From January 9, 2025 May 2024 November 2023 Yeah we know. No shade to @donn this is me being annoyed that articles are treating this as surprising news even if more is being leaked. It was...
No shade to @donn this is me being annoyed that articles are treating this as surprising news even if more is being leaked. It was explicitly talked about the whole time though. There was absolutely anti-china and quite racist antics on display but it's wild to me how the solution to "this app makes people feel sympathetic to Gaza and oppose Israeli actions was countered with "ban it"
Yeah in the wake of the passing though I had a multi-comment-long discussion where people dismissed my argument that this is mostly just about censorship with China being an excuse. Now the people...
Yeah in the wake of the passing though I had a multi-comment-long discussion where people dismissed my argument that this is mostly just about censorship with China being an excuse. Now the people who have proposed and passed the law said it explicitly.
It's really disgusting that Republicans went along with this, but it's not surprising. Most of what Republicans do nowadays seems to be disgusting. The thing that really feels like a knife in the...
It's really disgusting that Republicans went along with this, but it's not surprising. Most of what Republicans do nowadays seems to be disgusting. The thing that really feels like a knife in the gut is the widespread democratic support for the ban, especially if this is true and it was on the basis of trying to control public opinion by restricting citizens' free speech. Even on its public stated basis the tiktok ban was blatant overreach and not something that an ostensibly free society should be doing. If it really was to control a public narrative about a war the US isn't even involved in though, it becomes straight up authoritarianism.
They used to teach kids about McCarthyism when I was in school as an example of a perversion of American values, and a backwards time in our history. It was always taught with the air of "can you believe how insane politicians were back then?". I wonder if that's still the curriculum, because lately the red scare seems almost aspirational to both sides of the aisle.
The steelman version of the argument is that the American congress - looking especially at the democratic party, here - isn’t necessarily concerned about anti-Israel bias in and of itself, but...
The steelman version of the argument is that the American congress - looking especially at the democratic party, here - isn’t necessarily concerned about anti-Israel bias in and of itself, but about the fact that creating such bias is possible.
restricting free speech
I get where you’re coming from, even if I think it’s complicated. Chomsky wrote in Manufacturing Consent about how editorial filters affect what message is shown to the people, which is a perversion of free speech.
Let’s assume that the allegations that TikTok’s algorithms promote certain viewpoints are correct. If that’s true, is that really free speech? It may be technically free speech (“hey, you can post whatever you want…”) but there seems to be a critical difference between that and substantively free speech (“…but the algorithm will ensure nobody sees it.”)
I think if that's true, and we can provide evidence for it, the correct course of action in a free society is to report on it regularly so that people know that's what happening. Yes, media...
I think if that's true, and we can provide evidence for it, the correct course of action in a free society is to report on it regularly so that people know that's what happening.
Yes, media channels are biased, some intentionally so. We don't cut off access based on Congress arbitrarily deciding that. We identify the bias and inform people of it as best we can and let them make up their own minds.
I will state that the Supreme Court agreed with you on that particular point (that speech ought not be censored, even if done in concert with a foreign adversary) but let the ban come into force...
I will state that the Supreme Court agreed with you on that particular point (that speech ought not be censored, even if done in concert with a foreign adversary) but let the ban come into force anyway solely because of the data collection aspect. I can't think of many U.S. politicians who would have kompromat on TikTok but I digress.
[Former U.S. House Representative Mike] Gallagher described how the national security bill was dead until Hamas’ attack on Israel, which brought the legislation back to life. As Gallagher said:
“So we had a bipartisan consensus. We had the executive branch, but the bill was still dead until October 7th. And people started to see a bunch of anti-Semitic content on the platform and our bill had legs again.”
The account by Gallagher makes explicit something there have been hints of for some time. Israeli officials and lobbyists told everyone that would listen in Washington that TikTok’s algorithm fueled American youth opposition to the Israel-Hamas war.
NPR at about the same time reported on a memo written by Israel Foreign Ministry Deputy Director General Emmanuel Nahshon, which blamed TikTok’s algorithm for “turning young people against Israel.”
From January 9, 2025
May 2024
November 2023
Yeah we know.
No shade to @donn this is me being annoyed that articles are treating this as surprising news even if more is being leaked. It was explicitly talked about the whole time though. There was absolutely anti-china and quite racist antics on display but it's wild to me how the solution to "this app makes people feel sympathetic to Gaza and oppose Israeli actions was countered with "ban it"
Yeah in the wake of the passing though I had a multi-comment-long discussion where people dismissed my argument that this is mostly just about censorship with China being an excuse. Now the people who have proposed and passed the law said it explicitly.
Like I said, definitely not disagreeing about it being posted. Just like, gestures at the world in frustration
It's really disgusting that Republicans went along with this, but it's not surprising. Most of what Republicans do nowadays seems to be disgusting. The thing that really feels like a knife in the gut is the widespread democratic support for the ban, especially if this is true and it was on the basis of trying to control public opinion by restricting citizens' free speech. Even on its public stated basis the tiktok ban was blatant overreach and not something that an ostensibly free society should be doing. If it really was to control a public narrative about a war the US isn't even involved in though, it becomes straight up authoritarianism.
They used to teach kids about McCarthyism when I was in school as an example of a perversion of American values, and a backwards time in our history. It was always taught with the air of "can you believe how insane politicians were back then?". I wonder if that's still the curriculum, because lately the red scare seems almost aspirational to both sides of the aisle.
The steelman version of the argument is that the American congress - looking especially at the democratic party, here - isn’t necessarily concerned about anti-Israel bias in and of itself, but about the fact that creating such bias is possible.
I get where you’re coming from, even if I think it’s complicated. Chomsky wrote in Manufacturing Consent about how editorial filters affect what message is shown to the people, which is a perversion of free speech.
Let’s assume that the allegations that TikTok’s algorithms promote certain viewpoints are correct. If that’s true, is that really free speech? It may be technically free speech (“hey, you can post whatever you want…”) but there seems to be a critical difference between that and substantively free speech (“…but the algorithm will ensure nobody sees it.”)
I think if that's true, and we can provide evidence for it, the correct course of action in a free society is to report on it regularly so that people know that's what happening.
Yes, media channels are biased, some intentionally so. We don't cut off access based on Congress arbitrarily deciding that. We identify the bias and inform people of it as best we can and let them make up their own minds.
I will state that the Supreme Court agreed with you on that particular point (that speech ought not be censored, even if done in concert with a foreign adversary) but let the ban come into force anyway solely because of the data collection aspect. I can't think of many U.S. politicians who would have kompromat on TikTok but I digress.
Thanks for sharing these links. I don’t remember reading about this before.