TikTok is the most popular news source for 12 to 15-year-olds
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I hardly watch commercials anymore unless it's a ballgame. I was discussing with a buddy of what the psychological imprint of 40+ years of advertising would look like.
"Sell the sizzle, not the steak."
Meanwhile a country like India has an actual TikTok ban, and as far as anyone can tell there have been 0 negative consequences, and likely a ton of positive ones for not having your youth hooked to a completely algorithmically driven entertainment/information source that also happens to be run by one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world that is currently engaged in all sorts of hostile activities against nearly every country including especially their neighbors.
Unlike the US, India and China have had real wars between them.
Coupled with the fact there are laws against what communications from the US government are considered propaganda (thus illegal), gives US adversaries a significant leg up on being able to influence the population.
Even the stuff that's factually accurate is just drip-feed learning, knowing a "fact" about something isn't the same as actually learning about it.
It's just one giant clout engine, we're social animals after all, so making popular videos and getting a tonne of comments/likes is like dopamine central for us.
If people are drawing their opinions/knowledge/information from these sources then we should mandate that the information is accurate. People could hold controversial opinions if they want, but any facts/information provided should be proven to be correct.
I mean, Twitter manages to (not much as of recently though) provide additional information with some Tweets, I imagine a similar system would help.
As I already said, I didn't mean for opinions. But if someone makes a TikTok that says "I don't like gay people", then fine whatever. I'll feel sad about the state of the world, but it's not claiming anything false.
If, however, someone made a video that says "I don't like gay people because they're spreading HIV on purpose" then that is blatantly and provably false and should be removed.
For example I saw this one recently: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cgTFj9V2Jvg "amid riots, protestors let zoo animals out and now they're freely roaming Paris" with a disturbing backing track and an amalgamation of footage from various sources.
It's provably false and in fact a small number of people have commented like "... if you try and find any kind of official source for this you'll see that this is completely fake! ..."
But then there are plenty of comments from the apathetic dopamine addicted masses who swipe, absorb, swipe, absorb without ever looking into it: "Those poor animals. People don’t understand the dangers these animals now represent to the public and how it also endangers the animals safety from poachers or cruel individuals." I'd say about 99% of the comments aren't pointing out it's fake.
I guess it's the issue of saving people from themselves. Who will watch the watchers indeed, but we certainly have electrical standards, we have automotive standards, building standards, etc. Why do we not have information safety standards???
By your argument of "who gets to be the arbiter of truth", doesn't that also apply to electrical safety standards (as an example), who tf are they to tell me that my house needs an RCD? What business do they have fusing everything, earth pins and all?
I am endlessly amused by myself these days, because I was literally raised as a Marxist, with literally Karl Marx on the bookshelf and Reagan was a satan to me as a kid, but wouldn't know you know it, when I talk about Communists these, dirty fucking communist rats who cannot make their own society worth living in and therefore need to tear down the good ones, boy do I sound like Joe fucking McCarthy.
https://www.statista.com/chart/28802/childhood-aspirations-i...
It's recalling a comment from the thread about "the past isn't true" about post-modernism. Yes, no information source is 100% reliable. Every institution is imperfect. All of them have had or currently have people in them who commit fraud, have biases. Incentive structures are often poor. The fact that no information source is completely reliable all of the time does not mean that all information sources are exactly equal. The textbook industry is in many ways a scam, but that does not mean you're going to get an equally good education getting your information from an algorithmic video feed created as a dopamine machine to publish work with absolutely no even token attempt at quality control.
I get that categories are imperfect. There is no "line" between education and entertainment. They're fuzzy and they overlap. But they are nonetheless different things, and understanding this is a key part of existing in the contemporary world without throwing your hands up and giving into complete nihilism and epistemic despair.
This is a odd take because comedic reporting of world events is still informing people about those world events.
It's flashy, fast, catchy, with music, or made into compelling short form stories that (depending on what you watch) can be partially, wholly, or not at all factual.
Why would teenagers want to watch some old person talk about the boring details and intricacies of current events like the war in Ukraine for 10-15 minutes when you can get a summary of the same information in 30-60 seconds on TikTok?
On the other end it's insta and TikTok.. Tell how society is finished without telling me society is finished(TikTok trend)!