4 ms·

If TikTok truly is a Chinese psyop, the most effective thing they could do is spend their remaining days sewing discontent with the government, refuse to sell,

If TikTok truly is a Chinese psyop, the most effective thing they could do is spend their remaining days sewing discontent with the government, refuse to sell, and let the whole thing burn down, thus riling up "the youths" and teaching them that their own government is a problem. They could also tell TikTok users to install a VPN and access the servers in China directly. I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. I want young people to be more involved in politics and to vote.

afavour 2y ago
> I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. Would you also consider it a win if young people realize the dangers of social media apps owned by geopolitical competitors able to alter the mindset of the population?
- Buttons840 2y ago
  Sure, I guess. That's a very loaded question about a complex issue so I'm not sure how to answer it. But I can say, despite the complexities of that issue, my higher ideals are: I want people to be more involved in politics and I want more people to vote. Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. I also want people to be able to access the content and information they choose. If that is the content and information on TikTok, who am I to deny them? I believe in free speech, morally (I say morally because, yes, I know the 1st Amendment doesn't apply everywhere, morally).
  - tazu 2y ago
    > Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. This is going to be a hilarious statement in 20-50 years. It's funny because on HN of all places, where all wildly successful companies are ran as absolute monarchies, and all the devices we type on are produced by companies ran as absolute monarchies, there's this undeserved reverence for "democracy" as if it's some sacred church or something. If the voting population is so easily swayed by a video scrolling app, maybe, just maybe democracy isn't such a good idea? Would you work for a company where the CEO makes important decisions based on the amalgamation of 30 second videos that happen to come across his/her feed? I wouldn't. I don't think I want to participate in a country ran like that either. I'd expect the decisions to appear schizophrenic, which quite frankly describes our current political situation in the US. Like, we have 100K+ fentanyl overdoses a year in the US, and I don't see any TikToks "informing voters" about that. No one cares. In fact, I don't even expect normal people to care about it---in a healthy society they shouldn't even be aware of it. It would take a special person, who is egoically invested in the health of his population to change that. Someone like a startup CEO, ala Washington, Jobs, etc. So no, you're not on the "safe side of history" by advocating for something that's politically fashionable at the moment. History is written (and re-written) by the winners, and I wouldn't put my money on "democracy".
    - djur 2y ago
      The wildly unsuccessful companies also run as absolute monarchies, as well as the wildly successful companies that became wildly unsuccessful due to poor decisions made by the monarch. Most CEOs barely understand how their business operates, and they rely heavily on the layers of management underneath them to make and enact decisions. The same is true of monarchs.
- greatwave1 2y ago
  "alter the mindset of the population" is such a vague boogeyman. Literally anyone with an internet connection has the capability to "alter the mindset of the population".
  - afavour 2y ago
    Not at scale. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hysterical about it, but to me it seems indisputable that media companies (and this covers TV companies, newspaper companies when you go back far enough) have the ability to alter how a significant section of the population feel about a topic. A single person with an internet connection does not have the same power.
    - greatwave1 2y ago
      Yes at scale. There are individuals who run social media accounts that reach hundreds of millions of people every month. You can amass more reach and influence than many of the biggest TV stations / newspapers of the previous generation with nothing more than an internet connection.
      - afavour 2y ago
        > There are individuals who run social media accounts that reach hundreds of millions of people every month. And who holds the levers to that reach? The social media companies. If they want that account’s posts and I be less visible to users they’ll be able to do it in a heartbeat (and have!)
        greatwave1 2y ago
        Sure, I'm not disputing each social media company has the ability to alter public discourse. My whole point is that there are literally billions of entities (everyone on Earth with an internet connection) who also have the ability to alter public discourse at scale. Hence why it's a vague boogeyman... the phrase "alter the mindset of a population" could be used to describe anything from a Orwellian propaganda machine to a Mr. Beast video. In the 1990's, you could've claimed "Tetris is a software product developed by a geopolitical competitor (Russia) that has the capability to alter the mindset of the population" and you would've been right, but it would've been a silly thing to get worked up over.
- briffle 2y ago
  Yes, but that would also mean realizing the dangers of social media apps owned by American companies and our allies also being able to alter the mindset of the population, which is a great thing.
JohnBooty 2y ago
I don't even think you need to cook up possibilities as complicated as "psyop." It is an absolute firehose of data on users and in aggregate, that is incredibly powerful. "Oh look, more people than usual have been working in office building 12 at Lockheed Martin this week" etc.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  There's so many ideas about what TikTok's purpose is. By "psyop" I mean, if the purpose of TikTok is to influence the general mindset of the American populaton, then they'd throw a big tantrum and rile people up. As you say, another possible purpose is that TikTok is used as a source of data and intel. I suppose it is a fine source for that, but also, if that's all China really wants, they can probably just buy most of that data on the shadowy data markets. The US Government shows no signs of stopping our personal data from being sold.
nebula8804 2y ago
Gen-Z is already a pretty rockstar generation having seen their older Millenial siblings grow up post 9/11 and then get totally screwed in the 08 crash only to then graduate themselves into a pandemic and a market that is valuing their debt laden college skills less by the day. They started off cynical and so far have been a lot more active than Millenials when they came of age. They might be the group that finally enacts meaningful change. It is too early to tell though but I remain optimistic. Hopefully the scars from Gaza remain with them and they take a different stance with Israel. A TikTok ban killing off one of the most desired career paths of this generation (TikTok influencer) will have a lasting impact on them when they take the reigns.

afavour 2y ago

> I actually see this as a silver lining. I want young people to realize the government effects them and can directly ruin things they enjoy. Would you also consider it a win if young people realize the dangers of social media apps owned by geopolitical competitors able to alter the mindset of the population?

Buttons840 2y ago
Sure, I guess. That's a very loaded question about a complex issue so I'm not sure how to answer it. But I can say, despite the complexities of that issue, my higher ideals are: I want people to be more involved in politics and I want more people to vote. Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. I also want people to be able to access the content and information they choose. If that is the content and information on TikTok, who am I to deny them? I believe in free speech, morally (I say morally because, yes, I know the 1st Amendment doesn't apply everywhere, morally).
- tazu 2y ago
  > Wanting more people to vote is a safe side of history to be on I think. This is going to be a hilarious statement in 20-50 years. It's funny because on HN of all places, where all wildly successful companies are ran as absolute monarchies, and all the devices we type on are produced by companies ran as absolute monarchies, there's this undeserved reverence for "democracy" as if it's some sacred church or something. If the voting population is so easily swayed by a video scrolling app, maybe, just maybe democracy isn't such a good idea? Would you work for a company where the CEO makes important decisions based on the amalgamation of 30 second videos that happen to come across his/her feed? I wouldn't. I don't think I want to participate in a country ran like that either. I'd expect the decisions to appear schizophrenic, which quite frankly describes our current political situation in the US. Like, we have 100K+ fentanyl overdoses a year in the US, and I don't see any TikToks "informing voters" about that. No one cares. In fact, I don't even expect normal people to care about it---in a healthy society they shouldn't even be aware of it. It would take a special person, who is egoically invested in the health of his population to change that. Someone like a startup CEO, ala Washington, Jobs, etc. So no, you're not on the "safe side of history" by advocating for something that's politically fashionable at the moment. History is written (and re-written) by the winners, and I wouldn't put my money on "democracy".
  - djur 2y ago
    The wildly unsuccessful companies also run as absolute monarchies, as well as the wildly successful companies that became wildly unsuccessful due to poor decisions made by the monarch. Most CEOs barely understand how their business operates, and they rely heavily on the layers of management underneath them to make and enact decisions. The same is true of monarchs.
greatwave1 2y ago
"alter the mindset of the population" is such a vague boogeyman. Literally anyone with an internet connection has the capability to "alter the mindset of the population".
- afavour 2y ago
  Not at scale. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hysterical about it, but to me it seems indisputable that media companies (and this covers TV companies, newspaper companies when you go back far enough) have the ability to alter how a significant section of the population feel about a topic. A single person with an internet connection does not have the same power.
  - greatwave1 2y ago
    Yes at scale. There are individuals who run social media accounts that reach hundreds of millions of people every month. You can amass more reach and influence than many of the biggest TV stations / newspapers of the previous generation with nothing more than an internet connection.
    - afavour 2y ago
      > There are individuals who run social media accounts that reach hundreds of millions of people every month. And who holds the levers to that reach? The social media companies. If they want that account’s posts and I be less visible to users they’ll be able to do it in a heartbeat (and have!)
      - greatwave1 2y ago
        Sure, I'm not disputing each social media company has the ability to alter public discourse. My whole point is that there are literally billions of entities (everyone on Earth with an internet connection) who also have the ability to alter public discourse at scale. Hence why it's a vague boogeyman... the phrase "alter the mindset of a population" could be used to describe anything from a Orwellian propaganda machine to a Mr. Beast video. In the 1990's, you could've claimed "Tetris is a software product developed by a geopolitical competitor (Russia) that has the capability to alter the mindset of the population" and you would've been right, but it would've been a silly thing to get worked up over.
briffle 2y ago
Yes, but that would also mean realizing the dangers of social media apps owned by American companies and our allies also being able to alter the mindset of the population, which is a great thing.

JohnBooty 2y ago

I don't even think you need to cook up possibilities as complicated as "psyop." It is an absolute firehose of data on users and in aggregate, that is incredibly powerful. "Oh look, more people than usual have been working in office building 12 at Lockheed Martin this week" etc.

Buttons840 2y ago
There's so many ideas about what TikTok's purpose is. By "psyop" I mean, if the purpose of TikTok is to influence the general mindset of the American populaton, then they'd throw a big tantrum and rile people up. As you say, another possible purpose is that TikTok is used as a source of data and intel. I suppose it is a fine source for that, but also, if that's all China really wants, they can probably just buy most of that data on the shadowy data markets. The US Government shows no signs of stopping our personal data from being sold.

nebula8804 2y ago

Gen-Z is already a pretty rockstar generation having seen their older Millenial siblings grow up post 9/11 and then get totally screwed in the 08 crash only to then graduate themselves into a pandemic and a market that is valuing their debt laden college skills less by the day. They started off cynical and so far have been a lot more active than Millenials when they came of age. They might be the group that finally enacts meaningful change. It is too early to tell though but I remain optimistic. Hopefully the scars from Gaza remain with them and they take a different stance with Israel. A TikTok ban killing off one of the most desired career paths of this generation (TikTok influencer) will have a lasting impact on them when they take the reigns.