Comment by scarecrowbob | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarecrowbob | Hacker News Reader

I am always curious how many people who are in favor of this have actually used tictok.

I have found it very helpful for finding voices pretty far to the left. I also have found it very helpful for finding voices among marginalized communities, specifically indigenous folks, black women, anarchists, and queer folks- especially making fairly rational, well informed critiques of the US. And especially as that relates to things like Palestine or the Democrats failures in marketing Harri.

I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.

However, the TT algo surfaces these things quite quickly and satisfactorally for me.

I can see how that really is a threat to US powers. I have a pretty good understanding of the various US oppressive actions against subversives, including the all-out war to demonize folks starting with anarchists/trade unionists/communists in the late 1800s to the use of COINTELPRO against folks like the black panthers, AIM, and the anti-war movement.

So from my standpoint, as someone who has gotten legitiamte "free-speech" value from the app, this move seems like just another step in a long history of US repression of political dissent.

If you start from the assumption that everyone who has different politics than you has been brainwashed or manipulated into that differing position, then sure TT seems like a great tool to do that. But if you think that it really takes immense amounts of capital and effort to get people to "form" opinions, you might take the position that the effort could only be done by folks who, say, have control of the "history" curriculum in Texas public schools ot, for instance, the power to have their press releases uncritically published by the New York Times.

Anyhow.

It will be interesting to see the US set up its own version of the Great Firewall, I guess.

where's the super-up-vote button? I have learned a lot and been exposed to perspectives that I would not have otherwise via tiktok. I have learned new things. I have literally changed how I do everyday tasks such as tying laces, using knifes, cooking, knots, etc.

TikTok is a bastion of and important tool for free speech.

Take recent news: the media is towing the line and crying over the murdered CEO. Social media is celebrating a Robin Hood character. One of these is a calculated expression from those in power. The other is an organic response that echoes public opinion.

Free == By China's Command (cylon voice)

It appears the decision is related to China's control over the platform, shaping massively the opinion of groups, rather more importantly than the fact one can freely post ALT videos from their Ring cam of the assassin biking down the street.

Maybe all of the people downvoting could try and make a coherent argument against this post instead. Although it's pretty hard to argue against objective facts.

The US can ban TikTok all they want, but the worms aren't going back into the can.

As the grandparent comment points out:

> I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.

The law doesn't ban the discussion of any particular topics, it bans social media platforms that are subject to the laws and control of adversarial governments. Specifically, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who are already prohibited from participating in sensitive parts of the US economy.

If social media exists to collect vast amounts of information about its users--and it does--then it's reasonable for the government to be concerned about whether that information can fall into the hands of an adversary.

If social media exists to manipulate its users into believing and doing things that benefit the platform--and it does--then likewise the government has good reason to be concerned about how an adversary might use that.

Framing the law as a ban on particular viewpoints is misguided at best, misinformation at worst. And, as you and the GP comment both point out, it wouldn't work since other platforms and venues are still wide open.

The can of worms being left open is a feature not a bug. It's one reason why the law can survive a strict scrutiny review.

That's a fair analysis, but I'd argue that you are being too charitable to the US government. I think they simultaneously have legitimate security concerns, but also wish to regain control over some of their narratives w/ respect to foreign policy. But really that's just a matter of opinion.

https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...

This argument suggests that the Chinese government is already using Tiktok to control the narrative on US foreign policy, doesn't it?

The issue I have with this is that it treats the US government as one entity that has a singular view. I don't think the US government works like that, instead it has contradictory views within itself and especially over time as the party in power changes. For example, the two political parties that passed this bill have wildly differing views on foreign policy. Thus how can you say its to regain control over narratives, if thy don't even agree on which narrative to promote?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com