My understanding of the primary complaint about this bill is that the issue it is aiming to address is not that the algorithm is damaging the country, but that China's hand is on the wheel, rather than one of our perfectly acceptable domestic sources of algorithmic eroding of the country.
And the continually answer to that has been "take what you can get".
You currently can't get the more broad kind of bill about social media anyone here would want. But TikTok has managed to get the right-wing upset enough that they are willing to throw in with a bill going after TikTok specifically. So this is currently the best you can get on this front. So you take it and then ask for the rest.
And of course, because it bears mentioning, any bill that goes after social media more broadly would obviously also be hitting TikTok. So the idea that the problem is that this bill only targets TikTok doesn't mesh with the complaints that this bill targets TikTok at all. TikTok is gonna get hit with this bill or with the better will people want. You can't escape that if you actually care about going after social media.
The argument is this bill doesn't go after the problems with social media. It doesn't allow people to examine the algorithm or force more stringent moderation, or user information protection. If the bill was targeting just TikTok, but at least establishing a baseline of one of those the bill would be more useful toward getting those guidelines applied to other social media in the future, but what we're getting is a bill that says TikTok can't be owned by Bitedance.
Except the bill being owned by a company under the thumb of an authoritarian regime that is hostile to western democracy is a problem with social media. The biases of the people running these places is a huge issue. It's why everyone complains about Musk buying Twitter. Because who runs the algorithm matters. And this is targeting who runs the algorithm.
Not as widely as anyone wants, but you take what you can get.
Would it be legal to force Elon Musk to sell twitter or ban it via a piece of legislation specifically targeting him or X Corp?
I guess we can just post this again. I'm surprised it hasn't even been dismissed, no one who denies evidence exists ever even acknowledges it's been posted or bothers to criticize it.
To be honest a major concern I have is that while people here talk about the issues with Chinese propaganda and all that, a vocal part of the American government does not necessarily seem particularly concerned about that. Or at least, the largest issues that they've talked about has not been the propaganda that you or I might be concerned about, but rather accusations levied at regular content, especially recently content that is critical of Israel. When it comes to government the reasons for taking actions matters, and it's hard to feel relaxed about the reasons the government has talked about.
I've seen it mostly the opposite. It seems like a lot of congress came out of classified briefings on TikTik expressing serious concerns. Even the people who still didn't want to support the legislation. The Chinese control issue seemed a lot more salient to most of congress and the "they are warping children's minds with anti-Israel propaganda" seems like it's mostly coming from far-right idiots in the Republican party.
If they dont voice those concerns publicly, and why dont they, should we care?
If China is a grave threat, why not tell us the threat behind TikTok? Behind the ban?
I see it as a tit for tat economic/tech industry fight, because that's what makes sense and looks obvious. US based social media didnt made inroads by cooperation, so the US government is turning to protectionism.
It does not seem either obvious or supported by literally anything we've seen. Nothing said about this bill has been about economic protectionism. It's just been focused on opposing China politically and propaganda/"propaganda" on the platform.
Cantwell's floor speech mentions it immediately.
Sen. Cantwell: I want to address that technology should be a tool to help solve our greatest challenges to improve our human conditions, and drive innovation, and support economic opportunity.
But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control. There is no individual right to privacy or freedom of speech in these autocracies. U.S. media companies are not allowed to operate in China. In fact, China leads the world in using surveillance and censorship to keep tabs on its own population and to repress dissidence.
Governments that respect freedom of speech do not build backdoors into hardware or software, into apps on phones, or into laptops.
US media companies are not allowed to operate in China.
Governments dont build backdoors or surveil? What a fucking joke. Keeps tabs on the world? Yeah, Five eyes, tons of ISP sniffing.
It's protectionism. It's right there.
Okay, that bolded sentence is hilarious to anyone who knows even a little bit about US cops.
Late in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Cook and several lieutenants gathered in the “junior boardroom” on the executive floor at One Infinite Loop, Apple’s old headquarters. The company had just received a writ from a US magistrate ordering it to make specialized software that would allow the FBI to unlock an iPhone used by Syed Farook, a suspect in the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015 that left 14 people dead.
The iPhone was locked with a four-digit passcode that the FBI had been unable to crack. The FBI wanted Apple to create a special version of iOS that would accept an unlimited combination of passwords electronically, until the right one was found. The new iOS could be side-loaded onto the iPhone, leaving the data intact.
But Apple had refused. Cook and his team were convinced that a new unlocked version of iOS would be very, very dangerous. It could be misused, leaked, or stolen, and once in the wild, it could never be retrieved. It could potentially undermine the security of hundreds of millions of Apple users.
In the boardroom, Cook and his team went through the writ line by line. They needed to decide what Apple’s legal position was going to be and figure out how long they had to respond. It was a stressful, high-stakes meeting. Apple was given no warning about the writ, even though Cook, Apple’s top lawyer, Bruce Sewell, and others had been actively speaking about the case to law enforcement for weeks.
The writ “was not a simple request for assistance in a criminal case,” explained Sewell. “It was a forty-two-page pleading by the government that started out with this litany of the horrible things that had been done in San Bernardino. And then this . . . somewhat biased litany of all the times that Apple had said no to what were portrayed as very reasonable requests. So this was what, in the law, we call a speaking complaint. It was meant to from day one tell a story . . . that would get the public against Apple.”
…
Apple had been working with the FBI to try to unlock the phone, providing data and making engineers available, Cook explained. “But now the US government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create . . . a backdoor to the iPhone.” He continued, “In the wrong hands, this software—which does not exist today—would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.” This could have potentially disastrous consequences, leaving users powerless to stop any unwanted invasion of privacy. “The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”
Cook then accused the government of trying to force Apple “to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers . . . from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.” It would be a slippery slope from there. The government could then demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept messages, access health records or financial data, or track users’ locations. Cook needed to draw a line. He believed the FBI’s intentions were good, but it was his responsibility to protect Apple users. “We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack,” he wrote. Though it was difficult for him to resist orders from the US government, and he knew he’d face backlash, he needed to take a stand.
Although the current fight is over these two password-protected phones, it’s only the latest skirmish in a long-running battle over whether technology companies should give law enforcement special access to customers’ data.
Barr and other law enforcement officials call it the “going dark” problem and argue that all data should be accessible with a warrant. Apple and techies tend to call the concept a “backdoor” and argue that it would hurt security for everyone who uses that device.
During Barr’s press conference Monday, he explicitly framed the issue as bigger than just the two Pensacola iPhones: “We call on Apple and other technology companies to help us find a solution so that we can better protect the lives of Americans and prevent future attacks.”
Barr also discussed his goal last summer, months before the Pensacola shooting: “The Department has made clear what we are seeking. We believe that when technology providers deploy encryption in their products, services, and platforms they need to maintain an appropriate mechanism for lawful access.”
Apple is not against helping law enforcement. But it objects to building a general method that could be used to break encryption, arguing that it will have unintended consequences.
“Backdoors can also be exploited by those who threaten our national security and the data security of our customers. Today, law enforcement has access to more data than ever before in history, so Americans do not have to choose between weakening encryption and solving investigations,” an Apple representative said in a statement earlier this week.
Apple’s not the only company in this pickle. Pretty much every single major piece of digital technology uses encryption to protect information from prying eyes. Barr took aim at Facebook last year, for example, for the encryption it uses in WhatsApp.
It’s funny to watch the state tell on itself sometimes.
To be honest a major concern I have is that while people here talk about the issues with Chinese propaganda and all that, a vocal part of the American government does not necessarily seem particularly concerned about that. Or at least, the largest issues that they've talked about has not been the propaganda that you or I might be concerned about, but rather accusations levied at regular content, especially recently content that is critical of Israel. When it comes to government the reasons for taking actions matters, and it's hard to feel relaxed about the reasons the government has talked about.
I've seen it mostly the opposite. It seems like a lot of congress came out of classified briefings on TikTik expressing serious concerns. Even the people who still didn't want to support the legislation. The Chinese control issue seemed a lot more salient to most of congress and the "they are warping children's minds with anti-Israel propaganda" seems like it's mostly coming from far-right idiots in the Republican party.
If they dont voice those concerns publicly, and why dont they, should we care?
If China is a grave threat, why not tell us the threat behind TikTok? Behind the ban?
I see it as a tit for tat economic/tech industry fight, because that's what makes sense and looks obvious. US based social media didnt made inroads by cooperation, so the US government is turning to protectionism.
It does not seem either obvious or supported by literally anything we've seen. Nothing said about this bill has been about economic protectionism. It's just been focused on opposing China politically and propaganda/"propaganda" on the platform.
Cantwell's floor speech mentions it immediately.
Sen. Cantwell: I want to address that technology should be a tool to help solve our greatest challenges to improve our human conditions, and drive innovation, and support economic opportunity.
But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control. There is no individual right to privacy or freedom of speech in these autocracies. U.S. media companies are not allowed to operate in China. In fact, China leads the world in using surveillance and censorship to keep tabs on its own population and to repress dissidence.
Governments that respect freedom of speech do not build backdoors into hardware or software, into apps on phones, or into laptops.
US media companies are not allowed to operate in China.
Governments dont build backdoors or surveil? What a fucking joke. Keeps tabs on the world? Yeah, Five eyes, tons of ISP sniffing.
It's protectionism. It's right there.
No, that entire quote of your is about social/political control. It even states so outright. Mentioning about US companies can't operate in China is part of showing how the Chinese are interested in social/political/information/etc control.
Except why do we care that US companies cant operate there, why even mention it? Lots of US companies cant, it is a planned closed economy. We let their companies sell all sorts of goods without reciprocity, with forced tech transfers, with forced trainings. Show the bad behavior in the US, not the suppression of their own people. Charge some US based engineers or execs with espionage, show some ill behavior or force some public statements.
We saw the same thing around steel, where it had been an issue for a long time but then when it was important to shore up the domestic steel stuff there was finally movement on how Chinese business operates.
Because it shows how China exercises control over what it's citizens can see by not allowing media sources outside Chinese control into their ecosystem. It's the same way they restrict what movies get into the country. That quote is all about how China controls the information environment of its people.
Again, right in the quote: "But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control."
“A that’s why TikTok should be taken out of Chinese hands and placed squarely into the trustworthy hands of good, trustworthy American companies.”
Irony so thick and dense you could use it to jumpstart a singularity.
To be honest a major concern I have is that while people here talk about the issues with Chinese propaganda and all that, a vocal part of the American government does not necessarily seem particularly concerned about that. Or at least, the largest issues that they've talked about has not been the propaganda that you or I might be concerned about, but rather accusations levied at regular content, especially recently content that is critical of Israel. When it comes to government the reasons for taking actions matters, and it's hard to feel relaxed about the reasons the government has talked about.
I've seen it mostly the opposite. It seems like a lot of congress came out of classified briefings on TikTik expressing serious concerns. Even the people who still didn't want to support the legislation. The Chinese control issue seemed a lot more salient to most of congress and the "they are warping children's minds with anti-Israel propaganda" seems like it's mostly coming from far-right idiots in the Republican party.
If they dont voice those concerns publicly, and why dont they, should we care?
If China is a grave threat, why not tell us the threat behind TikTok? Behind the ban?
I see it as a tit for tat economic/tech industry fight, because that's what makes sense and looks obvious. US based social media didnt made inroads by cooperation, so the US government is turning to protectionism.
It does not seem either obvious or supported by literally anything we've seen. Nothing said about this bill has been about economic protectionism. It's just been focused on opposing China politically and propaganda/"propaganda" on the platform.
Meta being one of its biggest backers says otherwise.
It is not surprising or relevant that meta backs this bill. In the same way that it is not surprising or relevant that (now that he's been bribed) Trump opposes this bill.
To be honest a major concern I have is that while people here talk about the issues with Chinese propaganda and all that, a vocal part of the American government does not necessarily seem particularly concerned about that. Or at least, the largest issues that they've talked about has not been the propaganda that you or I might be concerned about, but rather accusations levied at regular content, especially recently content that is critical of Israel. When it comes to government the reasons for taking actions matters, and it's hard to feel relaxed about the reasons the government has talked about.
I've seen it mostly the opposite. It seems like a lot of congress came out of classified briefings on TikTik expressing serious concerns. Even the people who still didn't want to support the legislation. The Chinese control issue seemed a lot more salient to most of congress and the "they are warping children's minds with anti-Israel propaganda" seems like it's mostly coming from far-right idiots in the Republican party.
If they dont voice those concerns publicly, and why dont they, should we care?
If China is a grave threat, why not tell us the threat behind TikTok? Behind the ban?
I see it as a tit for tat economic/tech industry fight, because that's what makes sense and looks obvious. US based social media didnt made inroads by cooperation, so the US government is turning to protectionism.
It does not seem either obvious or supported by literally anything we've seen. Nothing said about this bill has been about economic protectionism. It's just been focused on opposing China politically and propaganda/"propaganda" on the platform.
Cantwell's floor speech mentions it immediately.
Sen. Cantwell: I want to address that technology should be a tool to help solve our greatest challenges to improve our human conditions, and drive innovation, and support economic opportunity.
But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control. There is no individual right to privacy or freedom of speech in these autocracies. U.S. media companies are not allowed to operate in China. In fact, China leads the world in using surveillance and censorship to keep tabs on its own population and to repress dissidence.
Governments that respect freedom of speech do not build backdoors into hardware or software, into apps on phones, or into laptops.
US media companies are not allowed to operate in China.
Governments dont build backdoors or surveil? What a fucking joke. Keeps tabs on the world? Yeah, Five eyes, tons of ISP sniffing.
It's protectionism. It's right there.
No, that entire quote of your is about social/political control. It even states so outright. Mentioning about US companies can't operate in China is part of showing how the Chinese are interested in social/political/information/etc control.
Except why do we care that US companies cant operate there, why even mention it? Lots of US companies cant, it is a planned closed economy. We let their companies sell all sorts of goods without reciprocity, with forced tech transfers, with forced trainings. Show the bad behavior in the US, not the suppression of their own people. Charge some US based engineers or execs with espionage, show some ill behavior or force some public statements.
We saw the same thing around steel, where it had been an issue for a long time but then when it was important to shore up the domestic steel stuff there was finally movement on how Chinese business operates.
Because it shows how China exercises control over what it's citizens can see by not allowing media sources outside Chinese control into their ecosystem. It's the same way they restrict what movies get into the country. That quote is all about how China controls the information environment of its people.
Again, right in the quote: "But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control."
“A that’s why TikTok should be taken out of Chinese hands and placed squarely into the trustworthy hands of good, trustworthy American companies.”
Irony so thick and dense you could use it to jumpstart a singularity.
You cannot convince me that you do not understand the difference between a hostile foreign power and a dipshit domestic organization.
To be honest a major concern I have is that while people here talk about the issues with Chinese propaganda and all that, a vocal part of the American government does not necessarily seem particularly concerned about that. Or at least, the largest issues that they've talked about has not been the propaganda that you or I might be concerned about, but rather accusations levied at regular content, especially recently content that is critical of Israel. When it comes to government the reasons for taking actions matters, and it's hard to feel relaxed about the reasons the government has talked about.
I've seen it mostly the opposite. It seems like a lot of congress came out of classified briefings on TikTik expressing serious concerns. Even the people who still didn't want to support the legislation. The Chinese control issue seemed a lot more salient to most of congress and the "they are warping children's minds with anti-Israel propaganda" seems like it's mostly coming from far-right idiots in the Republican party.
If they dont voice those concerns publicly, and why dont they, should we care?
If China is a grave threat, why not tell us the threat behind TikTok? Behind the ban?
I see it as a tit for tat economic/tech industry fight, because that's what makes sense and looks obvious. US based social media didnt made inroads by cooperation, so the US government is turning to protectionism.
It does not seem either obvious or supported by literally anything we've seen. Nothing said about this bill has been about economic protectionism. It's just been focused on opposing China politically and propaganda/"propaganda" on the platform.
Cantwell's floor speech mentions it immediately.
Sen. Cantwell: I want to address that technology should be a tool to help solve our greatest challenges to improve our human conditions, and drive innovation, and support economic opportunity.
But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control. There is no individual right to privacy or freedom of speech in these autocracies. U.S. media companies are not allowed to operate in China. In fact, China leads the world in using surveillance and censorship to keep tabs on its own population and to repress dissidence.
Governments that respect freedom of speech do not build backdoors into hardware or software, into apps on phones, or into laptops.
US media companies are not allowed to operate in China.
Governments dont build backdoors or surveil? What a fucking joke. Keeps tabs on the world? Yeah, Five eyes, tons of ISP sniffing.
It's protectionism. It's right there.
No, that entire quote of your is about social/political control. It even states so outright. Mentioning about US companies can't operate in China is part of showing how the Chinese are interested in social/political/information/etc control.
Except why do we care that US companies cant operate there, why even mention it? Lots of US companies cant, it is a planned closed economy. We let their companies sell all sorts of goods without reciprocity, with forced tech transfers, with forced trainings. Show the bad behavior in the US, not the suppression of their own people. Charge some US based engineers or execs with espionage, show some ill behavior or force some public statements.
We saw the same thing around steel, where it had been an issue for a long time but then when it was important to shore up the domestic steel stuff there was finally movement on how Chinese business operates.
Because it shows how China exercises control over what it's citizens can see by not allowing media sources outside Chinese control into their ecosystem. It's the same way they restrict what movies get into the country. That quote is all about how China controls the information environment of its people.
Again, right in the quote: "But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control."
“A that’s why TikTok should be taken out of Chinese hands and placed squarely into the trustworthy hands of good, trustworthy American companies.”
Irony so thick and dense you could use it to jumpstart a singularity.
You cannot convince me that you do not understand the difference between a hostile foreign power and a dipshit domestic organization.
Trading one threat for another isn't particularly useful, especially when social media companies like Meta have been objectively massive threats to the well being of US citizens.
Nothing makes Tiktok go to American companies. The bill doesn't say it must be American owned / controlled to continue to operate in the US. Just that China needs to divest their control over the company.
Even though America is their biggest market / userbase there are plenty of other countries that have tech companies that would be overjoyed to be the new home and global headquarters of Tiktok.
I'm way more scared of what state-level actors with full system access can achieve and get away with, even if a lot of domestic oligarchs are just as fascist in their own way.
Especially with AI technology coming along the way it is.
To be honest a major concern I have is that while people here talk about the issues with Chinese propaganda and all that, a vocal part of the American government does not necessarily seem particularly concerned about that. Or at least, the largest issues that they've talked about has not been the propaganda that you or I might be concerned about, but rather accusations levied at regular content, especially recently content that is critical of Israel. When it comes to government the reasons for taking actions matters, and it's hard to feel relaxed about the reasons the government has talked about.
I've seen it mostly the opposite. It seems like a lot of congress came out of classified briefings on TikTik expressing serious concerns. Even the people who still didn't want to support the legislation. The Chinese control issue seemed a lot more salient to most of congress and the "they are warping children's minds with anti-Israel propaganda" seems like it's mostly coming from far-right idiots in the Republican party.
If they dont voice those concerns publicly, and why dont they, should we care?
If China is a grave threat, why not tell us the threat behind TikTok? Behind the ban?
I see it as a tit for tat economic/tech industry fight, because that's what makes sense and looks obvious. US based social media didnt made inroads by cooperation, so the US government is turning to protectionism.
It does not seem either obvious or supported by literally anything we've seen. Nothing said about this bill has been about economic protectionism. It's just been focused on opposing China politically and propaganda/"propaganda" on the platform.
Cantwell's floor speech mentions it immediately.
Sen. Cantwell: I want to address that technology should be a tool to help solve our greatest challenges to improve our human conditions, and drive innovation, and support economic opportunity.
But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control. There is no individual right to privacy or freedom of speech in these autocracies. U.S. media companies are not allowed to operate in China. In fact, China leads the world in using surveillance and censorship to keep tabs on its own population and to repress dissidence.
Governments that respect freedom of speech do not build backdoors into hardware or software, into apps on phones, or into laptops.
US media companies are not allowed to operate in China.
Governments dont build backdoors or surveil? What a fucking joke. Keeps tabs on the world? Yeah, Five eyes, tons of ISP sniffing.
It's protectionism. It's right there.
No, that entire quote of your is about social/political control. It even states so outright. Mentioning about US companies can't operate in China is part of showing how the Chinese are interested in social/political/information/etc control.
Except why do we care that US companies cant operate there, why even mention it? Lots of US companies cant, it is a planned closed economy. We let their companies sell all sorts of goods without reciprocity, with forced tech transfers, with forced trainings. Show the bad behavior in the US, not the suppression of their own people. Charge some US based engineers or execs with espionage, show some ill behavior or force some public statements.
We saw the same thing around steel, where it had been an issue for a long time but then when it was important to shore up the domestic steel stuff there was finally movement on how Chinese business operates.
Because it shows how China exercises control over what it's citizens can see by not allowing media sources outside Chinese control into their ecosystem. It's the same way they restrict what movies get into the country. That quote is all about how China controls the information environment of its people.
Again, right in the quote: "But foreign adversaries use technology for social and political control."
“A that’s why TikTok should be taken out of Chinese hands and placed squarely into the trustworthy hands of good, trustworthy American companies.”
Irony so thick and dense you could use it to jumpstart a singularity.
You cannot convince me that you do not understand the difference between a hostile foreign power and a dipshit domestic organization.
Trading one threat for another isn't particularly useful, especially when social media companies like Meta have been objectively massive threats to the well being of US citizens.
I know for a fact that you can comprehend relative risks when it's convenient for you. If you think this is an overstep, whatever, but this is a terrible argument for it.
The "have to follow the law to operate here" is a kind of silly argument when the law says they can't operate here and was written to stop them from operating here.
Well corporations that don't want to operate legally in the US shouldn't be allowed to operate at all.
There is a clear path and if China is willing to piss away hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars oh well.
The definition of “can’t operate legally” in this legislative instance being “you’re not allowed to operate here, period.”
It’s kind of hard to operate legally when it is very specifically your operation period being declared illegal, not anything you’re actually doing and being in violation of.
Rando: “Sorry bill, you can’t operate in the US anymore, you broke the law.”
Bill: “Because you passed a law saying it was illegal for me to operate a business, period!!”
To be honest a major concern I have is that while people here talk about the issues with Chinese propaganda and all that, a vocal part of the American government does not necessarily seem particularly concerned about that. Or at least, the largest issues that they've talked about has not been the propaganda that you or I might be concerned about, but rather accusations levied at regular content, especially recently content that is critical of Israel. When it comes to government the reasons for taking actions matters, and it's hard to feel relaxed about the reasons the government has talked about.
I've seen it mostly the opposite. It seems like a lot of congress came out of classified briefings on TikTik expressing serious concerns. Even the people who still didn't want to support the legislation. The Chinese control issue seemed a lot more salient to most of congress and the "they are warping children's minds with anti-Israel propaganda" seems like it's mostly coming from far-right idiots in the Republican party.
If they dont voice those concerns publicly, and why dont they, should we care?
If China is a grave threat, why not tell us the threat behind TikTok? Behind the ban?
I see it as a tit for tat economic/tech industry fight, because that's what makes sense and looks obvious. US based social media didnt made inroads by cooperation, so the US government is turning to protectionism.
It does not seem either obvious or supported by literally anything we've seen. Nothing said about this bill has been about economic protectionism. It's just been focused on opposing China politically and propaganda/"propaganda" on the platform.
Meta being one of its biggest backers says otherwise.
It is not surprising or relevant that meta backs this bill. In the same way that it is not surprising or relevant that (now that he's been bribed) Trump opposes this bill.
I'm way more scared of what state-level actors with full system access can achieve and get away with, even if a lot of domestic oligarchs are just as fascist in their own way.
Especially with AI technology coming along the way it is.
There's a very good chance we do stupid shit because our shitty politics, but we at least have non-zero power in the hands of people like Sanders here and at least a third of our government cares if at least a third of our population exists. We have Actually Zero of that going for us in China, even if plenty of their citizens think that sucks.
Nah Tiktok can easily continue to operate here legally. China just needs to divest their control.
You are literally supporting a law that says ByteDance is not allowed to operate in the United States under any circumstance
TikTok isn’t the company, it’s the product/service. You’ve evolved past the point of corporate personhood to embrace a newfound doctrine of product personhood in legal contexts.
Nah Tiktok can easily continue to operate here legally. China just needs to divest their control.
You are literally supporting a law that says ByteDance is not allowed to operate in the United States under any circumstance
TikTok isn’t the company, it’s the product/service. You’ve evolved past the point of corporate personhood to embrace a newfound doctrine of product personhood in legal contexts.
TikTok the app could continue to exist and do all these supposedly vital progressive things it does, though.
Nah Tiktok can easily continue to operate here legally. China just needs to divest their control.
You are literally supporting a law that says ByteDance is not allowed to operate in the United States under any circumstance
TikTok isn’t the company, it’s the product/service. You’ve evolved past the point of corporate personhood to embrace a newfound doctrine of product personhood in legal contexts.
It isnt newfound. Plenty of US companies are restricted from exporting tech, from dealing with other countries, especially around technology and defense.
Huawei was banned from 5G network infrastructure by coordinated international effort in quite recent history.
Advanced UV lithography companies cannot sell to China, advanced cryptography cannot be sold to China, we have restricted AI from export or are gearing to, sales of advanced processors to China are restricted.
Nah Tiktok can easily continue to operate here legally. China just needs to divest their control.
You are literally supporting a law that says ByteDance is not allowed to operate in the United States under any circumstance
TikTok isn’t the company, it’s the product/service. You’ve evolved past the point of corporate personhood to embrace a newfound doctrine of product personhood in legal contexts.
TikTok the app could continue to exist and do all these supposedly vital progressive things it does, though.
Except at the same time, Bytedance is being effectively punished for a crime that no court has proven it guilty of, while deliberately inflaming international tensions because some people, utterly ignorant of history, have gotten their pants wet for a new Cold War
And ByteDance doesn’t need the US market, when it has the rest of the international market (sans China), so they have no actual incentive and multiple disincentives to selling TikTok.
Describing TikTok as "the youth activism platform" when it has the same issues that twitter and facebook has of shoveling fascist/misogynist/bigoted content into the faces of the youth as hard as it possibly can is so wild that I don't even know where to start.
Your feed is curated by what you watch. So if somebody uses it for youth activism that's what they see. The algorithm is what is considered bad, but it's not throwing pro-fascist stuff on everybody's feed unless you're engaging with it in the first place by searching for it.
Just like how I don't see that kind of shit on twitter because I only follow people I like and consider good.
That's not how the algorithms work.
It's also curated by your location, your gender, your age, things you've tried to block (which it will keep showing you), things you've told it not to show content like this (which it will then continue to show you for weeks or months), whatever thumb the company itself is putting on the scale, and probably a ton of other factors as well that we don't know about it because the entire point of algorithmically driven social media is to be opaque.
Saying you won't see shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content unless you search for it is bullshit because you absolutely will. That's arguably the biggest problem with algorithmically driven social media.
My understanding of the primary complaint about this bill is that the issue it is aiming to address is not that the algorithm is damaging the country, but that China's hand is on the wheel, rather than one of our perfectly acceptable domestic sources of algorithmic eroding of the country.
And the continually answer to that has been "take what you can get".
You currently can't get the more broad kind of bill about social media anyone here would want. But TikTok has managed to get the right-wing upset enough that they are willing to throw in with a bill going after TikTok specifically. So this is currently the best you can get on this front. So you take it and then ask for the rest.
And of course, because it bears mentioning, any bill that goes after social media more broadly would obviously also be hitting TikTok. So the idea that the problem is that this bill only targets TikTok doesn't mesh with the complaints that this bill targets TikTok at all. TikTok is gonna get hit with this bill or with the better will people want. You can't escape that if you actually care about going after social media.
The argument is this bill doesn't go after the problems with social media. It doesn't allow people to examine the algorithm or force more stringent moderation, or user information protection. If the bill was targeting just TikTok, but at least establishing a baseline of one of those the bill would be more useful toward getting those guidelines applied to other social media in the future, but what we're getting is a bill that says TikTok can't be owned by Bitedance.
Except the bill being owned by a company under the thumb of an authoritarian regime that is hostile to western democracy is a problem with social media. The biases of the people running these places is a huge issue. It's why everyone complains about Musk buying Twitter. Because who runs the algorithm matters. And this is targeting who runs the algorithm.
Not as widely as anyone wants, but you take what you can get.
Would it be legal to force Elon Musk to sell twitter or ban it via a piece of legislation specifically targeting him or X Corp?
It would depend how you wrote the law. Musk would be more difficult to target. "Hostile foreign government" is a lot easier.
But this is also just conceding the point on whether the law is good or not and retreating to "but it might get struck down by the courts". Which, sure, maybe. The courts struck down the most relevant parts of the VRA after all. The US Federal Courts could do anything.
Describing TikTok as "the youth activism platform" when it has the same issues that twitter and facebook has of shoveling fascist/misogynist/bigoted content into the faces of the youth as hard as it possibly can is so wild that I don't even know where to start.
Your feed is curated by what you watch. So if somebody uses it for youth activism that's what they see. The algorithm is what is considered bad, but it's not throwing pro-fascist stuff on everybody's feed unless you're engaging with it in the first place by searching for it.
Just like how I don't see that kind of shit on twitter because I only follow people I like and consider good.
That's not how the algorithms work.
It's also curated by your location, your gender, your age, things you've tried to block (which it will keep showing you), things you've told it not to show content like this (which it will then continue to show you for weeks or months), whatever thumb the company itself is putting on the scale, and probably a ton of other factors as well that we don't know about it because the entire point of algorithmically driven social media is to be opaque.
Saying you won't see shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content unless you search for it is bullshit because you absolutely will. That's arguably the biggest problem with algorithmically driven social media.
I don’t know what to tell you, but somehow I and other people don’t seem to wind up with our feeds natively filled with “shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content.”
Like, the only time I see shit like that on my twitter, for example, is progressives and leftists calling out and doing social commentary on it in larger cultural contexts (influence on national and international politics, influence in various industries affected by those players acting withn them, etc.). It’s not, like, directly serving me MAGA bastards or Mark Kern ranting about the lack of Stellar Blade camel toe.
Otherwise it’s Progressive and Leftist politics, adorable animals in Japanese zoos, and a shitton of tokusatsu and mecha bullshit.
I guess we can just post this again. I'm surprised it hasn't even been dismissed, no one who denies evidence exists ever even acknowledges it's been posted or bothers to criticize it.
My understanding of the primary complaint about this bill is that the issue it is aiming to address is not that the algorithm is damaging the country, but that China's hand is on the wheel, rather than one of our perfectly acceptable domestic sources of algorithmic eroding of the country.
And the continually answer to that has been "take what you can get".
You currently can't get the more broad kind of bill about social media anyone here would want. But TikTok has managed to get the right-wing upset enough that they are willing to throw in with a bill going after TikTok specifically. So this is currently the best you can get on this front. So you take it and then ask for the rest.
And of course, because it bears mentioning, any bill that goes after social media more broadly would obviously also be hitting TikTok. So the idea that the problem is that this bill only targets TikTok doesn't mesh with the complaints that this bill targets TikTok at all. TikTok is gonna get hit with this bill or with the better will people want. You can't escape that if you actually care about going after social media.
The argument is this bill doesn't go after the problems with social media. It doesn't allow people to examine the algorithm or force more stringent moderation, or user information protection. If the bill was targeting just TikTok, but at least establishing a baseline of one of those the bill would be more useful toward getting those guidelines applied to other social media in the future, but what we're getting is a bill that says TikTok can't be owned by Bitedance.
Except the bill being owned by a company under the thumb of an authoritarian regime that is hostile to western democracy is a problem with social media. The biases of the people running these places is a huge issue. It's why everyone complains about Musk buying Twitter. Because who runs the algorithm matters. And this is targeting who runs the algorithm.
Not as widely as anyone wants, but you take what you can get.
Would it be legal to force Elon Musk to sell twitter or ban it via a piece of legislation specifically targeting him or X Corp?
It would depend how you wrote the law. Musk would be more difficult to target. "Hostile foreign government" is a lot easier.
But this is also just conceding the point on whether the law is good or not and retreating to "but it might get struck down by the courts". Which, sure, maybe. The courts struck down the most relevant parts of the VRA after all. The US Federal Courts could do anything.
I don’t think it’s a good law! I think it’s dumb, shortsighted, doesn’t actually address the core problem and plays into the worst elements of jingoistic paranoia while abandoning the lower-case-l liberal commitments to ideals on the interchange of ideas while doing absolutely nothing to combat the ways malactors actually attempt to put their thumbs on the larger societal consciousness because the fact of the matter is most of the power players in congress don’t actually have qualms with that because it’s being done in the service of ideals they like and benefit from
And yeah, “Will this be struck down in Court” is important, it’s generally important whether or not a law being passed is actually legally sound, and plenty of experts don’t believe it is!
also are you intending to basically suggest at this point that the courts are de facto illegitimate at this point? Because what you’re doing right now is looks like its attempting to conflate right wing corruption of hte courts to break progressive legislation and policy with the idea that if somehow the courts striking this down would be a sign of that same corruption (and therefore, culturally, we must oppose any attempt by the court to decide in ByteDance’s favor), despite the fact that right wingers are supportive of this bill because it furthers the goal of Zero-Sum international relations/Neo Cold War with China, harms youth movements, harms minorities on the service, etc.
I guess we can just post this again. I'm surprised it hasn't even been dismissed, no one who denies evidence exists ever even acknowledges it's been posted or bothers to criticize it.
And this is far from the first time it's been linked too.
"The algorithm never screws with MY feed"? How would you even know?
Because I can see my own fuckin’ feed Shryke.
if it was feeding me shit about Nazis trying to usher in the Fourth Reich, it wouldn’t exactly be hidden as adorable photos of Japanese raccoon dogs.
EDIT: Twitter’s is especially transparent lately, because it heavily skews what it shows you on the For You feed based on what you bookmark. And because I keep bookmarking adorable animals and stunt actors in elaborate costumes, it keeps feeding me more and more of them.
Describing TikTok as "the youth activism platform" when it has the same issues that twitter and facebook has of shoveling fascist/misogynist/bigoted content into the faces of the youth as hard as it possibly can is so wild that I don't even know where to start.
Your feed is curated by what you watch. So if somebody uses it for youth activism that's what they see. The algorithm is what is considered bad, but it's not throwing pro-fascist stuff on everybody's feed unless you're engaging with it in the first place by searching for it.
Just like how I don't see that kind of shit on twitter because I only follow people I like and consider good.
That's not how the algorithms work.
It's also curated by your location, your gender, your age, things you've tried to block (which it will keep showing you), things you've told it not to show content like this (which it will then continue to show you for weeks or months), whatever thumb the company itself is putting on the scale, and probably a ton of other factors as well that we don't know about it because the entire point of algorithmically driven social media is to be opaque.
Saying you won't see shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content unless you search for it is bullshit because you absolutely will. That's arguably the biggest problem with algorithmically driven social media.
I don’t know what to tell you, but somehow I and other people don’t seem to wind up with our feeds natively filled with “shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content.”
Like, the only time I see shit like that on my twitter, for example, is progressives and leftists calling out and doing social commentary on it in larger cultural contexts (influence on national and international politics, influence in various industries affected by those players acting withn them, etc.). It’s not, like, directly serving me MAGA bastards or Mark Kern ranting about the lack of Stellar Blade camel toe.
Otherwise it’s Progressive and Leftist politics, adorable animals in Japanese zoos, and a shitton of tokusatsu and mecha bullshit.
That just means you fit into generic buckets.
The algorithm thinks I'm a transwoman who is into thicc anime girls because I support trans rights and like Hazbin Hotel.
Describing TikTok as "the youth activism platform" when it has the same issues that twitter and facebook has of shoveling fascist/misogynist/bigoted content into the faces of the youth as hard as it possibly can is so wild that I don't even know where to start.
Your feed is curated by what you watch. So if somebody uses it for youth activism that's what they see. The algorithm is what is considered bad, but it's not throwing pro-fascist stuff on everybody's feed unless you're engaging with it in the first place by searching for it.
Just like how I don't see that kind of shit on twitter because I only follow people I like and consider good.
That's not how the algorithms work.
It's also curated by your location, your gender, your age, things you've tried to block (which it will keep showing you), things you've told it not to show content like this (which it will then continue to show you for weeks or months), whatever thumb the company itself is putting on the scale, and probably a ton of other factors as well that we don't know about it because the entire point of algorithmically driven social media is to be opaque.
Saying you won't see shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content unless you search for it is bullshit because you absolutely will. That's arguably the biggest problem with algorithmically driven social media.
I don’t know what to tell you, but somehow I and other people don’t seem to wind up with our feeds natively filled with “shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content.”
Like, the only time I see shit like that on my twitter, for example, is progressives and leftists calling out and doing social commentary on it in larger cultural contexts (influence on national and international politics, influence in various industries affected by those players acting withn them, etc.). It’s not, like, directly serving me MAGA bastards or Mark Kern ranting about the lack of Stellar Blade camel toe.
Otherwise it’s Progressive and Leftist politics, adorable animals in Japanese zoos, and a shitton of tokusatsu and mecha bullshit.
That just means you fit into generic buckets.
The algorithm thinks I'm a transwoman who is into thicc anime girls because I support trans rights and like Hazbin Hotel.
But is it showing you Nazis calling for ethnocide, or is it just sending you more trans-positive and horny on main shit?
Is it showing you content you find actively offensive in lieu of the things you actually appear to want to engage with (trans-rights politics and Hazbin)
Ive sat and watched my 11 year old cousin be shown gently right wing white supremacist dogwhistle content, which he watches for a long time even though none of it makes sense to him and he only really likes gaming content. Shrug. Anecdata; the best.
Ill try to remind him to uphold his liberal ideals and not fall for propaganda, though.
Ive sat and watched my 11 year old cousin be shown gently right wing white supremacist dogwhistle content, which he watches for a long time even though none of it makes sense to him. Shrug. Anecdata; the best.
Given that the algorithms in question are essentially feedback loops, I would hope you would see the connection here?
Like i feel the bigger problem here is less “The algorithm is serving the bad stuff!” And that a lot of people don’t have the literacy to navigate the world around them to avoid apparently consuming fascist mental diarrhea, and the feedback loop responds “appropriately”
Which like, yeah, we need moderation on these platforms that will remove the fascist mental diarrhea, but it seems more and more the problem is less the algorithm and more that for the uninitiated fascist mental diarrhea is interesting and they want to read that godforsaken newsletter (which, sadly, is kind of the historic problem with fascism: it appeals to the privileged aggrieved and easily swayed*)
Describing TikTok as "the youth activism platform" when it has the same issues that twitter and facebook has of shoveling fascist/misogynist/bigoted content into the faces of the youth as hard as it possibly can is so wild that I don't even know where to start.
Your feed is curated by what you watch. So if somebody uses it for youth activism that's what they see. The algorithm is what is considered bad, but it's not throwing pro-fascist stuff on everybody's feed unless you're engaging with it in the first place by searching for it.
Just like how I don't see that kind of shit on twitter because I only follow people I like and consider good.
That's not how the algorithms work.
It's also curated by your location, your gender, your age, things you've tried to block (which it will keep showing you), things you've told it not to show content like this (which it will then continue to show you for weeks or months), whatever thumb the company itself is putting on the scale, and probably a ton of other factors as well that we don't know about it because the entire point of algorithmically driven social media is to be opaque.
Saying you won't see shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content unless you search for it is bullshit because you absolutely will. That's arguably the biggest problem with algorithmically driven social media.
I don’t know what to tell you, but somehow I and other people don’t seem to wind up with our feeds natively filled with “shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content.”
Like, the only time I see shit like that on my twitter, for example, is progressives and leftists calling out and doing social commentary on it in larger cultural contexts (influence on national and international politics, influence in various industries affected by those players acting withn them, etc.). It’s not, like, directly serving me MAGA bastards or Mark Kern ranting about the lack of Stellar Blade camel toe.
Otherwise it’s Progressive and Leftist politics, adorable animals in Japanese zoos, and a shitton of tokusatsu and mecha bullshit.
That just means you fit into generic buckets.
The algorithm thinks I'm a transwoman who is into thicc anime girls because I support trans rights and like Hazbin Hotel.
But is it showing you Nazis calling for ethnocide, or is it just sending you more trans-positive and horny on main shit?
Is it showing you content you find actively offensive in lieu of the things you actually appear to want to engage with (trans-rights politics and Hazbin)
I get some nasty shit sometimes because my dad likes to call his dipshit relatives dipshits and THEY follow shitty things.
Describing TikTok as "the youth activism platform" when it has the same issues that twitter and facebook has of shoveling fascist/misogynist/bigoted content into the faces of the youth as hard as it possibly can is so wild that I don't even know where to start.
Your feed is curated by what you watch. So if somebody uses it for youth activism that's what they see. The algorithm is what is considered bad, but it's not throwing pro-fascist stuff on everybody's feed unless you're engaging with it in the first place by searching for it.
Just like how I don't see that kind of shit on twitter because I only follow people I like and consider good.
That's not how the algorithms work.
It's also curated by your location, your gender, your age, things you've tried to block (which it will keep showing you), things you've told it not to show content like this (which it will then continue to show you for weeks or months), whatever thumb the company itself is putting on the scale, and probably a ton of other factors as well that we don't know about it because the entire point of algorithmically driven social media is to be opaque.
Saying you won't see shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content unless you search for it is bullshit because you absolutely will. That's arguably the biggest problem with algorithmically driven social media.
I don’t know what to tell you, but somehow I and other people don’t seem to wind up with our feeds natively filled with “shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content.”
Like, the only time I see shit like that on my twitter, for example, is progressives and leftists calling out and doing social commentary on it in larger cultural contexts (influence on national and international politics, influence in various industries affected by those players acting withn them, etc.). It’s not, like, directly serving me MAGA bastards or Mark Kern ranting about the lack of Stellar Blade camel toe.
Otherwise it’s Progressive and Leftist politics, adorable animals in Japanese zoos, and a shitton of tokusatsu and mecha bullshit.
That just means you fit into generic buckets.
The algorithm thinks I'm a transwoman who is into thicc anime girls because I support trans rights and like Hazbin Hotel.
But is it showing you Nazis calling for ethnocide, or is it just sending you more trans-positive and horny on main shit?
Is it showing you content you find actively offensive in lieu of the things you actually appear to want to engage with (trans-rights politics and Hazbin)
I get some nasty shit sometimes because my dad likes to call his dipshit relatives dipshits and THEY follow shitty things.
Because, I would presume, you are networked into your dipshit relatives and so the algorithm thinks you want to see the things the people you’re following are following and posting.
I mean there’s a pretty clear test to do here to see if you’d stop getting those things in your feed as it readjusts!
Posts
Would it be legal to force Elon Musk to sell twitter or ban it via a piece of legislation specifically targeting him or X Corp?
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf
Okay, that bolded sentence is hilarious to anyone who knows even a little bit about US cops.
Citations:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/apple-fbi-backdoor-battle-is-about-more-than-two-iphones.html
It’s funny to watch the state tell on itself sometimes.
“A that’s why TikTok should be taken out of Chinese hands and placed squarely into the trustworthy hands of good, trustworthy American companies.”
Irony so thick and dense you could use it to jumpstart a singularity.
Why is it irrelevant
You cannot convince me that you do not understand the difference between a hostile foreign power and a dipshit domestic organization.
Trading one threat for another isn't particularly useful, especially when social media companies like Meta have been objectively massive threats to the well being of US citizens.
Even though America is their biggest market / userbase there are plenty of other countries that have tech companies that would be overjoyed to be the new home and global headquarters of Tiktok.
Especially with AI technology coming along the way it is.
A sale seems extremely unlikely though.
There is a clear path and if China is willing to piss away hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars oh well.
I know for a fact that you can comprehend relative risks when it's convenient for you. If you think this is an overstep, whatever, but this is a terrible argument for it.
They're not doing anything illegal that would stop them from operating in the US. Or they would sanction them that way like any other business.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
The bill that passed says they have to do X to legally operate in the US and keep their app available.
If they don't do those things the law says they need to do to continue to operate they definitionally are operating illegally.
This is well established law with plenty of precedent.
The definition of “can’t operate legally” in this legislative instance being “you’re not allowed to operate here, period.”
It’s kind of hard to operate legally when it is very specifically your operation period being declared illegal, not anything you’re actually doing and being in violation of.
Rando: “Sorry bill, you can’t operate in the US anymore, you broke the law.”
Bill: “Because you passed a law saying it was illegal for me to operate a business, period!!”
I obviously meant before they wrote a law specifically targeting them.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Because any idiot can (and has) bribed Trump.
This is an extremely silly game
There's a very good chance we do stupid shit because our shitty politics, but we at least have non-zero power in the hands of people like Sanders here and at least a third of our government cares if at least a third of our population exists. We have Actually Zero of that going for us in China, even if plenty of their citizens think that sucks.
We cannot choose to have giant protests in China.
Why is metas support irrelevant
You are literally supporting a law that says ByteDance is not allowed to operate in the United States under any circumstance
TikTok isn’t the company, it’s the product/service. You’ve evolved past the point of corporate personhood to embrace a newfound doctrine of product personhood in legal contexts.
TikTok the app could continue to exist and do all these supposedly vital progressive things it does, though.
It isnt newfound. Plenty of US companies are restricted from exporting tech, from dealing with other countries, especially around technology and defense.
Huawei was banned from 5G network infrastructure by coordinated international effort in quite recent history.
Advanced UV lithography companies cannot sell to China, advanced cryptography cannot be sold to China, we have restricted AI from export or are gearing to, sales of advanced processors to China are restricted.
Except at the same time, Bytedance is being effectively punished for a crime that no court has proven it guilty of, while deliberately inflaming international tensions because some people, utterly ignorant of history, have gotten their pants wet for a new Cold War
And ByteDance doesn’t need the US market, when it has the rest of the international market (sans China), so they have no actual incentive and multiple disincentives to selling TikTok.
That's not how the algorithms work.
It's also curated by your location, your gender, your age, things you've tried to block (which it will keep showing you), things you've told it not to show content like this (which it will then continue to show you for weeks or months), whatever thumb the company itself is putting on the scale, and probably a ton of other factors as well that we don't know about it because the entire point of algorithmically driven social media is to be opaque.
Saying you won't see shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content unless you search for it is bullshit because you absolutely will. That's arguably the biggest problem with algorithmically driven social media.
It would depend how you wrote the law. Musk would be more difficult to target. "Hostile foreign government" is a lot easier.
But this is also just conceding the point on whether the law is good or not and retreating to "but it might get struck down by the courts". Which, sure, maybe. The courts struck down the most relevant parts of the VRA after all. The US Federal Courts could do anything.
I don’t know what to tell you, but somehow I and other people don’t seem to wind up with our feeds natively filled with “shitty fascist/misogynist/bigoted content.”
Like, the only time I see shit like that on my twitter, for example, is progressives and leftists calling out and doing social commentary on it in larger cultural contexts (influence on national and international politics, influence in various industries affected by those players acting withn them, etc.). It’s not, like, directly serving me MAGA bastards or Mark Kern ranting about the lack of Stellar Blade camel toe.
Otherwise it’s Progressive and Leftist politics, adorable animals in Japanese zoos, and a shitton of tokusatsu and mecha bullshit.
And this is far from the first time it's been linked too.
"The algorithm never screws with MY feed"? How would you even know?
I don’t think it’s a good law! I think it’s dumb, shortsighted, doesn’t actually address the core problem and plays into the worst elements of jingoistic paranoia while abandoning the lower-case-l liberal commitments to ideals on the interchange of ideas while doing absolutely nothing to combat the ways malactors actually attempt to put their thumbs on the larger societal consciousness because the fact of the matter is most of the power players in congress don’t actually have qualms with that because it’s being done in the service of ideals they like and benefit from
And yeah, “Will this be struck down in Court” is important, it’s generally important whether or not a law being passed is actually legally sound, and plenty of experts don’t believe it is!
also are you intending to basically suggest at this point that the courts are de facto illegitimate at this point? Because what you’re doing right now is looks like its attempting to conflate right wing corruption of hte courts to break progressive legislation and policy with the idea that if somehow the courts striking this down would be a sign of that same corruption (and therefore, culturally, we must oppose any attempt by the court to decide in ByteDance’s favor), despite the fact that right wingers are supportive of this bill because it furthers the goal of Zero-Sum international relations/Neo Cold War with China, harms youth movements, harms minorities on the service, etc.
Because I can see my own fuckin’ feed Shryke.
if it was feeding me shit about Nazis trying to usher in the Fourth Reich, it wouldn’t exactly be hidden as adorable photos of Japanese raccoon dogs.
EDIT: Twitter’s is especially transparent lately, because it heavily skews what it shows you on the For You feed based on what you bookmark. And because I keep bookmarking adorable animals and stunt actors in elaborate costumes, it keeps feeding me more and more of them.
That just means you fit into generic buckets.
The algorithm thinks I'm a transwoman who is into thicc anime girls because I support trans rights and like Hazbin Hotel.
But is it showing you Nazis calling for ethnocide, or is it just sending you more trans-positive and horny on main shit?
Is it showing you content you find actively offensive in lieu of the things you actually appear to want to engage with (trans-rights politics and Hazbin)
Ill try to remind him to uphold his liberal ideals and not fall for propaganda, though.
Given that the algorithms in question are essentially feedback loops, I would hope you would see the connection here?
Like i feel the bigger problem here is less “The algorithm is serving the bad stuff!” And that a lot of people don’t have the literacy to navigate the world around them to avoid apparently consuming fascist mental diarrhea, and the feedback loop responds “appropriately”
Which like, yeah, we need moderation on these platforms that will remove the fascist mental diarrhea, but it seems more and more the problem is less the algorithm and more that for the uninitiated fascist mental diarrhea is interesting and they want to read that godforsaken newsletter (which, sadly, is kind of the historic problem with fascism: it appeals to the privileged aggrieved and easily swayed*)
*
I get some nasty shit sometimes because my dad likes to call his dipshit relatives dipshits and THEY follow shitty things.
Because, I would presume, you are networked into your dipshit relatives and so the algorithm thinks you want to see the things the people you’re following are following and posting.
I mean there’s a pretty clear test to do here to see if you’d stop getting those things in your feed as it readjusts!