{"id":1143,"date":"2024-09-22T07:45:52","date_gmt":"2024-09-21T23:45:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kafeizha.com\/?p=1143"},"modified":"2024-09-22T07:45:52","modified_gmt":"2024-09-21T23:45:52","slug":"tiktok%e5%ba%a6%e8%bf%87%e4%ba%86%e7%94%9f%e5%91%bd%e4%b8%ad%e6%9c%80%e5%85%b3%e9%94%ae%e7%9a%84%e4%b8%a4%e5%b0%8f%e6%97%b6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.tomjun.com\/?p=1143","title":{"rendered":"TikTok\u5ea6\u8fc7\u4e86\u751f\u547d\u4e2d\u6700\u5173\u952e\u7684\u4e24\u5c0f\u65f6"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u65b0\u95fb\u6765\u6e90\uff1a<\/b>www.cnn.com
\u539f\u6587\u5730\u5740\uff1a<\/b>TikTok just had the most important two hours of its life<\/a><\/font>
\u65b0\u95fb\u65e5\u671f\uff1a<\/b>2024-09-16<\/p>\n

TikTok\u521a\u521a\u5ea6\u8fc7\u4e86\u751f\u547d\u4e2d\u6700\u5173\u952e\u7684\u4e24\u4e2a\u5c0f\u65f6\u3002<\/p>\n

\u7f8e\u56fd\u8054\u90a6\u6cd5\u5b98\u5728\u5468\u4e00\u8fdb\u884c\u4e86\u7d27\u5f20\u7684\u8fa9\u8bba\u4f1a\uff0c\u4ee5\u51b3\u5b9a\u662f\u5426\u6279\u51c6\u4e00\u9879\u53ef\u80fd\u9650\u5236TikTok\u6216\u5f3a\u5236\u5176\u51fa\u552e\u7684\u6cd5\u5f8b\u3002\u6cd5\u5b98\u4eec\u5bf9\u8fd9\u4e00\u6cd5\u5f8b\u8868\u793a\u4e86\u5173\u5207\uff0c\u8ba4\u4e3a\u9700\u8981\u66f4\u591a\u8bc1\u636e\u6765\u8bc1\u660eTikTok\u53ef\u80fd\u88ab\u4e2d\u56fd\u653f\u5e9c\u63a7\u5236\u3002<\/p>\n

TikTok\u548c\u5185\u5bb9\u521b\u4f5c\u8005\u7ec4\u6210\u7684\u4e00\u65b9\u6297\u8bae\u653f\u5e9c\u7684\u5f3a\u5236\u51fa\u552e\u8981\u6c42\uff0c\u800c\u653f\u5e9c\u5219\u8868\u793a\u8fd9\u6709\u52a9\u4e8e\u89e3\u51b3\u56fd\u5bb6\u5b89\u5168\u95ee\u9898\u3002\u653f\u5e9c\u6307\u51fa\uff0c\u5982\u679c\u4e2d\u56fd\u653f\u5e9c\u638c\u63e1\u4e86\u7f8e\u56fd\u7528\u6237\u6570\u636e\uff0c\u53ef\u4ee5\u4e3a\u81ea\u5df1\u670d\u52a1\uff0c\u5e76\u4e14\u53ef\u80fd\u4f1a\u5bf9\u56fd\u5bb6\u5b89\u5168\u6784\u6210\u5a01\u80c1\u3002TikTok\u53cd\u9a73\u8bf4\uff0c\u8fd9\u9879\u6cd5\u5f8b\u5b9e\u9645\u4e0a\u662f\u8fdd\u5baa\u7684\uff0c\u56e0\u4e3a\u5b83\u9650\u5236\u4e86\u7f8e\u56fd\u7528\u6237\u7684\u8a00\u8bba\u81ea\u7531\u6743\u3002<\/p>\n

\u6cd5\u9662\u4e09\u540d\u6cd5\u5b98\u2014\u65af\u91cc\u00b7\u4ec0\u91cc\u90a3\u74e6\u7eb3\u3001\u59ae\u6b50\u7c73\u00b7\u745e\u5965\u548c\u9053\u683c\u62c9\u65af\u00b7\u91d1\u65af\u5821\u2014\u5bf9\u53cc\u65b9\u7684\u4e3b\u5f20\u8868\u793a\u5173\u5207\u3002\u4ed6\u4eec\u8be2\u95eeTikTok\u516c\u53f8\u662f\u5426\u53ef\u4ee5\u5c06\u5176\u7b97\u6cd5\u4ee3\u7801\u4ece\u4e2d\u56fd\u8fc1\u79fb\u5230\u7f8e\u56fd\uff0c\u5e76\u4e14\u4e5f\u5b89\u6170\u4e86\u653f\u5e9c\u5173\u4e8eTikTok\u53ef\u80fd\u88ab\u7528\u4e8e\u6563\u5e03\u865a\u5047\u4fe1\u606f\u7684\u62c5\u5fe7\u3002<\/p>\n

\u6cd5\u9662\u8fd8\u8d28\u7591\u4e86\u300a\u5916\u56fd\u4fe1\u606f\u5f71\u54cd\u529b\u6cd5\u6848\u300b\u662f\u5426\u8fdd\u5baa\u3002\u65af\u91cc\u00b7\u4ec0\u91cc\u90a3\u74e6\u7eb3\u6cd5\u5b98\u8bf4\uff0c\u5982\u679c\u6cd5\u5f8b\u53ea\u5f71\u54cd\u4e86\u7f8e\u56fd\u672c\u571f\u516c\u53f8\u800c\u4e0d\u662f\u5916\u56fd\u6240\u6709\u6743\u62e5\u6709\u8005\uff0c\u8fd9\u5c06\u662f\u201c\u4e00\u4e2a\u5de8\u5927\u7684\u8a00\u8bba\u81ea\u7531\u5173\u5207\u201d\u3002 <\/p>\n

\n

\u539f\u6587\u6458\u8981\uff1a<\/b><\/p>\n

Who really controls TikTok\u2019s magical algorithm \u2014\u00a0the US-based company that runs the app or its Chinese parent, ByteDance? That\u2019s the question that bedeviled a trio of federal judges on Monday charged with deciding whether to allow the implementation of a law that could ultimately result in TikTok being banned for all Americans. After more than two hours of oral argument between TikTok and a group of content creators on one side, and the US government on the other, it remains uncertain how the judges may rule. Today wasn\u2019t the slam dunk that TikTok needed as all three judges asked some very skeptical questions about the ByteDance relationship, but they didn\u2019t let the government off easy, either. Struggling to find historical and metaphorical precedent, the judges at a federal appeals court in Washington grappled with how TikTok\u2019s foreign ownership affects its constitutional rights under US law. They leaned on analogies about terrorist propaganda and hypotheticals about a possible shooting war involving the United States and China. They looked to a past case about communist propaganda delivered through the US Postal Service. And some of the Supreme Court\u2019s most recent landmark decisions about online speech, issued just this year, made an appearance, too. If the law in question targeted only US-based companies, \u201cthere\u2019s no doubt that would be a huge First Amendment concern,\u201d said Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, citing a pair of cases decided by the Supreme Court this summer. But, he added, that isn\u2019t the situation here. Instead, Congress passed a law that targets a US company\u2019s foreign owners and their influence over the algorithm that 170 million Americans use to watch videos about sports, fashion and politics. \u201cIt\u2019s just that the curation is happening abroad,\u201d he said to Daniel Tenny, a lawyer representing the US government. \u201cThe core point we\u2019re making is one they\u2019ve conceded,\u201d Tenny told the court, \u201cwhich is that [TikTok\u2019s] code is made in China.\u201d Attorneys for TikTok pushed back, saying that only some of the code that powers TikTok originates from China and that a great deal of TikTok\u2019s curation reflects decisions made in the United States and amounts to expressive speech by TikTok itself \u2014\u00a0which the law would infringe on if upheld, they said. The stakes of the case Monday\u2019s sprawling debate over TikTok\u2019s algorithm and whether or not the Chinese government could manipulate it to sow chaos and disinformation to an unsuspecting public, will resolve a legal challenge to a law that the company claims could shut down TikTok virtually overnight and potentially reshape the government\u2019s powers in relation to speech on all foreign-owned platforms deemed to be a national security risk. If TikTok is successful, it could win a decision that blocks the legislation. But if it fails, the company will be required to find a new owner by mid-January, or else be prohibited from the devices of all Americans. What began as a scheduled one-hour debate between TikTok and some of its content creators on one side, and the US government on the other, stretched into a lengthy back-and-forth at the court, with the judgesasking tough questions to determine where TikTok\u2019s US operations end and ByteDance\u2019s really begins. The exchange could well be the most significant of TikTok\u2019s US existence. The company is fighting for survival in the face of a bipartisan push to force a sale of TikTok to non-Chinese owners, which may effectively end the app as we currently know it. In addition to Srinivasan, an Obama appointee, hearing the case were Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, and Judge Douglas Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee. Both Rao and Ginsburg appeared to push hard against TikTok\u2019s arguments, with Ginsburg at one point dismissing claims about the legislation\u2019s allegedly sweeping breadth as a \u201cblinkered view.\u201d The law does not open up possible bans against all foreign-owned publications or platforms, he said, as it only targets companies linked to specific adversary nations such as China. \u201cWe\u2019re not talking about banning Tocqueville,\u201d Rao said, referring to Alexis de Tocqueville, the French author of the historical text \u201cDemocracy in America.\u201d But a decision to restrict TikTok in the United States would still harm American users, TikTok and the coalition of content creators argued. Courts have historically protected Americans\u2019 right to listen to foreign views, even if it is propaganda. \u201cCongress didn\u2019t do any of the things the First Amendment requires,\u201d Andrew Pincus, an attorney representing TikTok, told the court. He added: \u201cThe government\u2019s solution to foreign propaganda, in every context, [has been] disclosure, not a ban.\u201d After pressuring TikTok, Srinivasan was equally hard on the US government. At one point, he asked Tenny about the law\u2019s practical impact on everyday Americans. The concern, he said, is \u201cabout the speech consequences on US consumers.\u201d Tenny, the Justice Department attorney, described the law\u2019s impact on Americans\u2019 First Amendment rights as \u201cincidental\u201d to the legislation\u2019s main purpose, which focuses on curbing foreign influence over TikTok\u2019s algorithm. It\u2019s not clear when the court could reach a decision on the legislation. But the law sets out a deadline of Jan. 19 for TikTok, so it is likely the court may rule before then. US fear over China Fast-tracked through Congress this spring with uncommon speed, the legislation is a US response to fears that TikTok\u2019s China ties could allow that country\u2019s government to access American users\u2019 app data, such as which videos they have watched, liked, shared or searched for. The measure has become a symbol of bipartisan opposition to China. But for TikTok\u2019s supporters, including some of its most prominent content creators, the law smacks of racism and anti-China hysteria. They argue it does little to address other, potentially even more sensitive, sources of data freely available on commercial marketplaces. The outcome of the case won\u2019t just determine the fate of TikTok in the United States. It could also have ripple effects for the way courts interpret the First Amendment \u2014 which guarantees against the government prohibiting freedom of expression \u2014 and its relationship to digital speech and online platforms writ large. TikTok argues the potential ban violates the First Amendment because it stifles the ability for its US users to express themselves and to access information. And it alleges the law is unconstitutionally extreme when the government had other options to address fears about TikTok\u2019s links to China. Court filings show that TikTok and US national security officials had hammered out a draft proposal to address the security concerns. That agreement included the ability for the US government to shut down TikTok if it violated the proposed deal. Some of the deal\u2019s provisions TikTok has already publicly implemented as part of an initiative called Project Texas, which involves moving US user data onto servers controlled by the American tech giant Oracle and erecting additional organizational barriers between TikTok and ByteDance. But, TikTok claims, US officials abruptly abandoned the plan with no explanation.\u00a0(The US government has subsequently described the plan in its court filings as \u201cinadequate\u201d because officials feared it would be hard to detect whether TikTok were violating the agreement.) TikTok has also claimed that it is technologically impossible to separate its app from its parent company. For starters, it said in a court filing, the TikTok app depends on software code that\u2019s built by ByteDance, and there is no way to simply copy that code to another company with any expectation that it will run. For another, the company argues, the Chinese government most likely won\u2019t allow TikTok\u2019s recommendation algorithm to be sold to a non-Chinese company. The recommendation engine is TikTok\u2019s secret sauce and what powers its popularity; without it, the app loses its most distinctive feature. Last year,\u00a0the Chinese government said\u00a0it would \u201cfirmly\u201d oppose a potential sale of TikTok from ByteDance, following\u00a0new export controls\u00a0the country announced that affect the transfer of certain software algorithms. TikTok has portrayed the US law as a sweeping congressional power grab that threatens all Americans\u2019 speech rights. \u201cIf Congress can do this,\u201d the company wrote in its filings, \u201cit can circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down.\u201d \u2018Speculative concerns,\u2019 TikTok says Finally, TikTok claims, the US government has never proven that the Chinese government has exploited US user data to justify the law. \u201cEven the statements by individual Members of Congress and a congressional committee report merely indicate concern about the hypothetical possibility that TikTok could be misused in the future, without citing specific evidence \u2014 even though the platform has operated prominently in the United States since it was first launched in 2017,\u201d the company wrote. \u201cThose speculative concerns fall far short of what is required when First Amendment rights are at stake.\u201d The US government has argued in its own filings that lawmakers are free to take action \u201ceven if all of the threatened harms have not yet broadly materialized or been detected.\u201d The Chinese government has the incentive and the ability to pressure ByteDance to hand over TikTok user data, the Biden administration has said, adding that the information could be useful for intelligence purposes or for manipulating the public through disinformation campaigns. The United States, for its part, also routinely requests user data from social media companies. But there are typically checks and balances on the government, such as laws limiting what intelligence officials can do with data about US citizens or, for domestic law enforcement, requirements that authorities obtain a court order in exchange for user data \u2014 orders that tech companies can and often do challenge, even if they can\u2019t always disclose it. \u201cTikTok\u2019s parent company and recommendation algorithm are based in China,\u201d the Justice Department wrote in a court brief, \u201cgiving rise to the risk that a foreign adversary will wield TikTok\u2019s enormous power to advance its own interests, to the detriment of U.S. national security.\u201d The US government has also insisted the law is not a ban as it technically provides a way for TikTok to avoid one by simply finding a new owner within about six months. Independent cybersecurity\u00a0experts have said\u00a0that the risk of Chinese spying through TikTok\u00a0sounds plausible but remains unproven. China\u2019s intelligence laws\u00a0require companies\u00a0with a presence there to help with that country\u2019s intelligence objectives. TikTok does not operate in China, but ByteDance does, meaning it is subject to China\u2019s laws \u2014 and the Chinese government holds a board seat on ByteDance\u2019s local Chinese subsidiary. The question is whether all that amounts to enough influence over ByteDance and TikTok to gain access to US TikTok users\u2019 data, in spite of the guardrails promised by Project Texas. All eyes on TikTok The case has attracted immense attention, prompting friend-of-the-court briefs from more than a dozen US states, the House select committee on China that drafted the law, former US national security officials, business and civil rights groups, and a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The law in question \u201cplainly raises the issue of political bias and motivation, singling out TikTok because of its foreign ownership even as other major social media platforms raise similar privacy and content-moderation issues,\u201d wrote a coalition of digital rights groups in a filing. But former national security officials wrote that TikTok user data, if combined with other information Beijing has collected through hacks and leaks, could be a potent intelligence risk. The Chinese government, wrote the group that includes former National Cyber Director Chris Inglis, \u201ccan exploit this massive trove of sensitive data to power sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities that can then be used to identify Americans for intelligence collection, to conduct advanced electronic and human intelligence operations, and may even be weaponized to undermine the political and economic stability of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/div>
\r\n