LaMondre Pough: Welcome to
3DVU one conversation, three
different perspectives.
I'm LaMondre Pough.
David Pérez: I am David Pérez
Richard Streitz: And I´m Richard Streitz.
Thank you for joining
LaMondre Pough: So today we
want to talk about something.
That's.
Happening, honestly, across the
globe, but particularly here in
the U S and that's the banning or
villainizing of Chinese based companies.
Um, as you know, the US in particular has
put out a lot of negative things about
companies like, uh, Huawei and Tik Tok.
And here recently, India banned Tik
Tok from operating within its borders.
And that's a loss of about
a hundred million users.
Ford Tik Tok and now the us is
looking at doing the same thing, and
they're actually looking at forcing
Tik Tok to sale, sell to an American
company in about a month or so.
And if that is not done, they
will be completely banned.
So we want to have a conversation.
About banning social media
sites and other companies from
operating within certain countries.
And we want us to talk about
the ramifications of that.
So guys let's start the conversation.
As I said, India had 100
million users that Tik Tok lost.
Just by that ban.
So that was a significant loss in members.
And David you, you, you may have
more insight on this in terms of the
global usage of Tiktack and, and, and
that, but what does that mean when a
country like the United States States
says no we we we don't want you here.
David Pérez: Yeah, well, just to, to.
So people understand that the
scope that the magnitude of
Tik-Tok in 2020, they reached 800
million users across the globe.
And that's.
Of a company that started
in September of 2016.
So in four years, their
growth has been outstanding.
They of course have shifted their
business model to something that
was more attractive to gen Z.
And.
They simply clicked.
They started clicking in 2019 and
they revolutionized the world in 2020.
And I think that's what has caught
the attention of governments,
because it is a very powerful
tool for sharing information.
It is also very social media like
app that has the, the same ability
that Facebook and Instagram and
Twitter of getting to know you.
As a person and being
able to target ads to you.
And I think that that's scary
for, for some governments.
I can understand why they would
be scared for people to have
that access to information.
So, yeah, so broadly, so openly and so
easily, easily managed by someone else.
Right.
Because if you pay in social media,
you're able to get in front of the
eyes  that you want to get in front
of that's what social media apps do.
But I don't think that
this is a Tik-Tok problem.
I think that that's a
social media problem.
That's why I said social media app
like features because every single one
of those social media apps has proven
that they have the ability to do that.
And not only that, they have
also proven that they do it
with the 2016 election and the.
Brexit election.
It was obvious that it was being
done to harm democratic processes.
So what, what do you think, Richard?
Why would you ban it?
Or why wouldn't you ban it?
Richard Streitz: Well, I think from a
government standpoint, um, uh, threat
throughout history, we've seen how
controlling information and paths of
information to, uh, to their population
has always been going back, you
know, Thousands of years controlling
information is a way of being able
to control, um, uh, a population.
One of the things I think is very
scary is as it's been prevalent now
for a number of years with social
media, is that that breaks their
ability to be able to do that.
Um, with every individual that has
a handset and this app, they're
able to be able to have that large,
broad audience to everyone, to
other like-minded thinking people.
And this may be directly opposed to.
Specific ideology of a government.
And that is very, very dangerous.
So if you're a government.
You can see how that
could be a large problem.
Um, and so from that standpoint,
that's one of the main reasons
of them trying to curtail this.
So, you know, the Arab spring is
certainly, uh, I think in more modern
times, the, the, the first instance
where social media proved to, to be
instrumental in being able to rally,
um, a large group of, of individuals
and to organize where that would have
been extremely difficult, given a more.
Print media and this sort of
a type of, of communication.
So that is something that's very, very.
Difficult and challenging for a an
oppressive type government where
being able to clamp and control,
um, information is, is challenging.
And then on the flip side of that,
of course, and this is the, this is
the tight rope that governments use
with, with, you know, walk with.
Uh, these apps it's cause the other
flip, the flip side of that is that
they're able to monitor each individual,
um, as a result of having these apps.
So it's, it's a delicate balance
that they, that they walk in wanting
to be able to have the benefit.
Of being able to control or be able to
gather information and monitor versus
the adverse effects of individuals
being able to organize and, and,
and, and disseminate information
that they may not want to otherwise.
And so I think it's, it's that challenge
why we see the prevalence of these
apps, and they're not immediately shut
down as soon as they come up, because
there's two sides to that equation as,
and, and them trying to balance it out.
And as soon as it.
Tips too far, the one way
where there's more detriment
they see than, than benefit.
They want to just shut it down.
And of course that has a huge
adverse effect to the populations
that have created livelihoods
associated with using those apps.
LaMondre Pough: Absolutely.
And I will tell you, you know,
David, I think you're right.
When you say that it's not a Tik Tok
issue, but it's a social media issue.
We've seen what the rise of
social media has been able to do.
Not only in terms of, you know, people
being connected and, and, and, and
the things that it, that it reports on
the form on the surface, but what it
means for things like entrepreneurs,
what it means for being able to
mobilize movements, what it means to
being able to just share who and what.
It is that you are, but we've
also seen it in the manipulation
of the outcomes of elections.
We've seen it as a, as Richard said
with the Arab spring, we've seen it
even in terms of, um, you know, the U
S elected his first African American
president, uh, social media was a
major port part of that campaign.
It was the first time that a
campaign had ever used social media.
So effectively.
Uh, and legally I might add, uh,
uh, to, to, to mobilize people.
So social media has been an incredible.
Agent of change for just like
Richard said, I do believe that.
And the key word here is oppressive.
Oppressive.
Governments absolutely would want to
control accesse to information, spread
of information and how things move and
actually oppressive governments would
also want to get in there and manipulate
information and how information is
spread and how information is used.
But honestly, I think the
cat is out of the bag.
Yeah.
Even though I don't believe that you can
push that genie back in the bottle, yes.
Governments can take massive swings in
terms of banning certain, uh, certain,
um, uh, certain apps or platforms.
But the truth is I really believe
particularly in the country,
uh, like the United States that
there's always going to be people.
That create and push it out there.
And honestly the public
will eventually demand it.
We know for a fact that much of the
outrage against Tik Tok is vindictive.
Richard Streitz: Yeah,
LaMondre Pough: it is simply
Richard Streitz: retaliation.
Yes.
LaMondre Pough: Retaliation.
Absolutely.
Oh, you, you, you mess with
an outcome that I wanted.
You.
You fooled me fooled by those kids.
And so now im going to
teach these kids a lesson.
Yeah.
And that's what, that's what
I believe we're seeing here
specifically towards Tik Tok
. 
David Pérez: Yeah.
Yeah.
And one important part of this is that
everything in diplomacy in international
relations works based on one basic
principle and that's reciprocity.
If you do this to me, I'm going to do that
to you exactly the same way that you did
it because governments can't appear to be
weak to their own people and much less to
the people outside of their own country.
So the game that the U S is playing
right now is a very dangerous game
because just as they are banning
Chinese apps, because of course we, we
have talked about the ban of Tik-Tok,
but this is also a ban on Weechat.
A massive app, uh, Tenscent, one of
the biggest Chinese companies in the
world right now owns we-chat and they
have a stake in almost everything.
And the executive order actually says
that they cannot, the US companies can
not work with Tencent or its subsidiaries.
So that's going to be a scary situation
for a lot of industries because they,
Tencent has their hands on everything
Richard Streitz: and everything.
Yeah.
David Pérez: Imagine what could happen
if the, if China comes and says, okay,
so you don't want to work with us.
We're not going to let Apple
sell their phones here.
What's going to happen to Apple
stock when their biggest market
growth right now is China.
What's going to happen with Google.
If they cannot have access to the,
1.3 billion people that live in China,
Richard Streitz: right?
Well, again, that's, what's so
critical about being able to work
in a more unified way as opposed to.
Uh, nationalism or this nationalist
idea where, you know, we do it alone.
Um, and, and that just doesn't,
it just can't exist anymore.
Uh, you know, the,  Wechat is,
is such an important aspect.
It's, it's pervasive into every aspect of
a, of a, of a Chinese individual's life.
Um, they do their banking, they do
their, um, they do their, their.
They're their bill paying.
They do their, um, their food.
Do they do their traveling, their,
their logistic, uh, um, and mapping.
And so for everything is all done.
Um, Through WeChat, uh, their, their,
their communication with, um, talking
to friends and family and so forth.
Uh, it's, it's such a vital
part of their daily lives.
Um, and to, and, and here in the U S
for the, for Chinese individuals that
are here, that's still the method that
they're able to communicate and have
contact with the individuals, with
our family members and friends and
so forth that are in China as well.
So to just, um, Blanket cut that out
is, is, is really just unbelievable
and an unthinkable as to the,
you know, millions of people that
that's going to dramatically affect.
LaMondre Pough: Right.
And I think that that is the,
a very important piece of it.
Look at the millions of
people that will be affected.
And that will be affected in terms
of, in terms of business people in
terms of entrepreneurship, in terms
of people just connecting their
friends and families and loved ones.
And here's the thing that I did not
realize to take it just a little
bit further, particularly in times
of division, um, when things are
going the way that they are going
in terms of our political world,
in terms of the economic world.
You have a tendency to try to find
the enemy, identify who the bad guy
is, identify, identify someone or
something, or some ideal that we can all
rally around to say, that's the enemy.
And that's the way we have to go.
And I really believe that that's
a part of what's happening here.
As well as they, they, you know,
you create this, you create this
enemy that, that you want to
get everybody to rally around.
I think the problem this time
though, this is not, you know,
bombs dropping out of the sky.
This is not, this is not
that the Oh, it's territory.
It's, it's, it's, they've crossed
a border into another country.
That's not what, this is what this
is, is really what I believe a
large part of the new frontier is.
This is information.
This is, this is, this is analytics.
That's what this is.
And unfortunately, because as
you said, David, you know what
happens when that turns around?
And now they're saying no, Apple
can't sell its phones here, or
Google doesn't have access here.
Now you're really hurting your own people.
Now you're really hurting the people who
you are supposedly trying to protect.
And th th the, the, the real
truth is it really is a false war.
It's a false narrative.
That's being purported, you know?
And so I think that, I really think
that when people, you know, of course
the stuff you hear on the surface, you
know, a lot of people can get behind.
Oh, they've always been spies.
It's always been this it's always
been bad, but the truth is when
you really begin to look at it
on the, on, on deeper levels.
People really have to begin to
think for themselves and really
look at what are the ramifications.
Then it goes back to, as you said, David
diplomacy, how, how do we, because we,
you, you, you can't simply just get rid
of it because we're all interconnected,
but all of those things together.
So yeah, you hit me here.
I hit you there.
Everybody suffers.
Yeah, it's the cold war all over again.
Right?
The fact that two big powers are fighting
each other for things that makes almost
no sense to the general population.
David Pérez: Right?
Richard Streitz: Well, yeah.
You know, the, the idea of, of
information gathering for example
is, is a concept that I think so many
people are really misinformed about.
You know, the reality that
our information, certainly
anyone who was born.
Um, in the sixties, um,
from the sixties forward.
All of your spending habits, all of
your travel is all been logged and been
documented from that period of time way
uh, well, before, um, before we had,
uh, cell phones and, and, you know,
smartphones and, and these sorts of high
tech devices through the, uh, through
credit card expenditures, through, through
check, um, uh, checks and how checks were,
uh, things that you bought with checks.
Uh, all of this was, is just, um,
and, and through telephones as well.
Um, land landline, triangulation.
This has all been, this is all data
that's been collected and gathered for
years for, for, uh, lots of different
reasons, not, not for nefarious.
And that's, everyone's immediate idea
is that, Oh, well, this information
is being collected for some reason.
That's, that's invading my privacy.
It's not at all.
A, um, the primary reason is
just purely for marketing.
Um, it is, is for target
and surgical marketing.
Um, and, and this has been this way.
You know, since the, uh, sixties and
seventies, uh, and, and all that's
happened is over the years as our
technology has been increased, um,
the, the ability and, and, and volume
of data, um, has increased, but it's
always, always primarily for the same
reason, um, marketing, uh, marketing and
collecting trends, being able to assist,
uh, you know, anything from, um, uh,
Private held companies to, to, um, uh, to
governmental agencies and being able to
improve services or, or, or, or so forth.
And yeah, sure.
I mean, some of it is
there's bad eggs in society.
That information helps in being
able to isolate and, and track
those individuals as well.
But that's certainly
not the primary reason.
And, and you know, the idea that
other countries have been doing
this while other countries have been
doing this for a very long time.
Um, There's there's, you know, just
because you download an app and,
and, uh, and you're afraid that, that
information, well, that information
has long been collected well, before
you downloaded that app, that app is,
is insignificant in the amount of data
it's going to be gathering compared
to the data that's already collected.
So I think that's something that's
really, really important that people
really have to understand about the idea
of, of, of our personal quote on quote
data and, and, and, um, information.
Is that  that ship has sailed decades ago.
Uh, you know, there's, there really is.
We, we truly have no privacy
at that level, um, anymore.
Um, and that's something that
we all, all of us have bought
into societaly decades ago.
David Pérez: Yeah.
And the fact that that data can
also be used for development yeah.
For increasing the capabilities
of cool things that are helping
people all over the world.
Right.
Like voice recognition or.
Subtitle creation.
Those types of things are, are happening
because we have access to buckets
and buckets of data every single day.
And the fact that Google can translate
what I'm saying, even though I have
an accent or what other people say
to
texts is because they have had
access to loads of information.
And now that that is useful for
people like, for example, the
LaMondre  who uses it to achieve the
activities of his daily living and,
and that's just, that's just progress.
Right,
Richard Streitz: right, right.
Creating data pools.
David Pérez: It's what we have to
do, I think is shift the conversation
from no data or, or all data to
what are you doing with that data?
Yeah, let's make it transparent
transparency and let's make it something
good for society instead of just
things that are going to hurt society.
I don't think that that data should
be used for political purposes.
LaMondre Pough: Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So, yeah, that was going to be my
next, that was going to be the next
area that I wanted to talk about.
Because the thing that we realized
with all the, the conversation that
we just had, that the things that you
just brought up, David, the things
that you just brought up, Richard, that
there is good, that comes out of this.
However, it is a narrative that's out
there that your privacy is being invaded.
People know, you know, you know, What
food is stuck in between your teeth
right now, they know that they know that.
And so how do we, how do we
then, how do we then get them
message out about, about this?
How do we then begin to
change that narrative?
Um, so that people will understand,
listen, you've been giving
it up for a very long time.
And honestly, this is just a part
of the new frontier has to happen.
Now, this information.
Is is, is, is gathered.
It's just another means of doing that.
How do we change that narrative?
Richard Streitz: Yeah, well, well, I think
David Pérez: I would include the, the
ethics component on everything we create
and just by doing that, having, having
the people that, that go to universities
to study philosophy, be a part of what's
good and bad to do with that information
would make a big difference in.
In the use of that information
and it wouldn't really hurt
the bottom line of companies.
It could actually help them not be
suffering from this type of problem.
Right.
If there was a, uh, an ethics
committee that all companies could
get together and say, okay, if we're
developing AI and we're gathering
data, this is how it should look like.
Everything crossing.
This line is bad.
Everything crossing this line is good.
Yeah.
I think that would help every
single one of those companies.
LaMondre Pough: You know, that's a
really important point because I tell
you, you know, when we hear that, but
we hear about these kinds of things.
It is literally like
they're pirates on ships.
That's just coming to, you know,
absolutely ravage us and take all
of our, our, uh, take a bounty.
A farmer.
So I think, I think that that
ethical piece is important.
Particularly talk about the companies
coming together with people who
are really sound in terms of ethics
and determining what that is.
Richard, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Richard Streitz: Oh, no, I was just going
to say that, you know, certainly that
ethics, uh, a piece of the puzzle has
something that's been in, um, slow coming
in and almost nonexistent, especially
I know in the scientific community, um,
Ethics with artificial intelligence is
something that has been in the discussion,
but not necessarily in the forefront.
Um, you know, one of the challenges
that we faced with the development
of, of, of the technologies that we
have, you know, with us and around us
all day long is that they've advanced
far faster than our ability to come
up and deal with, with morality and
ethics issues associated with them.
Um, and, and, uh, so right now we
have such a huge disparity in the
gap that exists between the, the
functionality and usability of our
tech versus any sort of ethic, um,
ethical, um, um, monitoring of that,
or a guidelines associated with that.
And, and, you know, because
that gap is so large, that.
You know, there's there's
problems that arise, right?
There's a lot of gray
area into how and why.
And, and, and when that
data is being collected, um,
from all its various points.
And so that is something
that's a, that's a huge point.
And, you know, again, this goes back
to the whole issue with, with Tik
Tok and these, and these social ops
that are, that are, you know, coming
up to on these banned lists, is
that what ends up happening is that.
Based on the governments that are in
power, the powers that be, um, they
decide that they there's a tipping point
where it no longer in line with their,
with their ideal or what they believe is.
And, and again, you know, if we had sort
of that ethical component that was built
in, and that advanced at the same level
as the rest of technology, there would
be these, there would be far better
guidelines to help provide a much cleaner
path to that decision making process.
LaMondre Pough: Yeah, definitely.
I'd tell you what, this is a, you know,
again, just another way that the world
is changing and that it has changed.
And I think that it is important that
people really understand the power of
social media, understanding the power of
government and what it means to either.
Allow people to have access
or deny people access.
And so it's interesting.
And we'll see how things turn out shortly.
So thank you guys for the conversation.
3DVU.
David Pérez: Thanks for joining
us this week on 3DVU, make
sure to visit our website.
ruhglobal.com/3DVU.
That's ruhglobal.com/3DVU  where you can
subscribe to the show wherever you listen
to podcasts  or join our YouTube channel.
So you will never miss a
show while you're at it.
You find value in the show.
We´d appreciate it.
If you would like or comment or
simply tell a friend about the show
that would really help us a lot too.
If you would like to join our
conversations, you can join our
Facebook community 3DVU: three
perspectives, one conversation.
