4 ms·
Your argument rests heavily on "teens WILL overwhelmingly become VPN experts" I don't understand why it can't instead be: banning will make domestic alternativ
by DirkH 3y ago
Your argument rests heavily on "teens WILL overwhelmingly become VPN experts"
I don't understand why it can't instead be: banning will make domestic alternatives more attractive since now you don't even need a VPN to access it.
Sure some teens will use a VPN and continue to use TikTok, but I'm not sure it'll be to such an extent that we'd be forced to concede that banning was the wrong call.
Also you can do both: ban and subsidize.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago> Your argument rests heavily on "teens WILL overwhelmingly become VPN experts" My argument rests on "social media is sticky due to network effects". Which is why "banning will make domestic alternatives more attractive since now you don't even need a VPN to access it" if and only if the domestic alternatives are so good in comparison to figuring out VPN, that a critical mass of domestic users switch over. Ban alone won't make it happen - TikTok is too sticky for that. Those are teenagers we're talking about. They're resourceful, motivated, have infinite free time - learning how to use a VPN app will be trivial for them, especially that "VPN" here doesn't mean Wireguard or ISO/OSI hokus pocus, but rather a turnkey app that requires about three clicks to make your US Internet connection look like it's coming out of Somalia. It's not hard for them - and will be even easier if a ban on TikTok makes VPN companies target the teenager market directly. > Also you can do both: ban and subsidize. That's exactly what I recommended.
- DirkH 3y agoOK, you've changed my mind and I've updated more towards "banning alone is likely to be net negative to our goals if we don't also subsidize alternatives" I think given I don't use TikTok at all I am bad at intuiting how powerful its network stickiness is.