Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Crack0n7uesday ,

So NSA backdoors are mandatory but Chinese ones are bad.

redfox ,
@redfox@infosec.pub avatar

Yes. šŸ¤·

Nobody wants to be spied on by their perceived enemies. Also, how do you expect us to maintain an appropriate level of hypocrisy if we don't constantly do hypocritical things?

I wish we would go after foreign investment, ownership, and political meddling as much as tiktok

hark ,
@hark@lemmy.world avatar

I would be more afraid of being spied on by the government of the country I live in than by a government from a foreign country. Who do you think is more capable of doing something to you?

redfox ,
@redfox@infosec.pub avatar

being spied on by the government of the country I live in than by a government from a foreign country

Ha, that's a decent point. I don't really care for either. I think about these things among others:

  • China has proved they are interested in conflict. They haven't used any kinetic/traditional warfare against anyone lately, though they seriously want to with Tiwan.
  • China has been using nonstop cyber related warfare to conduct espionage, steal trade secrets, position themselves for assisting kinetic warfare with cyber warfare, etc.

I am not a direct target of these, but China killing the power grid or disabling telecommunications does have the potential to have a huge impact on my life.

  • The US government has used nonstop kinetic and cyber warfare over the last 20+ years.

The US playing world police doesn't directly threaten my safety, but I definitely would be more worried about the US than China if I wasn't a US citizen.

The US government spying on me:

  • Super annoying mostly due to the principle of a lack of privacy, regardless of whether I do anything bad or not
  • Becomes a serious problem if I was an active opponent of government policy and elected officials, and the government/leadership deems me a terrorist/insurrectionist/etc.

Their discretion of what's my free speech and right to criticize the government vs leading insurrection would be more complicated if they were using the NSA to own my life and try to use any excuse to lock me up.

I guess I weigh what's more likely to be a problem in my current/future life.

I don't like either of these scenarios.

Crack0n7uesday ,

You have a choice to not use tiktok, in this day and age you don't really have a choice to not use a phone...

nialv7 ,

Yes, governmental surveillance is always bad. But let's not pretend being surveilled by NSA is as bad as being surveilled by the authoritarian government of China.

DragonTypeWyvern ,

Sure bro, it's the CCP out to oppress Americans and arrest and assassinate reformers and journalists, because they hate our freedom!

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

it's worse. it's worse because they have the power to arrest me, freeze my assets, or do a hundred other terrible things. the chinese can... uh... find out my sense of humor is immature i think.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The fundamental fear of TikTok isn't censorship. It's fear of a media outlet that expresses views sympathetic to the Chinese government.

If Americans are exposed to these views, there is a horrifying possibility that they my agree with them. And if Americans agree with the Chinese government, it's just a matter of time before America crumbles from within.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

the second paragraph, that's satire, right?

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

It's what American politicians actually believe

tpihkal ,

Both are bad but fuck Xi and the CCP šŸ–•

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The former is more pressing than the latter.

jeremyparker ,

I mean, it's not one or the other. No interference from Congress means we get surveilled by China and the US. Congress can cut that number in half.

fuckingkangaroos ,

I've got you tagged as "CCP shill?"

Hildegarde ,

Whatever Tiktok is doing, the correct response is to write enforcable laws to prevent ANY company from doing what Tiktok is doing.

This is bad governance.

Devccoon ,
@Devccoon@lemmy.world avatar

That's what they did. The "correct response" is described in the article as the law 50/50 signed here.

Hildegarde ,

Did you read the article? The bill bans tiktok for being foreign. There is nothing in this article that describes a bill that outlaws any practices, conventions, or actions that tiktok has done.

Being afraid of foreigners for being foreign is not effective regulation.

Trantarius ,

The bill itself says, more or less, "any foreign adversary controlled app is banned. Also, TikTok is a foreign adversary controlled app". So it doesn't apply exclusively to TikTok, but it does explicitly include them.

Liz ,

I think most of us here are concerned with foreign adversary interference as much as we are concerned with corporate interference and espionage. The law seems to only address the surface level issue (ownership) and none of the actual problems (action).

ShepherdPie ,

The point is that companies like Google and Facebook do the same data harvesting and manipulation but aren't being held to the same standard. The law is clearly written to benefit the US government not the citizens, while the justification is stated to be 'for the benefit of the citizens.' It's like buying your wife a lawn tractor for her birthday even though you know she has no interest in using one. You're claiming it's for her but it's really for you.

dumpsterlid ,

The lawn tractor was for my wifeā€™s boyfriend actually, but thanks for just assuming I was being selfish.

ICastFist ,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

Interesting wording there, "foreign adversary controlled", goes a long way to protect all the companies that are based in tax havens, or controlled by foreign allies, like Saudi Arabia or Israel

dumpsterlid ,

In a democracy one of the very most important choices that must be made by citizens is what other nations are considered allies or an enemies.

The funny thing is that US citizens have absolutely zero control over who the government decides is our enemy or ally. That aspect of government is entirely partitioned off as separate from the ā€œdemocracyā€, as if the foreign policy element of our government was itself a foreign nation we have no control over.

While we are on the topic, fuck the government of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both governments are horrendously violent.

BreakDecks ,

I've read this comment over 10 times now and I have no idea what the words "the law 50/50 signed here" means, so I can't be sure I understand the argument you are trying to make. My best guess is that you are using circular logic to suggest that every democratically decided upon decision is always the right decision, which is nonsense because democracy is demonstrably fallible.

Devccoon ,
@Devccoon@lemmy.world avatar

My point might be a little Covid brain fogged but I'm just pointing out that they did exactly what the guy asked for, if they bothered to click past the title which makes it sound like a targeted "ban Tiktok" law.

Hildegarde ,

I am not a guy. I read the entire article before commenting. The law did not do what I asked for. You would know if you read my comment all the way through.

Devccoon ,
@Devccoon@lemmy.world avatar

I think you're making assumptions that I can read into what exactly you find wrong with Tiktok. That context is not there in the original comment.

Hildegarde ,

Being chinese by definition can't effect any company. There is enough context.

FiniteBanjo ,

I don't see why users would even have a problem with this. Same services, more competitive market, and with less ties to an evil dictatorship should be celebrated, right?

herpaderp ,

It depends. Iā€™ve heard second hand accounts that TikTok can push pro-Chinese propaganda, and whenever I pointed out that China isnā€™t some lefty paradise to some people in my life they were either shocked or fell into the ā€œyouā€™re falling in line with the Western Propaganda, I see šŸ˜ā€

FiniteBanjo ,

I'm much less concerned with what they're giving than what they're taking with the app. It's been shown to collect message history and photo library data, that alone is a threat to us all.

herpaderp ,

I agree! Both are issues, but I was giving a different context where a TikTok user may not care about it being under the thumb of the CCP.

Misconduct ,

Why would I care? Is it somehow better for google or facebook to profit off of my data? China doesn't even solely own the app. They don't even own enough of the app to censor it and so it's banned in China lmao

irreticent ,
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

They don't even own enough of the app to censor it and so it's banned in China lmao

Why do you keep repeating that all over this post? It's not even true (unproven):

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/

Misconduct ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Appoxo ,

    Doesnt tiktok have a personalized feed for China that promotes healthy habits and everywhere else it's more likely to morph into brain dead content spirale?

    Misconduct ,

    Personalized feed? What? I've never heard of anything like that

    Appoxo ,

    One of the things I read about: https://nypost.com/2023/02/25/china-is-hurting-us-kids-with-tiktok-but-protecting-its-own/

    BUT I don't know if it's actually true.

    irreticent ,
    @irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

    TikTok is banned in China

    That remains unproven:

    "TikTok has never been available in China, as the country has its own version of the app, called Douyin. Both apps are owned by the same Chinese company, ByteDance. Thus far, we've been unable to find definitive proof that TikTok is or is not officially banned in China."

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/

    affiliate ,

    Many users called lawmakers' offices to complain, congressional staffers told Politico. "It's so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They're teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can't take it away," one House GOP staffer was quoted as saying.

    and they still voted 50-0. really tells you something about how much these politicians are willing to listen to their constituents.

    FiniteBanjo , (edited )

    It was a 50-0 to pass the commission and then go to the House floor for a vote and then the Senate for a vote and finally signed into law by the president unless he vetoes it, which is possible imo.

    Honestly, teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves, I might just call in to my local representative to voice my support of forced sale, operating restrictions, or even outright ban.

    EDIT: I sent him an email.

    Clent ,

    Nanny State.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    "Mr. Legislator I am 84 and I need my Heroin but the federal government keeps cracking down on my supplier, please stop taking away all my Heroin Mr. Legislator. Also, force my bank to let me transfer 85,000 USD to India, it's really important that I do that before the 27th."

    Clent ,

    Yes. This is called Nanny State.

    Rather than educate the populace, take away the tools. Of course, another tool will just rise to the surface but it will make a lot of people feel really good that they did something.

    I do appreciate all of the reactionary statements. I don't use TikTok but I do believe in freedom. Reducing freedoms, no matter how well intentioned does not solve societies problems.

    FiniteBanjo , (edited )

    You can't educate dementia away. You can educate youth away, but that takes years, which would effectively be a ban for them. TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation and by extension their associated foreign dictatorship.

    Absolute freedom should not extend to harming each other.

    ShepherdPie ,

    TikTok is not a tool for its users, it is a tool for a for profit corporation

    That pretty much describes every corporation in existence.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Some of them provide utility and some don't, which is why we don't allow children to drink, smoke, or gamble. If a company providing those goods and services targets those demographics it gets political action.

    Welcome to the nuance of society and the modern world.

    ShepherdPie ,

    But they're not disallowing children smoking, drinking, or gambling here. It's more akin to disallowing children from drinking Smirnoff, smoking Marlboros, or playing blackjack and nothing else.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Reigning any of them in is a step in the right direction.

    ShepherdPie ,

    If this had anything to do with children, they'd be reigning them all in at once instead of wasting time singling one of many out.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Even equating the arm of a militaristic expansionist dictatorship to a tech giant is disingenuous to its core, Google collects a shit ton of data but even that pales in comparison to TikTok's absurd collection. But all of that aside, your argument is shit. Reign in every tech giant at once? Why? Why the hell is it all or none? I don't even think the US Federal Government in its current state has enough authority to try that, at this point.

    That's like choosing not to take a doctor's license away unless you can take away every bad doctor's license in the USA at one time.

    ShepherdPie ,

    How do you suddenly go from comparing these platforms to alcohol and gambling, saying they have no actual utility, and saying 'every little bit helps' when it comes to regulation to asking why these companies actions should even be regulated and why the law should apply to them all equally, even going as far as comparing them to the role doctors play in society?

    That's honestly one of the most abrupt 180-degree spins I've ever seen.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Fuck equal rights of a corporation to fuck people over with an addictive product that has no utility. Thats an equal right I cannot stand behind.

    ShepherdPie ,

    Are you drunk or something? That's literally what you're arguing for here.

    Gabu ,

    No it's not, you absolute buffoon. It's a step in the direction of narrative control.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    If punishing corporations more and more as time goes on is part of narrative control then I want narrative control's dick deep inside of me.

    Clent ,

    TikTok is one of hundreds of vectors to swindle the senile and I doubt it's even in the top 10.

    Grandpa needs to have someone else handling his finances. It's not the governments job and let's not pretend this bill is about keeping grandpas money safe.

    affiliate ,

    what are you even trying to say here? that itā€™s okay for politicians to ignore entire demographics? or that itā€™s only okay for them to ignore entire demographics if, ultimately, itā€™s left up to a different group of politicians to pass the law?

    i donā€™t use tiktok or have any interest in the app itself, but itā€™s still very alarming to see a vote go through 50-0 despite a ā€œnonstopā€ flood of calls opposing it.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Ignore them? Gosh no. Protect them. Literally what I said.

    affiliate ,

    ā€œprotect them from themselvesā€ is what you said. which carries the connotation that they donā€™t know whatā€™s best for themselves and arenā€™t qualified to make judgments about those things. this is different from simply ā€œprotecting themā€.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Those things are exactly the same and it is indeed what I just said. Problem?

    prole ,
    @prole@sh.itjust.works avatar

    To be fair, a big part of a functioning society is a government with proper regulations in place so that people are not expected to be experts in literally every field before making a purchase or performing some kind of action. Obviously, calling it "protect[ing] them from themselves," is dismissive and patronizing, but it's pretty much why we need government in the first place.

    For example, the EPA recently issued a recall for ground cinnamon from certain specific (dollar store) brands due to unacceptably high levels of lead. Without the career scientists (and yes, bureaucrats) working for that regulatory agency, millions of people would have continued consuming the product and feeding it to their kids (low-income folks too in this case, given the brands) literally indefinitely.

    Without the EPA, every person who buys cinnamon is what, expected to use mass spectrometry to determine the exact molecular make-up of every spice (or in the case of the EPA, literally any food or prescription drugs you may ever consume) before using?

    If they didn't do their cinnamon research, then they deserved it, and the government should have no involvement? What happens in cases where companies hide dangerous issues in their products to avoid losing profits?

    What if there's literally no way for anyone but a scientist, with extensive lab access and at least 4+ years of university to know that there is an issue with a product (or a construction site, or a drug, or water treatment, etc)? They're the only ones who should be able to properly avoid using a product that may kill them and their children? And even then, only when it's a product they're an expert in?

    Not saying you're a libertarian, just like pointing out the obvious things that make it so so stupid.

    affiliate ,

    i agree with everything youā€™ve said here. and i liked the EPA example. sorry if what i said came across as libertarian, that was not my intention.

    i was just trying to push back against the ā€œyoung people donā€™t know whatā€™s best for themselvesā€ mentality in the other post.

    although, to be clear, i think the current state of social media does have quite a few problems that need addressing, and more regulation on that would certainly be welcome.

    treadful ,
    @treadful@lemmy.zip avatar

    Would love to see the science or other expert opinions that is being used to justify this ban then.

    I haven't heard anything except politicians making vague references to spying or other things we allow from domestic services.

    It's just politics.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    TikTok Data Harvests: Report by AU Cybersecurity Firm or if you can't be bothered to get past the paywall the news coverage of the event.

    Misinformation on TikTok: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.001

    Adolescents more susceptible to product placement on TikTok: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107723

    Misconduct ,

    Ok, sure. Show me what research you or they have done to justify "protecting them from themselves". Already they're telling lies by insinuating that only teenagers and old people are calling. And you all just believe it? Wild how biased people can be when presented with information they want to believe.

    Misconduct ,

    You're not doing it to protect people. It's ridiculous that you'd even pretend to be.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    What other reason could I possibly have? You think there is some massive anti-tiktok cabal out there trying to profit by... uh... fucking how?

    Gabu ,

    By banning anything except the few 'murican tech giants doing the exact same shit as TikTok. Even a blind person can see how cancerous american companies are, yet this does nothing to address that.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Actually, they're not doing that at all, they're forcing a compromised unethical American to sell to a different unethical American to do exactly the same thing. At no point was a ban even discussed. So, literally everything you just said was wrong.

    Gabu ,

    Are you literally incapable of textual interpretation?

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Are you literally illiterate?

    ikidd ,
    @ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

    Now do Facebook.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Love to, I think the 5 Bn USD FTC fine was a little light considering no jailtime was given. I hope their recent lawsuits lead to breaking the company up again.

    Krauerking ,

    Yeah honestly if a bunch of addicted teens and old people were calling me screaming that I can't take away their drug of choice when that's not even what's happening, and it's not being taken away just moved to where there can be more control on quality.... Then I would be really considering the damage this is doing to them.

    I don't know if supporting the junkies being taken advantage of is the altruistic take that these "absolute freedom" supporters think it is.

    Misconduct ,

    The fact that you guys just ate up that rhetoric without any hesitation... Like, you just happily believe it's a bunch of "addicted old people and teenagers"? Is this reddit? Did I make a wrong turn at common sense and critical thinking?

    Krauerking ,

    Uh dude... I know people addicted that got the email to message their representative. They will stop talking in a conversation and pull out their phone and just scroll through a few videos.

    I struggle to believe so many would be messaging just out of laziness but don't question that being the age groups that would respond most to that kind of targeted messaging into action.

    Misconduct ,

    Nobody got an email. You don't know shit.

    I never denied they sent a notification to people in the app. It offered to help get in touch with local reps. Why would people exercising their rights to communicate with politicians bother you in any way? That's weird.

    Messaging out of laziness? What does that even mean? They were calling their local reps to voice their discontent.

    The people addicted comment just makes you look petty and ignorant. It might be time for you to graduate to Facebook.

    Misconduct ,

    It's not just teenagers and old people. That's just some bullshit rhetoric that you ate right up without question. Because of course you did. Millennials/middle age folk are abundant on TikTok as well as young adults.

    The audacity of some of you to jump into action just to spite "teenagers and old people" is shameful. So easily manipulated.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    Right, sorry, it's fine to let teenagers and old people be harmed as long as the company can continue to profit off consenting adults as well. /sarcasm

    Misconduct ,

    How are they being harmed? Why was it so easy for them to make you believe this? Also, who asked you to protect anyone with your one petty little email lmao

    FiniteBanjo ,

    A foreign dictatorship gathering face and voice id, entiry photo library and message history, contacts, and location tracking precise enough to pinpoint nearby devices and tell which floor of a building you're on regardless of if the app is in use, to me equates to harm. If you disagree, well, I don't give a fuck what you think tbh.

    BreakDecks ,

    teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves

    Please, big daddy government, protect me from the freedom of choice. I cannot be trusted to consume without your permission.

    FiniteBanjo ,

    LMAO pay attention in school, kid, you seem like the type who is going to need it.

    fuckingkangaroos ,

    They should really educate people about foreign threats like the CCP and Kremlin.

    furikuri ,

    Me when I find out that it's illegal to sell your organs for profit

    realharo ,

    Are they "taking it away" though? Do normal people care about who owns it? Are they just worried about an unlikely ban?

    affiliate ,

    youā€™re taking it as a given that bytedance will sell the app if this law passes. there is a chance that they wonā€™t want to sell and then the app will be banned. (but i think this unlikely.)

    also, if iā€™m understanding things correctly, thereā€™s the possibility that they do sell and the app still gets banned. the article says

    An app would be allowed to stay in the US market after a divestiture if the president determines that the sale "would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary."

    depending on who the next president is, thereā€™s no guarantee that theyā€™ll say any sale will result in the company not being controlled by a foreign adversary. (although this past is just speculation.)

    anyways. this bill will certainly raise the chances that the app will be banned in the US. (and it opens the door for other apps to get banned if the US doesnā€™t like the country they were developed in.)

    realharo ,

    I also just noticed in the article:

    TikTok urged its users to protest the bill, sending a notification that said, "Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok... Let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO."

    Also from a BBC article about the same thing:

    Earlier, users of the app had received a notification urging them to act to "stop a TikTok shutdown."

    So they were literally sending out misleading notifications (because a forced sale is not a total ban), and then the users wrote to Congress based on that...

    The probability that they will sell seems really high to me, as the same thing almost happened back in 2020.

    Delta_V ,

    There's no guarantee that making the sale will prevent the ban.

    shasta ,

    Yeah but if they sell then it's someone else stuck holding the bags so why wouldn't they?

    Delta_V ,

    because its not in the corporation's interest to incur the expense and organizational disruption if they're still going to get banned anyway - profit is maximized by continuing with business as usual instead of spending resources attempting to reach compliance

    Misconduct ,

    They also claimed that it was only "old people and teenagers" who were calling in and objecting which wasn't true. One rep stood up and straight up lied claiming that TikTok users were "forced" to call. How would that even work? TikTok possibly being banned isn't a lie but all that other shit sure was. It was just a popup offering to help locate local reps to call and make their voices heard. The fact that any of you are pretending that people taking this democratic action is a bad thing is appalling and your bias is blatantly obvious. The absolute ego on all of you to act like you just know better than all of those other people because... Reasons? Ridiculous.

    realharo ,

    Do you have the full text of the notification that you could post here? Kinda hard discussing the specifics otherwise.

    If it really contains the quote "Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok", I do consider that misleading.

    People here are often making a lot of noise about disinformation campaigns on sites like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube (and that's just from user-posted content that the sites fail to moderate, not posted by the sites themselves), so I don't see why this would get a pass.

    ShepherdPie ,

    It also tells you something about all the supposed gridlock in Washington that can magically evaporate when there's money and power to be gained from it.

    Atyno ,
    @Atyno@dmv.social avatar

    From what I read, the calls actually evaporated opposition to the bill.

    Which, I'm NGL, if you're worried about an app being used by a foreign adversary to encourage anti-social behavior in your youth, a bunch of people calling in acting like drug addicts getting their drugs taken away is only going to erase doubts.

    It doesn't help that they'd even be more justified when it's known that it was caused by users getting pushed notified by Tik Tok to do it.

    BreakDecks ,

    Encouraging people to contact their representatives and demand action? Congress clearly can't have this. How will they do their jobs if they are constantly forced to engage with their constituents?

    Atyno ,
    @Atyno@dmv.social avatar

    In my opinion, considering Tiktok's algo they had the best circumstance to notify a mix of their users more aligned with the actual electorate. The fact they ended up with the worst representation of their user base when it came to confirming the suspicions of politicians says everything.

    nialv7 ,

    Call to action from, say, activist groups is very different from call to action from a billion-dollar company. This does make me really worried about how much influencer TikTok has on people ngl

    BreakDecks ,

    How many of us stood up for net neutrality at the behest of Reddit?

    bartolomeo ,
    @bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

    U.S. lawmakers can't force anything on foreign corporations.

    If the bill passes in the House and Senate and is signed into law by President Biden, TikTok would eventually be dropped from app stores in the US if its owner doesn't sell. It also would lose access to US-based web-hosting services.

    ByteDance would be banned from the U.S. market and lose it's webhosting on U.S. servers.

    Also, what's with the "foreign adversary" status of China?

    stoly ,

    Actually a court in any country can prevent a company from doing something. When you do business in a country you have to abide by their laws.

    bartolomeo ,
    @bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

    That's right, I totally came off wrong. I meant that U.S. lawmakers can't force ByteDance to sell TikTok, as the headline implies.

    stoly ,

    Though possibly US operations could be sold off, whatever that would mean.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Also, whatā€™s with the ā€œforeign adversaryā€ status of China?

    China is attacking us by having a bigger economy

    bartolomeo ,
    @bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

    Lol yea. They also maintain control over their big corpos and that must be threatening to the 9 corporations in a trench coat that the U.S. calls a government. Still, the world doesn't need any more adversarial relationships, thank you very much U.S.A.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Unironically, so much of US/China hostility boils down to corporate market share

    InternetUser2012 ,

    I feel there's a lot of China influence in this thread. I wonder why that is...

    bigMouthCommie ,
    @bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

    sinophobia

    sailingbythelee ,

    CCP-phobia, I think. It is inappropriate to conflate the CCP with the Chinese people.

    Nacktmull ,
    @Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

    Tik Tok pushes so much toxic content towards children and teenagers it should be shut down in my opinion.

    Sl00k ,

    The can very easily apply to every single social media.

    Nacktmull ,
    @Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes but unlike Facebook and other platforms, Tik Tok is aimed at and consumed by minors specifically.

    Lulzagna ,

    How?

    aniki ,

    Advertising.

    Lulzagna , (edited )

    Source? Examples?

    I tried googling, can't find anything that supports these claims

    Edit: third party advertisers abusing tiktoks advertising algorithms is not on topic to the original comment that tiktok itself specifically targets children, and tiktok has addressed these issues.

    You can downvote all you want, but I've still not been provided any proof that tiktok specifically targets or intends their platform to be for children.

    I'm not dismissing the original claim. I'm genuinely curious, but I need logical discourse, not users with mental illness going off on complete tangents.

    If you have any cognitive thought or opinionated source that tiktok is a bad faith actor towards the safety or health of children, I'd love to read it. My company builds software, so knowing the failings of tiktok to protect children is in my interest.

    aniki ,

    https://appradar.com/blog/how-to-use-tiktok-ads-for-mobile-games

    Lulzagna ,

    Unrelated

    aniki ,

    Directely relevant to advertising on tiktok.

    aniki ,

    Didn't look very hard

    aniki ,

    https://devforum.roblox.com/t/how-to-successfully-grow-your-game-ft-senseideveloper-vikinglaw-promoting-and-advertising-your-game/2535279

    Lulzagna ,

    Unrelated

    aniki ,

    Directely relevant to advertising on tiktok.

    Same ,

    The fact that you can advertise to children on tiktok doesn't mean that the platform specifically exists to cater to young children.

    aniki ,

    I think it does.

    aniki ,

    https://www.tiktok.com/business/en-US

    Lulzagna ,

    Unrelated - this is just a business tiktok page

    aniki ,

    Directely relevant to advertising on tiktok.

    aniki ,

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2022/06/22/tiktok-agrees-to-improve-protections-for-children/?sh=11be59fe459b

    Lulzagna ,

    This is about advertising to children within the platform and how tiktok intends to protect unethical advertising to children

    aniki ,

    Again - take the L.

    Demuniac ,

    I'm sorry you are getting downvoted, because technically you are right. TikTok will never claim to aim at children or advertise as such because they know they can't provide a safe environment and will open themselves up to lawsuits.

    Nudding ,

    If you're the type of person who needs a verbal admission of guilt before you can see wrong doing, I guess.

    Lulzagna ,

    Tiktok's stance is rather meaningless because they'd never admit wrongdoing. I'm more curious how does tiktok target children with their platform? How do they lure them to it and why?

    Then the conversation becomes: What standards should social media platforms be accountable to?

    aniki ,

    https://www.tiktok.com/business/en-US/blog/privacy-updates-improved-data-control-transparency-tools

    Lulzagna ,

    Again, this supports tiktok protecting children

    aniki ,

    No -- it's ticktok eventually capitulating to pressure to do anything at all. Just admit you're wrong. It's ok

    aniki ,

    https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/22/tiktok-eu-consumer-protection-commtiments/

    Lulzagna ,

    Again, this is not relevant to the original comment.

    This is about how advertising was abused to target children.

    It honestly sounds like you unjustifiably hate the platform and are throwing every nonsensical argument.

    You've provided zero justification that tiktok as a company purposely targets children or designs their application specifically for children.

    aniki ,

    I tried googling, canā€™t find anything that supports these claims

    aniki ,

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-instagram-tiktok-snapchat-children-advertising-2022-harvard-study/

    Should I keep finding relevant links for you or do you feel sufficiently foolish enough?

    Lulzagna ,

    Unrelated

    aniki ,

    I tried googling, canā€™t find anything that supports these claims

    GeneralVincent ,

    The comment was

    Yes but UNLIKE Facebook and other platforms, Tik Tok is aimed at and consumed by minors specifically.

    That study shows the opposite. YouTube benefited from minors over 2.5 times more than TikTok. And it shows every other platform is benefiting similar amounts. In fact, Snapchat has half the number of monthly users as tiktok but has almost identical ad revenue from minors. All the major social media platforms suck and are trying to take advantage of us, especially kids

    aniki ,

    I'm not arguing it's only tiktok. They all fucking suck. The question was how does TikTok benefit off children and the answer is advertising. That's a fact.

    GeneralVincent ,

    But the original comment you replied to (edit: not that you replied to, the comment you replied to was replying to a user saying that) WAS saying it's only, or at least primarily, Tiktok.

    I only commented because, especially among the reddit and fediverse demographic, there's a fervent dislike of TikTok specifically. I think some people have lost sight of the larger issue, that TikTok is a symptom and not the disease. But it's an easy target because of its early reputation as a dance app for younger users, its alleged ties to the CCP, and its popularity.

    aniki ,

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/tiktok-risks-pushing-children-towards-harmful-content/

    Lulzagna ,

    Unrelated, and you provided links that tiktok has worked to prevent this behavior from advertised

    aniki ,

    https://fivechannels.com/not-just-for-kids-the-ultimate-guide-to-advertising-on-tiktok/

    Lulzagna ,

    Unrelated to original comment

    aniki ,

    I tried googling, canā€™t find anything that supports these claims

    aniki ,

    https://gizmodo.com/tiktok-slammed-in-europe-over-hidden-advertising-to-kid-1846277642

    Are you a GOP candidate? You seriously couldn't find any of these links?? I didn't even use Google.

    Lulzagna ,

    Unrelated to original comment

    Please find two brain cells to rub together to understand the context of the original comment. You've gone on a complete nonsensical tangent akin to mental illness

    aniki ,

    You just ignore anything you don't like. Go back to Beijing and tell Poobear you failed.

    VirtualOdour ,

    I have to say they provided a lot of links and were unable to show anything relevant so i was tempted just to assume they're crazy but I try not to base anything on crazy people even negatives so I looked it up

    Looking at TikTok creator ages, figures are skewed towards a younger demographic. Young adults (18-24 years) make up over half of the creators (52.83%). While under 18s make up a comparatively low 27.47%

    I don't know how accurate these are but the article said they're sourced from tiktok

    A lot of people want a big bad to blame for everything and tiktok is it for a lot of people, but yeah I don't really think their claim is correct

    Lulzagna ,

    Agreed. We're both being downvote because we're not part of the hive mind.

    Most of the links provided are about how children were easy to advertise to and TikTok was not properly protecting them. That's a completely different discussion than "tiktok is targeting children".

    I want to be a supporter of keeping children safe, but I don't think banning tiktok will help anything other than create 5 new platforms that will make letting kids safe even harder

    Edit: that last argument is a straw man, but you get the point

    aniki ,

    No seriously -- did you even try or did you just want to bloviate online to randos for... no reason at all?

    aniki ,

    You just ignore anything you dont like. You're not arguing in good faith.

    Nacktmull , (edited )
    @Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

    By design. Especially the format (short video clips) and the optimization for being used on phones (not computers) makes it attractive for kids.

    63% of Americans between the ages of 12 and 17 used TikTok on a weekly basis

    Report Estimates One-Third of TikTok Users Are Children Age 14 and Under

    TikTok reportedly has 18 million users who are 14 or younger, renewing concerns for children's safety

    A Third of TikTokā€™s U.S. Users May Be 14 or Under, Raising Safety Questions

    I tried googling, canā€™t find anything that supports these claims

    Seriously? it took me one google search to find an endless list of such articles. Also, did you not notice all the kids outside filming Tik Tok dances with their phones, it has been going on for many years now, how is it possible you did not notice it?

    Lulzagna ,

    Kids using tiktok and tiktok specifically targeting children to use their platform are distinctly different. Just because kids use tiktok doesn't mean it's because they were lured there. Those metrics only identify that tiktok is popular among youth, which is not an indication of malice whatsoever.

    I appreciate your opinion, but short video clips on Mobile devices are nothing inherent to children. Now if tiktok was giving you pokemon for signing up or posting of their platform, then there'd be a valid argument that they're targeting children. (I feel like there was a pokeball collaboration with tiktok once, but I can't find a source to support it)

    Getting back to the original context - the argument that Tiktok should be shut down because "it's short videos on mobile platforms that's popular among teens" is lunacy. Everyone is throwing shade at me and not realizing how absurd their argument is.

    I'm not acting in bad faith either. I don't care about the fate of tiktok, but I'm seeing a trend of vilification without proper logical discourse. It's disconcerting to say the least.

    Nacktmull ,
    @Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

    I respect your opinion and don't think you are arguing in bad faith. However, I think you are missing the central point. Which -in my opinion- is that a social media platform that turns out to have extremely negative effects on society and especially kids, should get shut down. If it happens with intent or without is not particularly relevant as far as I see it. I apologize if my initial comments were phrased in any misleading way, I am not a native speaker so I sometimes miss the finer nuances of certain formulations.

    Lulzagna ,

    No need to apologize, you're the first person to actually calmly and willingly discuss the topic without completely dismissing being disagreed with.

    I know you're not the originally comment I was replying to, but you conveniently moved the goal posts. The context of the entire conversation is whether TikTok specifically should be shut down because it targets children for it's own gain. You're now arguing that social media in general has negative impact on society and children, which I agree with, but is completely skewing the conversation and was, in no way, the central point of the discussion.

    So your opinion is that all social media platforms that deem to have negative affects on society should be shut down? Do you not see what's wrong with that? You're saying humans can't decide whether or not they want to use social media. You should understand how absolutely absurd that is - that is a completely dystopian totalitarian dictatorship idea. It sounds like a chapter in 1984.

    StevenSaus ,
    @StevenSaus@midwest.social avatar

    Unlike? I think you mean they're JEALOUS of TikTok's appeal to minors...

    Nacktmull ,
    @Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

    What I mean is that Facebook for example is aimed at and consumed by older adults in the first place. Most young people in fact see it as a boomer platform.

    ccdfa ,

    When I was a kid and Facebook was new, I remember everyone wanting an account. The way I see it, Facebook just kept those users who wanted it when it was new. Who's to say that the same won't be true of TikTok later?

    Nacktmull ,
    @Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

    Whoā€™s to say that the same wonā€™t be true of TikTok

    Who knows but we are talking about the negative effects TikTok has on society right now.

    Krauerking ,

    I think people forget that Meta owns Instagram which is known to have a very young user base.

    They are even currently Suing the FTC because they want to monetize minors more

    Emmy ,

    Even if China has access to my data, that's way less scary than Zuck, musk, Bezos or any other tech bro.

    S_204 ,

    Tik tok is at the root of so many of the social issues we're facing today. It's absolutely worse than Facebook, although both need to be addressed.

    Zuberi ,

    How?..

    EncryptKeeper ,

    It has a huge hold over our youth today, even folks up to 30. Itā€™s so ubiquitous itā€™s used as a replacement for Google to find new information including political.

    Problem is itā€™s absolutely chock full of misinformation and propaganda, which doesnā€™t just exist on the platform, but is actively pushed on American youth today.

    Randomgal ,

    It's full of misinformation and propaganda unlike... You know... All those super reliable objective sources of information that you use?

    EncryptKeeper ,

    Oh yes VERY unlike those. Anything that can be traced and verified, arenā€™t read to you by an AI voice or a white person claiming to be an American while trying very hard to suppress an Eastern European or East Asian accent. Another good trait to have would be anything that isnā€™t verifiably false.

    Randomgal ,

    You know the algorithm shows you what you interact with the most... Right?

    EncryptKeeper , (edited )

    It sure does, but it doesnā€™t only show you what you interact with the most. It shows you lots of other stuff too. The exact algorithm of which neither you or I are privy to so donā€™t get too cocky thinking you have it all figured out. After all ā€œinteracting withā€ can be something as small as lingering on a video just a bit too long. One second longer than your usual average view time. Thatā€™s all it takes for an algorithm to decide itā€™s worth it to push more content like it at you. And given that itā€™s a priority goal for propaganda, bots, and misinformation posters to craft their video in a way to maximize your engagement, thatā€™s a trivial thing to accomplish.

    Algorithms are by design, a way to remove your agency in finding information for yourself, and instead give the platform control over the information you see. This is very handy and even innocent when you just want to see memes that you personally think are funny, but very dangerous when itā€™s used to mislead you or influence your behavior and thinking. And most people arenā€™t smart or tech savvy enough to know how any of this works, which makes them very easy to manipulate.

    Krauerking ,

    Well that and whatever will keep you addicted and hopefully spending money.
    Rage, bias confirmation, propaganda that hits the class or group you belong to. And the more you trust it the more they can use that trust.

    nomous ,

    Among other things.

    If it only showed you what you interacted with the most it'd be less of an issue but that's not how it works. Thats not even how it works on YouTube.

    S_204 ,

    Thanks for proving why that platform is just so damned dangerous. The ignorance it inspires is shocking.

    Same ,

    Sorry but this is giving 'old man yells at clouds' energy. How is tiktok any worse than any other social media platform? They're all echochambers filled with misinformation, it just what happens when you get a lot of people online.

    S_204 ,

    That you're trying to 'they're all the same' bs shows how ignorant many people are on this. They're not all the same, this one is especially bad and it's not JUST because it turns you into a fucking retard when you use it.

    Alpha71 ,

    Sooo... How do Republican's square being the party of "Small Govt" and then interfering in a private business?

    PilferJynx ,

    They don't. It's all bad faith to get what they want - control.

    whereisk ,

    Government is bad except when it comes to brutal subjugation of out-groups I don't like, while the in-group gets protected and treated with kid gloves by the same.

    Unfortunately most of them are the dupes not the protected class they think they are - "they're hurting the wrong people" summed it up when it was uttered..

    retrieval4558 ,

    Too lazy to look up who said it, but there's a quote I like that goes something like "conservative seeks to have an in group who the law protects but does not bind, and an outgroup who the law binds but not protects"

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    Is it a private business if it's owned by the Chinese government?

    Eiim ,

    It's really not though? The Chinese government has a 1% stake in ByteDance. Meanwhile ~60% is foreign investors ā€“ believed to be mostly American.

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    Then it should be easy to buy out that 1% stake.

    I'm not saying it's a good bill, but reducing interference by foreign governments in US sold products is not against any party's philosophies.

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    Do you think that They could avoid doing something that the Chinese government tells them to do?

    BreakDecks ,

    You mean like how US ISPs wiretapped the Internet for the NSA? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

    But really, how dare anyone but us do that.

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes, why not let everyone do it if someone else is already doing it.

    nialv7 ,

    You have a misunderstanding of how China's government operates. It does not matter how much stake the government holds, companies just cannot say no to the government's request. Otherwise you will be disappeared. See Alibaba for example.

    Remember, China does not have a democracy.

    Crikeste ,

    Ooooof, somebody licking the boot of capitalism a little too hard.

    ferralcat ,

    That's literally the same thing the us government is doing here....

    fuckingkangaroos ,

    No. It's a malicious foreign entity.

    Dra ,

    Foreign policy

    JasonDJ ,

    High school nerds pay attention. This is how you can make some money and have an excuse to talk to the hot girlsā€¦by installing a vpn on their phones so they can still have their tik tok.

    Get one popular girls phone set up and every girl in the school will be hitting you up within a week.

    LemmyKnowsBest ,

    And why do you assume everyone including hot girls & popular girls aren't already capable of installing their own VPNs? Unless of course you mean the high school nerd is going to pay for our VPN service, then come on over!

    JasonDJ ,

    Iā€™m sure some do. I havenā€™t talked to many high school girls lately.

    If this goes through and this happened when I was in schoolā€¦thatā€™d be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Iā€™d probably never even think of it then. Iā€™d probably luck into it by telling the rest of the nerd table at lunch, jock overheard, sell him my services, and then word of mouth from there.

    That happening nowā€¦probably be the inspiration for the gen Zā€™s ā€œAmerican Pieā€. Or ā€œSuperbadā€.

    locuester ,

    Are you kidding? There isnā€™t a phone owning high schooler that doesnā€™t know how to vpn past their high schoolā€™s nanny software. Youā€™re out of touch.

    escaped_cruzader ,

    arenā€™t already capable

    Anyone who can read and follow directions is capable

    Most people can't install a VPN, including hot or cold girls

    JasonDJ ,

    Itā€™s more like most people are unwilling to find or read directions. Most people can do most things nowadays. Theyā€™re just unwilling to try.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Most people canā€™t install a VPN,

    My guy, do YOU know how to set up a VPN?

    roguetrick ,

    This shit is like saying most people can't connect to wifi. It's not exactly rocket science.

    BreakDecks ,

    And the cycle of infantalizing women continues...

    Harbinger01173430 ,

    Everything will keep going as planned /s

    DingoBilly ,

    Lemmy does draw a certain crowd unfortunately.

    bluemite ,

    That's mainly the internet, not just Lemmy

    Euphoma ,

    Highschooler here, everyone already uses vpn's to bypass the school firewall to view blocked sites and stuff while on school wifi.

    DragonTypeWyvern ,

    The kids are gonna be alright

    fuckingkangaroos ,

    They won't want TikTok once the chumps who follow them stop using it. They'll have to do something other than dancing for strangers to bolster their self-esteem.

    yarr ,

    I want my data to be centralized, profiled and used against me, but I want it by American corporations, dammit!

    Trantarius ,

    I dislike TikTok as much as the next guy, but I think there are several issues with this bill:

    • It specifically mentions TikTok and ByteDance. While none of the provisions seem to apply exclusively to them, the way they are included would give them no recourse to petition this, the way other companies would be able to (ie, other companies could argue in court that they aren't controlled by a foreign adversary, but TikTok can't. The bill literally defines "foreign adversary controlled application" as "TikTok, or ..." (g.3.A)). It also gives the appearance that this law is only supposed to apply to them, which isn't what it says but it might be treated that way anyway.

    • It leaves the determination of whether or not a company is "controlled by a foreign adversary" entirely up to the president. He has to explain himself to Congress, but doesn't need their approval. That seems ripe for exploitation. I think it should require Congress to approve, either in a addition to or instead of the president.

    • According to g.2.A.ii (in the definition of "covered company"), the law only applies to social media with more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. Not sure why that's included.

    • There is a specific exemption for any app that's for posting reviews (g.2.B). I'm guessing one such company paid a whole lot to just not have this apply to them.

    Buttons ,
    @Buttons@programming.dev avatar

    According to g.2.A.ii (in the definition of ā€œcovered companyā€), the law only applies to social media with more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. Not sure why thatā€™s included.

    I'm glad clauses like this are common. We don't want some teenager who wants to experiment with creating a "social media" website for his friends to have the full weight of the law immediately fall on their shoulders. People should be free to create website with minimal legal requirements, especially if it's a small website.

    postmateDumbass ,

    3 months later:

    Hottest trending new app: TokTic

    tiltinyall , (edited )

    Insert astounded meme when a shell partner aquires the Brand and now, (pick your)company is now a known CCP co-conspirator.

    CoopaLoopa ,

    The directed scope of the bill is going to do the same thing to TikTok that legislation did to Juul.

    If you target Juul with legal repercussions for all their flavored vapes, then only Juul stops selling flavored pods.
    Now a million other disposable vape companies fill the void with flavored vapes that are worse for the ecosystem.

    Targeting TikTok will just lead to another foreign data-harvesting social media app popping up to fill its place.

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    It's not about data harvesting, it's about targeting users with political ideas. If you watch a video for a certain amount of time then they will continue showing you those types of videos. There's tons of bad faith political targeting on TikTok just like every other platform. The issue is that it's difficult to avoid because the platform decides what you look at unlike other platforms.

    BreakDecks ,

    So we're censoring political speech?

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    Foreign adversaries don't have 1st amendment rights.

    furikuri ,

    This is why I'm having trouble understanding why people are confused about the bill's purpose, especially in the context of the last dozen years or so. Allowing a political rival to maintain control over a platform like this is granting them soft power. Even if I agree that companies like Meta should be more heavily regulated (though not in this manner), I can see why they've put a bandaid on the issue given that there's a non-zero chance that TikTok's content has been actively in the past few years

    maculata ,

    The world is on fire but the kids are upset that they have to use another platform for their stupid fucking dance videos.

    BTW: someone in the US should just make a similar app and call it tiktok. Itā€™s not like China gives a crap about IP protection so turn about is fair play.

    Crikeste ,

    The world is on fire but lawmakers are doing petty antagonistic policy and turning a blind eye to atrocities.

    mechoman444 ,

    That's right. What's important is TikTok and Chinese interests of course. /S

    jaschen ,

    Good. Fuck them and all social media controlled by any big mega corp. But fuck the CCP especially.

    Zuberi ,

    This insinuates that the CPC owns TikTok lmao

    nxdefiant ,

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191127235720/http:/news.cpd.com.cn/n3559/201904/t20190425_836599.html

    They don't have to own it when they can make it do whatever they want.
    You won't find critical analysis of anything important on Chinese tik tok.

    Aghast ,

    Well the CCP does exert considerable control over TikToks parent company ByteDance. The CCP has already utilized data from TikTok to track protestors and other "dissidents"

    https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-bytedance-user-data-d257d98125f69ac80f983e6067a84911

    No the CCP does not own Tik Tok but it might as well own it.

    Unfortunately this situation is not unlike what the US government likely does. However, hopefully this precedence building policy recognizes that data privacy from 3rd party entities is needed. Will that standard be applied to US companies? Not likely any time soon but I'm optimistic.

    reverendsteveii ,

    https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-uses-instagram-etsy-linkedin-to-find-george-floyd-protester-2020-6#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20for%20example%2C%20the,a%20way%20to%20track%20protesters.

    It's fucked that an authoritarian government would use social media to track and arrest protestors. I'd love to believe that this is a move toward transparency and protecting people but I think it's a lot more likely to be a "nobody exploits social media to manipulate and repress my citizenry except me, and maybe the boy" situation.

    Misconduct ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Aghast ,

    There is no evidence that it is banned. ByteDance just made the same app for the PRC market

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-tiktok-banned-in-china/

    TheFriar ,

    The fucked up thing is they donā€™t seem to have a problem with rich 1%ers owning and manipulating millions of people. Only when itā€™s the Chinese. Facebook, Twitter, instagram are just as harmful. Although the delivery method of the content isnā€™t exactly ā€œtailoredā€ on those services like TikTok. I dunno how I feel about this. I mean, I think all social media services should die out. This just seems like an uneven hand.

    blanketswithsmallpox ,

    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

    TheFriar ,

    This is a really great way of putting it. Iā€™d never heard that before, but itā€™s a truly apt way of summarizing one of the biggest problems I have with fellow leftists. However, I think Iā€™d argue this is a slightly different situation.

    Yeah, itā€™s a start toward something good. But itā€™s still sticky in its spirit.

    Itā€™s sort of similar to the complaint against incrementalism. Itā€™s true, incrementalism is not a healthy solution to the problems we face. But fighting against good steps forward because youā€™re against the concept of incrementalism isā€¦foolishā€¦right? Or is it? Because sinking our efforts into incrementalism takes away effort from broad advancement. And incrementalism has been our MO since forever. And itā€™s only brought us further down the road to ruin.

    But, again, fighting good incremental changes is nonsense. I dunno, itā€™s a nuanced issue and Iā€™m not even sure how I feel about it. Itā€™s interesting. And as someone who doesnā€™t use the more ā€œstandardā€ social media and never has, Iā€™m all for erasing social media from existence. Iā€™ve seen what it did to everyone in my life, and I was the perfect age for every step of social mediaā€™s growth: xanga/livejournal in middle school, MySpace in middle school/early high school, and then Facebook came about in my senior year, instagram in college and while i traveled in my early 20sā€¦but I was an anti-anything-popular emo kid and goddamn Iā€™m glad I was. But I also saw first hand how much social media changed my interactions with everyone in my life. It wasnā€™t pretty. People were addicted, constantly being just floored that I wasnā€™t on FB, countless people threatening to make me a Facebook page? It was severely strange behavior. And now tiktok is like all of that on goddamn super steroids. But itā€™s less people shoving it down my throat, and more just completely sucked in by it. Which is honestly scarier.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • ā€¢
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •