this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
179 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
60506 readers
4192 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
~~Shifting the goalpost much~~
Sorry I insulted your app waifu with my... substantiated claims about it's conduct? How disingenuous of me. I should be ashamed, presenting its previous actions as things that it has done in the past.
You're the one who seems pretty upset about things but sure. Feel free to stoop to name calling and bad faith accusations if you'd like.
Time is, in fact, a thing that exists. Pointing out the age of an article is not shifting the goal post. Bad actions can be learned from and it is possible for things to become less shitty. You are welcome to couch your opinions in out of date information.
Tiktok is absolutely not perfect. It absolutely has issues of over-censorship at times. It absolutely should be critiqued. Even so, it provides a valuable place for people who are disenfranchised on other social media, even if it's simply that they are disenfranchised less on Tiktok.
(um, name calling?)
Anyways, my criticism was not time delineated, you asked for evidence, and now are claiming the evidence I provided to support my initial claim isn't good enough because of a new condition you've brought out. That's... I don't have another colloquial term to describe it besides "shifting the goalpost". You're changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid. There's a term for that (a point I think I've amply belaboured by now).
And sure, poor behavior can absolutely be learned from. Thats a core tenet of society. But, just for fun, could you please give me an example of a massive multinational corporation, or a social media platform, voluntarily becoming less evil? There's been absolutely no indication that TikTok has ever stopped these practices, too. So why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they ever done anything to justify such high regard?
Look I'm sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist? Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You'd think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human. So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?
It shouldn't be banned for the reasons the law is stating. I'm all for people moving to better places. Centralized moderation will always be influenced by the ownership and succiptible to problematic choices (intentional or unintentional) that will effect people. some content will be less moderated on different platforms and that will change over time, which is just the reality of the current social media landscape.
I'd be happy to see a better option that works for people currently using Tiktok that doesnt have the baggage of the corporation. Maybe Loops can be that one day. Maybe something else will show up. But I'm not wishing an entire platform to just evaporate even if I have major issues with it, and pointing out things that it is good for compared to alternatives is not the same as being an apologist. Pointing out that a ton of people incomes (in a country in a time where small businesses and self employed income is at every increasing risk) is not defending EVERYTHING tiktok has done, currently does, or will do. Nor is any of that claiming it's an egalitarian wonder app.
I'm all for people abandoning Facebook. While I'd be less caring if it got banned in a similar way, i would not celebrate it. There are still tons of normal people using it for normal reasons and they shouldnt be suddenly cut off like this. They should absolutely move away from it or their own voilition, not due to authoritarian intervention.
Facebook has actively promoted a genocide entirely of its own creation, which is quite a different issue from content suppression. You are mischaracterizing my arguments by making it out to be equivilant to a completely different situation.
I never said your evidence was invalid, I just said it needed context.
I offered my opinion (which is absolutely personal experience bias!). I suggested you consider that the article in question it may not be universally applicable to the current state of the App due to its age. I did not say you had an invalid opinion or reason to dislike it. I did not say that there was not a problem. I did not say that there still aren't problems.
Being in a minority on social media sometimes means choosing the places that are the least awful. Tiktok can be both good and bad for groups. That doesn't mean it deserves to be banned.
Look, I'm just advocating for people who are being harmed by the actions of an authoritarian government against an app and suggesting that celebrating the actions of said authoritarian government is problematic, even if there are other reasons to dislike the app.
I really dislike point by point breakdowns, it's too easy to take individual statements out of context and the lack of a clear thesis makes it incredibly difficult to respond without resorting to comments of even greater length.
In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it's okay to still use it because it's extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? "The good outweighs the ill" as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.
(That's not me being bitchy, I just genuinely do not have the time to respond to every single thing you've said there. Explaining the literary difference between explicit and implicit dismissal of evidence would alone take us beyond the character limit, as my self indulgent explanation spiraled further and further into the jargony depths of academic tedium...)