Hacker News Reader

Comment by pgeorgi | Hacker News Reader

Their approach to moderation is unusual in that they don't even pretend to be a neutral platform and as such it's a powerful differentiator to businesses that are rooted in a "free speech" culture.

Shadow-banning individual posts ("Visible to self") is relatively unusual and acts as a demotivator to publish controversial content because such content doesn't drive engagement, as is actively demoting entire classes of content (like critical commentary on politics) from the start.

This approach seems to help ensure that there won't ever be a subculture on their platform that grows, becomes controversial and at some point considers it their right to use the platform for their controversial content, avoiding all the outrage that late introduction of moderation brings with it. (see Twitter)

View on HN

I mean I’m as much a fan of free speech as the next guy, but there are some pretty key differences between the concepts of “free speech in the culture” and “a giant collection of unmoderated user generated internet content”.

I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos. Nobody is actually advocating for free speech.

I don’t think every app has to be about political issues. Where did that premise come from, just because it has Chinese origins?

It’s ok for there to be an app for kids to make dance videos, and to keep it light and positive.

>I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos.

I agree with the main thrust of your post, but to nitpick, American free speech jurisprudence is not so daft. Where some restrictions are necessary, the principle of “viewpoint neutrality” still works to prohibit censorship. So, where the government allows pro-abortion expression, it must also allow anti-abortion expression. And this applies even where its more general obligation to allow all expression does not hold.

Yeah I get it.

But like it’s fine for Flyertalk.com to be about frequent flier programs, and for Woodweb.com to stick to discussions of router bits and edge banding.

It seems to me that the reason people are applying some kind of double standard to Tik Tok is because it’s Chinese. But like it’s fine to make an app for kids to share only positive light hearted videos and keep it focused on that.

But of course the more interesting question being raised here is if the other model —- the extremely moderated some kinds of “free speech” but not others Facebook model — is in fact better.

That’s not clear at all.

It's not hypocritical to look at a Chinese app and question the motives of the censors there. Obviously their censors are controlled by the CCP. I dont have children yet but if I did they would not be allowed on TikTok, period.

But then, I also think the free world shouldn't do business with the Communist Chinese. So that's just my opinion.

>I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos.

It is the oldest problem in the book; how do i get free expression, while forcing everyone one else to agree with me?

You have a darker view of human nature than most.

I mean, unmoderated, anonymous contents might have more penis vids than you want, but it doesn't mean that you have to watch them; a user sponsored moderation / rating would ensure that.

If that wasn't possible, who would use the app except for penis enthusiasts?

That is how Chatroulette died.

Well, that's what inspired Evan Spiegel to start Snapchat.

..cos he couldn't receive dp's anymore ?

> You have a darker view of human nature than most.

Nah I’ve just been hanging around the internet a lot longer than most people.

I can’t take credit for the concept of infinite penises though, that honor goes to my friend Pud:

https://askpud.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/pageviews-and-unique...

Vine was mostly penis videos at the beginning. I think its original growth was due to the random clips of nudity until Twitter decided they needed to clean it up.

> ... a user sponsored moderation / rating would ensure that.

I think that would be good, as long as nobody is forced to use it who does not want to use it. Other things also help such as categorization, meta-moderation, etc, but all such things should be ignorable by users who do not want it.

There are simple mechanisms to prevent "penis flood" without censorship: categorization (18+/SFW categories), and sybil attack prevention/popularity ratings (just because 1 guy wants to upload his penis 1000 times, doesn't mean it must appear 1000 times in the global feed. Trolls can attract a lot of attention, but most people aren't trolls).

> I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos.

I disagree. There may be some such videos, but if anyone will write anything, then there will also be a lot of other stuff too, including other videos, and also stuff that isn't videos. There might also be worthless messages such as "kljsdljlaregj lkejgl ekjrg", but there will also be some good stuff too.

>I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos. Nobody is actually advocating for free speech.

I disagree.

*chans are some of the best places for discussion, especially regarding unpopular topics, as the posters reputation isn't on the line when expressing an opinion, and (I think more importantly) every post is weighted the same - there's no upvotes to tell you what you're supposed to think.

There is a downside of sifting through pornography, but it's not a big issue to not click links you don't like. Minimal moderation on SFW boards also works pretty well.

...as is actively demoting entire classes of content (like critical commentary on politics) from the start

The closest app TikTok is comparable to is Vine. What kind of critical commentary on politics are you expecting on these apps?

People watch these apps for the memes and hot girls.

There’s no reason that memes and hot girls can’t be used for political commentary.

Every means and mode of communication can be used for politics. Surely you don't mean to argue that this is impossible when it's TikTok.

TikTok's genius is that they bring the TV-mentality to social media. For you feature is like 60 second TV channel of moderated content.

Free people from choice and enable passivity, but provide them short social interaction. Less stress, more fun.

Such a Brave New World it brings us.

I think this is actually a pretty good model. I still dream of that perfect federated network that allows as complete autonomy as possible and finally kills both email and facebook messenger, but until then at least some people can have some joy in life.

Step 1: define "complete autonomy"

Step 2: create tools to enable user control and configuration

Step 3: update your will to require that this work-in-progress be left to someone who will continue your attempt after you die.

I used "complete autonomy" half-facetiously. Actually, I said "as complete autonomy as possible," implying, as complete as possible given other, say, existential or intersubjective constraints.

Step 3 is an interesting thought experiment for sure though. Can't say I've thought too much about data structures and algorithsm that might survive me.

Ok, so TikTok has up front chosen clearly to be a publisher of content. I have no problem with this.

It’s when a site/company only pretends to be a platform that I take issue with.

Could a theoretical new US-based competitor lobby to have TikTok removed from the app store as it is a tool of the CCP?

TikTok seems easy to defeat if you were to use the law to ban it.

A theoretical company could theoretically lobby for literally anything, including for the moon to be replaced with a wheel of cheese. Whether their lobbying would be productive is another matter.

Or Tumblr with pornography.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com