3 ms·
Another incredibly vague investigation. Description of leaked guideline basically amounts to no divisive politics. Guardian yellow peril narrative: "TikTok, is
by dirtyid 7y ago
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The old guidelines in question are outdated and no longer in use.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.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
- xvector 7y ago> 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.
- dirtyid 7y agoWhat 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.
- linkregister 7y agoYou 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.