Hacker News Reader

Comment by BadHumans | Hacker News Reader

> “It’s so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They’re teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can't take it away,

I don't use Tiktok and don't care whether or not it is banned but this is pure addict behavior.

View on HN

> this is pure addict behavior

It's one part entertainment, one part news, one part streaming platform, and one part peer-to-peer communication. It makes sense people can spend a lot of time there if it replaces many different apps/TV shows/etc.

You mention fist order effects (whether or not you are affected by a ban), but I'm curious if there are any second-order (or more) effects that you have preferences about?

None that are exclusive to Tiktok. Social media apps like Tiktok, Instagram, etc are fast food. I enjoy fast food every once in a while but I certainly wouldn't live off the stuff or spend all day in a Taco Bell.

The fact that they can add a popup and have this effect confirms that Congress is justified.

The pop up signaled that they are willing to emotionally manipulate millions of teens and young adults into doing what they want. Completely dumbfounding strategy here by TikTok.

Do you feel the same way when sites like Wikipedia use pop ups to talk about privacy legislation?

Totally different situation. If Wikipedia somehow ended up with so much emotional influence that members of congress were getting 1000+ calls a day then maybe. Wikipedia ain't backed by the Chinese government though.

I don't see it as a different thing. Both companies use their platforms to talk about legislation they feel is negative in one way or another. Wikipedia managing to get thousands of people to call congress over a bill that would ban encryption would be hailed as a miracle of democracy here.

I see a clear difference between a non-profit campaigning against something that would affect everyone and a private company campaigning against something that only affects their bottom line.

I think that is a reasonable place to draw the line.

Congress isn't considering a ban on Wikipedia because it's mission isn't emotional manipulation for profit.

So, no.

That's an absolutely absurd definition of "emotional manipulation"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com