7 ms·

TikTok removing posts for violating the "joy of TikTok"

103 points by bhouston 1y ago

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
"TikTok took down my 8-second video featuring an image of Debbie Brockman — the news producer just detained by CBP agents — saying it violates the “joy of TikTok” " The violation notice from tiktok: "Violation reason Shocking and Graphic content Part of the joy of TikTok is coming across new and unexpected content. But the platform is not a place to intentionally shock, upset, or disgust others. We recognize this type of content may be triggering, cause psychological harm, or lead to extreme discomfort. We do not allow gory, gruesome, disturbing, or extremely violent content."
- nomel 1y ago
  I suspect this is data driven. It would be reasonable to think that long term engagement drops if people don't enjoy what they watch, in aggregate, even if short term engagement is high for "non joyful" content. From what I can tell, TikTok is powered by dopamine, not cortisol. With dopamine being the "joy" hormone... edit: is there some inside knowledge to the data or algorithm that I'm not aware of that's driving these votes? is this some unreasonable perspective? do humans seek stress, long term?
  - ansley 1y ago
    aside from users "stuck in the dopamine loop", i also think tiktok will see users plateau and eventually shrink without relevant content, even if it's a tough watch. If "joy of tiktok" becomes code for "news that does not upset dear leader" folks will go somewhere else for that content, and imho that's a meaningful chunk of users.
    - nomel 1y ago
      > "news that does not upset dear leader" TikToks long history of content moderation appears to be wholly unrelated to the current administration [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok (not sure why you're comment is negative)
      - citizenkeen 1y ago
        Yes, but TikTok’s ownership has changed.
        llm_nerd 1y ago
        Almost everything with this administration is just lawless uncertainty so it's hard to tell, but has that actually happened yet? The last info I could find is that some sort of rough deal was solidifying, but that even things like the investor makeup or components was still up in the air. That was just two weeks ago. I don't think it has moved to the new structure yet, or the "all the servers in the US with Oracle control of the algo". Maybe they're just getting ready in advance. Alternately, a motivated subgroup can often coerce platforms. A lot of platforms will engage such moderation simply because enough people brigaded to flag/report something.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        nomel 1y ago
        It has not: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-china-new-tariffs-countermeasures-rcna236890 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-chi... > U.S. officials said in September that China had struck a “framework for a TikTok deal.” However, in the following weeks, China has not confirmed that such a deal was agreed to. > Many experts believe China’s strategy is to keep talking while making few concrete agreements.
    - llm_nerd 1y ago
      Tiktok has long been extremely heavy handed with censorship. A slightly negative comment will get deleted and warnings meted out. Content that angers anyone gets flagged and often removed. And while there were some ephemeral movements where a bunch of young people trend-lambasted Trump, generally I find the platform seems to actually magnify pro-Trump content, even long before he was elected. It's actually a shocking experience seeing Instagram Reels in comparison. The latter seems to remove extraordinarily little. If you enjoy darker if not offensive humour, it is a much more rewarding experience, though sometimes I just marvel that Meta not only allows this, they seem to encourage it.
      - aprilthird2021 1y ago
        Meta has C Suite execs whose job is to make sure specific political content is censored. Usually stuff the US administration doesn't want. Previously this was COVID skepticism. Now it is anti-Israel content mostly
- xtajv 1y ago
  This is legitimately reassuring. There are nearly-century-old journalistic guidelines and ethical codes about what you do and do not put into widespread news media. Posting explicit details about methods used in a celebrity suicide encourages copycats. Posting explicit details about a shooter's extremist philosophical beliefs brings those beliefs closer to the mainstream AND encourages copycats. There was a certain recent college debate that I was very surprised to see proliferate across social media, because of the fact that We Do Not Publish Snuff Films. I actually assumed it was a deepfake, doubted AP News Wire and Reuters, and finally bought it when I saw a tiktok from the TMZ cutting room floor. The fellow in charge didn't believe it either... until he did, and then it was an all-hands-on-deck moment steadied by someone clearly experiencing a huge surge of adrenaline but keeping their cool while operating in their element.
ro_bit 1y ago
[flagged]
- thrance 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
huflungdung 1y ago
So what though? If I have a website and I want a particular type of content on it, why should I NOT be allowed to moderate it? These are not public services.
- urbandw311er 1y ago
  Came to say the same. You posted something on somebody’s service. It wasn’t in line with what they allow on their service. Accept that truth or else use a different service.
- deepsun 1y ago
  Agree, time to host our own websites. People falsely believe sites like Facebook and Twitter are public utilities (some government services even depend on them now). While in reality their owners benevolently allowed you to store and share your content on their premises. I would also add full responsibility for social platforms for actions of their visitors that they allowed on their premises. Similar to how, say, we accept responsibility of a private park owner allowing public visitors to. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/09/courts-should-hold-social-media-accountable-but-not-by-ignoring-federal-law/ https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/09/courts-should-hold... PS: somebody flagged your comment, I clicked "vouch" for it.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - huflungdung 1y ago
    Thanks. The fact that this got flagged and removed is rather apt.
- aprilthird2021 1y ago
  The problem is the US government very publicly and explicitly forced TikTok to sell their website so they could change the content on it. If you cannot have a particular type of content on your website and it get very popular without the government demanding you sell it to them, then there's a problem. TikTok was the first website to reach social media scale viewership in the US with such anti-American sentiments broadcast on it
ares623 1y ago
Ignorance is bliss Freedom is slavery War is peace
- makk 1y ago
  All for one and one for all. And I’m for myself.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
nitrix 1y ago
That's fine. Not every platform has to work the same way and attract the same communities.
- lwansbrough 1y ago
  Well there's always going to be one lobster that likes the water a little warmer.
  - nitrix 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - nomdep 1y ago
      It would be great if that were true, but TikTok is filled with accounts dedicated to virtue signal and “news”. I’ve tried multiple times to clean my feed but there are too many
    - aprilthird2021 1y ago
      What platform and medium is more suited for that? All the major social media platforms based in the US also censor such topics and don't promote them
      - izacus 1y ago
        Xitter and Blue sky are just US folks screaming about politics these days, can't you just join those and let us watch cat videos on TikTok in peace?
        aprilthird2021 1y ago
        They are not video platforms though. Is there any scrollable social media video platform like what you are saying exists elsewhere without the censorship we see here? Not really
    - kragen 1y ago
kragen 1y ago
Citizen, your expression reveals a disturbing lack of joy. Why are you engaging with the Customs and Border Protection agents repressing subversive journalists? Wouldn't you rather drink a nice, refreshing Coca-Cola?
- gruez 1y ago
  At the same time letting politics go unchecked turns it into a cesspool like reddit, where politics is shoehorned into most of the default subreddits and "Epstien" is brought up in any thread vaguely political. You might think these issues deserve attention, and they might even drive engagement for some, but not everyone wants their cat video app to be like a 24/7 cable TV news channel.
  - thrance 1y ago
    That's a terrible take. Of course politics will play an increasing part in daily life when the country is devolving into a dictatorship. A journalist is getting abducted on the street by the regime's gestapo and your first reaction is "boring, I want to be kept in the dark and resume my mindless consumption of brainrot".
    - rustystump 1y ago
      Hard disagree. I dont need politics in every corner of life now 3 years ago 10 years ago etc. when the boy cries wolf at everything that moves people tend to ignore the boy.
      - the_af 1y ago
        But politics in one way or another shapes almost every corner of your life. This is a reality whether one chooses to see it or not.
        gonzobonzo 1y ago
        People tend to do this justification behavior where they claim their dopamine hits are good for them/their health/society, when in actuality it's detrimental. Almost no political junkie I know has changed their view on Trump over the past decade. They'll spend hours a day, sometimes hours a week, focused on him, but it ends up absolutely having no positive impact on their selves or their lives (usually a large negative impact). Then I ask them about their local politicians, where they stand on certain issues, what their record is, what's been happening with their local government - and they have absolutely no clue. They can't even recall who was running in the previous local primary, or why they voted for who they voted for. They're wasting countless hours on Trump and national politics because it feels good. Then they won't even spend a fraction learning about things that could actually make an important difference in their voting, because it's too boring for them. Even worse, many people will try to pass off these actions as being virtuous or being informed.
resters 1y ago
The administration's theft of TikTok is absolutely unacceptable and we should all be horrified. Entrepreneurs built a great business with an algorithm that is still -- years after it launched -- head and shoulders more entertaining and engagement-generating than anything domestic firms could come up with, even with years to figure it out. TikTok is also significantly better for content creators and has more useful tooling. TikTok lets videos be downloaded by default which is why most Instagram Reels (tm) and YouTube Shorts (tm) are actually TikToks someone uploaded. TikTok was a problem for the US Government both because it outshone US firms -- ironically by making the algorithm show more interesting and appealing content to users, rather than the "viral" rubbish that overtakes the incumbents feeds... and also because it started becoming a source of highly informative citizen journalism, spreading awareness about many social issues, from police brutality to the treatment of the people of Gaza by Israel and the US. It's the politically sensitive citizen journalism that Bebe considers a "weapon" that needed to be stolen from its creators. Now, per Larry Ellison's recent comments, everyone's TikTok history is being mined by Oracle to help suppress dissent against Trump's policies and keep people in line. I've already started noticing a few obviously fake disinformation campaigns that support pro-Trump goals starting to gain ground on TikTok and other social media in the past week or so. There is absolutely no reason that any country that values freedom of speech and press freedom should confiscate someone else's company to weaponize it against the American people. This is an utterly shameful episode motivated by the worst and darkest human motivations -- controlling others and suppressing the speech of the downtrodden.
- nitrix 1y ago
  Or people are just trying to not be reminded every second of their living lives that there's one conflict or another going on. TikTok is made in China and used worldwide. Not many things are relatable and relevant to a world wide audience.
  - resters 1y ago
    Have you ever used TikTok? It responds rapidly to your engagement (likes, skips, etc.) and very quickly starts showing you mostly the kind of content you enjoy. Not sure what you mean about it not being relatable to a worldwide audience. I see mostly US content in English and a bit in Spanish, but the algorithm will quickly adapt to show the user content from whatever regions they are interested in.
IceHegel 1y ago
"Democracy" is obviously a scam if a foreign power can buy the platforms and adjust information flows to "shift" public opinion their way. Votes are the output, not the input. Not that officials seems to listen anyway.
- aprilthird2021 1y ago
  > if a foreign power can buy the platforms and adjust information flows to "shift" public opinion their way. NO. I will never accept this premise and nor should any American. The people ARE the government and they can be influenced any which way they want to be. There shouldn't ever be any such thing as the government "protecting" people from influence. If the people want to all tune into some foreign broadcaster all day and love everything he's saying. That's how the country will be. The second you accept "oh foreign influence is manipulating our voters to X or Y so it has to be stopped" you are signing the death warrant for free speech. This is EXACTLY the justification used in all sorts of authoritarian garbage places to suppress information and restrict speech
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    I agree with you on this. People who don’t believe this fundamentally do not believe in democracy. You may worry about citizens being sufficiently educated, you may worry about them having access to enough information to make good decisions. But to restrict information for fear that they may make the “wrong” decision—the one you don’t like—there is nothing democratic about that. Foreign voices and perspectives are critical to understanding the world as a whole and making informed decisions. If the population isn’t ready to take in that information and sort the wheat from the chaff, then they aren’t ready for democracy.
    - Fade_Dance 1y ago
      Sure, but there's a difference in intent and degree between "foreign influence is manipulating our voters" via political content on TikTok vs a targeted state sponsored campaign run by intelligence agencies. There are some common sense guardrails around elections in a democracy, and foreign influence targeting the actual election process is generally viewed as over the line of acceptability.
nemothekid 1y ago
Bit ironic that we are finally getting the dreaded draconian Chinese censorship once the company was forced to sell to Americans
- gruez 1y ago
  Finally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok#Politics
- bgwalter 1y ago
  Trump claims that China has practically approved the deal, but as of Oct 10th we again have a 100% tariff threat on China and no confirmed Chinese approval: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-china-new-tariffs-countermeasures-rcna236890 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-chi... With Trump flooding the zone, this news was difficult to find. Much of the press just reported that the deal is practically sealed, which he (probably falsely) bragged about on Truth Social. So the ICE censorship appears to be still done by Chinese algorithms, perhaps to soften up trade relations or because their algorithms are tuned to censor videos of persons in military gear beating down a citizen anyway.
stackedinserter 1y ago
"Just build your own tiktok". "Freedom of speech is not absolute". "Freedom of expression doesn't guarantee giving you a platform". "1st amendment protect you from government, not from companies". Let me guess: they censored some leftist content, am I right?
- krapp 1y ago
  Freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it doesn't guarantee you a platform, and the 1st Amendment does only protect you from government, not companies. I don't see what the point of your comment is. It seems like you're dunking on "the left" for... being factually correct?
  - stackedinserter 1y ago
    My point is that so called "progressives" kept justifying and even celebrating censorship for more than a decade, but screeching and screaming now, when it hit themselves.
    - krapp 1y ago
      No one was justifying or celebrating censorship then, and no one is screeching and screaming now. It seems you're trying to imply that "progressives" are being hypocritical (although I don't know what specifically is "progressive" in this context), but there is no hypocrisy in recognizing that private platforms have the right to enforce policies while also protesting those policies. That's how free speech actually works. As opposed to what conservatives were doing not long ago, which is demanding the government forcibly take over social media platforms and make banning them illegal. Talk about screeching and screaming.
      - stackedinserter 1y ago
        What's the point of this post then. Enjoy your own medicine.
- bhouston 1y ago
jauntywundrkind 1y ago
Who knows, but worth noting at least that China has demanded purges of negativity across the internet. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/world/asia/china-censorship-pessimism-despair.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/world/asia/china-censorsh... I don't think it's probable that that's what's going on here. But it is possible. And the overlapping concerns of state control & platform censorship seem abundantly clear.
tstrimple 1y ago
One of the few social media outlets that didn't blatantly censor Israel's war crimes. So of course it had to go. Places like Hacker News are safe because they toe the line and ensure "inconvenient topics" aren't popular or promoted. It's fully baked into their rules and it's generally accepted as a Good Thing somehow. Anti-censorship lip-service out of one side of their mouth and rampant clampdown on "unacceptable conversations" within their VC safe space.

103 points by bhouston 1y ago

"TikTok took down my 8-second video featuring an image of Debbie Brockman — the news producer just detained by CBP agents — saying it violates the “joy of TikTok” " The violation notice from tiktok: "Violation reason Shocking and Graphic content Part of the joy of TikTok is coming across new and unexpected content. But the platform is not a place to intentionally shock, upset, or disgust others. We recognize this type of content may be triggering, cause psychological harm, or lead to extreme discomfort. We do not allow gory, gruesome, disturbing, or extremely violent content."

nomel 1y ago
I suspect this is data driven. It would be reasonable to think that long term engagement drops if people don't enjoy what they watch, in aggregate, even if short term engagement is high for "non joyful" content. From what I can tell, TikTok is powered by dopamine, not cortisol. With dopamine being the "joy" hormone... edit: is there some inside knowledge to the data or algorithm that I'm not aware of that's driving these votes? is this some unreasonable perspective? do humans seek stress, long term?
- ansley 1y ago
  aside from users "stuck in the dopamine loop", i also think tiktok will see users plateau and eventually shrink without relevant content, even if it's a tough watch. If "joy of tiktok" becomes code for "news that does not upset dear leader" folks will go somewhere else for that content, and imho that's a meaningful chunk of users.
  - nomel 1y ago
    > "news that does not upset dear leader" TikToks long history of content moderation appears to be wholly unrelated to the current administration [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok (not sure why you're comment is negative)
    - citizenkeen 1y ago
      Yes, but TikTok’s ownership has changed.
      - llm_nerd 1y ago
        Almost everything with this administration is just lawless uncertainty so it's hard to tell, but has that actually happened yet? The last info I could find is that some sort of rough deal was solidifying, but that even things like the investor makeup or components was still up in the air. That was just two weeks ago. I don't think it has moved to the new structure yet, or the "all the servers in the US with Oracle control of the algo". Maybe they're just getting ready in advance. Alternately, a motivated subgroup can often coerce platforms. A lot of platforms will engage such moderation simply because enough people brigaded to flag/report something.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - nomel 1y ago
        It has not: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-china-new-tariffs-countermeasures-rcna236890 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-chi... > U.S. officials said in September that China had struck a “framework for a TikTok deal.” However, in the following weeks, China has not confirmed that such a deal was agreed to. > Many experts believe China’s strategy is to keep talking while making few concrete agreements.
  - llm_nerd 1y ago
    Tiktok has long been extremely heavy handed with censorship. A slightly negative comment will get deleted and warnings meted out. Content that angers anyone gets flagged and often removed. And while there were some ephemeral movements where a bunch of young people trend-lambasted Trump, generally I find the platform seems to actually magnify pro-Trump content, even long before he was elected. It's actually a shocking experience seeing Instagram Reels in comparison. The latter seems to remove extraordinarily little. If you enjoy darker if not offensive humour, it is a much more rewarding experience, though sometimes I just marvel that Meta not only allows this, they seem to encourage it.
    - aprilthird2021 1y ago
      Meta has C Suite execs whose job is to make sure specific political content is censored. Usually stuff the US administration doesn't want. Previously this was COVID skepticism. Now it is anti-Israel content mostly
xtajv 1y ago
This is legitimately reassuring. There are nearly-century-old journalistic guidelines and ethical codes about what you do and do not put into widespread news media. Posting explicit details about methods used in a celebrity suicide encourages copycats. Posting explicit details about a shooter's extremist philosophical beliefs brings those beliefs closer to the mainstream AND encourages copycats. There was a certain recent college debate that I was very surprised to see proliferate across social media, because of the fact that We Do Not Publish Snuff Films. I actually assumed it was a deepfake, doubted AP News Wire and Reuters, and finally bought it when I saw a tiktok from the TMZ cutting room floor. The fellow in charge didn't believe it either... until he did, and then it was an all-hands-on-deck moment steadied by someone clearly experiencing a huge surge of adrenaline but keeping their cool while operating in their element.

ro_bit 1y ago

[flagged]

thrance 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

huflungdung 1y ago

So what though? If I have a website and I want a particular type of content on it, why should I NOT be allowed to moderate it? These are not public services.

urbandw311er 1y ago
Came to say the same. You posted something on somebody’s service. It wasn’t in line with what they allow on their service. Accept that truth or else use a different service.
deepsun 1y ago
Agree, time to host our own websites. People falsely believe sites like Facebook and Twitter are public utilities (some government services even depend on them now). While in reality their owners benevolently allowed you to store and share your content on their premises. I would also add full responsibility for social platforms for actions of their visitors that they allowed on their premises. Similar to how, say, we accept responsibility of a private park owner allowing public visitors to. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/09/courts-should-hold-social-media-accountable-but-not-by-ignoring-federal-law/ https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/09/courts-should-hold... PS: somebody flagged your comment, I clicked "vouch" for it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- huflungdung 1y ago
  Thanks. The fact that this got flagged and removed is rather apt.
aprilthird2021 1y ago
The problem is the US government very publicly and explicitly forced TikTok to sell their website so they could change the content on it. If you cannot have a particular type of content on your website and it get very popular without the government demanding you sell it to them, then there's a problem. TikTok was the first website to reach social media scale viewership in the US with such anti-American sentiments broadcast on it

ares623 1y ago

Ignorance is bliss Freedom is slavery War is peace

makk 1y ago
All for one and one for all. And I’m for myself.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

nitrix 1y ago

That's fine. Not every platform has to work the same way and attract the same communities.

lwansbrough 1y ago
Well there's always going to be one lobster that likes the water a little warmer.
- nitrix 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - nomdep 1y ago
    It would be great if that were true, but TikTok is filled with accounts dedicated to virtue signal and “news”. I’ve tried multiple times to clean my feed but there are too many
  - aprilthird2021 1y ago
    What platform and medium is more suited for that? All the major social media platforms based in the US also censor such topics and don't promote them
    - izacus 1y ago
      Xitter and Blue sky are just US folks screaming about politics these days, can't you just join those and let us watch cat videos on TikTok in peace?
      - aprilthird2021 1y ago
        They are not video platforms though. Is there any scrollable social media video platform like what you are saying exists elsewhere without the censorship we see here? Not really
  - kragen 1y ago

kragen 1y ago

Citizen, your expression reveals a disturbing lack of joy. Why are you engaging with the Customs and Border Protection agents repressing subversive journalists? Wouldn't you rather drink a nice, refreshing Coca-Cola?

gruez 1y ago
At the same time letting politics go unchecked turns it into a cesspool like reddit, where politics is shoehorned into most of the default subreddits and "Epstien" is brought up in any thread vaguely political. You might think these issues deserve attention, and they might even drive engagement for some, but not everyone wants their cat video app to be like a 24/7 cable TV news channel.
- thrance 1y ago
  That's a terrible take. Of course politics will play an increasing part in daily life when the country is devolving into a dictatorship. A journalist is getting abducted on the street by the regime's gestapo and your first reaction is "boring, I want to be kept in the dark and resume my mindless consumption of brainrot".
  - rustystump 1y ago
    Hard disagree. I dont need politics in every corner of life now 3 years ago 10 years ago etc. when the boy cries wolf at everything that moves people tend to ignore the boy.
    - the_af 1y ago
      But politics in one way or another shapes almost every corner of your life. This is a reality whether one chooses to see it or not.
      - gonzobonzo 1y ago
        People tend to do this justification behavior where they claim their dopamine hits are good for them/their health/society, when in actuality it's detrimental. Almost no political junkie I know has changed their view on Trump over the past decade. They'll spend hours a day, sometimes hours a week, focused on him, but it ends up absolutely having no positive impact on their selves or their lives (usually a large negative impact). Then I ask them about their local politicians, where they stand on certain issues, what their record is, what's been happening with their local government - and they have absolutely no clue. They can't even recall who was running in the previous local primary, or why they voted for who they voted for. They're wasting countless hours on Trump and national politics because it feels good. Then they won't even spend a fraction learning about things that could actually make an important difference in their voting, because it's too boring for them. Even worse, many people will try to pass off these actions as being virtuous or being informed.

resters 1y ago

The administration's theft of TikTok is absolutely unacceptable and we should all be horrified. Entrepreneurs built a great business with an algorithm that is still -- years after it launched -- head and shoulders more entertaining and engagement-generating than anything domestic firms could come up with, even with years to figure it out. TikTok is also significantly better for content creators and has more useful tooling. TikTok lets videos be downloaded by default which is why most Instagram Reels (tm) and YouTube Shorts (tm) are actually TikToks someone uploaded. TikTok was a problem for the US Government both because it outshone US firms -- ironically by making the algorithm show more interesting and appealing content to users, rather than the "viral" rubbish that overtakes the incumbents feeds... and also because it started becoming a source of highly informative citizen journalism, spreading awareness about many social issues, from police brutality to the treatment of the people of Gaza by Israel and the US. It's the politically sensitive citizen journalism that Bebe considers a "weapon" that needed to be stolen from its creators. Now, per Larry Ellison's recent comments, everyone's TikTok history is being mined by Oracle to help suppress dissent against Trump's policies and keep people in line. I've already started noticing a few obviously fake disinformation campaigns that support pro-Trump goals starting to gain ground on TikTok and other social media in the past week or so. There is absolutely no reason that any country that values freedom of speech and press freedom should confiscate someone else's company to weaponize it against the American people. This is an utterly shameful episode motivated by the worst and darkest human motivations -- controlling others and suppressing the speech of the downtrodden.

nitrix 1y ago
Or people are just trying to not be reminded every second of their living lives that there's one conflict or another going on. TikTok is made in China and used worldwide. Not many things are relatable and relevant to a world wide audience.
- resters 1y ago
  Have you ever used TikTok? It responds rapidly to your engagement (likes, skips, etc.) and very quickly starts showing you mostly the kind of content you enjoy. Not sure what you mean about it not being relatable to a worldwide audience. I see mostly US content in English and a bit in Spanish, but the algorithm will quickly adapt to show the user content from whatever regions they are interested in.

IceHegel 1y ago

"Democracy" is obviously a scam if a foreign power can buy the platforms and adjust information flows to "shift" public opinion their way. Votes are the output, not the input. Not that officials seems to listen anyway.

aprilthird2021 1y ago
> if a foreign power can buy the platforms and adjust information flows to "shift" public opinion their way. NO. I will never accept this premise and nor should any American. The people ARE the government and they can be influenced any which way they want to be. There shouldn't ever be any such thing as the government "protecting" people from influence. If the people want to all tune into some foreign broadcaster all day and love everything he's saying. That's how the country will be. The second you accept "oh foreign influence is manipulating our voters to X or Y so it has to be stopped" you are signing the death warrant for free speech. This is EXACTLY the justification used in all sorts of authoritarian garbage places to suppress information and restrict speech
- iamnothere 1y ago
  I agree with you on this. People who don’t believe this fundamentally do not believe in democracy. You may worry about citizens being sufficiently educated, you may worry about them having access to enough information to make good decisions. But to restrict information for fear that they may make the “wrong” decision—the one you don’t like—there is nothing democratic about that. Foreign voices and perspectives are critical to understanding the world as a whole and making informed decisions. If the population isn’t ready to take in that information and sort the wheat from the chaff, then they aren’t ready for democracy.
  - Fade_Dance 1y ago
    Sure, but there's a difference in intent and degree between "foreign influence is manipulating our voters" via political content on TikTok vs a targeted state sponsored campaign run by intelligence agencies. There are some common sense guardrails around elections in a democracy, and foreign influence targeting the actual election process is generally viewed as over the line of acceptability.

nemothekid 1y ago

Bit ironic that we are finally getting the dreaded draconian Chinese censorship once the company was forced to sell to Americans

gruez 1y ago
Finally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok#Politics
bgwalter 1y ago
Trump claims that China has practically approved the deal, but as of Oct 10th we again have a 100% tariff threat on China and no confirmed Chinese approval: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-china-new-tariffs-countermeasures-rcna236890 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-threatens-chi... With Trump flooding the zone, this news was difficult to find. Much of the press just reported that the deal is practically sealed, which he (probably falsely) bragged about on Truth Social. So the ICE censorship appears to be still done by Chinese algorithms, perhaps to soften up trade relations or because their algorithms are tuned to censor videos of persons in military gear beating down a citizen anyway.

stackedinserter 1y ago

"Just build your own tiktok". "Freedom of speech is not absolute". "Freedom of expression doesn't guarantee giving you a platform". "1st amendment protect you from government, not from companies". Let me guess: they censored some leftist content, am I right?

krapp 1y ago
Freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it doesn't guarantee you a platform, and the 1st Amendment does only protect you from government, not companies. I don't see what the point of your comment is. It seems like you're dunking on "the left" for... being factually correct?
- stackedinserter 1y ago
  My point is that so called "progressives" kept justifying and even celebrating censorship for more than a decade, but screeching and screaming now, when it hit themselves.
  - krapp 1y ago
    No one was justifying or celebrating censorship then, and no one is screeching and screaming now. It seems you're trying to imply that "progressives" are being hypocritical (although I don't know what specifically is "progressive" in this context), but there is no hypocrisy in recognizing that private platforms have the right to enforce policies while also protesting those policies. That's how free speech actually works. As opposed to what conservatives were doing not long ago, which is demanding the government forcibly take over social media platforms and make banning them illegal. Talk about screeching and screaming.
    - stackedinserter 1y ago
      What's the point of this post then. Enjoy your own medicine.
bhouston 1y ago

jauntywundrkind 1y ago

Who knows, but worth noting at least that China has demanded purges of negativity across the internet. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/world/asia/china-censorship-pessimism-despair.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/world/asia/china-censorsh... I don't think it's probable that that's what's going on here. But it is possible. And the overlapping concerns of state control & platform censorship seem abundantly clear.

tstrimple 1y ago

One of the few social media outlets that didn't blatantly censor Israel's war crimes. So of course it had to go. Places like Hacker News are safe because they toe the line and ensure "inconvenient topics" aren't popular or promoted. It's fully baked into their rules and it's generally accepted as a Good Thing somehow. Anti-censorship lip-service out of one side of their mouth and rampant clampdown on "unacceptable conversations" within their VC safe space.