4 ms·

Tiktok and all the other social network are inherently a platform for spreading lies. It's a bad fit for quality news.

by petra 2y ago

porridgeraisin 2y ago
> Whether those new sources of truth are better or worse is irrelevant.
t-writescode 2y ago
Ah yes. Lies. That's why it was the first place I learned about just how bad the atrocities in Gaza were; just how bad the damage of Hurricane Helene was; about the murder of George Floyd. Social networks are the most democratized ways of spreading information to date. Some of that information is lies, but a lot of people spread fact.
- lazystar 2y ago
  > Some of that information is lies, but a lot of people spread fact. And how do you know which is which, hmmm?
  - t-writescode 2y ago
    Fox News and OAN has taught us that even news agencies and journalism aren't the way to guarantee fact or truth. Yellow Journalism is a term for over 100 years ago. People lying with a broad audience is nothing new. addendum: and how many times have you read a news article from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal that's in your area of expertise that's made you go "wow, everything they've said here is wrong, said with an agenda, misinterpreted or other propaganda"?
    - petra 2y ago
      Sure, news agencies aren't a way to guarrantee truth. That has always been a problem. But social networks have increased that problem by an order of magnitude. And we're seeing the results - the rise of dictatorships all around the world, that use the lie spreading capability of social networks.
      - t-writescode 2y ago
        I forget where I heard it last night; but yes, that is something to consider. Every time there's been a new way for a new and different wave of people to communicate with the masses that there has been a rise in populism and dictatorships around the world. Happened with the printing press, radio, with television and now it's social media's turn, yes. We as a collection of societies, worldwide, have not grown our broad-range antibodies/protections against such things, yet.
      - mcosta 2y ago
        What new dictatorships are there sice around 2010?
    - lazystar 2y ago
      bingo, and this is why I'm spending more time watching local news than national/global news or social media posts from other nations. there's a higher trust factor with stuff you can see and touch.
      - t-writescode 2y ago
        I'm not sure you can trust local news stations, either, especially when they're all owned by the same company. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
        lazystar 2y ago
        you can easily find which of your local stations are owned by sinclair. for example, in seattle sinclair owns KOMO, which is quite annoying because that channel plays jeopardy/seahawks special segments.
        lazystar 2y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42249985 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42249985 huh. turns out theres another nationwide conglomerate running the sinclair playbook
- jahewson 2y ago
  I’m not sure that citing three things that the traditional media has been happy to report on too is a very good way of making your point. The real danger is the content you don’t see: “A [Rutgers Univerity] study […] asserts TikTok’s algorithms promote Chinese Communist Party narratives and suppress content critical of those narrative“ https://www.kqed.org/news/11999273/tiktok-stacking-algorithms-in-chinese-governments-favor-study-claims https://www.kqed.org/news/11999273/tiktok-stacking-algorithm...
  - t-writescode 2y ago
    Is that the same article that Last Week Tonight brought up in their expose on TikTok where they brought up some very valid questions about the method used in that study?
- simianparrot 2y ago
  Hamas uses TikTok very effectively
_bin_ 2y ago
No, they're platforms for spreading information that place less of an inherent value on the pedigree of the source. This is partially a good thing because opinions and personal experience have a place somewhere in the epistemological hierarchy that mainstream news discounts. Making one's news diet wholly (or even mostly) social media is a mistake, but making it entirely news outlets is little different. I've found a good mix is "reputable" newspapers plus a bit of twitter. Of course, I've also read a lot of garbage from those respectable outlets. A lot of slant and a lot of poorly-researched "journalism". This is basically a respectability politics problem; the NPR class is offended more that people have abandoned the trappings of "proper information" than over the information itself.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  The problem is people don't often bother to corroborate information which suits their bias. This naturally leads to extremification and polarization. And TikTok is like a distilled version of that. Whereas ChatGPT might hallucinate on you, a gigantic portion of TikTok creators are actively deceiving you for personal gain, and the fraud, slander, political/religious peer pressure and downright harmful disinformation have largely gone unnoticed by regulators and law enforcement. TikTok is not a place to get news. The culture isn't there, and the UI purposefully doesn't lend to things like sharing sources.
  - je42 2y ago
    The incentives to deceive are the same for content creators regardless the platform. News outlet or YouTube or tiktok. Joe Rogan vs CNN is a good example - that you can apply all the same doubts you have for Tiktok also to conventional news outlets.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      I agree. I don't get political news from any video source. I go to these platforms for commentary and discussion, but I establish knowledge and fact check out-of-band. And I'm still highly suspect of print media, I try to stick to individual journalists and editors who haven't gotten on my shitlist. Grassroots journalism is so good these days for many issues that it's getting easier to avoid conventional outlets altogether.
ryukoposting 2y ago
I'll pull a quote from my parent comment: > Whether those new sources of truth are better or worse is irrelevant. Just because the platforms people are using aren't ideal for journalism doesn't mean we can sit down, cross our arms, and say "well I guess we just won't give you news then." TikTok doesn't give special treatment to large or well-established news organizations, but that doesn't preclude such an organization from using the platform to reach an audience.

Tiktok and all the other social network are inherently a platform for spreading lies. It's a bad fit for quality news.

by petra 2y ago

Tiktok and all the other social network are inherently a platform for spreading lies. It's a bad fit for quality news.

porridgeraisin 2y ago

> Whether those new sources of truth are better or worse is irrelevant.

t-writescode 2y ago

Ah yes. Lies. That's why it was the first place I learned about just how bad the atrocities in Gaza were; just how bad the damage of Hurricane Helene was; about the murder of George Floyd. Social networks are the most democratized ways of spreading information to date. Some of that information is lies, but a lot of people spread fact.

lazystar 2y ago
> Some of that information is lies, but a lot of people spread fact. And how do you know which is which, hmmm?
- t-writescode 2y ago
  Fox News and OAN has taught us that even news agencies and journalism aren't the way to guarantee fact or truth. Yellow Journalism is a term for over 100 years ago. People lying with a broad audience is nothing new. addendum: and how many times have you read a news article from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal that's in your area of expertise that's made you go "wow, everything they've said here is wrong, said with an agenda, misinterpreted or other propaganda"?
  - petra 2y ago
    Sure, news agencies aren't a way to guarrantee truth. That has always been a problem. But social networks have increased that problem by an order of magnitude. And we're seeing the results - the rise of dictatorships all around the world, that use the lie spreading capability of social networks.
    - t-writescode 2y ago
      I forget where I heard it last night; but yes, that is something to consider. Every time there's been a new way for a new and different wave of people to communicate with the masses that there has been a rise in populism and dictatorships around the world. Happened with the printing press, radio, with television and now it's social media's turn, yes. We as a collection of societies, worldwide, have not grown our broad-range antibodies/protections against such things, yet.
    - mcosta 2y ago
      What new dictatorships are there sice around 2010?
  - lazystar 2y ago
    bingo, and this is why I'm spending more time watching local news than national/global news or social media posts from other nations. there's a higher trust factor with stuff you can see and touch.
    - t-writescode 2y ago
      I'm not sure you can trust local news stations, either, especially when they're all owned by the same company. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
      - lazystar 2y ago
        you can easily find which of your local stations are owned by sinclair. for example, in seattle sinclair owns KOMO, which is quite annoying because that channel plays jeopardy/seahawks special segments.
        lazystar 2y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42249985 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42249985 huh. turns out theres another nationwide conglomerate running the sinclair playbook
jahewson 2y ago
I’m not sure that citing three things that the traditional media has been happy to report on too is a very good way of making your point. The real danger is the content you don’t see: “A [Rutgers Univerity] study […] asserts TikTok’s algorithms promote Chinese Communist Party narratives and suppress content critical of those narrative“ https://www.kqed.org/news/11999273/tiktok-stacking-algorithms-in-chinese-governments-favor-study-claims https://www.kqed.org/news/11999273/tiktok-stacking-algorithm...
- t-writescode 2y ago
  Is that the same article that Last Week Tonight brought up in their expose on TikTok where they brought up some very valid questions about the method used in that study?
simianparrot 2y ago
Hamas uses TikTok very effectively

_bin_ 2y ago

No, they're platforms for spreading information that place less of an inherent value on the pedigree of the source. This is partially a good thing because opinions and personal experience have a place somewhere in the epistemological hierarchy that mainstream news discounts. Making one's news diet wholly (or even mostly) social media is a mistake, but making it entirely news outlets is little different. I've found a good mix is "reputable" newspapers plus a bit of twitter. Of course, I've also read a lot of garbage from those respectable outlets. A lot of slant and a lot of poorly-researched "journalism". This is basically a respectability politics problem; the NPR class is offended more that people have abandoned the trappings of "proper information" than over the information itself.

soulofmischief 2y ago
The problem is people don't often bother to corroborate information which suits their bias. This naturally leads to extremification and polarization. And TikTok is like a distilled version of that. Whereas ChatGPT might hallucinate on you, a gigantic portion of TikTok creators are actively deceiving you for personal gain, and the fraud, slander, political/religious peer pressure and downright harmful disinformation have largely gone unnoticed by regulators and law enforcement. TikTok is not a place to get news. The culture isn't there, and the UI purposefully doesn't lend to things like sharing sources.
- je42 2y ago
  The incentives to deceive are the same for content creators regardless the platform. News outlet or YouTube or tiktok. Joe Rogan vs CNN is a good example - that you can apply all the same doubts you have for Tiktok also to conventional news outlets.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    I agree. I don't get political news from any video source. I go to these platforms for commentary and discussion, but I establish knowledge and fact check out-of-band. And I'm still highly suspect of print media, I try to stick to individual journalists and editors who haven't gotten on my shitlist. Grassroots journalism is so good these days for many issues that it's getting easier to avoid conventional outlets altogether.

ryukoposting 2y ago

I'll pull a quote from my parent comment: > Whether those new sources of truth are better or worse is irrelevant. Just because the platforms people are using aren't ideal for journalism doesn't mean we can sit down, cross our arms, and say "well I guess we just won't give you news then." TikTok doesn't give special treatment to large or well-established news organizations, but that doesn't preclude such an organization from using the platform to reach an audience.