TikTok, misinformation and Censorship

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

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. 

I have seen that too. People who say mods aren't allowed to delete posts because of "freedom of speech". I have however also seen people who say "the laws of freedom of speech doesn't apply here", when the other person is talking about the concept (not the law) of freedom of speech.

 

To elaborate, a lot of times when people mention "freedom of speech" they refer to the concept, the principle, not a specific law. It can be more of a philosophical stance than a legal stance.

They aren't saying "you aren't legally allowed to delete my post". They are saying "Deleting my post may be legal, but it is the wrong thing to do because it goes against the idea of free exchange of ideas and debate that enriches public discourse".

 

"Freedom of speech" can refer to laws, but it can also refer to a philosophical concept. It is important to keep that in mind when discussing "freedom of speech" so that everyone is aware of which thing someone is referring to when discussing. Otherwise, you can end up in a situation where two people are using the same words but internally they have different definitions, and thus misunderstandings occur.

 

9 out of 10 times when I talk about "freedom of speech", I refer to the philosophical concept. The thing that is defined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not the thing defined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

[Rocketdog2112]

3 hours 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.

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

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. 

Amazing how public social sites on the Internet are assumed and protested to be protected by the right of freedom of speech as a whole. But once deep within their private walls, freedom of speech does not exist.

A slippery slope for sure.

[Lurking]

You all (the ones living in Western countries anyway) have freedom of speech. But that doesn't include a free platform like this forum or other private web services. A private company can have rules that a public space doesn't have. 

 

If your post got deleted, it likely violated rules. You are allowed to repost your post on your own website. No one is censoring you or preventing you from saying the same thing elsewhere.

[SashaSanguine]

Thank goodness the government finally banned TikTok. Now we can go back to the times when tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, et al respected our privacy and kept our data secure.

Spoiler

But seriously, this is just the 21st century version of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

 

[GoStormPlays]

personally, I don’t care what they’re doing it for, as long as they’re banning TikTok.

 

that app has next to no redeeming value except to entertain, but I think the negatives of using something like that outweigh the positives.

 

Sure, you could use the app to learn but, as we’ve seen time and time again from LTT’s and other tech creators’ videos about TikToks, there’s more false information that true information on that platform.

 

 

EDIT: “free speech” (as it was originally intended) does not mean getting to say whatever things you want. It means freedom to speak out against the government without getting arrested. And as anyone who’s been on this forum knows, no mods ban speaking against LMG. It doesn’t mean getting to say whatever random stuff you want.

[nether1234]

2 hours ago, SashaSanguine said:

Thank goodness the government finally banned TikTok. Now we can go back to the times when tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, et al respected our privacy and kept our data secure.

  Hide contents

But seriously, this is just the 21st century version of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

 

Yes but the difference is those are all American owned companies? IDK it's a complicated mess that i don't know enough about lol

Edited April 25 by nether1234

[Lurking]

4 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

personally, I don’t care what they’re doing it for, as long as they’re banning TikTok.

 

that app has next to no redeeming value except to entertain, but I think the negatives of using something like that outweigh the positives.

 

Sure, you could use the app to learn but, as we’ve seen time and time again from LTT’s and other tech creators’ videos about TikToks, there’s more false information that true information on that platform.

 

 

EDIT: “free speech” (as it was originally intended) does not mean getting to say whatever things you want. It means freedom to speak out against the government without getting arrested. And as anyone who’s been on this forum knows, no mods ban speaking against LMG. It doesn’t mean getting to say whatever random stuff you want.

Who are you to decide if it has redeeming value to other people? Obviously many people voluntarily use it, so THEY see a value.

 

And do you not have enough willpower to not use tiK Tok? Or why do you need the government to outlaw it? You are not forced to install or use the app just because you are allowed. It isn't like one of those phone provider bloatware that is forced onto your phone. 

 

And I bet there is a VPN or similar solution to use it regardless. Outlawing the app is a sure way to make it even more popular. Ask Barbara Streisand how well outlawing works .... And if something is outlawed it needs criminal consequences. Do you really think a World where children or their parents get a criminal record or serve time because they watched a stupid tik Tok video is a better World? How do you think outlawing an app really works in practice? If it works like the War on drugs, tik Tok will be used by everyone without consequences, and it will only be enforced if the DA or a cop doesn't like a specific person. Basically a way to have something on everyone just in case.

[GoStormPlays]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

Obviously many people voluntarily use it, so THEY see a value.

I said it has redeeming value as entertainment and nothing more. With the amount that most people use that app, I would say that's negating that redeeming value.

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

And do you not have enough willpower to not use tiK Tok? Or why do you need the government to outlaw it? You are not forced to install or use the app just because you are allowed. It isn't like one of those phone provider bloatware that is forced onto your phone. 

Because I don't want society to be worse because of an app that's built to shorten the attention span of the people who use it. I'm all for an app like that as long as people can use it in moderation, and because of the way the human brain is wired for dopamine that just won't happen.

[SashaSanguine]

29 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

Because I don't want society to be worse because of an app that's built to shorten the attention span of the people who use it. I'm all for an app like that as long as people can use it in moderation, and because of the way the human brain is wired for dopamine that just won't happen.

I have never found this argument persuasive. People have made it not just for social media and smartphones, but for video games, for television, and going further back you can find examples of it regarding different technologies. I don't believe it is anything more than moral panic.

 

Even if I steelman this argument and agree attention spans may be getting shorter, I am hard-pressed to find evidence of its negative effects. I accept you can measure that in many different ways, but for the sake of argument, let's say... productivity.

 

Attached below is a graph detailing the disparity between wage growth and productivity. (Wages aren't important to this discussion, but the chart looked good and properly defines productivity) The origin of the smartphone is disputed, but I think the release of the first iPhone (2007) is a fair starting point. As the graph demonstrates, productivity was virtually untouched by the introduction of smartphones. (We can even include social media if we want to go further back, I mean productivity only kept climbing)

 

YMMV if productivity is a good measurement for whether "shortened attention spans" have had any negative impact on society and I would not dissuade you from offering an alternative metric. But I think you could explain those away with an argument making less assumptions. (Like the number of mental health disorders diagnosed rising on average because, well, medicine got better at diagnosing them as our understanding of the field expanded)

 

Deciding to ban it based on that strikes me not only as a nanny state mentality, but informed by anecdotal evidence at best. Besides, staying off TikTok is, in my opinion, personal responsibility. I rarely hear this argument made for any other platform recently. We don't ban alcohol just because some people consume it irresponsibly.

[wanderingfool2]

On 4/19/2024 at 8:27 AM, StarsMars said:

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

Is banning the platform a slippery slope towards state censorship?

The way I view it, it's just another way of control

 

I'm not saying that some content shouldn't censored or that there shouldn't be some rules in place, but banning a company solely because it's majority owned by a company in a country that isn't viewed as well upon shouldn't be a thing.

 

Under that premise, we should be banning Intel/AMD and almost every piece of electronics because China has control over it and could install backdoors into the chips.

 

In regards to the whole "protect people and politics", I think that in itself is a flawed approach overall.  We already exist in a world where the social media companies have already been shown to do exactly what they are accusing TikTok of...and yet none of them have been banned.  e.g.  Lots of silicon valley workers who are employed in effectively refereeing the algorithms have political biases, and in some high profile cases they have used it against publicly stated policies to eliminate certain information.  The prime example of this was twitter and the last election.

 

Ultimately I would say, if the people want to use it let them use it.  It's all okay trying to educate people on misinformation, but ultimately the US itself is one that has their hands in a whole lot of stuff.

 

Other notable examples.

US asking MS to hand over data on servers not within the US itself.

PRISM

 

The thing is this is even before the corporations do things for their own favor.  You have Meta which pushes for their own purposes etc.

[GoStormPlays]

1 hour ago, SashaSanguine said:

People have made it not just for social media and smartphones, but for video games, for television, and going further back you can find examples of it regarding different technologies. I don't believe it is anything more than moral panic.

And I would say that if not in moderation, then all of those things can shorten your attention span as well. The difference with a TikTok is that it provides larger and more dopamine hits than video games and television. Hence why you're able to pass time a lot easier than you can on most games or shows. 

 

1 hour ago, SashaSanguine said:

Even if I steelman this argument and agree attention spans may be getting shorter, I am hard-pressed to find evidence of its negative effects. I accept you can measure that in many different ways, but for the sake of argument, let's say... productivity.

 

Attached below is a graph detailing the disparity between wage growth and productivity. (Wages aren't important to this discussion, but the chart looked good and properly defines productivity) The origin of the smartphone is disputed, but I think the release of the first iPhone (2007) is a fair starting point. As the graph demonstrates, productivity was virtually untouched by the introduction of smartphones. (We can even include social media if we want to go further back, I mean productivity only kept climbing)

 

YMMV if productivity is a good measurement for whether "shortened attention spans" have had any negative impact on society and I would not dissuade you from offering an alternative metric. But I think you could explain those away with an argument making less assumptions. (Like the number of mental health disorders diagnosed rising on average because, well, medicine got better at diagnosing them as our understanding of the field expanded)

The graph only shows numbers dating to 2014. Many different things (TikTok included) have been made and become popular since then. Besides, there are some dips right after 2007 that might not be significant. However, they could be significant if the years past 2014 tell a different story than this graph. 

 

Plus, are these numbers limited to people in the US? If they aren't, then I would say we're looking at the wrong graph.

 

1 hour ago, SashaSanguine said:

We don't ban alcohol just because some people consume it irresponsibly.

I've heard this argument made a number of times, and it really isn't equivalent. If the primary use or means for something includes people doing something wrong with that thing, then it gets banned. Most people know how not to abuse alcohol. However, we do have to have laws banned driving and drinking because most people abuse alcohol when driving. 

[Lurking]

2 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

I said it has redeeming value as entertainment and nothing more. With the amount that most people use that app, I would say that's negating that redeeming value.

Because I don't want society to be worse because of an app that's built to shorten the attention span of the people who use it. I'm all for an app like that as long as people can use it in moderation, and because of the way the human brain is wired for dopamine that just won't happen.

If we judge tools based on entertainment not having a value, then all music, theater, games, movies.... and much more should be outlawed.

 

You can't blame bad aspects of society on an app. AFAIK, the Holocaust, witch hunts, genocides of most native people, slavery and all other bad things happened before the smartphone. Humans were capable of being cruel way before modern technology. I would even claim that with 8 billion people now, we have proportionally less warfare or famine or other bad things than in the old days. 

 

We don't need violent movies, games or rap music to be violent or commit other atrocities. We have been mastering that for 50,000 years without modern technology.

[GoStormPlays]

3 minutes ago, Lurking said:

You can't blame bad aspects of society on an app.

And why not? They effect people, influence people, and can cause people to do things. 

[Lurking]

53 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

And why not? They effect people, influence people, and can cause people to do things. 

They said the same thing when the radio appeared. 

 

I'm sure once Tik Tok is outlawed, we will get back to zero crime and all militaries in the World will be abandoned. We all will live in peace and harmony like we did before Tik Tok appeared.

[GoStormPlays]

Just now, Lurking said:

They said the same thing when the radio appeared. 

The radio is moderated by people lol. You can't just upload whatever you want.

 

Just now, Lurking said:

I'm sure once Tik Tok is outlawed, we will get back to zero crime and all militaries in the World will be abandoned.

I never said TikTok is the reason people start wars. 

[Lurking]

20 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

The radio is moderated by people lol. You can't just upload whatever you want.

 

I never said TikTok is the reason people start wars. 

Hearing some talk radio stations, it seems any radical idiot can broadcast via radio 

 

What exact bad behavior specifically would be prevented if Tik Tok is outlawed? 

[GoStormPlays]

13 minutes ago, Lurking said:

What exact bad behavior specifically would be prevented if Tik Tok is outlawed? 

I never said "bad behavior" would cease, I said that people would be more attentive and some of them might spend their time doing things that will actually make a positive difference in their lives.

14 minutes ago, Lurking said:

Hearing some talk radio stations, it seems any radical idiot can broadcast via radio 

 

well you're not wrong but the moderation is still WAY better than TikTok

[SansVarnic]

-= Locked =-

So happy this stayed away from any form of politics. /s

 

As it has been said before, this forum has no interest in censoring its members, but we have rules and those rules are very transparent. If you choose not to follow them then there is a consequence.  Moderators dont have free reign to remove anything we feel we don't like, we have a check and balance system that most members don't see that helps to keep us from abusing such opportunities.