4 ms·

I am concerned that our elections could be and have been distorted by our adversaries using TikToc and other platforms. I am not OK with that.

Timber-6539 2y ago
You are basically saying American adults are impressionable children hence cannot be trusted to participate in elections held by US electoral institutions.
- alickz 2y ago
  Americans are humans and all humans are susceptible to advertising/propaganda
  - groggo 2y ago
    this is the cost of free speech. it has to be, or free speech is meaningless. yes speech influences people.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    so we ban all advertising/“propaganda”? who gets to decide what is or isn’t propaganda if we gonna ban it?
    - alickz 2y ago
      > who gets to decide what is or isn’t propaganda if we gonna ban it? in a representative republic that would ideally be the elected representatives
- grajaganDev 2y ago
  I am saying that but would prefer to state it this way: Individuals are not equipped to recognized and counter the effects of highly sophisticated influence operations run by adversaries with enormous resources.
- photonthug 2y ago
  And you are basically saying that despite decades of focused high-stakes research into the matter, propaganda doesn't work at all on the masses, and that algorithmic manipulation of people is simply impossible? How could anyone take that idea seriously.. global advertising spend is approaching like a trillion dollars every year.
  - Timber-6539 2y ago
    Why not call for the dismantling of the global advertising networks in the US rather than Tiktok since you think it is a giant propaganda machine? Saying a foreign nation has the capability to brainwash your citizens into making a vote is propaganda by itself. It's not only cheap and imbecilic, it's a waste of everybody's time.
    - grajaganDev 2y ago
      >Why not call for the dismantling of the global advertising networks in the US Yes, we should do this also.
    - photonthug 2y ago
      It’s not cheap, that’s the point.. ads as an industry moves more money every year than the pentagon. That’s a lot of people betting that algorithmic influence campaigns work. Are you saying everyone is wrong about this but you, or is your position is that influence campaigns work for brands but not for nation states? Or nation states would not try? Or what?
coldpie 2y ago
I'm concerned about this, too, but this law actually gives the nation's most powerful adversaries even more power by eliminating their competition.
- grajaganDev 2y ago
  Are you referring to Russia and Iran?
  - coldpie 2y ago
    No, primarily Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and other big tech execs to a lesser extent.
    - grajaganDev 2y ago
      Thank you for clarifying - I disagree with your point. China is far, far more powerful than Zuck or Musk.
      - coldpie 2y ago
        China can't directly influence US policy, and they mostly don't have any interest in doing so outside how it influences our trade relations. Sure, it's bad if they're doing that. But Musk, Zuckerberg, and the rest of the ultra-wealthy are directly creating US policy, both by serving in unelected advisory positions and by outright buying US politicians. Just like China, they are not working for America's interests, they are working for their own interests. They are removing hard-won safeguards for their employees, their customers, and Americans in general; and they are removing accountability for themselves so they can exercise that power over the people who live in the US with impunity. US billionaires are far more dangerous to US residents than China is, and this law gives them even more influence than they already had by removing the only significant competitor that was not owned by a US billionaire. If this law had impacted all social media equally, I would be a huge advocate. But as it is, it's just another handout to the US's richest and most influential people. It's a bad law, and will make life worse for the people who live in the US.

Timber-6539 2y ago

You are basically saying American adults are impressionable children hence cannot be trusted to participate in elections held by US electoral institutions.

alickz 2y ago
Americans are humans and all humans are susceptible to advertising/propaganda
- groggo 2y ago
  this is the cost of free speech. it has to be, or free speech is meaningless. yes speech influences people.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  so we ban all advertising/“propaganda”? who gets to decide what is or isn’t propaganda if we gonna ban it?
  - alickz 2y ago
    > who gets to decide what is or isn’t propaganda if we gonna ban it? in a representative republic that would ideally be the elected representatives
grajaganDev 2y ago
I am saying that but would prefer to state it this way: Individuals are not equipped to recognized and counter the effects of highly sophisticated influence operations run by adversaries with enormous resources.
photonthug 2y ago
And you are basically saying that despite decades of focused high-stakes research into the matter, propaganda doesn't work at all on the masses, and that algorithmic manipulation of people is simply impossible? How could anyone take that idea seriously.. global advertising spend is approaching like a trillion dollars every year.
- Timber-6539 2y ago
  Why not call for the dismantling of the global advertising networks in the US rather than Tiktok since you think it is a giant propaganda machine? Saying a foreign nation has the capability to brainwash your citizens into making a vote is propaganda by itself. It's not only cheap and imbecilic, it's a waste of everybody's time.
  - grajaganDev 2y ago
    >Why not call for the dismantling of the global advertising networks in the US Yes, we should do this also.
  - photonthug 2y ago
    It’s not cheap, that’s the point.. ads as an industry moves more money every year than the pentagon. That’s a lot of people betting that algorithmic influence campaigns work. Are you saying everyone is wrong about this but you, or is your position is that influence campaigns work for brands but not for nation states? Or nation states would not try? Or what?

coldpie 2y ago

I'm concerned about this, too, but this law actually gives the nation's most powerful adversaries even more power by eliminating their competition.

grajaganDev 2y ago
Are you referring to Russia and Iran?
- coldpie 2y ago
  No, primarily Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and other big tech execs to a lesser extent.
  - grajaganDev 2y ago
    Thank you for clarifying - I disagree with your point. China is far, far more powerful than Zuck or Musk.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      China can't directly influence US policy, and they mostly don't have any interest in doing so outside how it influences our trade relations. Sure, it's bad if they're doing that. But Musk, Zuckerberg, and the rest of the ultra-wealthy are directly creating US policy, both by serving in unelected advisory positions and by outright buying US politicians. Just like China, they are not working for America's interests, they are working for their own interests. They are removing hard-won safeguards for their employees, their customers, and Americans in general; and they are removing accountability for themselves so they can exercise that power over the people who live in the US with impunity. US billionaires are far more dangerous to US residents than China is, and this law gives them even more influence than they already had by removing the only significant competitor that was not owned by a US billionaire. If this law had impacted all social media equally, I would be a huge advocate. But as it is, it's just another handout to the US's richest and most influential people. It's a bad law, and will make life worse for the people who live in the US.