3 ms·

That one image of all the camera's apparently remotely controlled to scan the entire neighbourhood is something it's difficult to unsee. The implication is obv

That one image of all the camera's apparently remotely controlled to scan the entire neighbourhood is something it's difficult to unsee. The implication is obvious, the feel is inhuman. The power of a few seconds of video is why TikTok had to be brought under control ( and sadly not just because of worrying about what others might do, but to specifically censor and promote specific messages ). The issue really isn't about whether your neighbourhood has camera's, the question is who is in control.

pbhjpbhj 8mo ago
>The power of a few seconds of video is why TikTok had to be brought under control Didn't USA's current regime take over TikTok in order to use it for propaganda? Twitter-X was used so successfully that they're expanding their psyops.
- DrScientist 8mo ago
  All done in plain sight - because the people doing it are the good guys right? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3tdrO8bA7rs https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3tdrO8bA7rs
  - malfist 8mo ago
    You can trust billionaires, they always have your best interest in heart. After all, they're so wealthy they don't have to exploit you, unlike those grubby mom and pop operations that are desperate.
- ericmay 8mo ago
  Well we took it from a communist, anti-American regime executing their psyop and made it our own. Either way just stop using it and nobody gets to psyop you. It’s very straightforward.
  - pbhjpbhj 8mo ago
    I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you. China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes. Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems. You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics; like opposing democracy, or rounding up nationals, ... but USA does as badly (worse?) on those things. What it looks like is China was 'winning' the trade balance and USA's billionaires decided to take a break from raping teenagers to throw all the citizens on the fire to try and leverage their position to bring in fascism as a means to enriching themselves even further. Go USA, eh.
    - ericmay 8mo ago
      > I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you. Yea but you can stop what would be 80+% of the influence on your life by not using it. It is very straightforward. > China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes. China (and other malicious actors) have demonstrably leveraged social media platforms to inflame tensions, create anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, and more. With platforms like TikTok they were able to more directly influence content, they understand the algorithm that is used, &c. But let me put it to you from a different angle. If you don't think China was or could have been using TikTok to influence Americans and westerners in general, then I'd suggest the US had nothing to do with, oh, idk, the Arab Spring. :) > Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems. Well they have other platforms for that, social credit score, TVs on every corner, &c. Much safer for me to have it American controlled so I don't have an authoritarian Chinese communist party trying to influence me or anyone around me, or further inflaming tensions for their own gain. > You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics; Well it's not just Americans and Canadiens, it's the EU too. The strategy was to leverage incredibly cheap labor (slave labor in some cases) and loose environmental restrictions to start manufacturing cheap goods and then move up the value chain. Inherently there's nothing to wrong with the approach (minus the slave labor and all of that), but as China continued to do so they did so while also undercutting competitiveness from other countries and blocs. They artificially devalue their currency, they routinely broke WTO rules so much so that other countries said to hell with it. The EU for example has historically tariffed Chinese products. Why? Because if they don't then local industries in the EU with long summer vacations and all of these nice things would be out-competed and out of business. This isn't really controversial or anything. It's pretty well known, and from an American standpoint the point of view with respect to China is rather bipartisan.
- hi-jinx5678 8mo ago
  no, israel demanded the tiktok thing due to the backlash they are recieving for genocide and ethnic cleansing. their faithful servants in america simply did as their master commanded.
  - AlexandrB 8mo ago
    "From the river to the sea" is a literal call for Israel to be ethnically cleansed. Both sides want to kill each other very badly, only one side has the capability at the moment.
    - dathinab 8mo ago
      as interesting side note: geographic "from <> to <>" slogans are very commonly used in such contexts. Basically you take a are geographically split into multiple regions, make a "from->to" slogan which treats this areas as one unit in between and imply through it that it should be all homogeneous (weather it's about country boraders or ethnicity) --- Like e.g. the German national anthem is based on a song from 1841, i.e. it predates WW1,2 and in turn the current German border. Due to this the first verse refers to boarder rivers which by now lie outside of Germany (and and has other issues related to sever misinterpretation of most of the verse). This lead to it being abused by Nazis and later neo-nazis to mean Germany should go to war and size various border regions. But Germany did need a national anthem and this song has a lot of important history meaning unrelated to WW2/Nazis. So west Germany decided to make it the anthem again, but only sing the 3rd verse for official occasions. Through due to continuous abuse of neo-nazies of the first verse this was changed with reunification and today only the 3rd verse is the official national anthem. Anyway I got a bit off topic but "from <> to <> verses" crossing country boarders (or "ethnic" boarders if used in some "ethnic" context) are most times "pretend to be harmless" slogans of extremists, even if they have a history where they had other meaning (like with the first verse of the song the German national anthem is based on).
    - DrScientist 8mo ago
      Maybe. Though you have missed out the second part - which doesn't talk about cleansing - it only talks about end of occupation. Only one side is an illegally occupying power who took the land by force from the people who were peacefully living there. And don't quote me events from ~2000 years ago. If everyone held grudges that long the whole world would be at war. The people in the West bank currently being driven from their homes - they aren't a threat to Israel - they are just farmers working their land. Trying to pick their olives. It's a false equivalence to say there are two sides, on the one hand and the other.
- dathinab 8mo ago
  > to use it for propaganda AFIK no But once you do take it over and have no morals, why not also use it for such?

pbhjpbhj 8mo ago

>The power of a few seconds of video is why TikTok had to be brought under control Didn't USA's current regime take over TikTok in order to use it for propaganda? Twitter-X was used so successfully that they're expanding their psyops.

DrScientist 8mo ago
All done in plain sight - because the people doing it are the good guys right? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3tdrO8bA7rs https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3tdrO8bA7rs
- malfist 8mo ago
  You can trust billionaires, they always have your best interest in heart. After all, they're so wealthy they don't have to exploit you, unlike those grubby mom and pop operations that are desperate.
ericmay 8mo ago
Well we took it from a communist, anti-American regime executing their psyop and made it our own. Either way just stop using it and nobody gets to psyop you. It’s very straightforward.
- pbhjpbhj 8mo ago
  I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you. China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes. Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems. You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics; like opposing democracy, or rounding up nationals, ... but USA does as badly (worse?) on those things. What it looks like is China was 'winning' the trade balance and USA's billionaires decided to take a break from raping teenagers to throw all the citizens on the fire to try and leverage their position to bring in fascism as a means to enriching themselves even further. Go USA, eh.
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    > I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you. Yea but you can stop what would be 80+% of the influence on your life by not using it. It is very straightforward. > China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes. China (and other malicious actors) have demonstrably leveraged social media platforms to inflame tensions, create anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, and more. With platforms like TikTok they were able to more directly influence content, they understand the algorithm that is used, &c. But let me put it to you from a different angle. If you don't think China was or could have been using TikTok to influence Americans and westerners in general, then I'd suggest the US had nothing to do with, oh, idk, the Arab Spring. :) > Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems. Well they have other platforms for that, social credit score, TVs on every corner, &c. Much safer for me to have it American controlled so I don't have an authoritarian Chinese communist party trying to influence me or anyone around me, or further inflaming tensions for their own gain. > You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics; Well it's not just Americans and Canadiens, it's the EU too. The strategy was to leverage incredibly cheap labor (slave labor in some cases) and loose environmental restrictions to start manufacturing cheap goods and then move up the value chain. Inherently there's nothing to wrong with the approach (minus the slave labor and all of that), but as China continued to do so they did so while also undercutting competitiveness from other countries and blocs. They artificially devalue their currency, they routinely broke WTO rules so much so that other countries said to hell with it. The EU for example has historically tariffed Chinese products. Why? Because if they don't then local industries in the EU with long summer vacations and all of these nice things would be out-competed and out of business. This isn't really controversial or anything. It's pretty well known, and from an American standpoint the point of view with respect to China is rather bipartisan.
hi-jinx5678 8mo ago
no, israel demanded the tiktok thing due to the backlash they are recieving for genocide and ethnic cleansing. their faithful servants in america simply did as their master commanded.
- AlexandrB 8mo ago
  "From the river to the sea" is a literal call for Israel to be ethnically cleansed. Both sides want to kill each other very badly, only one side has the capability at the moment.
  - dathinab 8mo ago
    as interesting side note: geographic "from <> to <>" slogans are very commonly used in such contexts. Basically you take a are geographically split into multiple regions, make a "from->to" slogan which treats this areas as one unit in between and imply through it that it should be all homogeneous (weather it's about country boraders or ethnicity) --- Like e.g. the German national anthem is based on a song from 1841, i.e. it predates WW1,2 and in turn the current German border. Due to this the first verse refers to boarder rivers which by now lie outside of Germany (and and has other issues related to sever misinterpretation of most of the verse). This lead to it being abused by Nazis and later neo-nazis to mean Germany should go to war and size various border regions. But Germany did need a national anthem and this song has a lot of important history meaning unrelated to WW2/Nazis. So west Germany decided to make it the anthem again, but only sing the 3rd verse for official occasions. Through due to continuous abuse of neo-nazies of the first verse this was changed with reunification and today only the 3rd verse is the official national anthem. Anyway I got a bit off topic but "from <> to <> verses" crossing country boarders (or "ethnic" boarders if used in some "ethnic" context) are most times "pretend to be harmless" slogans of extremists, even if they have a history where they had other meaning (like with the first verse of the song the German national anthem is based on).
  - DrScientist 8mo ago
    Maybe. Though you have missed out the second part - which doesn't talk about cleansing - it only talks about end of occupation. Only one side is an illegally occupying power who took the land by force from the people who were peacefully living there. And don't quote me events from ~2000 years ago. If everyone held grudges that long the whole world would be at war. The people in the West bank currently being driven from their homes - they aren't a threat to Israel - they are just farmers working their land. Trying to pick their olives. It's a false equivalence to say there are two sides, on the one hand and the other.
dathinab 8mo ago
> to use it for propaganda AFIK no But once you do take it over and have no morals, why not also use it for such?