3 ms·

So your theory is that a single, coherent actor ("deep state"?) is responsible for current public sentiment that is both somewhat critical of social media and s

by myrmidon 10mo ago

So your theory is that a single, coherent actor ("deep state"?) is responsible for current public sentiment that is both somewhat critical of social media and specifically foreign control of that media? I disagree on that. In a democracy, if you gave full control over local media to a foreign nation, do you see how that could lead to problems, or would you be fine with that?

krapp 10mo ago
TikTok being owned by a Chinese company didn't represent "giving full control over local media to a foreign nation." And it's weird that you mistrust the influence of something as banal as TikTok but apparently believe the moral panic around social media and TikTok specifically is entirely organic. Because I guess there is no such thing as propaganda or influence operations on Western social media? If you're worried about foreign influence on social media literally every Western platform is being aggressively manipulated by both foreign and Western intelligence. It just got revealed that most of the MAGA accounts on Twitter were foreign, likely Russian-based networks. The platform that serves as the de facto psychological operations and communications channel for the current Presidental administration. But it's just TikTok and the Chinese mind control we should worry about?
- myrmidon 10mo ago
  I'm absolutely not saying that there is no western propaganda. But giving control over your media to any single actor (especially sovereign ones) is basically suicide for a democracy because it allows those actors to "democratically" achieve results against voter interests. Politicians having control over media is always a problem, but it got much worse thanks to inherent centralization of modern media, so more regulatory pushback is needed now than in the newspaper age. I'd also argue that foreigners having media control is typically worse because incentives are even less aligned with voters.
  - krapp 10mo ago
    >But giving control over your media to any single actor (especially sovereign ones) is basically suicide for a democracy because it allows those actors to "democratically" achieve results against voter interests. There's plenty of evidence of Russian influence operations affecting Western elections on Facebook and Twitter. Where is the evidence that the CCP is controlling people's minds and rigging Western elections through TikTok?
pipes 10mo ago
Times article explaining that the uk governments first intention was never child protection, it was controlling the public discourse: https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co... This isn't some tin foiled hat wearing nonsense, every person I talk to seems think that ending anonymity online would be a good thing, until I explain the democracy protecting use cases,i.e. whistle blowers.

krapp 10mo ago

TikTok being owned by a Chinese company didn't represent "giving full control over local media to a foreign nation." And it's weird that you mistrust the influence of something as banal as TikTok but apparently believe the moral panic around social media and TikTok specifically is entirely organic. Because I guess there is no such thing as propaganda or influence operations on Western social media? If you're worried about foreign influence on social media literally every Western platform is being aggressively manipulated by both foreign and Western intelligence. It just got revealed that most of the MAGA accounts on Twitter were foreign, likely Russian-based networks. The platform that serves as the de facto psychological operations and communications channel for the current Presidental administration. But it's just TikTok and the Chinese mind control we should worry about?

myrmidon 10mo ago
I'm absolutely not saying that there is no western propaganda. But giving control over your media to any single actor (especially sovereign ones) is basically suicide for a democracy because it allows those actors to "democratically" achieve results against voter interests. Politicians having control over media is always a problem, but it got much worse thanks to inherent centralization of modern media, so more regulatory pushback is needed now than in the newspaper age. I'd also argue that foreigners having media control is typically worse because incentives are even less aligned with voters.
- krapp 10mo ago
  >But giving control over your media to any single actor (especially sovereign ones) is basically suicide for a democracy because it allows those actors to "democratically" achieve results against voter interests. There's plenty of evidence of Russian influence operations affecting Western elections on Facebook and Twitter. Where is the evidence that the CCP is controlling people's minds and rigging Western elections through TikTok?

pipes 10mo ago

Times article explaining that the uk governments first intention was never child protection, it was controlling the public discourse: https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co... This isn't some tin foiled hat wearing nonsense, every person I talk to seems think that ending anonymity online would be a good thing, until I explain the democracy protecting use cases,i.e. whistle blowers.