I don't use TikTok, nor am I a fan of it, but am I the only one that thinks this is really fucking stupid, would be serious government hypocrisy and overreach, and suspects it's being driven more...
I don't use TikTok, nor am I a fan of it, but am I the only one that thinks this is really fucking stupid, would be serious government hypocrisy and overreach, and suspects it's being driven more by racism and xenophobia than anything else?
In an eventual conflict between the US and China, I (as a US citizen) would not want the Chinese government to have access to the user data of millions of Americans. We have already seen the ways...
In an eventual conflict between the US and China, I (as a US citizen) would not want the Chinese government to have access to the user data of millions of Americans. We have already seen the ways in which having user data for various platforms can enable mass influence on politics and opinion. In such a scenario, why give 'the enemy' a direct link to the eyes and ears of your population.
I think a ban right now is stupid. And I definitely agree that for many politicians (and members of the public) this political momentum is being driven more by racism than any valid national security concerns. But this move has wide support, even among those politicians who I would not immediately assume are racist or xenophobic. I suspect this is fundamentally a national security concern that is being dressed up as a data privacy concern.
The problem is that the proposed bans do not solve the underlying issue. Ban the data collection practices that make TikTok a possible threat, rather than playing whack-a-mole with specific...
Exemplary
The problem is that the proposed bans do not solve the underlying issue. Ban the data collection practices that make TikTok a possible threat, rather than playing whack-a-mole with specific companies like this.
We've already seen how Facebook provides exactly this kind of sensitive data to foreign adversaries. The nationality of the company is not the problem. It is being used to promote an incomplete solution that conveniently props up domestic companies like Facebook who are scared of losing market share to TikTok.
The data collection alone is not the problem, it is the direct access to Americans and the ability to directly influence what they are seeing and to an extent what they are thinking. In this case...
The data collection alone is not the problem, it is the direct access to Americans and the ability to directly influence what they are seeing and to an extent what they are thinking. In this case and with the context of a pending geopolitical conflict over Taiwan, the nationality of the company is a problem.
This being said, you are correct that there are other ways for adversaries to get this data. But those other methods do not come with the same direct access to the American populace that controlling an app like TikTok does. I don’t really believe that the CCP currently exerts co from over the tiktok algorithm or mines it’s user data, but I think in an eventual conflict they would be silly not to.
I think the data collection is the problem, because it enables exactly the nefarious behaviors you describe. Without the data, they lose this power. We need robust data privacy laws to give...
I think the data collection is the problem, because it enables exactly the nefarious behaviors you describe. Without the data, they lose this power.
We need robust data privacy laws to give Americans control over what data is collected and how it is used. Then fears about who manages to get their hands on that data stops being a problem.
Think about who benefits from this incomplete approach; Facebook is rooting hard for a TikTok ban, because TikTok is eating their lunch. Facebook is also heavily opposed to exactly the kind of regulations I am proposing. They are capitalizing on people's legitimate fears of growing tensions with China to get the government to forcibly give them back market share they lost to a competitor.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying regarding the need for robust data privacy laws. I personally think individuals should have ownership over data generated about them (however this can be...
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying regarding the need for robust data privacy laws. I personally think individuals should have ownership over data generated about them (however this can be reasonably defined). I just don’t think this is the right framing when it comes to the TikTok debate.
Even with more robust data privacy laws, unless those laws were extremely strict in banning all types of data collection and thus rendering personalized algorithmic recommendations impossible, the threat posed by TikTok to an American audience will still be present. And I think people like having personalized recommendations, and I would wager most people wouldn’t have an issue with data being collected for those purposes. I’m not arguing that this makes it ok, but rather that given this, and politically realistic data privacy law will mot affect the underlying issue here.
We definitely need better data laws, and overall better regulation of tech companies. But the issue posed by TikTok, as I kind of argued above, is better viewed through the lens of national security rather than data policy.
Even if we had better data laws, barring extreme laws that would render algorithmic recommendations impossible, I would still think it necessary to ban TikTok in the event of a conflict between the US and China.
I think that's exactly what it is. There is a reason it's already banned in Western military bases and on Western government devices. China under Xi is well underway to align itself outside of the...
this is fundamentally a national security concern that is being dressed up as a data privacy concern
I think that's exactly what it is. There is a reason it's already banned in Western military bases and on Western government devices. China under Xi is well underway to align itself outside of the liberal world order. 'The End of History' has ended, and now democracies are starting to wake up the realization that China really will play antagonist in the coming century.
I think what I struggle with the most about this kind of a statement is that they can already buy this information from American companies. Yes, there's unique information that they can directly...
In an eventual conflict between the US and China, I (as a US citizen) would not want the Chinese government to have access to the user data of millions of Americans.
I think what I struggle with the most about this kind of a statement is that they can already buy this information from American companies. Yes, there's unique information that they can directly farm through the use of this platform, but like, there's already so much information out there that's so easily purchasable.
Yes, which is also clearly not good. But that is different than having that information, being able to continually collect more, and being able to use that data to very directly influence the type...
Yes, which is also clearly not good. But that is different than having that information, being able to continually collect more, and being able to use that data to very directly influence the type of information those people are receiving. Both are bad, one is worse.
Yup. The bad thing about cambridge analytica wasn't that they knew what to say to who. It was that they actually had ways of saying those things. Buying the data is step one. You control TikTok,...
Yup. The bad thing about cambridge analytica wasn't that they knew what to say to who. It was that they actually had ways of saying those things. Buying the data is step one. You control TikTok, you're in control of the recommendation system and can chuck lots of people into any divisive political pipeline you want.
Your struggle with the statement seems to stem from removing the context. It's not just having the data or being able to obtain it, it's being able to use it in one of the most popular apps out...
Your struggle with the statement seems to stem from removing the context.
In an eventual conflict between the US and China, I (as a US citizen) would not want the Chinese government to have access to the user data of millions of Americans. We have already seen the ways in which having user data for various platforms can enable mass influence on politics and opinion.
It's not just having the data or being able to obtain it, it's being able to use it in one of the most popular apps out there. They can buy all the data in the world, if they don't have an app in front of millions in the country they're making moves against in which they can influence to sway things in their favor then the data is near useless. You have to take the full context into consideration.
The problem, though, is that Facebook collects all the same data and will just sell it to the Chinese straight up. And they will also sell ad space to these same state actors to use that data for...
The problem, though, is that Facebook collects all the same data and will just sell it to the Chinese straight up. And they will also sell ad space to these same state actors to use that data for influence operations.
Yes TikTok is a problem and the PRC's approach to forcing companies to comply with state directives is particularly bad. But we have a fifth column with the platforms that operate under our noses as well that we need to address.
An ad isn't the same thing as an algorithm pushing state actors into your feed telling you that your country's actions against an aggressor is wrong. China is already aware of this or they...
An ad isn't the same thing as an algorithm pushing state actors into your feed telling you that your country's actions against an aggressor is wrong. China is already aware of this or they wouldn't have long since banned other social media sites within the country.
No one is saying we don't also need to ban data collection, but the "Facebook does it too" isn't an argument against banning Tiktok.
No I'm very pro banning TikTok. I just think there needs to be a real reckoning with our domestic threat actors as well. State actors are pretty adept at gaming out Facebook and Twitter using...
No I'm very pro banning TikTok. I just think there needs to be a real reckoning with our domestic threat actors as well. State actors are pretty adept at gaming out Facebook and Twitter using their freely purchasable analytics data to tailor peoples' feeds. They'll be less effective than TikTok, but they more or less engineered Brexit and the election of Donald Trump that way.
Hey! Horrible immoral foreign billionaires shouldn't be able to go around extracting gobs of money from citizens via mass surveillance, attempting to modify their behaviour with targeted...
Hey! Horrible immoral foreign billionaires shouldn't be able to go around extracting gobs of money from citizens via mass surveillance, attempting to modify their behaviour with targeted algorithms designed with the same principles and habit-forming goals as a slot machine, and voluntarily feeding or selling the staggering amount of private information they have about people to other companies and government entities without requiring their consent or awareness! Only horrible immoral local billionaires should be allowed to do that.
You're not the only one. I haven't decided whether we ought to ban it. But if we decide to, and want to remain consistent, we ought also to ban democracy. There's an underlying assumption that I...
You're not the only one.
I haven't decided whether we ought to ban it. But if we decide to, and want to remain consistent, we ought also to ban democracy.
There's an underlying assumption that I see about clamoring to prohibit things like tiktok or facebook or cigarettes or heroin. That is, large groups of individuals cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and their decisions are so bad that we must as a society remove their ability to make any decision on the matter. With regard to tiktok, facebook, and also probably things like gambling, we are saying that information alone is sufficiently powerful to short circuit decisionmaking power (autonomy?) of the individuals.
If it's true for tiktok etc., it's also true for selecting leaders via voting and political campaigning. I'm not persuaded that benevolent monarchy is not a better way to govern the world, so long as benevolence can be assured (but it can't). But maybe non-benevolent monarchy is better than surreptitious manipulation of the masses?
Oh no, you're completely right. Just like the deal with Huawei a while back the government hasn't really put any really compelling evidence behind it's claims - just vague "It can happen" threats....
Oh no, you're completely right. Just like the deal with Huawei a while back the government hasn't really put any really compelling evidence behind it's claims - just vague "It can happen" threats.
You already knew that their parent company wasn't Chinese, but a lot of the people talking about it sure like to pretend that they are.
Sure but it's not all or nothing here. I'm clinging on to the signalling here and the focus it has brought onto these apps. They would never close or tighten access to Facebook/Insta/Snapchat etc....
Sure but it's not all or nothing here. I'm clinging on to the signalling here and the focus it has brought onto these apps. They would never close or tighten access to Facebook/Insta/Snapchat etc. as fast as this is happening anyways but the heat has been turned up.
Politics aside, I get the sense a lot of people are against social media in general. I think people realize that it's a coordination problem to stop using it (unless we all stop, you're left out),...
Politics aside, I get the sense a lot of people are against social media in general. I think people realize that it's a coordination problem to stop using it (unless we all stop, you're left out), so these bans might get a surprising amount of support.
Yeah I think this is the deal. Back when the debate on banning smoking in bars was raging I remember even most smokers griped it would be inconvenient but acknowledged it was necessary. If...
Yeah I think this is the deal. Back when the debate on banning smoking in bars was raging I remember even most smokers griped it would be inconvenient but acknowledged it was necessary. If everyone else is doing it you will too for FOMO reasons, but I think we all kind of resent the things that drive FOMO in us rather than wanting to further support them taking over our time and attention.
But to ban all social media? The entire internet is a history of social media. Back when there were just phpbb forums, people made sections just to talk with one another. IRC was full of chat...
But to ban all social media? The entire internet is a history of social media. Back when there were just phpbb forums, people made sections just to talk with one another. IRC was full of chat rooms. Where do we draw the lines? I think it's fair to point out the major institutions which we associate with social media today have specific problematic behavior, but it's unrelated to the idea of social media. The issues arise when they do things like allow misinformation to propagate because they're focused on surfacing highly controversial content. Other forms of algorithmic content surfacing, such as those which promote highly viewed content can create a competitive 'who can get the most points' environment. Collecting as much data as possible to serve highly tailored ads is another kind of problematic behavior which doesn't necessarily have to exist. I think we should be tackling these kinds of problems before we declare all social media forbidden, because if we do that people are just going to find ways to continue to be social within the bounds of the law (and I'd like to point out that this ban is focused on a single platform, one which arguably isn't as problematic as other platforms at least on certain axes).
Banning indoor smoking feels like a very different beast than banning social media. Indoor smoking is extremely circumstantial (it's not a full ban on smoking), has clear measurable negative health effects for all individuals (not just certain subsets of people), and is something which directly affects people not engaging in the activity you are doing (I can opt out of your use of social media, I can't opt out of your smoking in my space). I think it's unfair to draw a comparison between the two, and perhaps a tad ironic given that we are currently actively participating on what could be called a social media platform.
It seems pretty clear to me that when people say "social media" they are referring specifically to the big platforms like Twitter, Instagram, etc. I kind of wish that we in the English speaking...
It seems pretty clear to me that when people say "social media" they are referring specifically to the big platforms like Twitter, Instagram, etc.
I kind of wish that we in the English speaking realm would borrow the term the Japanese use. The term "SNS" is already an English acronym (Social Networking Service), and it is also categorically different from other types of social forums like bulletin boards and chat services. Those services never got as big as SNS did, and on average they had more transparent and effective moderation.
Those weren’t called “social media.” The term came into use to refer to Web 2.0 platforms that served up algorithmically curated user-generated “content.” They generally have an ad supported...
But to ban all social media? The entire internet is a history of social media. Back when there were just phpbb forums, people made sections just to talk with one another. IRC was full of chat rooms.
Those weren’t called “social media.” The term came into use to refer to Web 2.0 platforms that served up algorithmically curated user-generated “content.” They generally have an ad supported business model but that’s not a requirement.
It’s also pretty easy to see where to draw the line for me. Make the data factory business model untenable. That basically is what set social media apart from other methods of posting on the internet or IRC that made people want to make up a new word for it.
I think it's unfair to draw a comparison between the two, and perhaps a tad ironic given that we are currently actively participating on what could be called a social media platform.
I’d be sad to see it go but TBH I’d sacrifice Tildes to get rid of Facebook and Twitter. Sadly it’s too hard to actually do that in a way that doesn’t have a ton of collateral damage.
Is this a real problem? I stopped (almost entirely, I guess I have a linkedin that I look at once a month) and don't seem worse off than everyone else.
you're left out
Is this a real problem? I stopped (almost entirely, I guess I have a linkedin that I look at once a month) and don't seem worse off than everyone else.
It depends entirely on what methods/platforms your personal social circles use. For some, their circles are heavy users of these platforms. Be the only one leaving and you’ll get left out of most...
It depends entirely on what methods/platforms your personal social circles use. For some, their circles are heavy users of these platforms. Be the only one leaving and you’ll get left out of most of the group interactions unless you can convince them to all leave or at least remember and be willing to keep you in the loop another way.
I left Twitter and not much was lost since I used it mostly just for industry acquaintances. If I left Facebook, I’d lose a lot of connection with family and friends spread across the world; it’s already happened to a small handful of people I know over the years who’ve left.
I'm pro banning TikTok and anti any measures that would be needed to enforce a real ban while TikTok still exists. I think we should just order Apple and Google to kick it from the app stores, and...
I'm pro banning TikTok and anti any measures that would be needed to enforce a real ban while TikTok still exists. I think we should just order Apple and Google to kick it from the app stores, and maybe order TikTok to change the app not to work in the US, but all the "we'll throw you in prison for using a VPN" shit is just authoritarian.
Realistically a ban would just make them unable to make money in the US market. That was a bad faith misreading of the law by Twitter (i.e. not actually) lawyers. There is no precedent for...
Realistically a ban would just make them unable to make money in the US market.
to change the app not to work in the US, but all the "we'll throw you in prison for using a VPN" shit is just authoritarian.
That was a bad faith misreading of the law by Twitter (i.e. not actually) lawyers. There is no precedent for interpreting the text that way. It is very clearly aimed at entities that are specifically counteracting the ban at scale for the purposes of lifting classified material. The fact that the enforcement mechanism is to literally have the President of the United States direct a Cabinet level official to start an investigation should make it more than obvious that this isn't meant for random people using NordVPN or whatever.
Hmm, perhaps I'm legally naive but this wasn't clear to me at all based on the text of the law. (The rest I agree with, though I don't necessarily think that's an acceptable power for the...
the purposes of lifting classified material
Hmm, perhaps I'm legally naive but this wasn't clear to me at all based on the text of the law. (The rest I agree with, though I don't necessarily think that's an acceptable power for the government to have.)
I'm worried about how the ban would be implemented more than the ban itself. All the infrastructure needed to implement the ban will make the next bans have way less friction.
I'm worried about how the ban would be implemented more than the ban itself. All the infrastructure needed to implement the ban will make the next bans have way less friction.
I could be in favour of it, if it helps YouTube shorts disappear and also means that Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies are dragged over broken glass and fined in the billions for...
I could be in favour of it, if it helps YouTube shorts disappear and also means that Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies are dragged over broken glass and fined in the billions for their enabling of disinformation and their misuse of user data.
I don't use TikTok, nor am I a fan of it, but am I the only one that thinks this is really fucking stupid, would be serious government hypocrisy and overreach, and suspects it's being driven more by racism and xenophobia than anything else?
Where are the calls for banning Facebook, which also has serious privacy issues, has had massive privacy-breach scandals, and has significantly more global influence (it even "played a determining role" in genocide)? But what, we don't need to worry about any of that, or try to ban it too, since it's not a Chinese company?
In an eventual conflict between the US and China, I (as a US citizen) would not want the Chinese government to have access to the user data of millions of Americans. We have already seen the ways in which having user data for various platforms can enable mass influence on politics and opinion. In such a scenario, why give 'the enemy' a direct link to the eyes and ears of your population.
I think a ban right now is stupid. And I definitely agree that for many politicians (and members of the public) this political momentum is being driven more by racism than any valid national security concerns. But this move has wide support, even among those politicians who I would not immediately assume are racist or xenophobic. I suspect this is fundamentally a national security concern that is being dressed up as a data privacy concern.
The problem is that the proposed bans do not solve the underlying issue. Ban the data collection practices that make TikTok a possible threat, rather than playing whack-a-mole with specific companies like this.
We've already seen how Facebook provides exactly this kind of sensitive data to foreign adversaries. The nationality of the company is not the problem. It is being used to promote an incomplete solution that conveniently props up domestic companies like Facebook who are scared of losing market share to TikTok.
The data collection alone is not the problem, it is the direct access to Americans and the ability to directly influence what they are seeing and to an extent what they are thinking. In this case and with the context of a pending geopolitical conflict over Taiwan, the nationality of the company is a problem.
This being said, you are correct that there are other ways for adversaries to get this data. But those other methods do not come with the same direct access to the American populace that controlling an app like TikTok does. I don’t really believe that the CCP currently exerts co from over the tiktok algorithm or mines it’s user data, but I think in an eventual conflict they would be silly not to.
I think the data collection is the problem, because it enables exactly the nefarious behaviors you describe. Without the data, they lose this power.
We need robust data privacy laws to give Americans control over what data is collected and how it is used. Then fears about who manages to get their hands on that data stops being a problem.
Think about who benefits from this incomplete approach; Facebook is rooting hard for a TikTok ban, because TikTok is eating their lunch. Facebook is also heavily opposed to exactly the kind of regulations I am proposing. They are capitalizing on people's legitimate fears of growing tensions with China to get the government to forcibly give them back market share they lost to a competitor.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying regarding the need for robust data privacy laws. I personally think individuals should have ownership over data generated about them (however this can be reasonably defined). I just don’t think this is the right framing when it comes to the TikTok debate.
Even with more robust data privacy laws, unless those laws were extremely strict in banning all types of data collection and thus rendering personalized algorithmic recommendations impossible, the threat posed by TikTok to an American audience will still be present. And I think people like having personalized recommendations, and I would wager most people wouldn’t have an issue with data being collected for those purposes. I’m not arguing that this makes it ok, but rather that given this, and politically realistic data privacy law will mot affect the underlying issue here.
We definitely need better data laws, and overall better regulation of tech companies. But the issue posed by TikTok, as I kind of argued above, is better viewed through the lens of national security rather than data policy.
Even if we had better data laws, barring extreme laws that would render algorithmic recommendations impossible, I would still think it necessary to ban TikTok in the event of a conflict between the US and China.
Thanks. You said what I was basically trying to get across to people, but far more eloquently, and less ham-handedly than I did. :)
I think that's exactly what it is. There is a reason it's already banned in Western military bases and on Western government devices. China under Xi is well underway to align itself outside of the liberal world order. 'The End of History' has ended, and now democracies are starting to wake up the realization that China really will play antagonist in the coming century.
I think what I struggle with the most about this kind of a statement is that they can already buy this information from American companies. Yes, there's unique information that they can directly farm through the use of this platform, but like, there's already so much information out there that's so easily purchasable.
Yes, which is also clearly not good. But that is different than having that information, being able to continually collect more, and being able to use that data to very directly influence the type of information those people are receiving. Both are bad, one is worse.
Yup. The bad thing about cambridge analytica wasn't that they knew what to say to who. It was that they actually had ways of saying those things. Buying the data is step one. You control TikTok, you're in control of the recommendation system and can chuck lots of people into any divisive political pipeline you want.
Your struggle with the statement seems to stem from removing the context.
It's not just having the data or being able to obtain it, it's being able to use it in one of the most popular apps out there. They can buy all the data in the world, if they don't have an app in front of millions in the country they're making moves against in which they can influence to sway things in their favor then the data is near useless. You have to take the full context into consideration.
The problem, though, is that Facebook collects all the same data and will just sell it to the Chinese straight up. And they will also sell ad space to these same state actors to use that data for influence operations.
Yes TikTok is a problem and the PRC's approach to forcing companies to comply with state directives is particularly bad. But we have a fifth column with the platforms that operate under our noses as well that we need to address.
An ad isn't the same thing as an algorithm pushing state actors into your feed telling you that your country's actions against an aggressor is wrong. China is already aware of this or they wouldn't have long since banned other social media sites within the country.
No one is saying we don't also need to ban data collection, but the "Facebook does it too" isn't an argument against banning Tiktok.
No I'm very pro banning TikTok. I just think there needs to be a real reckoning with our domestic threat actors as well. State actors are pretty adept at gaming out Facebook and Twitter using their freely purchasable analytics data to tailor peoples' feeds. They'll be less effective than TikTok, but they more or less engineered Brexit and the election of Donald Trump that way.
Hey! Horrible immoral foreign billionaires shouldn't be able to go around extracting gobs of money from citizens via mass surveillance, attempting to modify their behaviour with targeted algorithms designed with the same principles and habit-forming goals as a slot machine, and voluntarily feeding or selling the staggering amount of private information they have about people to other companies and government entities without requiring their consent or awareness! Only horrible immoral local billionaires should be allowed to do that.
You're not the only one.
I haven't decided whether we ought to ban it. But if we decide to, and want to remain consistent, we ought also to ban democracy.
There's an underlying assumption that I see about clamoring to prohibit things like tiktok or facebook or cigarettes or heroin. That is, large groups of individuals cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and their decisions are so bad that we must as a society remove their ability to make any decision on the matter. With regard to tiktok, facebook, and also probably things like gambling, we are saying that information alone is sufficiently powerful to short circuit decisionmaking power (autonomy?) of the individuals.
If it's true for tiktok etc., it's also true for selecting leaders via voting and political campaigning. I'm not persuaded that benevolent monarchy is not a better way to govern the world, so long as benevolence can be assured (but it can't). But maybe non-benevolent monarchy is better than surreptitious manipulation of the masses?
Oh no, you're completely right. Just like the deal with Huawei a while back the government hasn't really put any really compelling evidence behind it's claims - just vague "It can happen" threats.
You already knew that their parent company wasn't Chinese, but a lot of the people talking about it sure like to pretend that they are.
Sure but it's not all or nothing here. I'm clinging on to the signalling here and the focus it has brought onto these apps. They would never close or tighten access to Facebook/Insta/Snapchat etc. as fast as this is happening anyways but the heat has been turned up.
Politics aside, I get the sense a lot of people are against social media in general. I think people realize that it's a coordination problem to stop using it (unless we all stop, you're left out), so these bans might get a surprising amount of support.
Yeah I think this is the deal. Back when the debate on banning smoking in bars was raging I remember even most smokers griped it would be inconvenient but acknowledged it was necessary. If everyone else is doing it you will too for FOMO reasons, but I think we all kind of resent the things that drive FOMO in us rather than wanting to further support them taking over our time and attention.
But to ban all social media? The entire internet is a history of social media. Back when there were just phpbb forums, people made sections just to talk with one another. IRC was full of chat rooms. Where do we draw the lines? I think it's fair to point out the major institutions which we associate with social media today have specific problematic behavior, but it's unrelated to the idea of social media. The issues arise when they do things like allow misinformation to propagate because they're focused on surfacing highly controversial content. Other forms of algorithmic content surfacing, such as those which promote highly viewed content can create a competitive 'who can get the most points' environment. Collecting as much data as possible to serve highly tailored ads is another kind of problematic behavior which doesn't necessarily have to exist. I think we should be tackling these kinds of problems before we declare all social media forbidden, because if we do that people are just going to find ways to continue to be social within the bounds of the law (and I'd like to point out that this ban is focused on a single platform, one which arguably isn't as problematic as other platforms at least on certain axes).
Banning indoor smoking feels like a very different beast than banning social media. Indoor smoking is extremely circumstantial (it's not a full ban on smoking), has clear measurable negative health effects for all individuals (not just certain subsets of people), and is something which directly affects people not engaging in the activity you are doing (I can opt out of your use of social media, I can't opt out of your smoking in my space). I think it's unfair to draw a comparison between the two, and perhaps a tad ironic given that we are currently actively participating on what could be called a social media platform.
It seems pretty clear to me that when people say "social media" they are referring specifically to the big platforms like Twitter, Instagram, etc.
I kind of wish that we in the English speaking realm would borrow the term the Japanese use. The term "SNS" is already an English acronym (Social Networking Service), and it is also categorically different from other types of social forums like bulletin boards and chat services. Those services never got as big as SNS did, and on average they had more transparent and effective moderation.
Okay but banning facebook or instagram won't stop another platform from copying the concept? What do we mean here when we say "ban social media"?
Those weren’t called “social media.” The term came into use to refer to Web 2.0 platforms that served up algorithmically curated user-generated “content.” They generally have an ad supported business model but that’s not a requirement.
It’s also pretty easy to see where to draw the line for me. Make the data factory business model untenable. That basically is what set social media apart from other methods of posting on the internet or IRC that made people want to make up a new word for it.
I’d be sad to see it go but TBH I’d sacrifice Tildes to get rid of Facebook and Twitter. Sadly it’s too hard to actually do that in a way that doesn’t have a ton of collateral damage.
Is this a real problem? I stopped (almost entirely, I guess I have a linkedin that I look at once a month) and don't seem worse off than everyone else.
It depends entirely on what methods/platforms your personal social circles use. For some, their circles are heavy users of these platforms. Be the only one leaving and you’ll get left out of most of the group interactions unless you can convince them to all leave or at least remember and be willing to keep you in the loop another way.
I left Twitter and not much was lost since I used it mostly just for industry acquaintances. If I left Facebook, I’d lose a lot of connection with family and friends spread across the world; it’s already happened to a small handful of people I know over the years who’ve left.
Thankfully my friends all use SMS/MMS/Discord to communicate.
Kind of surprising that only 56 percent of tiktok users oppose tiktok getting banned.
I'm pro banning TikTok and anti any measures that would be needed to enforce a real ban while TikTok still exists. I think we should just order Apple and Google to kick it from the app stores, and maybe order TikTok to change the app not to work in the US, but all the "we'll throw you in prison for using a VPN" shit is just authoritarian.
Realistically a ban would just make them unable to make money in the US market.
That was a bad faith misreading of the law by Twitter (i.e. not actually) lawyers. There is no precedent for interpreting the text that way. It is very clearly aimed at entities that are specifically counteracting the ban at scale for the purposes of lifting classified material. The fact that the enforcement mechanism is to literally have the President of the United States direct a Cabinet level official to start an investigation should make it more than obvious that this isn't meant for random people using NordVPN or whatever.
Hmm, perhaps I'm legally naive but this wasn't clear to me at all based on the text of the law. (The rest I agree with, though I don't necessarily think that's an acceptable power for the government to have.)
I'm worried about how the ban would be implemented more than the ban itself. All the infrastructure needed to implement the ban will make the next bans have way less friction.
I could be in favour of it, if it helps YouTube shorts disappear and also means that Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies are dragged over broken glass and fined in the billions for their enabling of disinformation and their misuse of user data.