Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

This week, Galloway spent his time pushing the hot DC claim du jour: that TikTok is a profound menace to the planet and should be banned. He made the point at the Vox Code conference, then hopped over to Bill Maher’s HBO show to make a similar pronouncement:

Actual evidence of TikTok being uniquely dangerous (especially any indication China has used or could use TikTok to bedazzle U.S. children) has been sorely lacking, but that doesn’t stop folks from heading to the fainting couches. This face fanning has been especially popular among a certain set of xenophobic DC politicians, and companies that don’t want to have to directly compete with China.

The problem: the U.S. is a corrupt, xenophobic, superficial dumpster fire, so most of the “solutions” to this potential problem have been stupid and performative.

Here’s the thing: you could ban TikTok immediately, and China could hoover up location, browsing, and behavior data from an ocean of completely unaccountable and hugely shady data brokers and middlemen. And they can do that because U.S. privacy and security standards are hot garbage. And in some instances, they’re hot garbage because of the same people now complaining about TikTok.

Both Carr and Cruz have extensive histories of undermining regulatory oversight and privacy rules at absolutely every opportunity, yet both are lauded by Galloway in a blog post for being heroic leaders in the “ban TikTok” crusades. Galloway’s a top pundit, yet somehow can’t see that Carr and Cruz are engaged in a zero-calorie xenophobic theatrics, and couldn’t care less about actual consumer privacy.

For literally thirty straight years, at absolutely every single turn, we prioritized making money over transparency or consumer privacy. As a result, consumer privacy protections are garbage, regulators are toothless, governments exploit the attention economy to avoid having to get warrants, and any idiot with a nickel can easily build gigantic, hugely detailed profiles about your everyday life without your consent.

“Banning TikTok” does nothing meaningful if you’re genuinely interested in meaningful surveillance and privacy reform. There will always be another TikTok. There’s an ocean of companies engaging in the same or worse behavior as TikTok because we’ve sanctioned this kind of guardrail-optional hyper-collection and monetization of consumer behavioral data at every step of the way.

Many of the folks beating the “ban TikTok” drum may be well intentioned but just don’t really understand how broken the consumer privacy landscape is. They may not understand that this is a problem that’s exponentially more complicated than just what we do with a single app. Freaking out exclusively about a single app tells me you either don’t really understand the data-hoovering monster we’ve built, or don’t really care if anybody other than China exploits it (waves tiny American flag patriotically).

Many of the other folks calling for a TikTok ban aren’t operating in good faith. Facebook/Meta, for example, spends a lot of time spreading scary stories about TikTok in the press and DC because they want to crush a competitive threat they’ve been incapable of out-innovating. Similar, Politico’s owner is on the Netflix board and simply wants to curtail what he sees as a threat to market and advertising mindshare.

Then there’s just a ton of Silicon Valley folks who believe they inherently own and deserve the advertising market share TikTok occupies. And then of course there’s just a whole bunch of rank bigots who are mad because darker skinned human beings built a popular app, and try to hide this bigotry behind patriotic, pseudo national security concerns.

All of this converges to create a stupid, soupy mess that’s devoid of any actual fixes to any actual problems. Hyper surveillance and propaganda are very real problems that require a dizzying array of complicated fixes, including media and privacy policy reform, antitrust reform, tougher consumer protection standards, education reform, and a meaningful privacy law for the internet era.

Previously:

The NATO to TikTok Pipeline: Why is TikTok Employing So Many National Security Agents?

The White House is briefing TikTok stars about the war in Ukraine

UK uses TikTok influencers to urge teens to get jab after Pfizer-linked vaccine committee chair admits policy lacks evidence + White House enlists army of social media influencers to promote COVID-19 vaccines

No, There Is No ‘Purge Law’ In Illinois. Here Are The Facts About Ending Cash Bail

There is no “Purge Law” in Chicago—what there is, is a concerted effort to prevent landmark bail reform that’ll prevent countless Black and brown people from being held in jail without a trial for no other reason than they’re poor by spreading lies and copaganda to the public.

Video clip originally from Olayemi Olurin

Related:

No, There Is No ‘Purge Law’ In Illinois. Here Are The Facts About Ending Cash Bail

Viral TikToks and other social media posts are wrong about an Illinois law eliminating cash bail. Judges will still be able to detain people who pose a threat to the community or a flight risk.

What do the New York Times, Kiev Independent, Euromaidan Press, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and TikTok All Have in Common?

By John Parker – August 22, 2022

They are all funded by or staffed by Western and U.S. intelligence members pushing the U.S. narrative about the war in Ukraine. This is why Struggle-La-Lucha.org organized a fact-finding mission to Ukraine and Russia to report on the suppressed information that challenges the narrative of NATO and its member states, led by the U.S.

This is the second part of my report. (See Part 1: Fact-finding trip to Donbas: A front-line shelter in Rubizhne)

What do the New York Times, Kiev Independent, Euromaidan Press, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and TikTok All Have in Common?

Meet the Ex-CIA Agents Deciding Facebook’s Content Policy + Social Media Is a Tool of the CIA

It is an uncomfortable job for anyone trying to draw the line between “harmful content and protecting freedom of speech. It’s a balance”, Aaron says. In this official Facebook video, Aaron identifies himself as the manager of “the team that writes the rules for Facebook”, determining “what is acceptable and what is not.” Thus, he and his team effectively decide what content the platform’s 2.9 billion active users see and what they don’t see.

Meet the Ex-CIA Agents Deciding Facebook’s Content Policy

Related:

[2011] Social Media Is a Tool of the CIA. Seriously.

Google is already helping the government write, and rewrite, history. Here, from its transparency report, are some stats on the amount of information it has either given to the government or wiped from the web based on requests by U.S. agencies:

US Government requests to remove content from Google Transparency Report

The Myopic Focus On TikTok Privacy Issues Remains Kind Of Weird + Facebook-Hired PR Firm Coordinated Anti-TikTok Campaign To Spread Bogus Moral Panics

Generic Disclaimer: The statements, views and opinions expressed in the following articles are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site.

The Myopic Focus On TikTok Privacy Issues Remains Kind Of Weird

Related:

Facebook-Hired PR Firm Coordinated Anti-TikTok Campaign To Spread Bogus Moral Panics

The NATO to TikTok Pipeline: Why is TikTok Employing So Many National Security Agents?

If TikTok is such a threat, why did the Biden Administration train TikTok influencers to propagandize others about Russia’s special military operation?! Even though TechDirt makes some good points (privacy laws and the xenophobia), it seems like they—and Buzzfeed—are just creating another moral panic!

White supremacists are riling up thousands on social media

White supremacists are riling up thousands on social media

The social media posts are of a distinct type. They hint darkly that the CIA or the FBI are behind mass shootings*. They traffic in racist, sexist and homophobic tropes. They revel in the prospect of a “white boy summer.”

These type of threats and racist ideology have become so commonplace on social media that it’s nearly impossible for law enforcement to separate internet ramblings from dangerous, potentially violent people, Michael German**, who infiltrated white supremacy groups as an FBI agent, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Facebook and Instagram owner Meta banned praise and support for white nationalist and separatists movements in 2019*** on company platforms, but the social media shift to subtlety makes it difficult to moderate the posts.

Related:

*FBI Infiltration of Right-Wing Groups (PATCON, ETC)

**Mike German – Brennan Center For Justice

**FBI Agent Mike German Discusses Years Undercover Investigating Skinheads, Aryans and More

***FACEBOOK ALLOWS PRAISE OF NEO-NAZI UKRAINIAN BATTALION IF IT FIGHTS RUSSIAN INVASION

Just tell them that you’re fighting, against the Russians, if they try to censor you?! 🤷🏼‍♀️

A Face Search Engine Anyone Can Use Is Alarmingly Accurate

PimEyes is a paid service that finds photos of a person from across the internet, including some the person may not want exposed. “We’re just a tool provider,” its owner said.

A Face Search Engine Anyone Can Use Is Alarmingly Accurate

Related:

A Polish company is abolishing our anonymity:

An investigation by netzpolitik.org shows the potential for abuse of PimEyes, a free search engine for 900 million faces. Whoever’s photos have been published on the Internet could already be part of their database.

The NATO to TikTok Pipeline: Why is TikTok Employing So Many National Security Agents?

by Alan Macleod

TikTok has become an enormously influential medium that reaches over one billion people worldwide. Having control over its algorithm or content moderation means the ability to set the terms of global debate and decide what people see. And what they don’t.

The NATO to TikTok Pipeline: Why is TikTok Employing So Many National Security Agents?

Related:

The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) is one of the main components of the regime change organization National Endowment for Democracy (NED); that is, NED channels its funds through four organizations, and NDI is one of them, to “promote free, fair, transparent democratic elections but in such a way that it would assure that power went to the elites and not to the people”.

National Democratic Institute

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs