. They are financed and controlled by the dictatorship of qatar. That is like claiming Russia Today was domed because it was a "slavic" network. No it was domed because it is propaganda financed and controlled by a dictatorship.
Technically the BBC is a state broadcasting service subject to King Charles who, AFAIK, nobody voted for.
State run propaganda networks are actually a pretty good source of information; they are well resourced and have a vested interest in being perceived as high-credibility so they can tip the scale on a small number of issues critical to the state. And good propaganda is mostly done by omission and careful fact selection, although a lot of the bit-player dictatorships aren't competent enough to handle good propaganda.
It always rub me the wrong way that YouTube puts a "this is a state actor" disclaimer on a video uploaded by the well-known public media corporation of a western democracy, but put zero disclaimer whatsoever on a random video uploaded by an anonymous account created 2 minutes ago.
I thought it was normal to take media with whatever slant it had and look for evidence supressed by others, check a few opposing outlets and piece together a narrative as close as possible to neutral. When thise outlets aren’t available we’re likely to get a much more distorted story.
UK is millions of times better than Qatar but BBC is not too great. Somethings are great with BBC not everything. Fox news? Qatar doesn't micromanage everything.
My guess is that the uniparty can’t afford a popular platform they don’t fully control and where there is significant dissent.
On Russia-Ukraine, the voices against US propaganda didn’t gain enough traction for them to worry about it. With Israel-Palestine, the opposition was for the first time reaching people who they previously never could.
This has been going on for years now. The Navy banned TikTok because of security concerns in 2019.
Then in 2020, the US announced it was considering banning them. ByteDance planned to divest by selling to an American company. The Chinese government disagreed.
TikTok sued and that took a while to go through the courts.
Then TikTok tried negotiating to avoid having to divest for a couple years by placing all private user data in the US, but later leaked recordings made it clear that Chinese employees still had access.
A law to ban TikTok on US government devices was then passed.
Then a law to ban TikTok unless they divest was drafted, but it took a couple years to pass and then that had to wind its way through the courts.
I'll go against my better judgment and ask: What are China's relations to Palestine and Israel? I genuinely do not have the slightest clue about that dynamic.
For that matter, what are China's interests regarding Russia/US? It seems like China would lose a lot of money in the event of America taking a major dive, but they could be preparing to make the case that they are a more stable regime with a more stable currency. I feel like that would be aligned with China's interests.
> For that matter, what are China's interests regarding Russia/US?
"If these two get into a fight, we can move on with our Taiwan agenda."
That's why Trump is pushing the EU to properly finance their defense, so the US can concentrate on Asia Pacific. He signalled this during his Notre Dame meeting with Macron, France being the only European NATO ally with a reliable army and interests in the region. To Trump, China is the new US rival, Russia is merely a bigger Iran with nukes and more advanced tech. I don't see him giving Tiktok a break.
Possibly none. But the logic goes like this - China sees that amplifying positive Palestinian stories serve to destabilize US discourse so they put their thumb on the scale to push those over positive Israeli stories.
And we know this type of thing works because we see it everyday with US internal propaganda. The last thing the US needs is an adversary with a direct line to the US populace controlling what they see. Also, I'm not even talking about misinformation, just pushing what stories are seen and not seen. Once you add in misinformation and bots it's pretty wild how easy it appears to control the population.
Ok but doesn’t that cancel out with other platforms that push the thumb in the other direction of the scale? What just happend reeks of supression of information to me.
TikTok already suppresses information in ways that furthers Chinese interests. Those interests can be as direct as promoting China or as nuanced as simply making people in the US dislike each other.
> Ok but doesn’t that cancel out with other platforms that push the thumb in the other direction of the scale?
The point is not to push Americans towards Israel or Palestinians, the point is to push Americans apart from each other, so that each half of the political divide sees the other as supporting baby-murderers, as people you cannot be friends with, compromise with and shouldn't even try to talk to.
I am not exaggerating, each of these things I have seen being explicitly pushed.
What evidence do you have that preexisting news coverage was biased regarding Israel/Palestine? From many Israeli perspective, much of MSM is biased against Israel! And funny enough, I can see that repeating pattern for every interest group. Left-Wingers say MSM is all Right-Wing and biased against them, Right-Wingers say MSM is taken over by the Woke Mob.
There are dozens of contradictory narratives depending on who you ask, what makes your paticular narrative more compelling than the competing narratives?
The whole TikTok legislation was not created to suppress Palestinian views, even if that may have been a side effect of it, and repeating that does not make it true.
It’s a convenient narrative because it sounds like „the government“ or „they“ want to conceal the truth, and suppress the honest rebels. It’s a trope.
Again, it may well be that some parts of the government feel like the side effects are beneficial, and I’m not commenting on that. But spinning the story to say this was the whole purpose of the law is simply not the truth, and instead pushing a certain narrative.
The choice doesn't have to be binary. There can be multiple factors, which should all be discussed.
Dismissing a frequently reported on factor that mentioned by officials requires a higher burden than vague commentary on narrative shaping. Trying to minimize it despite factual statements is its own narrative.
I don't disagree with you, and I don't dismiss any factor, but oppose the altered storyline of events offered by GP, which is simply not factually true. Subtly twisting history into a more convenient version may be presidential territory now, but that doesn't mean we should let a proper discussion devolve into shallow, black-and-white stories just because those are easier to understand.
In the second paragraph of the link you posted this is said:
> But in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, conservatives have become hyper fixated on policing pro-Palestinian messages on the app, accusing TikTok of influencing young Americans to “support Hamas” and favoring pro-Palestinian content.
If you follow the link attached to "influencing young Americans", you'll find Palestine isn't mentioned once, but Hamas is.
Of course there's bias everywhere, and we should have by now ways to follows stories to their source automagically by now. But anyhow.
The article and the poll it is based on is wild. Questions like, "do you think all Palistinians are anti-Semitic or just the Hamas terrorists" and similar push poll style nonsense offering limiting answers to slanted questions.
However at least one question is about whether the attacks on Israel...
Can be justified by the grievance of Palestinians
So while most questions force them to pick sides between Hamas and Israel with no option to say they support Palestinians they do get at least one chance to say whether they think the Palestinian people have legitimate grievances (though still only in context of supporting an attack).
And the Intercept article is very clear when they link that they think Palestinian and Hamas support are being intentionally conflated, just as you've tried to do again here.
A media outlet not easy to censor is unacceptable to the Israeli lobby, and therefore unacceptable to our politicians.