4 ms·

> Now, with TikTok, the only limit is what TikTok will ban. Which isn't much. The population segment of kids who aren't supervised in any way used to have an in

> Now, with TikTok, the only limit is what TikTok will ban. Which isn't much. The population segment of kids who aren't supervised in any way used to have an inherent limit. Not any more. This may be new-ish but I’m not sure it’s that new. I grew up with the early web in the late 90s/early 2000s, and it’s always been pretty unfiltered. It wasn’t centralized in the way TikTok is, but plenty of us grew up on the web with little supervision, and web circles were/are much wider than the neighborhood.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Surely the scale and speed of information flow has greatly increased since the late 1990s and early 2000s so as to not be comparable to today.
collegeburner 4y ago
difference is tiktok and short video algos exploit ppls worse natures. like i know a few ppl whose feeds became e-thots doing dances in bikinis bc they wouldnt go seek it out but tiktok showed them that and their watch metrics or whatever were better. or ppl whose feed became far right shit bc it showed them some of that. there's a lot of stuff we know isn't good and won't consciously choose to go watch. but short video shows us some of that and we subconsciously engage with it more instead of consciously choosing so we watch more and more. this is hard for adults to deal with but way worse for kids with shitty impulse control.
vincnetas 4y ago
Early internet was populated mostly by educated people and there were very little (if at all) monetary influence to drive engagement. So i guess these two factors are sufficient for internet to be much safer place.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  4chan dates from 2003, for reference. It may be the case that algorithmic feeds and social networks that have one giant global context tend to expose stuff like this in ways that would have been less likely on the early web. 4chan has always been pretty awful but you wouldn’t have seen it unless you were on 4chan, which for most people was “never”. The norm at the time was to be in multiple different communities, and there typically wasn’t much overlap. By contrast, TikTok is all one big space, and if the algorithm wants you to see something you’ll see it. That part is new. Maybe that falls under “monetary influence to drive engagement” in which case I suppose I agree.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Surely the scale and speed of information flow has greatly increased since the late 1990s and early 2000s so as to not be comparable to today.

collegeburner 4y ago

difference is tiktok and short video algos exploit ppls worse natures. like i know a few ppl whose feeds became e-thots doing dances in bikinis bc they wouldnt go seek it out but tiktok showed them that and their watch metrics or whatever were better. or ppl whose feed became far right shit bc it showed them some of that. there's a lot of stuff we know isn't good and won't consciously choose to go watch. but short video shows us some of that and we subconsciously engage with it more instead of consciously choosing so we watch more and more. this is hard for adults to deal with but way worse for kids with shitty impulse control.

vincnetas 4y ago

Early internet was populated mostly by educated people and there were very little (if at all) monetary influence to drive engagement. So i guess these two factors are sufficient for internet to be much safer place.

ryukafalz 4y ago
4chan dates from 2003, for reference. It may be the case that algorithmic feeds and social networks that have one giant global context tend to expose stuff like this in ways that would have been less likely on the early web. 4chan has always been pretty awful but you wouldn’t have seen it unless you were on 4chan, which for most people was “never”. The norm at the time was to be in multiple different communities, and there typically wasn’t much overlap. By contrast, TikTok is all one big space, and if the algorithm wants you to see something you’ll see it. That part is new. Maybe that falls under “monetary influence to drive engagement” in which case I suppose I agree.