4 ms·

Let me rephrase this as what will probably happen: the TikTok ban will be barely felt and will likely add to the American Economy as competitors that aren't tie

Let me rephrase this as what will probably happen: the TikTok ban will be barely felt and will likely add to the American Economy as competitors that aren't tied to China appear. And if TikTok can't be perfectly emulated, it will actually increase the productivity of Americans who are now being held captive by a foreign-controlled algorithm which is fine-tuned to exploit physiological weaknesses.

Clubber 3y ago
Adam Curry theorized on his podcast a few years ago that the TikTok ban chatter was a protectionist move to help Facebook, Twitter and other US social media companies.
- rdlecler1 3y ago
  Rupert Murdoch had to become a US citizen because the US wouldn’t allow a foreigner own a major media company. This is 100,000x worse.
zooq_ai 3y ago
Why does HN and other Tech elitists treat creator/influencers with disdain that they don't show the same sympathy as they would to other professions?. This is akin to saying "Mom and Shop Retail closes? who cares, the workers can go work at Walmart" "Coal Industry shut down? who cares, they can learn to code" It's not easy for someone to easily rebuild audience from one platform to another or easily transfer the skills required from one platform to another. Remember these are small businesses run by people with little technical skills. Many have toiled to be where they are.
- caseyy 3y ago
  Well, there are many types of work harmful to society that people partake in. Coal, content makers for abusive social media, there have even been some organizations in history which have committed atrocious war crimes in which people had jobs, and they would have needed to re-specialize had they lost those jobs. It's not that there is a lack of sympathy for anyone who loses their job, but some organizations and efforts are harmful to the broader public. The "HN and other Tech elitists" don't like social media because it's harmful to society. In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant already brought forward the notion that it is immoral to use a rational human as means to an end. We have broadly accepted this philosophy in life. So when social media companies exploit human attention and cause significant harm to their mental health as means to achieve advertising income and towards mercenary surveillance (surveilling the public for the highest bidder), that is broadly considered questionable. And not only by HN, but by psychiatrists, psychologists, other health care workers, teachers, social sciences researchers, and so on. There is a national security argument to be made for TikTok as well, which is why governments have taken an interest in it recently. So the ends may be more insidious than advertisement and mercenary surveillance like we see across all social media. We know that the content on TikTok changed a lot the day Russian invaded Ukraine, there has been a flood of misleading information about the war, including a wave of glorifying the "Z" armed forces and the "special operation", not to mention the "denazifying" stuff. People are being used as means to information warfare ends, too. And by both sides of various conflicts. This is also, arguably, immoral. Although I doubt there's much of an argument to be had. The mental health and the national security arguments are separate, but given their context, characterizing this as a hate for mom and pop shop closures in some way or form is inappropriate. I think this comparison is a bit of a low effort troll. It's clear you want to rile people up as I don't think anyone starts a serious discussion by calling the other party an elitist or any -ist. But still, above are the reasons why very many people dislike social media and TikTok.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  Your analogies are all wrong. It's sad for people who built their businesses on TikTok, but it's the same tragedy that it would be for those businesses built on a dam that must come down to avoid a larger disaster. The people who pinned their livelihoods to TikTok are casualties, if and only if TikTok doesn't sell. If the company just shuts down then we'll know two things: 1. The primary reason for its existence was not a profit motive (hence no reason to sell, if China can't get influence powers from it). 2. The commercial facades holding the bag were not the ones calling the shots. If TikTok is sold to a "friendly" company, we'll know less, but it also means that none of those duped people whose livelihoods you're opining about will be touched.
ok123456 3y ago
Why have all the TikTok competitors launched by US social media companies been total flops, then?
- fragmede 3y ago
  Have they been flops? Instagram reels and YouTube shorts and Snapchat all seem to be doing fine
  - ok123456 3y ago
    All they had to do was destroy their existing platform by shoehorning a short video service whether their users wanted it or not. The recommendation systems in those copy-cat systems are very weak.
- caseyy 3y ago
  Because TikTok has other goals than capitalistic, and other measures of success. It is a media company that parrots a China's Communist Party line and by virtue of that, receives monopoly benefits in China, which is a substantial market. The company which owns TikTok, ByteDance, has had employees speak about this. The VP and ByteDance's internal CPP committee secretary has stated that their intent is for ByteDance to "transmit the correct political direction, public opinion guidance and value orientation into every business and product line." While employees of a subsidiary company TopBuzz have spoken out about its intent to push CCP sympathizer content to foreign users. ByteDance's history is mired by CCP interventions, it is a company heavily managed by the communist party, with multiple branches closed for non-compliance. It is allowed to exist by the CCP because, so it has been claimed very publicly, it toes the CCP's political line. That's how it measures success. Its success comes from this compliance. TikTok may very well be a commercial flop in the West and still be in business, operating very well.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    This just sounds like a bunch of excuses for supporting a protectionist set of policies.
ok123456 3y ago
> the TikTok ban will be barely felt Banning TikTok will cause an entire generation of Americans to lose all trust in their institutions. Whatever vanishingly small influence China may or may not have through TikTok---still completely unproven innuendo---pales compared to the absolute public relations coup that would win were it banned. If you think cynicism is bad now, there will be zero trust in the democratic process and the rules-based order were this to happen.
- fragsworth 3y ago
  You're way overdramatizing this. Tiktok has already been banned in several countries (like India) for similar reasons and without any of the catastrophe you're suggesting. People can and will switch platforms, it's not that big of a deal...
  - peanutgallery2 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - jtriangle 3y ago
    You, and those in charge of writing and voting for this legislation, massively under-estimate the popularity of tiktok in the US among normal people, ie, normal people who aren't normally subject to the government banning something they enjoy. It's one thing to ban menthol cigarettes, most people don't smoke. Most people use tiktok, it's probably similarly addicting, and they're going to cut them off cold-turkey. It's not going to go well, and they're going to burn what little good will the government has in the eyes of people under 40. It'd be a completely different story if they were doing what should have been done a decade ago, and regulated data collection out of existence with this bill, which would actually be to the benefit of everyone that's not Meta/Snap/X/Alphabet.
    - caseyy 3y ago
      I also think you are catastrophizing. There are many things that are massively popular. You mention tobacco products, but sugary drinks, alcohol, pesticides, gambling, endangered species products, over-powered home electronics, and similar have all enjoyed popularity and have been banned or severely regulated and restricted by governments in the world. I've yet to see any of these "not going well", so I think regulating a social media site will be okay. It seems to me like people are often grateful for this moderation after a period of adjustment. But speaking of adjustment... There is far too much dopamine-bomb content to consume online for the time we have to consume it. So I don't think anyone's online diet would have to change at all, even if TikTok ceased to exist entirely.
ramblenode 3y ago
Why not also ban Instagram? Its algorithm is not categorically less harmful than TikTok's. And its parent company has been known to sell Americans' data to foreign brokers and intelligence analysts. What many of us who opposed this ban are frustrated about is that there are major underlying problems with all large social media companies, and the "foreign adversary" angle gives these companies cover to keep abusing their users just because they happen to be incorporated in the right country. Most of the TikTok concerns could have been subsumed in a user-rights bill that prevented data from being shared with third parties and limited the scope of what an algo-feed could do under Section 230's safe harbor. Of course, this would have required some real legislating that would have upset some very large donors, so we get the "foreign adversary" bill instead.

Clubber 3y ago

Adam Curry theorized on his podcast a few years ago that the TikTok ban chatter was a protectionist move to help Facebook, Twitter and other US social media companies.

rdlecler1 3y ago
Rupert Murdoch had to become a US citizen because the US wouldn’t allow a foreigner own a major media company. This is 100,000x worse.

zooq_ai 3y ago

Why does HN and other Tech elitists treat creator/influencers with disdain that they don't show the same sympathy as they would to other professions?. This is akin to saying "Mom and Shop Retail closes? who cares, the workers can go work at Walmart" "Coal Industry shut down? who cares, they can learn to code" It's not easy for someone to easily rebuild audience from one platform to another or easily transfer the skills required from one platform to another. Remember these are small businesses run by people with little technical skills. Many have toiled to be where they are.

caseyy 3y ago
Well, there are many types of work harmful to society that people partake in. Coal, content makers for abusive social media, there have even been some organizations in history which have committed atrocious war crimes in which people had jobs, and they would have needed to re-specialize had they lost those jobs. It's not that there is a lack of sympathy for anyone who loses their job, but some organizations and efforts are harmful to the broader public. The "HN and other Tech elitists" don't like social media because it's harmful to society. In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant already brought forward the notion that it is immoral to use a rational human as means to an end. We have broadly accepted this philosophy in life. So when social media companies exploit human attention and cause significant harm to their mental health as means to achieve advertising income and towards mercenary surveillance (surveilling the public for the highest bidder), that is broadly considered questionable. And not only by HN, but by psychiatrists, psychologists, other health care workers, teachers, social sciences researchers, and so on. There is a national security argument to be made for TikTok as well, which is why governments have taken an interest in it recently. So the ends may be more insidious than advertisement and mercenary surveillance like we see across all social media. We know that the content on TikTok changed a lot the day Russian invaded Ukraine, there has been a flood of misleading information about the war, including a wave of glorifying the "Z" armed forces and the "special operation", not to mention the "denazifying" stuff. People are being used as means to information warfare ends, too. And by both sides of various conflicts. This is also, arguably, immoral. Although I doubt there's much of an argument to be had. The mental health and the national security arguments are separate, but given their context, characterizing this as a hate for mom and pop shop closures in some way or form is inappropriate. I think this comparison is a bit of a low effort troll. It's clear you want to rile people up as I don't think anyone starts a serious discussion by calling the other party an elitist or any -ist. But still, above are the reasons why very many people dislike social media and TikTok.
slowmovintarget 3y ago
Your analogies are all wrong. It's sad for people who built their businesses on TikTok, but it's the same tragedy that it would be for those businesses built on a dam that must come down to avoid a larger disaster. The people who pinned their livelihoods to TikTok are casualties, if and only if TikTok doesn't sell. If the company just shuts down then we'll know two things: 1. The primary reason for its existence was not a profit motive (hence no reason to sell, if China can't get influence powers from it). 2. The commercial facades holding the bag were not the ones calling the shots. If TikTok is sold to a "friendly" company, we'll know less, but it also means that none of those duped people whose livelihoods you're opining about will be touched.

ok123456 3y ago

Why have all the TikTok competitors launched by US social media companies been total flops, then?

fragmede 3y ago
Have they been flops? Instagram reels and YouTube shorts and Snapchat all seem to be doing fine
- ok123456 3y ago
  All they had to do was destroy their existing platform by shoehorning a short video service whether their users wanted it or not. The recommendation systems in those copy-cat systems are very weak.
caseyy 3y ago
Because TikTok has other goals than capitalistic, and other measures of success. It is a media company that parrots a China's Communist Party line and by virtue of that, receives monopoly benefits in China, which is a substantial market. The company which owns TikTok, ByteDance, has had employees speak about this. The VP and ByteDance's internal CPP committee secretary has stated that their intent is for ByteDance to "transmit the correct political direction, public opinion guidance and value orientation into every business and product line." While employees of a subsidiary company TopBuzz have spoken out about its intent to push CCP sympathizer content to foreign users. ByteDance's history is mired by CCP interventions, it is a company heavily managed by the communist party, with multiple branches closed for non-compliance. It is allowed to exist by the CCP because, so it has been claimed very publicly, it toes the CCP's political line. That's how it measures success. Its success comes from this compliance. TikTok may very well be a commercial flop in the West and still be in business, operating very well.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  This just sounds like a bunch of excuses for supporting a protectionist set of policies.

ok123456 3y ago

> the TikTok ban will be barely felt Banning TikTok will cause an entire generation of Americans to lose all trust in their institutions. Whatever vanishingly small influence China may or may not have through TikTok---still completely unproven innuendo---pales compared to the absolute public relations coup that would win were it banned. If you think cynicism is bad now, there will be zero trust in the democratic process and the rules-based order were this to happen.

fragsworth 3y ago
You're way overdramatizing this. Tiktok has already been banned in several countries (like India) for similar reasons and without any of the catastrophe you're suggesting. People can and will switch platforms, it's not that big of a deal...
- peanutgallery2 3y ago
  [flagged]
- jtriangle 3y ago
  You, and those in charge of writing and voting for this legislation, massively under-estimate the popularity of tiktok in the US among normal people, ie, normal people who aren't normally subject to the government banning something they enjoy. It's one thing to ban menthol cigarettes, most people don't smoke. Most people use tiktok, it's probably similarly addicting, and they're going to cut them off cold-turkey. It's not going to go well, and they're going to burn what little good will the government has in the eyes of people under 40. It'd be a completely different story if they were doing what should have been done a decade ago, and regulated data collection out of existence with this bill, which would actually be to the benefit of everyone that's not Meta/Snap/X/Alphabet.
  - caseyy 3y ago
    I also think you are catastrophizing. There are many things that are massively popular. You mention tobacco products, but sugary drinks, alcohol, pesticides, gambling, endangered species products, over-powered home electronics, and similar have all enjoyed popularity and have been banned or severely regulated and restricted by governments in the world. I've yet to see any of these "not going well", so I think regulating a social media site will be okay. It seems to me like people are often grateful for this moderation after a period of adjustment. But speaking of adjustment... There is far too much dopamine-bomb content to consume online for the time we have to consume it. So I don't think anyone's online diet would have to change at all, even if TikTok ceased to exist entirely.

ramblenode 3y ago

Why not also ban Instagram? Its algorithm is not categorically less harmful than TikTok's. And its parent company has been known to sell Americans' data to foreign brokers and intelligence analysts. What many of us who opposed this ban are frustrated about is that there are major underlying problems with all large social media companies, and the "foreign adversary" angle gives these companies cover to keep abusing their users just because they happen to be incorporated in the right country. Most of the TikTok concerns could have been subsumed in a user-rights bill that prevented data from being shared with third parties and limited the scope of what an algo-feed could do under Section 230's safe harbor. Of course, this would have required some real legislating that would have upset some very large donors, so we get the "foreign adversary" bill instead.