What a TikTok Ban Would Mean for the U.S. Defense of an Open Internet
What a TikTok Ban Would Mean for the U.S. Defense of an Open Internet
Global digital rights advocates are watching to see if Congress acts, worried that other countries could follow suit with app bans of their own.
Global digital rights advocates are watching to see if Congress acts, worried that other countries could follow suit with app bans of their own.
You're viewing part of a thread.
If I could do an analysis like this, I would. But I don't have the technical know-how to do so. Being like "Why don't you do [complex activity] rather than comment on an existing study" is a shitty mindset that attempts to shut down conversation and doesn't build upon it in any meaningful way.
Further, I think you completely missed the point of what I said. You presented an article that showed tiktok is biased towards CCP positions, and that isn't really surprising. I said that I don't think Instagram is any more trustworthy simply because it is American owned, and I think the framing of that view is flawed. I don't think it invalidates the data, I just think it places a huge amount of trust in a social media company that has been in constant controversy for its entire existence. The point is why is the problem the fact that a social media company is using their power to promote CCP viewpoints, rather than the fact that social media companies have such power with such little oversight.
You seem to be claiming there's a fire without even seeing any smoke while simultaneously ignoring the flames in front of your face.
I think you can only say that when you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said to the point I think you are trying to stuff me in some little box I don't belong in. I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem. If the problem is algorithmic bias with social media, why are we stopping with the foreign company that has opposing interests? Why aren't we angry that a single company can hold so much power and have such little accountability?
the only issue with Meta is how they refused to take down offensive stuff from high-profile conservatives due to political backlash
I wish I lived in a world that this was the only issue meta had.
- Cambridge Analytica
- Internal research shows Instagram knew it harms teens
- The entire concept of facebook echo chambers and radicalization
- That one time Facebook promoted housing discrimination
- Massive tax avoidance and lobbying
I bet I'm missing a ton, but these things quickly came to mind.
Whatboutism 101, great tutorial. That really proves that TikTok isn’t censoring content, thanks
Fuck dude... Really??? Did you even read what they said?
Yes, it is textbook whataboutism. Are Israel’s actions okay because other people commit murder? I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance
I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance
Smfh, so then you didn't read what they said, since they specifically said:
I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem.
And given that Whataboutism is a tactic to discredit the severity of an accusation by pointing to similar or worse behaviors by others, this not only isn't "textbook Whataboutism", it's not Whataboutism at all. Their point was that the scope of the issue exceeds TikTok, and as such, attempts to solve the issue by focusing on TikTok are either misguided or of suspect intent.
In no way did they try to make the point that what TikTok does is okay, nor did they claim that TikTok wasn't censoring content. I'd accuse you of trying to strawman their argument, but you just flat made up a different argument and pretended that was theirs instead.
They are saying the forest is on fire, and you are accusing them of Whataboutism because they aren't focusing on your favorite tree.
If whataboutism is reframing the question in a different light that includes what we were talking about and not simply deflecting with a what-about, then I guess I did a textbook whataboutism. I guess I did the classic whataboutism bit where I said tiktok wasn’t censoring, even though I swear I said they were, and instead I said what why do we give social media the power to censor shit like that I was saying tiktok wasn’t censoring and whatabout other social media. 🙄
Whataboutism is when you don’t defend your point or argue against the original point and just change topic. Ex: “Oh you are saying that tiktok is censoring anti-ccp thought? What about facebook and twitter doing shit like banning XYZ political commentators???”
What I said is a bit more complicated than that, so I’ll boil down my points into something a bit more simple manner
- Yeah, tiktok is censoring content
- I don’t like the article’s framing that places instagram as the safe, non-censoring control
- I think media is framing this in such a way that the main reason that tiktok is a problem is because it has a lot of dissent on it and it is foreign-owned, and therefore their flavor of censorship is worse
- instead of forcing tiktok to be sold to an american company, why don’t we address the root cause of the problem, which is the amount of control social media companies have.
Look man, you can’t claim someone is doing a fallacious argument tactic when they aren’t doing it. If someone argued something, fucking respond to it or don’t, it genuinely doesn’t matter. But if you are gonna just be a cunty smuglord instead, you’re a dick and I wish you the worst.
Now, i’m gonna disregard your shit-slinging and go back to taking your comments in good faith. I have a serious question for you. You seem to have a problem with my points, but what about it do you disagree with? I’m literally agreeing with you in a few places and just calling the framing flawed. If you’re gonna respond to that, don’t take me out of context.