3 ms·

Not every child (of any type) is helped by a global audience. So we are clear - these are for profit platforms exploiting / providing a free service depending

Not every child (of any type) is helped by a global audience. So we are clear - these are for profit platforms exploiting / providing a free service depending on your perspective for content providers and users -> usually with the goal of marketing to them or otherwise monetizing them. Now mix in folks with development disabilities and a history of exploitation / abuse in this area generally. That down kid gyrating so you can laugh and show your co-workers is not an adult making a fully informed decision. What these for profit platforms are doing is in many cases literally exploitative -> with the rights to monetize the content held by the platform, so you can laugh in the morning - and it's not OK.

mynameisvlad 7y ago
Who said this was limited to children, anyway? You have to be 13+ to join as per COPPA, and age is never a part of their own equation as to whether a user is vulnerable or not. Everyone in the article is over 18, so this is clearly being applied to adults. In any case, none of what you said actually responds to my questions -- why are the victims the ones being punished here? What did they do to deserve being silenced other than being themselves? Yes, what these platforms are doing is exploitative, and that's a real separate issue that needs to be solved. But the right solution isn't this victim-blaming discrimination. It's far easier to argue that TikTok et al are exploitative, it's much harder to discuss the proper solution to the issue that the thread is talking about. Let's keep it to that.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  Let's keep this very focused on this issue. Someone with down syndrome at 13 or even 21 is in a different place than an adult without down. We probably disagree somewhat on whether exposure to a global audience as a child is healthy, even if it is 99% supportive. I'd be curious how star wars kid, and other young stars are doing - kids / disabled are CONSTANTLY being exploited, particularly if there is a financial angle to it. We ALREADY see this on youtube where streamers absolutely do crazy stuff with their kids for views. I'm sure we'll have some funny down syndrome tiktok stars, most likely ones with support staff / agents etc able to keep a good pace of content coming. I think we are in total agreement - folks making nasty comments should be consequenced. That's the easy part. But I'll be curious what stories we hear in 5 - 10 years about whatever tiktok stars end up making it big by being themselves. Who gobbled up the money, how happy were they etc. I say this because fully mature adults struggle with this terribly on these platforms already. The history here is not great BTW. And where you and the rest are reading the since changed guidelines as "victim blaming discrimination" by an evil corporation - another possibility is that they used a guideline (potentially from an education setting) and applied it in a setting that it wasn't considered for. I say this because in an ed setting with down / disabled kids you really don't (even with their permission or their parents) video and promote the "funny" things they do.
  - mynameisvlad 7y ago
    I was trying to very politely tell you you're arguing a strawman. This thread is not about the exploitation of people on social media, whether by the companies running them, or others (ie. their parents). This thread is not about who will make it big and who won't on TikTok or whatever other platform. While a lot of what you are saying is important and something that should be talked about, this thread is not the right place for this discussion. This discussion is specifically about "TikTok [curbing] reach for people with disabilities". I will comment on two things: > And where you and the rest are reading the since changed guidelines as "victim blaming discrimination" by an evil corporation Intentions don't really matter if the act comes off as "victim blaming discrimination" to everyone. If everyone (or, more specifically, "you and the rest") sees it as that, then that's what it is. The duck test very much applies. > I say this because in an ed setting with down / disabled kids you really don't (even with their permission or their parents) video and promote the "funny" things they do. Once again, we're not talking about kids. And we're not specifically talking about people with Down's. Those are two very specific instances you cherrypicked, but are not the only cases of "disabilities" used by TikTok in this instance, or in previous instances of censorship. Setting aside the Down's adult argument, where intelligence and ability consent vary wildly between people, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it seem, are adults with facial disfigurements suddenly not able to decide for themselves? What about members of the LGBTQI+ community (who have been known to be censored on this specific platform)? Amputees? Paraplegics? People with a "birthmark or slight squint"? All of these groups of people, and more, would be "Auto R"ed or given a higher risk category which would prevent their content-- content that they explicitly and willingly uploaded and wanted to make public-- from being seen by others. This is like the textbook definition of censorship, discrimination, and victim blaming. If you're willing to engage in an actual discussion on this topic, I'm happy to do so, but so far I've been saying things that you're either willingly or unwillingly completely dismissing in lieu of your arguments on a completely different topic.
    - Cougher 7y ago
      "I was trying to very politely tell you you're arguing a strawman." Even if the policy was a misguided bad idea, the intent behind it was to protect vulnerable people from viral bullying, which has ruined people's lives to the point of suicide. Whether their focus is on protecting the vulnerable people or to protect themselves from a future publicity disaster, it seems clear that they're placing fault in the hands of bullies. Still, you asked "why is it the victim's fault?". That's a fabricated intention that you created so you could then claim that it's "literally victim-blaming". That's strawmanning.

mynameisvlad 7y ago

Who said this was limited to children, anyway? You have to be 13+ to join as per COPPA, and age is never a part of their own equation as to whether a user is vulnerable or not. Everyone in the article is over 18, so this is clearly being applied to adults. In any case, none of what you said actually responds to my questions -- why are the victims the ones being punished here? What did they do to deserve being silenced other than being themselves? Yes, what these platforms are doing is exploitative, and that's a real separate issue that needs to be solved. But the right solution isn't this victim-blaming discrimination. It's far easier to argue that TikTok et al are exploitative, it's much harder to discuss the proper solution to the issue that the thread is talking about. Let's keep it to that.

privateSFacct 7y ago
Let's keep this very focused on this issue. Someone with down syndrome at 13 or even 21 is in a different place than an adult without down. We probably disagree somewhat on whether exposure to a global audience as a child is healthy, even if it is 99% supportive. I'd be curious how star wars kid, and other young stars are doing - kids / disabled are CONSTANTLY being exploited, particularly if there is a financial angle to it. We ALREADY see this on youtube where streamers absolutely do crazy stuff with their kids for views. I'm sure we'll have some funny down syndrome tiktok stars, most likely ones with support staff / agents etc able to keep a good pace of content coming. I think we are in total agreement - folks making nasty comments should be consequenced. That's the easy part. But I'll be curious what stories we hear in 5 - 10 years about whatever tiktok stars end up making it big by being themselves. Who gobbled up the money, how happy were they etc. I say this because fully mature adults struggle with this terribly on these platforms already. The history here is not great BTW. And where you and the rest are reading the since changed guidelines as "victim blaming discrimination" by an evil corporation - another possibility is that they used a guideline (potentially from an education setting) and applied it in a setting that it wasn't considered for. I say this because in an ed setting with down / disabled kids you really don't (even with their permission or their parents) video and promote the "funny" things they do.
- mynameisvlad 7y ago
  I was trying to very politely tell you you're arguing a strawman. This thread is not about the exploitation of people on social media, whether by the companies running them, or others (ie. their parents). This thread is not about who will make it big and who won't on TikTok or whatever other platform. While a lot of what you are saying is important and something that should be talked about, this thread is not the right place for this discussion. This discussion is specifically about "TikTok [curbing] reach for people with disabilities". I will comment on two things: > And where you and the rest are reading the since changed guidelines as "victim blaming discrimination" by an evil corporation Intentions don't really matter if the act comes off as "victim blaming discrimination" to everyone. If everyone (or, more specifically, "you and the rest") sees it as that, then that's what it is. The duck test very much applies. > I say this because in an ed setting with down / disabled kids you really don't (even with their permission or their parents) video and promote the "funny" things they do. Once again, we're not talking about kids. And we're not specifically talking about people with Down's. Those are two very specific instances you cherrypicked, but are not the only cases of "disabilities" used by TikTok in this instance, or in previous instances of censorship. Setting aside the Down's adult argument, where intelligence and ability consent vary wildly between people, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it seem, are adults with facial disfigurements suddenly not able to decide for themselves? What about members of the LGBTQI+ community (who have been known to be censored on this specific platform)? Amputees? Paraplegics? People with a "birthmark or slight squint"? All of these groups of people, and more, would be "Auto R"ed or given a higher risk category which would prevent their content-- content that they explicitly and willingly uploaded and wanted to make public-- from being seen by others. This is like the textbook definition of censorship, discrimination, and victim blaming. If you're willing to engage in an actual discussion on this topic, I'm happy to do so, but so far I've been saying things that you're either willingly or unwillingly completely dismissing in lieu of your arguments on a completely different topic.
  - Cougher 7y ago
    "I was trying to very politely tell you you're arguing a strawman." Even if the policy was a misguided bad idea, the intent behind it was to protect vulnerable people from viral bullying, which has ruined people's lives to the point of suicide. Whether their focus is on protecting the vulnerable people or to protect themselves from a future publicity disaster, it seems clear that they're placing fault in the hands of bullies. Still, you asked "why is it the victim's fault?". That's a fabricated intention that you created so you could then claim that it's "literally victim-blaming". That's strawmanning.