3 ms·

This argument is weak. Editorials are marked as such. The board makeup is known. Tiktok is a platform wherein its impossible to know which content is organica

This argument is weak. Editorials are marked as such. The board makeup is known. Tiktok is a platform wherein its impossible to know which content is organically popular and what is being artificially weighted, we have no insight into who is doing the weighting, and which pieces of content are controlled by state media. In short, you have no idea whether it is more or less editorialized than other news outlets, and that's the central issue here.

whatshisface 2y ago
Even if TikTok were 100% editorialized - like the most biased newspapers - it would be an affront to the principles of a free society to ban it for failing to encourage people to support the general line. That's on top of the fact that it hasn't even been demonstrated to be editorialized.
- lukan 2y ago
  I do agree in general. It is a sign of weakness for a free society. Ideally in my oppinion, intelligence services would proof the manipulation - and show it to the public. Who then decide on their own to be sceptical of TikTok content. I am against a direct government intervention. But it is still a very different situation in terms of impact compared to a single local newspaper.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > Ideally in my oppinion, intelligence services would proof the manipulation - and show it to the public. Based on the fact that FedGov is presenting evidence to the court under seal, it seems likely that intelligence services have proof (or -more likely- "proof") of manipulation, but are only showing it to the judge. Does the likely fact that the US government is refusing to provide for public inspection and discussion what they're using as evidence of alleged national-security-relevant Chinese interference in domestic affairs make you more comfortable with the veracity of their claims that the Chinese government not only has substantial control over TikTok, but that that control is so harmful to national security that it must be unilaterally terminated? Why or why not?

whatshisface 2y ago

Even if TikTok were 100% editorialized - like the most biased newspapers - it would be an affront to the principles of a free society to ban it for failing to encourage people to support the general line. That's on top of the fact that it hasn't even been demonstrated to be editorialized.

lukan 2y ago
I do agree in general. It is a sign of weakness for a free society. Ideally in my oppinion, intelligence services would proof the manipulation - and show it to the public. Who then decide on their own to be sceptical of TikTok content. I am against a direct government intervention. But it is still a very different situation in terms of impact compared to a single local newspaper.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > Ideally in my oppinion, intelligence services would proof the manipulation - and show it to the public. Based on the fact that FedGov is presenting evidence to the court under seal, it seems likely that intelligence services have proof (or -more likely- "proof") of manipulation, but are only showing it to the judge. Does the likely fact that the US government is refusing to provide for public inspection and discussion what they're using as evidence of alleged national-security-relevant Chinese interference in domestic affairs make you more comfortable with the veracity of their claims that the Chinese government not only has substantial control over TikTok, but that that control is so harmful to national security that it must be unilaterally terminated? Why or why not?