5 ms·

That's is an interesting question. Actually, there is a lot more. About 30% people (of USA) use TT, ~60% under 30. You guess it, they don't to look only at dan

by _ache_ 2y ago

That's is an interesting question. Actually, there is a lot more. About 30% people (of USA) use TT, ~60% under 30. You guess it, they don't to look only at dance videos. Social media had become a huge source of information for a big chunk of the population. On TT, and on most social media (SM), what you watch is mainly determined by the recommendation algorithm. This algo can hide subjects the SM can't put ad on but also subjects the they don't like and boost the one they do (shadow ban). That how you politicize SM. That about, the first thing Musk did with Twitter (after firing people). When it's a state controlled SM, it's more like foreign interference. There is a lot of books about that. It's documented, not a secret of something. Uyghurs for example, have been a subject of ban on TikTok, shadowing it heavily.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
But it's not foreign interference, it's foreign media. Foreign media is permissible for Americans to choose to consume and guess what, young people lap it up. That's their right
- _ache_ 2y ago
  It could have been if ByteDance wasn't totally state controlled. Also, since TikTok is banned on China, it's not like it exists in China as a media (the Chinese version is called Douyin and basically it's the same as TikTok but with contents from within China only, to not interfere with the Great Firewall). Also, the concept of "choose to consume" is blurring with algorithm recommendation and optimizing dopamine reward to maximize screen time. The CCP didn't control of ByteDance to interference with other countries but to be able to control what happens inside China. But now, it's different.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    But none of that changes the fact that Americans have the right to consume foreign controlled media. Totally state controlled media is legal to consume and spread and even become super popular in the US. I really dislike the idea that if some content is popular in the US and the government thinks the content is bad, they can just ban it. "Algorithmic manipulation" is a red herring. If people like it, they can watch it. If they don't they don't have to. Doesn't matter who makes it or for what reason
    - _ache_ 2y ago
      I think I understand your point. Actually, it's a good point.I may have missed it before. Nobody said that consuming foreign controlled media is prohibited. And banning TT isn't about that. It's about Foreigner Interference. You said that it's foreigner media not interference. The difference is that media are verifiable and can be checked by anybody and everybody has the same information. That is not the case for social media. The problem is for another country to be able to do mass manipulation. Like the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica manipulation scandal, where they push some "ideas" to a very specific population because the data they collected show that you will act or think in a certain way. Since when you consume media you don't know they do it AND nobody can prove they do it, it's now manipulative and so interference (can also be done over a long period, such as several months or years, to gradually modify your point of view and be less detectable). If there was a message saying “We recommend this video because we think you'll react like XXX”, I might consider that ethical (there are other problems too, but that's a theoretical example). You might say that people in the US (or any other country) still have the right to consume foreign-controlled social media because they know they can be manipulated. Even if I agree, I think it's normal that the state make it difficult to do so. I won't blame people who use opium but I will definitively blame the USA people (or state from any country, here it's USA) for facilitating opium use. You might say also that the manipulation can be from within the USA (like with Cambridge Analytica), it's true. That is definitively a good point. And to defend the ban of TT, I will say that I don't have a perfect solution. I don't like the ban of TT either, but it was necessary because of the risk of mass manipulation. We have to come up with a better solution (that we don't have now). Because it may happen soon on X or Youtube and we can't ban every social media we suspect will do mass manipulation on the sly. I hope you get my point because I think that is necessary for us to do so to come up with a better solution. One that will integrate your POV because it's entirely justifiable.
      - aprilthird2021 2y ago
        > The difference is that media are verifiable and can be checked by anybody and everybody has the same information. That is not the case for social media. They can both be checked by everyone and verified. Just like any kind of social media, even Tweets that get quickly deleted by the creators, they still persist online and get analyzed and debated. Traditional media can also take down articles and videos quickly. I don't see the difference, and don't believe there is a legal difference. > where they push some "ideas" to a very specific population because the data they collected show that you will act or think in a certain way This is allowed, and attempts by the government to disallow it are against free speech. If a country has several state owned TV channels with differing views, and it advertises them online selectively using a platform like Facebook which connects the different channels to different likely to click audiences, and it's doing so with malicious intent, then thats basically another form of what you call "interference" but it's Americans' right to consume whatever media they want however they came across it. Again, the intent of the publishers does not matter. The intent of the editors does not matter. Once we agree the government can ban media platforms because of what they push, free speech is seriously eroded. > gradually modify your point of view and be less detectable The trick is that you are saying "modify ones point of view" and pretending that it isn't the right of an American to form whatever view they want from whatever content they want. All content is designed to modify your view. Adding new information to your life will modify your view of the world. You are just using a feature of content to argue it should be banned. > I think it's normal that the state make it difficult to do so. I won't blame people who use opium but I will definitively blame the USA people (or state from any country, here it's USA) for facilitating opium use But content is not opium, and free speech is sacrosanct because it is the only lever to allow a free society. When you restrict content because you disapprove of the speaker or the message, you create a world where free speech dies. Banning opium doesn't have those consequences. > I hope you get my point because I think that is necessary for us to do so to come up with a better solution. I get your point, but I am fundamentally against anything whose goal is to avoid "mass manipulation" that is essentially saying we should ban things that get popular which we don't like. And that's not for the government to decide for me or anyone else. Thanks for hearing me out though. I appreciate that

by _ache_ 2y ago

aprilthird2021 2y ago

But it's not foreign interference, it's foreign media. Foreign media is permissible for Americans to choose to consume and guess what, young people lap it up. That's their right

_ache_ 2y ago
It could have been if ByteDance wasn't totally state controlled. Also, since TikTok is banned on China, it's not like it exists in China as a media (the Chinese version is called Douyin and basically it's the same as TikTok but with contents from within China only, to not interfere with the Great Firewall). Also, the concept of "choose to consume" is blurring with algorithm recommendation and optimizing dopamine reward to maximize screen time. The CCP didn't control of ByteDance to interference with other countries but to be able to control what happens inside China. But now, it's different.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  But none of that changes the fact that Americans have the right to consume foreign controlled media. Totally state controlled media is legal to consume and spread and even become super popular in the US. I really dislike the idea that if some content is popular in the US and the government thinks the content is bad, they can just ban it. "Algorithmic manipulation" is a red herring. If people like it, they can watch it. If they don't they don't have to. Doesn't matter who makes it or for what reason
  - _ache_ 2y ago
    I think I understand your point. Actually, it's a good point.I may have missed it before. Nobody said that consuming foreign controlled media is prohibited. And banning TT isn't about that. It's about Foreigner Interference. You said that it's foreigner media not interference. The difference is that media are verifiable and can be checked by anybody and everybody has the same information. That is not the case for social media. The problem is for another country to be able to do mass manipulation. Like the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica manipulation scandal, where they push some "ideas" to a very specific population because the data they collected show that you will act or think in a certain way. Since when you consume media you don't know they do it AND nobody can prove they do it, it's now manipulative and so interference (can also be done over a long period, such as several months or years, to gradually modify your point of view and be less detectable). If there was a message saying “We recommend this video because we think you'll react like XXX”, I might consider that ethical (there are other problems too, but that's a theoretical example). You might say that people in the US (or any other country) still have the right to consume foreign-controlled social media because they know they can be manipulated. Even if I agree, I think it's normal that the state make it difficult to do so. I won't blame people who use opium but I will definitively blame the USA people (or state from any country, here it's USA) for facilitating opium use. You might say also that the manipulation can be from within the USA (like with Cambridge Analytica), it's true. That is definitively a good point. And to defend the ban of TT, I will say that I don't have a perfect solution. I don't like the ban of TT either, but it was necessary because of the risk of mass manipulation. We have to come up with a better solution (that we don't have now). Because it may happen soon on X or Youtube and we can't ban every social media we suspect will do mass manipulation on the sly. I hope you get my point because I think that is necessary for us to do so to come up with a better solution. One that will integrate your POV because it's entirely justifiable.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      > The difference is that media are verifiable and can be checked by anybody and everybody has the same information. That is not the case for social media. They can both be checked by everyone and verified. Just like any kind of social media, even Tweets that get quickly deleted by the creators, they still persist online and get analyzed and debated. Traditional media can also take down articles and videos quickly. I don't see the difference, and don't believe there is a legal difference. > where they push some "ideas" to a very specific population because the data they collected show that you will act or think in a certain way This is allowed, and attempts by the government to disallow it are against free speech. If a country has several state owned TV channels with differing views, and it advertises them online selectively using a platform like Facebook which connects the different channels to different likely to click audiences, and it's doing so with malicious intent, then thats basically another form of what you call "interference" but it's Americans' right to consume whatever media they want however they came across it. Again, the intent of the publishers does not matter. The intent of the editors does not matter. Once we agree the government can ban media platforms because of what they push, free speech is seriously eroded. > gradually modify your point of view and be less detectable The trick is that you are saying "modify ones point of view" and pretending that it isn't the right of an American to form whatever view they want from whatever content they want. All content is designed to modify your view. Adding new information to your life will modify your view of the world. You are just using a feature of content to argue it should be banned. > I think it's normal that the state make it difficult to do so. I won't blame people who use opium but I will definitively blame the USA people (or state from any country, here it's USA) for facilitating opium use But content is not opium, and free speech is sacrosanct because it is the only lever to allow a free society. When you restrict content because you disapprove of the speaker or the message, you create a world where free speech dies. Banning opium doesn't have those consequences. > I hope you get my point because I think that is necessary for us to do so to come up with a better solution. I get your point, but I am fundamentally against anything whose goal is to avoid "mass manipulation" that is essentially saying we should ban things that get popular which we don't like. And that's not for the government to decide for me or anyone else. Thanks for hearing me out though. I appreciate that