4 ms·

> The second difference/risk comes with looking whom these apps target: kids. [...] kids are sponges So far as I can tell, the people most vulnerable to Intern

> The second difference/risk comes with looking whom these apps target: kids. [...] kids are sponges So far as I can tell, the people most vulnerable to Internet propaganda, manipulation, and general bullshit, aren't kids. They're old people. And maybe younger people who've been raised in bubbles that were a bit overprotective. TikTok users are mostly teenagers, not little children. By the time you hit your teens, whatever anti-manipulation systems humans have seem to have largely kicked in. That's what you'd expect, really, since that's always been about when you had to start playing the manipulation and anti-manipulation game in real life. Another part of youthful plasticity seems to be an ability to adapt your defenses to the particular threats you're seeing. When I was a kid, seeing something in 4 or 5 apparently "independent" written sources was pretty good evidence that it was true, or at least widely believed. My own kid seems to have a pretty good intuitive knowledge that she can't just trust those sources' independence, or their credentials, or their judgement.

zknow 3y ago
I'm not sure if the concern is really blatant disinformation ( which as you point out is easier to smell test ) or if its really more of the thought that the Chinese have a cambridge analytica level style access to American social data. Sure teenagers can parse bias in the media they are consuming, but is it that effective when the media company can tailor content based on the user's preferences + the preferred political manipulation? Not saying you should ban it, just a thought.
- usernomdeguerre 3y ago
  Being able to effectively 'tailor' anything to their users pretty much proves they have that (or generate it within their app).
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > cambridge analytica level style access to American social data. Have you read/seen any of the follow up[1] on the CA scandal? Basically CA couldn't do most of the things they promised they could do with the data they collected. Their supposed ability to manipulate the public was effectively a "fake it till you make it" startup pitch. I find it funny that it keeps getting brought up as a worst case scenario when it seems like it was a nothingburger. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-213-rewriting-cambridge-analytica-p1-feat-anthony/id1428209307?i=1000591147501 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-213-rewriting-...

zknow 3y ago

I'm not sure if the concern is really blatant disinformation ( which as you point out is easier to smell test ) or if its really more of the thought that the Chinese have a cambridge analytica level style access to American social data. Sure teenagers can parse bias in the media they are consuming, but is it that effective when the media company can tailor content based on the user's preferences + the preferred political manipulation? Not saying you should ban it, just a thought.

usernomdeguerre 3y ago
Being able to effectively 'tailor' anything to their users pretty much proves they have that (or generate it within their app).
AlexandrB 3y ago
> cambridge analytica level style access to American social data. Have you read/seen any of the follow up[1] on the CA scandal? Basically CA couldn't do most of the things they promised they could do with the data they collected. Their supposed ability to manipulate the public was effectively a "fake it till you make it" startup pitch. I find it funny that it keeps getting brought up as a worst case scenario when it seems like it was a nothingburger. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-213-rewriting-cambridge-analytica-p1-feat-anthony/id1428209307?i=1000591147501 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-213-rewriting-...