5 ms·

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 disagr

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.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  In your case you have constructed a narrative that this company is out to victim blame and discriminate against the disabled. You've then constructed an elaborate - and very harshly worded set of arguments around this. Their guidelines "literally" (to use a word you keep on misusing) say this is about cyberbulling - the fault lies with the bullies in cyberbulling if you use that term. Despite your use of the world "literally" the guidelines do not say this risk marking is designed to "victim blame" and "discriminate against the handicapped". If you read the guidelines and have a background in this space (I can tell you do not) you may recognize some of these elements from guidelines used in educational and other setting for folks who have a mental handicap. Whether it's proper to bring them over is debatable, but you ascribe a lot of intent to tiktoc and seem unwilling to consider any other perspective than your own. Content moderation is generally a cost center for platforms. They do it not because they want to, but because they HAVE to. They have links to suicide hotlines, ways to block and report followers. Your premise - that a for-profit company set out to incur costs to discriminate and victim blame (and you've done no analysis of steps they've taken around bullying on the platform). In fact - why was my account suspended is a very common question around tictok - in many cases exactly because of their steps here - they've constructed a reasonably positive community. Suicide is I believe the second cause of death up to 30 or so (someone correct me) - so focus on questions of cyber-bullying is not unwanted. And yes - fault lies with the bullies - just the way it lies with the criminals who would abuse a child on the street in a city at 2AM. But you still might tell that child to be home while its light out to reduce the risks to them if they were vulnerable - and your intent may not be discriminate against your child's chance to do what they want but to protect them.

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.
privateSFacct 7y ago
In your case you have constructed a narrative that this company is out to victim blame and discriminate against the disabled. You've then constructed an elaborate - and very harshly worded set of arguments around this. Their guidelines "literally" (to use a word you keep on misusing) say this is about cyberbulling - the fault lies with the bullies in cyberbulling if you use that term. Despite your use of the world "literally" the guidelines do not say this risk marking is designed to "victim blame" and "discriminate against the handicapped". If you read the guidelines and have a background in this space (I can tell you do not) you may recognize some of these elements from guidelines used in educational and other setting for folks who have a mental handicap. Whether it's proper to bring them over is debatable, but you ascribe a lot of intent to tiktoc and seem unwilling to consider any other perspective than your own. Content moderation is generally a cost center for platforms. They do it not because they want to, but because they HAVE to. They have links to suicide hotlines, ways to block and report followers. Your premise - that a for-profit company set out to incur costs to discriminate and victim blame (and you've done no analysis of steps they've taken around bullying on the platform). In fact - why was my account suspended is a very common question around tictok - in many cases exactly because of their steps here - they've constructed a reasonably positive community. Suicide is I believe the second cause of death up to 30 or so (someone correct me) - so focus on questions of cyber-bullying is not unwanted. And yes - fault lies with the bullies - just the way it lies with the criminals who would abuse a child on the street in a city at 2AM. But you still might tell that child to be home while its light out to reduce the risks to them if they were vulnerable - and your intent may not be discriminate against your child's chance to do what they want but to protect them.