Hacker News Reader

Comment by nmfisher | Hacker News Reader

Facebook does exactly the same thing. I highly doubt it's a grand CCP conspiracy. It's more likely the incredibly mundane (but far more insidious) explanation that The Algorithm(TM) has discovered that, in aggregate, it leads to more eyeballs viewing for longer.

View on HN

This doesn't explain the reported discrepancy between the feeds of users in China compared to those in the US. Reportedly, Chinese TikTok recommends educational videos and generally affirmative content to teens, whereas the recommendations on American TikTok tend to be much darker.

Maybe the interests of teenagers in China and in the US differ?

I think TikTok is generally damaging, but not any more damaging than Twitter, Instagram, FB. Ultimately the content is produced by users.

The post above containing a detailed conspiracy of political warfare was entertaining to read, but it's likely bullshit.

I'm reminded of this article, where Chinese children stated would rather be an astronaut than a youtuber, but kids in the USA and UK rank astronaut behind youtuber.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-...

I'm probably just old but I've been worried about the cynical and dark nature of the kids for awhile now. Stuff like internet comics haven't struck me as terribly funny going all the way back to stuff like 'cyanide and happiness'. This is the stuff that kids in the US like and tiktok is feeding them what they want.

> This doesn't explain the reported discrepancy between the feeds of users in China compared to those in the US. Reportedly, Chinese TikTok recommends educational videos and generally affirmative content to teens, whereas the recommendations on American TikTok tend to be much darker.

> Maybe the interests of teenagers in China and in the US differ?

Maybe China has an extensive and well-known censorship and social media control apparatus, that shapes experiences according to the plans of the authorities?

For that reason, ByteDance almost certainly has technology to force the experience in a particular direction, because if they didn't they'd run afoul of the Chinese authorities. So the question is, why have they chosen to have (Chinese) Douyin show "generally affirmative content to teens" but not (US) TikTok? It's plausible that the reason is a program of national demoralization directed at the US. Another plausible reason is the Chinese system is better able to regulate certain self-destructive tendencies that liberal democracies are more vulnerable to.

So your argument is that ByteDance doesn't let CCP authorities censorship directives to affect the app they serve abroad?

Can you imagine if they did? People would go bonkers with conspiracy, saying that they don't respect free speech, etc.

I get the free speech argument and support it. But free doesn't mean unrestricted. Sexualising minors we've deemed harmful and not allowed. Is showing and endless stream of mind numbing "you're not pretty/rich/etc enough" videos also not harmful? I do get there is a point to draw the line, but have we drawn it in the right spot?

> So your argument is that ByteDance doesn't let CCP authorities censorship directives to affect the app they serve abroad?

Not exactly. Let me explain in a slightly roundabout way: there's an old article/song that states a truth "Do not read beauty magazines, they will only make you feel ugly." The Chinese government censorship requirements mean ByteDance certainly has the technology to prevent showing beauty magazines to teens (because they also have to suppress so much else), and the Chinese government (in a good bit of policy that goes with the bad) may have directly told them to use that technology to not show beauty magazines to teens. That means they loose some $$$ in China because they can't make Chinese teens feel ugly by showing them beauty magazines. However, they come to America, shut off that technology, and make go some $$$ in the US by making American teens feel ugly.

Note: I'm not literally talking about beauty magazines, I'm just using them as a stand in for "negative, but appealing" content, because that quote I started with came to mind.

These platforms are designed and optimized to achieve goals set by various parties. It's naive to look at a difference like this and assume the algorithm is neutral and they cause is some "difference in interests."

I get that, but they only restrict content in China because the Chinese government directs them to do so. If they don't comply, they will be shutdown.

In the West, they are not required to restrict content (and that for them es great, if people use the app more for that). I really disagree that there's any conspiracy there.

But it is ironic that people would like Chinese-style censorship on social media now. It's an interesting time to be alive.

It's also plausible that, in the absence of regulation, social media optimises itself towards sex, outrage and provocation as the most profitable.

Given that's my experience with Facebook, I'm going with that ad the more likely explanation.

The cause is probably a bit more benign than what you hint at. China likely mandates that positive content in the domestic market, but in overseas markets TikTok is simply left free to do the usual thing of sorting content for maximum user engagement with the app.

The history of all social media shows that when you optimize for engagement in that way dark, hostile, triggering, or just mindless addictive filler is what you get. As I said elsewhere: trash seems to maximize engagement.

If China let TikTok prioritize only engagement in China they’d also have a feed of nothing but mental junk food.

The goal need not match up with CCP, this is a red herring, there are many other actors in this space each with their own goals using the same or similar methodology and practices.

I must mention that overgeneralizing is a form of flawed reasoning and must be guarded against, also simply saying its the algorithm neglects the fact that people had to design and approve the algorithm which included their intentions that went into that. That statement tacitly absolves responsibility for actions done in bringing it to market.

None of this would be possible to this degree if there wasn't a many to one platform of fake people where a monolithic entity can determine how much certain subjects people get exposed to and talk about.

Communication is a fundamental part of human identity, and distorting process leads to issues from reflected appraisal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com