4 ms·

It is not the same. These news networks as well as papers like the NYT still count as authoritative sources. Almost all pundits on YouTube, even on dissenting c

It is not the same. These news networks as well as papers like the NYT still count as authoritative sources. Almost all pundits on YouTube, even on dissenting channels, still use these to know what is going on. The real danger is indoctrinating teenagers. For example, China could spread extreme wokeness and tell girls (indirectly via influencers) that having children is oppressive. This sort of propaganda is easier and well known to US adherents of Bernays. The US is world leader in this.

op00to 2y ago
What? Wasn’t it China at one time that placed limits on the number of children you could have?
- rrtah 2y ago
  Obviously in this context it is about China indoctrinating US girls. TikTok is banned in China. China itself had the one-child policy because the country is full, like the EU. The US has declining birth rates.
- nicce 2y ago
  > Wasn’t it China at one time that placed limits on the number of children you could have? But considering the statistics at that time, one could say that it was reasonable. It is better to limit the birth of children rather than, after some time, let natural selection to kill the weakest for starvation or lack of proper environment.
  - op00to 2y ago
    One could say this ban is reasonable. Better to remove an app that is clearly linked to misinformation and spreading unrest in the US than to let the app continue to make it easy to spread lies and manipulate people.
    - nicce 2y ago
      That argument only works if it applies equally. With same grounds one could ban X or Truth Social as well.
      - op00to 2y ago
        I don’t believe X or Meta or any other large platforms should have free rein to enable foreign influence with falsehoods and misleading attribution like they do. A ban may not be appropriate, but it’s outrageous that X and Facebook are effectively used by foreign powers to pinpoint target propaganda to individuals to sway elections. This is unprecedented and must be responded to.

op00to 2y ago

What? Wasn’t it China at one time that placed limits on the number of children you could have?

rrtah 2y ago
Obviously in this context it is about China indoctrinating US girls. TikTok is banned in China. China itself had the one-child policy because the country is full, like the EU. The US has declining birth rates.
nicce 2y ago
> Wasn’t it China at one time that placed limits on the number of children you could have? But considering the statistics at that time, one could say that it was reasonable. It is better to limit the birth of children rather than, after some time, let natural selection to kill the weakest for starvation or lack of proper environment.
- op00to 2y ago
  One could say this ban is reasonable. Better to remove an app that is clearly linked to misinformation and spreading unrest in the US than to let the app continue to make it easy to spread lies and manipulate people.
  - nicce 2y ago
    That argument only works if it applies equally. With same grounds one could ban X or Truth Social as well.
    - op00to 2y ago
      I don’t believe X or Meta or any other large platforms should have free rein to enable foreign influence with falsehoods and misleading attribution like they do. A ban may not be appropriate, but it’s outrageous that X and Facebook are effectively used by foreign powers to pinpoint target propaganda to individuals to sway elections. This is unprecedented and must be responded to.