TikTok, misinformation and Censorship

[StarsMars]

With the recent and ongoing attempts to ban TikTok within the US, I'm curious to get peoples opinion. Primarily those in North America but everyone is welcome to chime in.

 

So my understanding is that TikTok in China is a cleaner version than what we get in the wester world.

Politicians are concerned about the foreign influence on domestic elections, politics and society. 

I don't think TikTok or social media in general is a positive thing for people. I'd be glad to see it gone, but unsure about the precedent that sets.

 

So is banning things like TikTok a necessary measure to protect people and politics?

Is banning the platform a slippery slope towards state censorship?

[MadAnt250]

10 minutes ago, StarsMars said:

With the recent and ongoing attempts to ban TikTok within the US, I'm curious to get peoples opinion. Primarily those in North America but everyone is welcome to chime in.

 

So my understanding is that TikTok in China is a cleaner version than what we get in the wester world.

Politicians are concerned about the foreign influence on domestic elections, politics and society. 

I don't think TikTok or social media in general is a positive thing for people.

 

So is banning things like TikTok a necessary evil to protect people and politics?

Is banning the platform a slippery slope towards state censorship?

TikTok is owned and ran by the commies, that should clear things up. Really if they get banned, I don't care if people get upset. 

[WildDagwood]

Even if you got rid of social media altogether it wouldn't be censorship because you're not actually preventing/regulating people from expressing/saying anything, you're taking away a medium. If people want, they can go and express those thoughts and opinions another way.

 

Given how much of a detrimental impact social media has been in terms of people's mental health, attention, etc., I don't have a problem with it being nuked off the internet, personally.

 

Also, while I have no deeper insight into it, I think the fact that the Chinese version is so different from what's offered in the West says something in itself, and it would be naive to think they don't know it's having a negative impact on people. Whether or not that's intentional is up for debate but given how at odds we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

[Erioch]

Nothing of value would be lost.

[StarsMars]

3 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

Even if you got rid of social media altogether it wouldn't be censorship because you're not actually preventing/regulating people from expressing/saying anything, you're taking away a medium. If people want, they can go and express those thoughts and opinions another way.

 

Also, while I have no deeper insight into it, I think the fact that the Chinese version is so different from what's offered in the West says something in itself, and it would be naive to think they don't know it's having a negative impact on people. Whether or not that's intentional is up for debate but given how at odds we are, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

Maybe censorship isn't the right word. Authoritarianism? Idk.

 

I do feel like there's some bad intentions there.

11 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

TikTok is owned and ran by the commies, that should clear things up.

Red Dawn

[okkee]

29 minutes ago, StarsMars said:

With the recent and ongoing attempts to ban TikTok within the US, I'm curious to get peoples opinion. Primarily those in North America but everyone is welcome to chime in.

 

So my understanding is that TikTok in China is a cleaner version than what we get in the wester world.

Politicians are concerned about the foreign influence on domestic elections, politics and society. 

I don't think TikTok or social media in general is a positive thing for people. I'd be glad to see it gone, but unsure about the precedent that sets.

 

So is banning things like TikTok a necessary measure to protect people and politics?

Is banning the platform a slippery slope towards state censorship?

if it's not the govt, then it's ngo's or non-profits. a lot of people simply don't parse info and just follow along with the points that they like. before social media, it was whatever news channel that they liked or whatever paper they liked. the whole dance with bytedance is kinda weird considering data brokerage is a thing. "misinformation/disinformation" is very clearly a way to streamline information. it's very much a "you can only say this about x subject" situation. not good imo. also LOL at china tiktok, being cleaner. they were just really ahead of the curve apparently.

[PDifolco]

1 hour ago, StarsMars said:

With the recent and ongoing attempts to ban TikTok within the US, I'm curious to get peoples opinion. Primarily those in North America but everyone is welcome to chime in.

 

So my understanding is that TikTok in China is a cleaner version than what we get in the wester world.

Politicians are concerned about the foreign influence on domestic elections, politics and society. 

I don't think TikTok or social media in general is a positive thing for people. I'd be glad to see it gone, but unsure about the precedent that sets.

 

So is banning things like TikTok a necessary measure to protect people and politics?

Is banning the platform a slippery slope towards state censorship?

Propaganda bs, the US want to ban Tiktok just to piss off China, that does the same thing with Whatsapp and other apps

59 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

TikTok is owned and ran by the commies, that should clear things up. Really if they get banned, I don't care if people get upset. 

That could come straight out from a Vault Tech rep in the Fallout series

Or Militech vs Kuang Tao in Cyberpunk

[LAwLz]

57 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

Even if you got rid of social media altogether it wouldn't be censorship because you're not actually preventing/regulating people from expressing/saying anything, you're taking away a medium. If people want, they can go and express those thoughts and opinions another way.

Yes, and putting someone in jail is not restricting freedom because they can still walk around in their little jail cell...

 

For those wondering, censorship is defined as:

Quote

the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons:

or:

Quote

a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas:

 

Just because you have other ways of communicating something doesn't mean the act of taking options away isn't censorship. By that logic, China isn't censoring anything at all. Them banning certain words on websites? That's not censorship because people can still say those words in their own homes. It's a silly argument to make that shows a lack of understanding of the word.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, WildDagwood said:

Given how much of a detrimental impact social media has been in terms of people's mental health, attention, etc., I don't have a problem with it being nuked off the internet, personally.

People said the same thing about books, movies, music, and so on.

[Beerzerker]

The tech like any other is one thing, what's done with it is another.
The issue is about who's doing what with it.

[WildDagwood]

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, and putting someone in jail is not restricting freedom because they can still walk around in their little jail cell...

Crude comparison, they aren't the same in the slightest.

 

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

For those wondering, censorship is defined as:

Maybe shouldn't have said getting rid of it altogether (I misspoke, sorry), and maybe depends on your definition of what constitutes social media, but denying TikTok wouldn't fall under this. There's still plenty of other social media platforms which people can utilize, and the main point was exactly that, people have a multitude of options for communicating with people worldwide regardless.

 

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Just because you have other ways of communicating something doesn't mean the act of taking options away isn't censorship. By that logic, China isn't censoring anything at all. Them banning certain words on websites? That's not censorship because people can still say those words in their own homes. It's a silly argument to make that shows a lack of understanding of the word.

Now you're just either putting words in my mouth or inferring an extreme standpoint based on a brief comment. Again, people have a multitude of options available to them, and taking one away is in no way comparable to what you've said. If you want to say it's slippery slope because "where do you stop?", fair enough, but I don't think any and all mediums for communication are required to imply support of free speech (which I do).

 

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

People said the same thing about books, movies, music, and so on.

And? I don't think those are comparable to the effect of what TikTok is having, which is well-documented in psychology (something which your examples wouldn't have when those things were stated, or likely used models which are deemed obsolete by today's standards).

[StarsMars]

32 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

The tech like any other is one thing, what's done with it is another.
The issue is about who's doing what with it.

Under the assumption that Tiktok has nefarious intent behind it, is banning it a good course of action or will it lead to censorship?

That's the thing with the other that's doing what it will when it wants with whom.

[Rocketdog2112]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

People said the same thing about books, movies, music, and so on.

Except a book, movie or music can't hack or steal my information, my identity etc.

[StarsMars]

26 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Except a book, movie or music can't hack or steal my information, my identity etc.

They can all influence you to do that and much worse.

 

 

@LogicalDrm

The irony of your message is hilarious. This is the type of topic that regularly get brought up on WAN show. 

[LogicalDrm]

1 hour ago, StarsMars said:

@LogicalDrm

The irony of your message is hilarious. This is the type of topic that regularly get brought up on WAN show. 

That doesn't matter. We have rules on forums, and this:

 

[MadAnt250]

3 hours ago, PDifolco said:

That could come straight out from a Vault Tech rep in the Fallout series

Nah, I'm just trying out boomer logic.

Well... maybe.

[Lurking]

I'm pretty sure their main goal is to make money. Not any different from Facebook, YouTube etc. 

 

No one forces you to use it, if you go there, you want it. 

 

Their algorithm feeds you what you are interested in. That is why you stay on. 

 

And for the data and privacy issue and the commies stealing our data... Look at how our government steals our data and spies on us. Google patriot act etc 

 

Most content on those social media shit is from stupid users. You can't outlaw stupidity. If you could, we wouldn't have 80 year old senators who don't even know email make decisions about IT. 

 

I never used tiK Tok. But it sounds like the stupid "shorts" on YT. To each their own and nothing will get better by government deciding what is appropriate for us to use 

[StarsMars]

41 minutes ago, Lurking said:

And for the data and privacy issue and the commies stealing our data... Look at how our government steals our data and spies on us. Google patriot act etc 

 

Most content on those social media shit is from stupid users. You can't outlaw stupidity. If you could, we wouldn't have 80 year old senators who don't even know email make decisions about IT. 

 

I never used tiK Tok. But it sounds like the stupid "shorts" on YT. To each their own and nothing will get better by government deciding what is appropriate for us to use 

I was thinking more from an influence standpoint than stolen data. Facebook played a big hand in the last two elections unfortunately.

 

Most social media content is pure trash. Bias and poor information have always been a thing but not to this scale. Feels like a lose lose scenario either way.

 

From the HBO Chernobyl series if anyone is interested. It's a great docudrama.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, WildDagwood said:

Now you're just either putting words in my mouth or inferring an extreme standpoint based on a brief comment. Again, people have a multitude of options available to them, and taking one away is in no way comparable to what you've said. If you want to say it's slippery slope because "where do you stop?", fair enough, but I don't think any and all mediums for communication are required to imply support of free speech (which I do).

No matter what you say, taking away platforms where people can express ideas is a form of censorship.

Just because it isn't an absolute silencing of people doesn't make it any less censorship.

 

My argument was simply that the whole "it isn't censorship because you still have some options left" is simply false. The same logic taken to the extreme would mean that nothing in China is censored. The definition that "censorship is the complete and utter removal of any possibility to express a certain idea" renders the word useless. Luckily for us, the word "censorship" has a fairly good definition and banning TikTok would absolutely be a form of censorship. Whether or not you agree with that censorship is a different discussion though.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, WildDagwood said:

And? I don't think those are comparable to the effect of what TikTok is having, which is well-documented in psychology (something which your examples wouldn't have when those things were stated, or likely used models which are deemed obsolete by today's standards).

I like your "this time it is different, and if someone said the same thing back then then they were wrong but I am totally right this time". 

 

I won't pretend like TikTok is all good. I am sure there are legitimate concerns and issues with it. But whether or not those issues are big enough to warrant removing the platform is less clear cut than I think some people believe. I feel like it has become cool to hate on the platform, and people generally are okay with censorship if they dislike the thing being censored. I feel like that is what's happening here.

 

Also, since site like YouTube also pushes the same content, maybe we need to consider if a ban on YouTube is a necessary step to deal with the negative aspects of social media. I mean, if we agree that TikTok contributes to mental health issues to such a degree that the government needs to ban it, what's to say the same shouldn't be done to YouTube?

[Lurking]

24 minutes ago, StarsMars said:

I was thinking more from an influence standpoint than stolen data. Facebook played a big hand in the last two elections unfortunately.

 

Most social media content is pure trash. Bias and poor information have always been a thing but not to this scale. Feels like a lose lose scenario either way.

 

From the HBO Chernobyl series if anyone is interested. It's a great docudrama.

Kudos for citing from Chernobyl. A revealing show about government controlling information. 

 

The phone was used for malice. Political phone calls and I can use it to plan a murder. Hitler was the first politician using the airplane and radio to campaign. I'm sure the printed book also was used for something bad. So we should put all communication and transportation under government control?

 

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The truth has a better chance in a totally free World. Any government control will lead to less truth. Don't think for a second that our politicians want to protect us. They just want us to use media they can control. Tik Tok is just a competing brainwashing system. If the very same tiK Tok was under US control and they could enforce their will like they can on Facebook, they would not complain about tiK Tok. 

 

I use Facebook and my feed only shows me 35 people I actually know personally and hobby groups I joined (like local Mountainbike groups). The annoying unsolicited posts I see all are related to my hobbies (other bicycle groups or archeology etc). I assume the algorithm is smart enough to show me what I like. If someone sees a lot of political or perverted stuff... that probably is based on their interest.

 

Same for YT, most suggested videos are based on my history. 

 

Nothing interesting or informative or useful fits in a 1 minute vertical video. But this is no reason to outlaw tiK Tok. We are not outlawing all the equally useless gossip magazines etc 

[Rocketdog2112]

On 4/19/2024 at 11:59 AM, LAwLz said:

Yes, and putting someone in jail is not restricting freedom because they can still walk around in their little jail cell...

 

For those wondering, censorship is defined as:

or:

 

Just because you have other ways of communicating something doesn't mean the act of taking options away isn't censorship. By that logic, China isn't censoring anything at all. Them banning certain words on websites? That's not censorship because people can still say those words in their own homes. It's a silly argument to make that shows a lack of understanding of the word.

 

 

 

People said the same thing about books, movies, music, and so on.

Is it censorship when a forum mod edits or removes a post?

[Erioch]

59 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Is it censorship when a forum mod edits or removes a post?

When they do it to me (which is often), yes.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Is it censorship when a forum mod edits or removes a post?

Yes, it is.

It's far from the most outrageous or dangerous form of censorship, but censorship nonetheless. 

[LogicalDrm]

1 hour ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Is it censorship when a forum mod edits or removes a post?

Yes. Does anyone care? Nope. Private platform and rules visible to anyone who bothers to read. You don't follow rules, we censor.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

Yes. Does anyone care? Nope. Private platform and rules visible to anyone who bothers to read. You don't follow rules, we censor.

It's also a question of scale.

Getting censored on this forum has very little impact.

 

If however let's say Google started using their power to restrict what websites could write about them then it would be a big deal, even though it's a "private platform".

The more power you got, the more people get affected, and the type of thing that gets censored are all very important aspects to determine if the censorship is harmful.

One person being censored for posting let's say nude images on a tech forum is not an issue. Google trying to cover up some illegal act by threatening websites that talk about it to cut off their ad revenue for example would be an issue, even though "it's a private company".

 

I don't think you intended your post this way, but a lot of people on this forum seem to use "private company" as an excuse to allow any and all behavior, which I think is wrong. Just because you are a private company doesn't mean you can (or should) act however you want. There are still things that can be illegal and/or morally wrong to do.

[LogicalDrm]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think you intended your post this way, but a lot of people on this forum seem to use "private company" as an excuse to allow any and all behavior, which I think is wrong. Just because you are a private company doesn't mean you can (or should) act however you want. There are still things that can be illegal and/or morally wrong to do.

I agree on the notion. However, since "free speech" and "human rights" or something is commonly used as reasoning on why we shouldn't have right to enforce set rules, thats the counter to that. Freedom of expression laws don't apply. But neither should or in cases even is legal for any company to enforce rules or conditions that would silence or discriminate certain groups.