I've been seeing people say that this is a net positive. That attention spans will now get longer and the death of other entertainment mediums (movies, music, video games) will reverse course. I...
I've been seeing people say that this is a net positive. That attention spans will now get longer and the death of other entertainment mediums (movies, music, video games) will reverse course. I don't buy that narrative. Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts exist. TikTok has fundamentally reshaped our relationships to social media. There's a reason it is the most addicting platform.
The biggest effect this would have would be on the music industry. Many artists make songs specifically for the platform. There are artists that owe their current career trajectories to TikTok. Chappelle Roan, Sabrina Carpenter, Charli XCX, Olivia Rodrigo, all owe their current succeses to the it. Yes, some of these artists were making music before and some were even pretty successful. But TikTok is what made them the stars that they are today. So much of the music industry is built around TikTok it would be interesting to see where it goes from here.
Even outside of that, would the TV show Wednesday have been such a massive hit without TikTok? Would Jenna Ortega even be remotely as famous as she is now? What about the films that gain popularity on the platform, will they be as financially successful without it? I understand word of mouth spread before TikTok's creation, but it feels like a different beast to anything we've seen before.
I have mixed feelings, but I know deep down this is just a power move to shut down competition by Meta, Google, and co. It's also hilarious thst we bring back a red scare for a social media, but...
I have mixed feelings, but I know deep down this is just a power move to shut down competition by Meta, Google, and co.
It's also hilarious thst we bring back a red scare for a social media, but not when China is (or has) been out competing the US for years in a bunch of actually important stuff.
There’s still a lot of actions being taken against China in other strategic sectors, it just isn’t going to make headlines in the same way a TikTok ban would. Personally, I think that a ban is...
There’s still a lot of actions being taken against China in other strategic sectors, it just isn’t going to make headlines in the same way a TikTok ban would.
Personally, I think that a ban is easier to constitutionally justify than many opponents think. The High Court has always been more deferential to national security than other issues, and for an analogy, if the Soviet Union had started, say, USA Today, and it was suddenly the most popular newspaper, would the U.S. Government have allowed it to continue publishing? Probably not.
A ban is more understandable for press, a constitutionally protected aspect of US society. Social media is questionable. I think the peak difference here is that TikTok content is still produced...
A ban is more understandable for press, a constitutionally protected aspect of US society. Social media is questionable.
I think the peak difference here is that TikTok content is still produced by many countries, including US citizens. But the government is worried about where American data is hosted. Meanwhile, Meta is fine while we are being shown twice now that Facebook propaganda by Russia may have influenced the direction of the national elections.
That tells me they don't care about the journalism, but simply who can exploit America's data.
Social media is the modern version of press; what it chooses to amplify can accrue a larger audience than the vast majority of historical newspapers, or radio shows ever did. More than many...
Social media is the modern version of press; what it chooses to amplify can accrue a larger audience than the vast majority of historical newspapers, or radio shows ever did. More than many television broadcasts, even.
Hmm. Id say if anything, social media is a form of modern assembly. People talk about how social media can become someone's third place, and there's a lot of argument over speech among the public...
Hmm. Id say if anything, social media is a form of modern assembly. People talk about how social media can become someone's third place, and there's a lot of argument over speech among the public that engages on it. Even statements on how you're in "public" like a park.
That's certainly an ambbivalent metaphor. But I suppose that shows that the real issue here is that there's no proper commons on the internet. Or at least, no popular commons.
In addition to @Interesting’s point, jurisprudence on content regulation is less strict on print media versus radio/television. The internet is more analogous to print media than television, since...
In addition to @Interesting’s point, jurisprudence on content regulation is less strict on print media versus radio/television. The internet is more analogous to print media than television, since you aren’t fighting over a limited bit of radio spectrum.
I just use YouTube Shorts because I'm too lazy to train my TikTok algorithm and I still get my short-form dopamine-cum-brainrot. I'm pretty sure this is mostly about competing censorships: while...
I just use YouTube Shorts because I'm too lazy to train my TikTok algorithm and I still get my short-form dopamine-cum-brainrot.
I'm pretty sure this is mostly about competing censorships: while TikTok is more interested in demoting content critical of China, Instagram Reels and YT Shorts are more interested in demoting content critical of the US and Israel. If you pay attention to the people pushing the ban it really is mostly about that.
TikTok’s algorithm is really sensitive so it wouldn’t take long to train it. If you watch one video all the way through it’ll start recommending you a lot of those types of videos.
TikTok’s algorithm is really sensitive so it wouldn’t take long to train it. If you watch one video all the way through it’ll start recommending you a lot of those types of videos.
Demoting content critical of the US and Israel (and often this includes pro-Palestinian content) is a conservative bent though, or am I misunderstanding
Demoting content critical of the US and Israel (and often this includes pro-Palestinian content) is a conservative bent though, or am I misunderstanding
I dont know if they meant something beyond criticism of the US and Israel in relation to Gaza, but there are a number of allegations that Meta at least does suppress pro-Palestinian posts. Is that...
I dont know if they meant something beyond criticism of the US and Israel in relation to Gaza, but there are a number of allegations that Meta at least does suppress pro-Palestinian posts. Is that true? I can't say.
Yeah this is how I feel. In a perfect world, this would probably be a net positive where children are released from the addictive short form doom scrolling Chinese spyware. In reality, there are...
Yeah this is how I feel. In a perfect world, this would probably be a net positive where children are released from the addictive short form doom scrolling Chinese spyware. In reality, there are endless replacements for this type of content, all it is going to do is shift people to other platforms that have similar short form stuff, while also pissing off a large portion of your country.
I don't engage in short form content in any way because I just don't find them interesting, I much prefer longer videos, but I understand just how popular this type of content is. This just shifts a large market over to US tech companies like Google or Meta instead.
Why does the argument that Instagram Reels' and YouTube Shorts' continued existence will fill the short-attention-span media void not also apply to the effects on the music industry?
Why does the argument that Instagram Reels' and YouTube Shorts' continued existence will fill the short-attention-span media void not also apply to the effects on the music industry?
I’m not 100% sure how Reels or Shorts works. But TikTok often has sounds go viral. You can watch a video with a song click on the song and make a video with it. You can also save sounds. The ease...
I’m not 100% sure how Reels or Shorts works. But TikTok often has sounds go viral. You can watch a video with a song click on the song and make a video with it. You can also save sounds. The ease of being able to do that is the difference in regards to the music industry.
Reels and Shorts also tend to be behind in trends set by TikTok.
I don't use Tiktok but some younger members of my family do. I did hear someone knowledgeable in the music industry (might have been Rick Beato - but don't quote me, I can't find the vid) that...
I don't use Tiktok but some younger members of my family do. I did hear someone knowledgeable in the music industry (might have been Rick Beato - but don't quote me, I can't find the vid) that Tiktok was now one of the primary sources for new music discovery and exposure. Eclipsing YouTube and discovery through music streaming services.
It almost made me get an account. But then I remembered YouTube shorts and didn't, so now I'm just lttp on all the hot new music. T'was ever thus :)
I am not familiar with the acronym "lttp" and thus I must be old. I'm just going to run with it standing for "Link to the Past", which must mean you are some sort of hero of hot new music!
I am not familiar with the acronym "lttp" and thus I must be old. I'm just going to run with it standing for "Link to the Past", which must mean you are some sort of hero of hot new music!
Related: The TikTok Ban Heads to the Supreme Court Tomorrow. Here’s What to Know (archive.is) For consumers, if the ban actually happens (as in TikTok is forced to sell to keep its service in the...
For consumers, if the ban actually happens (as in TikTok is forced to sell to keep its service in the U.S. and TikTok does not sell as promised), the app would be removed from App Store and Google Play. TikTok would need to block U.S. users from accessing. Of course, one could still use a VPN to bypass that but most users would shift to U.S. apps like Instagram (Reels). WSJ claims that TikTok would still have some amount of U.S. users but it would be a "slow death with progressively eroding functionality" as the app would still work but ByteDance can't deploy any updates to the consumer.
So the title is inaccurate then? That isn't shutting down or cutting off access really
TikTok won't disappear from Americans' phones on Jan. 19 if the law takes effect. However, users would not be able to update the app and those who don't already have it would not be able to download it.
So the title is inaccurate then? That isn't shutting down or cutting off access really
Editor's note: This story has been changed to clarify that TikTok could shut down on Jan. 19 if the Supreme Court rules against its request for a temporary injunction that would overturn or delay a law that could lead to a U.S. ban.
It's not entirely clear to me. There's also this provision to compel people to comply. I am under the assumption that any entity that can be subjected to fines in the US would be incentivized to...
It's not entirely clear to me.
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.—The term “internet hosting service” means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.
There's also this provision to compel people to comply.
(A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation.
I am under the assumption that any entity that can be subjected to fines in the US would be incentivized to comply, even if it is not a US company. What I'm not sure of is whether a company that operates out of China cares about that, so it's not clear to me if TikTok itself has incentive to block US users. If it does, then there's your answer, TikTok would have an incentive to avoid these fines and thus would block users, so even if the users apps aren't removed from their phones, the apps would not connect to TikTok servers anymore. If TikTok does not care about those fines, then we must examine elsewhere in the chain who this law applies to.
If we assume that TikTok has no incentive to go out of its way to prevent users from using their service, who in the chain is responsible for preventing users from accessing the TikTok website? If the website is not hosted by a company that cares about getting fined by the US, then the hosting service doesn't have to stop it. It does say domain name server hosting, it seems that means DNS servers may be required to deny requests to resolve the TikTok domain. I'm not even 100% sure if I'm interpreting the phrasing of the law correctly in that way.
The wording of the (A) provision I find a little wonky. Specifically the 'by means of a marketplace' and says including an online mobile application store. At first I thought maybe even browsers might be subject to this with a shoddy interpretation, but the 'by means of marketplace' phrasing makes it harder for me to even stretch a bad interpretation to a browser loading a website. A browser with a marketplace of extensions/add-ons, sure that applies, but a browser that simply renders a website, that could be described as distributing the website, but it isn't by means of a marketplace.
Whoever in the chain is responsible for restricting access to the website would likely also limit the accessibility in the apps too. I'm not a developer but I assume app developers don't hard code many IP addresses in their app but would rather use domains to maintain fluidity, but I could be wrong on that.
Presumably the server API would not remain compatible with an old client in the long term, unless they chose to deliberately limit future development to service a non-growing pool of users who...
Presumably the server API would not remain compatible with an old client in the long term, unless they chose to deliberately limit future development to service a non-growing pool of users who can't receive updates.
Realistically, they should just geoblock the US and say "your shitty government is to blame" while they have the eyeballs.
Yea, but he does lots of things you can't really do, and suffers little to no consequence. He has a legal framework to assassinate people in public. Not forcing TikTok to comply is small potatoes....
Yea, but he does lots of things you can't really do, and suffers little to no consequence.
He has a legal framework to assassinate people in public. Not forcing TikTok to comply is small potatoes.
The rule of law is dead, provided you're wealthy enough.
But is a company willing to take that risk? Trump may, "Hey it's all OK, I'm here to save TikTok! You're good! This is an official act!" But the risk is still on the company if a court doesn't...
But is a company willing to take that risk? Trump may, "Hey it's all OK, I'm here to save TikTok! You're good! This is an official act!" But the risk is still on the company if a court doesn't strike it down. They'd be operating in a pseudo gray space. In 4yrs, there'll be another admin (hopefully anyway...). If the courts don't strike the law, who's to say a new admin won't pursue TikTok for flouting the laws? And a court may not accept, "Well Trump said so! It was an official act!" as a valid defense.
And it’s not like Trump is a reliable actor in general but also on this specific issue. He issued an executive order to try to ban TikTok in his first term. By not following the law you’re...
And it’s not like Trump is a reliable actor in general but also on this specific issue. He issued an executive order to try to ban TikTok in his first term.
By not following the law you’re essentially handing over blackmail that Trump could use against you the next time he’s mad at Google etc. “Stop doing this other unrelated thing or we’ll start enforcing the TikTok ban law” is not the place you want to be.
To your point, this was touched on just now during the oral arguments before the court. Specifically the concern of an enforcement suspension without a changing of the underlying law. It seemed...
To your point, this was touched on just now during the oral arguments before the court. Specifically the concern of an enforcement suspension without a changing of the underlying law. It seemed telling that the Justice seemed satisfied when the statue of limitations for civil penalties under the law is 5 years. I.e., Trump could suspend the executives enforcement of penalties, but the next president could enforce them going back to the date the law goes into effect.
I also suspect that some party would file suit to try and force enforcement, though with what standing I have no idea.
What you mean to say is it isn’t something Trump has the authority to do unilaterally. Don’t forget, Republicans now control the executive, house, senate, and Supreme Court.
What you mean to say is it isn’t something Trump has the authority to do unilaterally. Don’t forget, Republicans now control the executive, house, senate, and Supreme Court.
The range on executive orders has gotten concerning. Edit- Now that i've got a moment, the way I roughly see it is: Trump makes EO saying tik tok can operate who then continues to do so. Various...
The range on executive orders has gotten concerning.
Edit-
Now that i've got a moment, the way I roughly see it is:
Trump makes EO saying tik tok can operate who then continues to do so.
Various branches say "that's not how it fucking works"
Elevate, slowly, to the SC.
Even if the reps didn't have the congress/sc, that would at least buy a shitload of time.
"Based Politics Inc." is sending me. Strange bedfellows in support of TikTok, huh.
TikTok, as well as eight individual users and Based Politics Inc., a conservative group that uses TikTok, all filed separate challenges saying the law violates their free speech rights.
"Based Politics Inc." is sending me. Strange bedfellows in support of TikTok, huh.
I've been seeing people say that this is a net positive. That attention spans will now get longer and the death of other entertainment mediums (movies, music, video games) will reverse course. I don't buy that narrative. Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts exist. TikTok has fundamentally reshaped our relationships to social media. There's a reason it is the most addicting platform.
The biggest effect this would have would be on the music industry. Many artists make songs specifically for the platform. There are artists that owe their current career trajectories to TikTok. Chappelle Roan, Sabrina Carpenter, Charli XCX, Olivia Rodrigo, all owe their current succeses to the it. Yes, some of these artists were making music before and some were even pretty successful. But TikTok is what made them the stars that they are today. So much of the music industry is built around TikTok it would be interesting to see where it goes from here.
Even outside of that, would the TV show Wednesday have been such a massive hit without TikTok? Would Jenna Ortega even be remotely as famous as she is now? What about the films that gain popularity on the platform, will they be as financially successful without it? I understand word of mouth spread before TikTok's creation, but it feels like a different beast to anything we've seen before.
I have mixed feelings, but I know deep down this is just a power move to shut down competition by Meta, Google, and co.
It's also hilarious thst we bring back a red scare for a social media, but not when China is (or has) been out competing the US for years in a bunch of actually important stuff.
There’s still a lot of actions being taken against China in other strategic sectors, it just isn’t going to make headlines in the same way a TikTok ban would.
Personally, I think that a ban is easier to constitutionally justify than many opponents think. The High Court has always been more deferential to national security than other issues, and for an analogy, if the Soviet Union had started, say, USA Today, and it was suddenly the most popular newspaper, would the U.S. Government have allowed it to continue publishing? Probably not.
A ban is more understandable for press, a constitutionally protected aspect of US society. Social media is questionable.
I think the peak difference here is that TikTok content is still produced by many countries, including US citizens. But the government is worried about where American data is hosted. Meanwhile, Meta is fine while we are being shown twice now that Facebook propaganda by Russia may have influenced the direction of the national elections.
That tells me they don't care about the journalism, but simply who can exploit America's data.
Social media is the modern version of press; what it chooses to amplify can accrue a larger audience than the vast majority of historical newspapers, or radio shows ever did. More than many television broadcasts, even.
Hmm. Id say if anything, social media is a form of modern assembly. People talk about how social media can become someone's third place, and there's a lot of argument over speech among the public that engages on it. Even statements on how you're in "public" like a park.
That's certainly an ambbivalent metaphor. But I suppose that shows that the real issue here is that there's no proper commons on the internet. Or at least, no popular commons.
In addition to @Interesting’s point, jurisprudence on content regulation is less strict on print media versus radio/television. The internet is more analogous to print media than television, since you aren’t fighting over a limited bit of radio spectrum.
I just use YouTube Shorts because I'm too lazy to train my TikTok algorithm and I still get my short-form dopamine-cum-brainrot.
I'm pretty sure this is mostly about competing censorships: while TikTok is more interested in demoting content critical of China, Instagram Reels and YT Shorts are more interested in demoting content critical of the US and Israel. If you pay attention to the people pushing the ban it really is mostly about that.
TikTok’s algorithm is really sensitive so it wouldn’t take long to train it. If you watch one video all the way through it’ll start recommending you a lot of those types of videos.
Do we have any evidence of this? Last I checked, if anything there's a conservative bias with plenty of questionable algorithmic echo chambers.
Demoting content critical of the US and Israel (and often this includes pro-Palestinian content) is a conservative bent though, or am I misunderstanding
Not exactly? A common conservative opinion is that the US government is "woke", so criticizing the US government can be conservative coded.
I dont know if they meant something beyond criticism of the US and Israel in relation to Gaza, but there are a number of allegations that Meta at least does suppress pro-Palestinian posts. Is that true? I can't say.
That's the lens I interpreted the post with.
Yeah this is how I feel. In a perfect world, this would probably be a net positive where children are released from the addictive short form doom scrolling Chinese spyware. In reality, there are endless replacements for this type of content, all it is going to do is shift people to other platforms that have similar short form stuff, while also pissing off a large portion of your country.
I don't engage in short form content in any way because I just don't find them interesting, I much prefer longer videos, but I understand just how popular this type of content is. This just shifts a large market over to US tech companies like Google or Meta instead.
Why does the argument that Instagram Reels' and YouTube Shorts' continued existence will fill the short-attention-span media void not also apply to the effects on the music industry?
I’m not 100% sure how Reels or Shorts works. But TikTok often has sounds go viral. You can watch a video with a song click on the song and make a video with it. You can also save sounds. The ease of being able to do that is the difference in regards to the music industry.
Reels and Shorts also tend to be behind in trends set by TikTok.
I don't use Tiktok but some younger members of my family do. I did hear someone knowledgeable in the music industry (might have been Rick Beato - but don't quote me, I can't find the vid) that Tiktok was now one of the primary sources for new music discovery and exposure. Eclipsing YouTube and discovery through music streaming services.
It almost made me get an account. But then I remembered YouTube shorts and didn't, so now I'm just lttp on all the hot new music. T'was ever thus :)
I am not familiar with the acronym "lttp" and thus I must be old. I'm just going to run with it standing for "Link to the Past", which must mean you are some sort of hero of hot new music!
late to the party :)
You are not the only one, I also could only think of Link to the Past when reading that
To the latter paragraph there is a simple answer: if not TikTok, something else will take its place.
Related:
The TikTok Ban Heads to the Supreme Court Tomorrow. Here’s What to Know (archive.is)
For consumers, if the ban actually happens (as in TikTok is forced to sell to keep its service in the U.S. and TikTok does not sell as promised), the app would be removed from App Store and Google Play. TikTok would need to block U.S. users from accessing. Of course, one could still use a VPN to bypass that but most users would shift to U.S. apps like Instagram (Reels). WSJ claims that TikTok would still have some amount of U.S. users but it would be a "slow death with progressively eroding functionality" as the app would still work but ByteDance can't deploy any updates to the consumer.
So the title is inaccurate then? That isn't shutting down or cutting off access really
It's not entirely clear to me.
There's also this provision to compel people to comply.
I am under the assumption that any entity that can be subjected to fines in the US would be incentivized to comply, even if it is not a US company. What I'm not sure of is whether a company that operates out of China cares about that, so it's not clear to me if TikTok itself has incentive to block US users. If it does, then there's your answer, TikTok would have an incentive to avoid these fines and thus would block users, so even if the users apps aren't removed from their phones, the apps would not connect to TikTok servers anymore. If TikTok does not care about those fines, then we must examine elsewhere in the chain who this law applies to.
If we assume that TikTok has no incentive to go out of its way to prevent users from using their service, who in the chain is responsible for preventing users from accessing the TikTok website? If the website is not hosted by a company that cares about getting fined by the US, then the hosting service doesn't have to stop it. It does say domain name server hosting, it seems that means DNS servers may be required to deny requests to resolve the TikTok domain. I'm not even 100% sure if I'm interpreting the phrasing of the law correctly in that way.
The wording of the (A) provision I find a little wonky. Specifically the 'by means of a marketplace' and says including an online mobile application store. At first I thought maybe even browsers might be subject to this with a shoddy interpretation, but the 'by means of marketplace' phrasing makes it harder for me to even stretch a bad interpretation to a browser loading a website. A browser with a marketplace of extensions/add-ons, sure that applies, but a browser that simply renders a website, that could be described as distributing the website, but it isn't by means of a marketplace.
Whoever in the chain is responsible for restricting access to the website would likely also limit the accessibility in the apps too. I'm not a developer but I assume app developers don't hard code many IP addresses in their app but would rather use domains to maintain fluidity, but I could be wrong on that.
Presumably the server API would not remain compatible with an old client in the long term, unless they chose to deliberately limit future development to service a non-growing pool of users who can't receive updates.
Realistically, they should just geoblock the US and say "your shitty government is to blame" while they have the eyeballs.
Or unless they go out of their way to maintain backward compatibility of the API. It's a PITA, over time, but possible.
Isn't the worst case scenario for TikTok that they're down for the 19th, and then Trump says they're okay to operate on the 20th?
That’s not really something Trump can do, even if he wanted to.
Yea, but he does lots of things you can't really do, and suffers little to no consequence.
He has a legal framework to assassinate people in public. Not forcing TikTok to comply is small potatoes.
The rule of law is dead, provided you're wealthy enough.
But is a company willing to take that risk? Trump may, "Hey it's all OK, I'm here to save TikTok! You're good! This is an official act!" But the risk is still on the company if a court doesn't strike it down. They'd be operating in a pseudo gray space. In 4yrs, there'll be another admin (hopefully anyway...). If the courts don't strike the law, who's to say a new admin won't pursue TikTok for flouting the laws? And a court may not accept, "Well Trump said so! It was an official act!" as a valid defense.
And it’s not like Trump is a reliable actor in general but also on this specific issue. He issued an executive order to try to ban TikTok in his first term.
By not following the law you’re essentially handing over blackmail that Trump could use against you the next time he’s mad at Google etc. “Stop doing this other unrelated thing or we’ll start enforcing the TikTok ban law” is not the place you want to be.
To your point, this was touched on just now during the oral arguments before the court. Specifically the concern of an enforcement suspension without a changing of the underlying law. It seemed telling that the Justice seemed satisfied when the statue of limitations for civil penalties under the law is 5 years. I.e., Trump could suspend the executives enforcement of penalties, but the next president could enforce them going back to the date the law goes into effect.
I also suspect that some party would file suit to try and force enforcement, though with what standing I have no idea.
Depends on if the penalty is both enforceable and more expensive than the profits made in the meantime.
What you mean to say is it isn’t something Trump has the authority to do unilaterally. Don’t forget, Republicans now control the executive, house, senate, and Supreme Court.
The range on executive orders has gotten concerning.
Edit-
Now that i've got a moment, the way I roughly see it is:
Even if the reps didn't have the congress/sc, that would at least buy a shitload of time.
"Based Politics Inc." is sending me. Strange bedfellows in support of TikTok, huh.