Instagram deals reveal Meta is offering TikTok creators as much as $300k to post(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Instagram deals reveal Meta is offering TikTok creators as much as $300k to post
https://www.businessinsider.com/instagram-paying-creators-exclusive-content-deals-reels-contract-details-2025-1
106 comments
https://archive.is/yhQHI
"Meta has been contacting creators and their teams with deals offering thousands of dollars in exchange for exclusive video content posted to Instagram reels. The payouts described to Business Insider ranged from $2,500 to $50,000 a month and required the content to be exclusive to Instagram for three months."
The problem is there are many accounts that will happily remix the content and post to other platfrom, something like a reaction content.
is there a good historical example of this strategy working? I know platforms have tried paying for apps to be ported or etc and it never seems to drum up organic interest sufficiently.
Kick has successfully lured some big Twitch streamers away with incentives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(service)#Streaming_deals
And they seem to be trying to lure more people away by offering more favorable revenue splits than YT/Twitch.
Of course this is all funded by online casino revenue, I don't know if it would "work" without being able to light money on fire. There are credible people out there insisting that Kick is losing money and only exists to funnel new customers to Stake's online gambling services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(service)#Streaming_deals
And they seem to be trying to lure more people away by offering more favorable revenue splits than YT/Twitch.
Of course this is all funded by online casino revenue, I don't know if it would "work" without being able to light money on fire. There are credible people out there insisting that Kick is losing money and only exists to funnel new customers to Stake's online gambling services.
> There are credible people out there insisting that Kick is losing money and only exists to funnel new customers to Stake's online gambling services.
This is trivial to determine without even needing to defer to credible people: Its entire business model outside of funneling people into gambling addiction is taking a 5% split of subscription revenue. This while it is paying Amazon for the actual (expensive) streaming tech[1], in a market that's notoriously hard to be profitable in for companies taking both a larger cut and running ads.
[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/ivs/
This is trivial to determine without even needing to defer to credible people: Its entire business model outside of funneling people into gambling addiction is taking a 5% split of subscription revenue. This while it is paying Amazon for the actual (expensive) streaming tech[1], in a market that's notoriously hard to be profitable in for companies taking both a larger cut and running ads.
[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/ivs/
Didn’t Substack pay some big names early on to use the platform?
Spotify's podcasts and Joe Rogan? SiriusXM and Howard Stern? Those were superstars with undue influence though.
From what I've seen in r/TikTok (curiosity has kept me going back to seeing how users are reacting everyday) they really hate Meta. They're so upset, they don't trust that the current administration wont taint the algorithm of TikTok as well. It's really wild to see the varying views.
With that in mind, I would not be surprised if the top TikTok users will not take the free money. I mean its free money. If it actually works is another story though. Meta has been trying to force growth in new social media apps several times now, and its not really working, social media apps are basically generational.
I feel bad for them I grew up on the internet, in my day it was MySpace and a few other sites, I can only imagine the outrage I would have felt if they knocked off one of my social communities I frequented as a teen.
With that in mind, I would not be surprised if the top TikTok users will not take the free money. I mean its free money. If it actually works is another story though. Meta has been trying to force growth in new social media apps several times now, and its not really working, social media apps are basically generational.
I feel bad for them I grew up on the internet, in my day it was MySpace and a few other sites, I can only imagine the outrage I would have felt if they knocked off one of my social communities I frequented as a teen.
Meta is asking for exclusivity.
It is important for influencers to diversify across platforms so I don't think this is a good deal.
It is important for influencers to diversify across platforms so I don't think this is a good deal.
I assume any one person's decision would rest on some kind of risk perception that TikTok becomes/remains non-viable for the given period of exclusivity.
Yes, which is why I am advocating for diversification.
If your livelihood depends on a single company, you exist at their pleasure.
If your livelihood depends on a single company, you exist at their pleasure.
This has been an unending source of frustration for me when I have followed someone on any of the algorithmic platforms vs. self-publishing.
So often many will invariably end up letting the place where they predominant publish to dictate what and how they produce whatever it is they output. (I was fighting hard not to say the word "content"...)
Which I despise but also understand: you do what anyone with a job does to keep the money flowing until someone in the relationship decides to end the arrangement.
(Now that I think about it, self-publishing is hardly immune to that. It just means perhaps the creator's motives could be more varied and fluid?)
So often many will invariably end up letting the place where they predominant publish to dictate what and how they produce whatever it is they output. (I was fighting hard not to say the word "content"...)
Which I despise but also understand: you do what anyone with a job does to keep the money flowing until someone in the relationship decides to end the arrangement.
(Now that I think about it, self-publishing is hardly immune to that. It just means perhaps the creator's motives could be more varied and fluid?)
It must've really pissed off Zuckerberg when for the first few months every popular reel had the TikTok logo and soundbite at the end.
Taint the algorithm away from what exactly?
Away from genuinely interesting, personalized recommendations, to be replaced with depressing rage-bait algorithm of sites like Twitter.
I made the switch to YouTube shorts when tiktok went down and my experience is largely the same, if anything I'm seeing more educational material on electronics and programming which I enjoy. No ragebait yet unlike TikTok. No idea about instagram reels though.
The TikTok algorithm is generally seen, by its users, as being really good. Once you've spent some time there and your For You Page really gets going, it really feels like it's For You. And the algorithm there doesn't seem to penalize people doing original reporting, current events explainers, science content and educational content, musical performances, tutorials, etc., alongside typical social media stuff like viral challenges and pet videos or whatever. The general "vibe" is that TikTok feels more "authentic," while Reels is mostly manufactured content (dance videos, AI slop, "funny" compilations, lots and lots of ads) and YouTube Shorts is where comedy skits and reuploads of TikTok content go to die.
Meta's algorithm on IG has gone so far down the toilet over the years. Before I deleted my account last year, I'd have to scroll through 5-7 sponsored posts before I'd actually see something from someone I actually follow. Nevermind the amount of regular old ads that were inserted into my feed.
[deleted]
If they're already getting money from selling their attention and being constantly surveilled, it will take a much larger temptation to move to a different hypnosis platform.
> not be surprised if the top TikTok users will not take the free money
This is a double negative. It means you would be surprised if they take the free money.
Judging by the following text I think you mean you _would_ be surprised.
This is a double negative. It means you would be surprised if they take the free money.
Judging by the following text I think you mean you _would_ be surprised.
> This is a double negative.
Not necessarily--one can be unsurprised at both the decision to take or not to take money, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not surprised if it's not cloudy outside on a given day, but that doesn't mean I am surprised if it is. I'm just not surprised by general day-to-day changes in weather.
The default surprising behavior here is to refuse $300k just to post on a different social media site; given the context of /r/TikTok, the parent comment not surprised that they don't take the money.
Not necessarily--one can be unsurprised at both the decision to take or not to take money, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not surprised if it's not cloudy outside on a given day, but that doesn't mean I am surprised if it is. I'm just not surprised by general day-to-day changes in weather.
The default surprising behavior here is to refuse $300k just to post on a different social media site; given the context of /r/TikTok, the parent comment not surprised that they don't take the money.
It’s hard for me to see influencers of today as organic users of the past.
Many modern users start their journey as a business though the content may appear innocent or authentic.
Many modern users start their journey as a business though the content may appear innocent or authentic.
> It’s hard for me to see influencers of today as organic users of the past.
They're not, and never have been. Nor are they innocent - they're corrupting and destroying the platforms they're on. And, for all the talk on authenticity, they're the direct opposite of it.
I remain bewildered by the continued social acceptance of this work. We're talking about people who openly accept and refer to themselves using the term "influencer" - a word that's directly synonymous to "manipulator". How much more in-your-face do they have to be about telegraphing malicious intent?
They're not, and never have been. Nor are they innocent - they're corrupting and destroying the platforms they're on. And, for all the talk on authenticity, they're the direct opposite of it.
I remain bewildered by the continued social acceptance of this work. We're talking about people who openly accept and refer to themselves using the term "influencer" - a word that's directly synonymous to "manipulator". How much more in-your-face do they have to be about telegraphing malicious intent?
Addictive brainrot is a powerful force. Like cigarettes. You could put a skull and crossbones on the packaging and call them "Marlboro Tumors" and people would still line up to buy them. Social Media consumers know what they are doing is bad--they can't stop because they are addicted.
I highly doubt that is the case, most smokers didn't think it was bad for you years ago.
I think they knew; the dangers of smoking were well-known more than three decades ago (I still remember learning about them as a kid, maybe 7-8 years old, and getting super worried about my dad; my attempts to reprimand his behavior were not well received...). Thing is, many (most?) people have various habits/addictions which they realize are unhealthy long-term, but at any given moment, those worries are hard to act on while being easy to put aside. "I'll need to stop smoking before it kills me." "I should probably drink less coffee." "I should start exercising regularly." "Next week, I'm taking a break off stims." Etc. Thoughts that pop up every day, yet years go by and no change happens.
I suppose "I should spend less time on my smartphone", "I spend way too much time watching Instagram reels", etc. are now part of this group, too.
I suppose "I should spend less time on my smartphone", "I spend way too much time watching Instagram reels", etc. are now part of this group, too.
Maybe. But perhaps unlike cigarettes today, the entire Internet is structurally conspiring against people.
I keep comparing[0] advertising[1] to a cancer on society, and that analogy applies to influencing in particular too. Thing is, a lot of those influencers, aka. "content creators", actually do create good content on a regular basis[2]. Yes, this is kind of what makes this advertising vector effective in the first place, but it gets harder to make people think about how they're being manipulated when they can rightfully say they watch it out of genuine interest and get real value out of it.
Which is why I bring up the cancer analogy. Many cancers induce the body to route more blood towards them, which also benefits the healthy cells in the vicinity. From the point of view of such cells, the tumor is great - it blesses them with plenty. But of course we know, that benefit is short-term and localized - eventually, it leads to premature death.
I see the work of influencers to be like this. They pull in money and use it to produce exciting content, making the platforms thrive - or at least it seems so, for a while. In reality, they're slowly but surely burning the platform out (and over longer timescales, also public consciousness).
--
[0] - http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html
[1] - Well, particular subset of sales, marketing and advertising. AFAIK there's no good term that describes it; the closest one I found over the years is "marketing communications".
[2] - Especially if we consider entertaining content as good, too. Which, honestly, I think we should - humans need and value entertainment.
I keep comparing[0] advertising[1] to a cancer on society, and that analogy applies to influencing in particular too. Thing is, a lot of those influencers, aka. "content creators", actually do create good content on a regular basis[2]. Yes, this is kind of what makes this advertising vector effective in the first place, but it gets harder to make people think about how they're being manipulated when they can rightfully say they watch it out of genuine interest and get real value out of it.
Which is why I bring up the cancer analogy. Many cancers induce the body to route more blood towards them, which also benefits the healthy cells in the vicinity. From the point of view of such cells, the tumor is great - it blesses them with plenty. But of course we know, that benefit is short-term and localized - eventually, it leads to premature death.
I see the work of influencers to be like this. They pull in money and use it to produce exciting content, making the platforms thrive - or at least it seems so, for a while. In reality, they're slowly but surely burning the platform out (and over longer timescales, also public consciousness).
--
[0] - http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html
[1] - Well, particular subset of sales, marketing and advertising. AFAIK there's no good term that describes it; the closest one I found over the years is "marketing communications".
[2] - Especially if we consider entertaining content as good, too. Which, honestly, I think we should - humans need and value entertainment.
I hope you're right but every year, people are more zombified by their phones than the year before. There is no evident end in sight. No candle burning out.
I think a lot of those offered would understand how people on TikTok would turn on them for selling out. They're not stupid, quite the opposite. I detest how the political landscape of the internet has evolved to such an extent that it now influences our decisions about posting or not posting content online.
> From what I've seen in r/TikTok (curiosity has kept me going back to seeing how users are reacting everyday) they really hate Meta. They're so upset, they don't trust that the current administration wont taint the algorithm of TikTok as well. It's really wild to see the varying views.
"I don't like people in government dictating what I see online. My stand against it will be to create an account for an online service run by a company based in the People's Republic of China."
EDIT:
Downvote all you want, that's what they're doing.
"I don't like people in government dictating what I see online. My stand against it will be to create an account for an online service run by a company based in the People's Republic of China."
EDIT:
Downvote all you want, that's what they're doing.
It's not "free money". Posting exclusively on Meta's apps means missing out on the biggest portion of their audience. For a very lucrative channel they could be giving up much more than they gain.
Stupid question, maybe, but IANAL: is this even legal? Isn't it illegal to pay others to bury your competitor?
I think it is legal but it risks anti-trust scrutiny.
Google pays Apple tens of billions to be the default iPhone search engine - this seems quite similar.
Google pays Apple tens of billions to be the default iPhone search engine - this seems quite similar.
Or would, if the anti trust people did their jobs
Yup and we will be seeing even less enforcement going forward.
How is this any different than the a sports league giving exclusive rights to their product to a specific network...?
No it’s definitely not illegal. Companies hire consultants, influencers, contractors all the time to help them improve their product, brand, positioning etc. It could be an issue if the influencers have a contract with TikTok and Meta encourages them to break it. Then it becomes tortious interference. Also, IANAL but I took a business ethics class in college that covered this topic.
Of course it's legal. They offer you money to exclusively post on their platform. Joe Rogan got paid to exclusively podcast on spotify. All of the talking heads on TV news are paid to exclusively be on their specific channel (ABC,NBC,FOX,etc.) The twitch streamer, Ninja, that got paid to move from twitch to Microsft's failed Mixer platform, etc. etc..
This is an extremely low-quality answer which in no way correctly represents the complexity underlying the question.
GP would need to talk to an antitrust expert to learn more useful information concerning the distinction between being a monopoly, and illegally leveraging monopoly power. I am not such a person, so I’m not going to say more here.
GP would need to talk to an antitrust expert to learn more useful information concerning the distinction between being a monopoly, and illegally leveraging monopoly power. I am not such a person, so I’m not going to say more here.
Contracts are a fundamental part of common law, why would it be illegal to enter one?
Also, it’s a big leap to prove that exclusive agreements to post on a specific platform is attempting to bury a competitor, TikTok (and every other company) is free to offer exclusivity contracts as well.
Also, it’s a big leap to prove that exclusive agreements to post on a specific platform is attempting to bury a competitor, TikTok (and every other company) is free to offer exclusivity contracts as well.
If you phrase it like that, sure. But I'm positive that's not how meta phrased it.
Everyone at Meta needs to take a "communicating with care" course every year which exactly trains you to hide your true intentions and not leave a paper trail of anti-competitive statements.
Everyone at Meta needs to take a "communicating with care" course every year which exactly trains you to hide your true intentions and not leave a paper trail of anti-competitive statements.
Anyone else concerned that Americans are embracing Chinese technology? A bit before Tiktok went down the app store showed that Chinese "Red," Tiktok type of app was at the top of the charts. Why wouldnt American users flock to American apps like Snapchat, YouTube, etc? Is it a bratty thing ... govt took away what I was using and so Im going to go all in and only use Chinese Tiktok competitors?
Also, with Threads at the top of the iPhone app store constantly yet I dont know anyone who uses it .. makes me wonder is there a way to gain the top positions in the app store? Either paying for it and or gaming the system via massive army of bots?
Also, with Threads at the top of the iPhone app store constantly yet I dont know anyone who uses it .. makes me wonder is there a way to gain the top positions in the app store? Either paying for it and or gaming the system via massive army of bots?
People are very aware that American tech companies want to control and exploit them as much as possible so there's really no difference to them between a Chinese app and an American app. Big tech trying to use its political power to force users into their platforms is an assault on our freedoms. You call it a bratty thing but I call it the only way the people have left to protest the enshittification of their digital lives.
Zizek has a very interesting argument [1] that is perhaps relevant here. (Lightly cleaned up transcript)
> Imagine you are a small girl or boy of, let's say, eight years. It's Sunday afternoon and your father wants you to visit your old grandmother. You, of course, detest it - she's old, senile, whatever. But then, if you have an old authoritarian father, he will tell you something like - and this would be, as Alenka put it, a good thing to do - he will tell you: "Listen, I don't care how you feel. Just do your duty, go to your grandmother and behave there properly." That's perfect, I claim, because you will retain your, let's call it, inner freedom. You will be furious at your father, but that's good for your long-term freedom.
> Now, what would a monster called post-modern permissive father do? He would not give you an order, but he would have told you something like this: "You only go to visit your grandmother if you really want to. Just remember how much your grandmother loves you." Now, a child is not an idiot, and he or she will know perfectly what this order means. Beneath the appearance of a free choice, it gives you a much harsher order. The order is not only "you must go and visit your grandmother," but "you must do it freely." You must really wish to visit your grandmother.
> So you see, this nice example of how - and this is basically what also Alenka described as that situation - "do whatever you want," etc., where the apparent freedom of choice masks a much harsher choice.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoheZbxT6I
> Imagine you are a small girl or boy of, let's say, eight years. It's Sunday afternoon and your father wants you to visit your old grandmother. You, of course, detest it - she's old, senile, whatever. But then, if you have an old authoritarian father, he will tell you something like - and this would be, as Alenka put it, a good thing to do - he will tell you: "Listen, I don't care how you feel. Just do your duty, go to your grandmother and behave there properly." That's perfect, I claim, because you will retain your, let's call it, inner freedom. You will be furious at your father, but that's good for your long-term freedom.
> Now, what would a monster called post-modern permissive father do? He would not give you an order, but he would have told you something like this: "You only go to visit your grandmother if you really want to. Just remember how much your grandmother loves you." Now, a child is not an idiot, and he or she will know perfectly what this order means. Beneath the appearance of a free choice, it gives you a much harsher order. The order is not only "you must go and visit your grandmother," but "you must do it freely." You must really wish to visit your grandmother.
> So you see, this nice example of how - and this is basically what also Alenka described as that situation - "do whatever you want," etc., where the apparent freedom of choice masks a much harsher choice.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoheZbxT6I
> People are very aware that American tech companies want to control and exploit them as much as possible so there's really no difference to them between a Chinese app and an American app
I mean, if that is indeed their rationale, then our civics education really does suck.
I mean, if that is indeed their rationale, then our civics education really does suck.
Or, perhaps they have made a reasoned determination that their own government does not represent their best interests, and are less concerned about the impact a foreign power thousands of miles away has on their lives.
The ultimate goal for the foreign power is to impact people thousands of miles away.
less concerned not unconcerned. learn to read yourself before lecturing people about education
> less concerned not unconcerned
Giving a totalitarian regime access to the device that more-or-less holds your entire life and acts as a perfect surveillance portal to your every move decidedly falls more on the unconcerned side of the scale.
Unless, of course, they didn't make a particularly "reasoned" determination like you said.
> learn to read yourself before lecturing people about education
Let's keep the ad hominem to a bare minimum.
Giving a totalitarian regime access to the device that more-or-less holds your entire life and acts as a perfect surveillance portal to your every move decidedly falls more on the unconcerned side of the scale.
Unless, of course, they didn't make a particularly "reasoned" determination like you said.
> learn to read yourself before lecturing people about education
Let's keep the ad hominem to a bare minimum.
Some of us consider the USA to be an authoritarian regime. And without a doubt as someone living there they have massively more influence over my life.
poof China has all my data - what do they do with it? Vs the USA where there is documented proof that the NSA was used against Vietnam War critics etc.
poof China has all my data - what do they do with it? Vs the USA where there is documented proof that the NSA was used against Vietnam War critics etc.
> Some of us consider the USA to be an authoritarian regime.
Some of us have a definition of "authoritarian" that is different from that of reality. I've lost count of the number of political dissent posts I've seen towards both sides of the political spectrum in the United States on American-based social media platforms.
And if authoritarianism is really a problem, why double down on the governments you give your data to?
> And without a doubt as someone living there they have massively more influence over my life.
Compared to the influence that the Chinese government has over the Chinese people, it's minor. That also goes for the governments of most places China has strong ties with. Strengthening their sphere of influence in the US is not the act of those who have concerns over authoritarian regimes influencing their lives.
> poof China has all my data - what do they do with it?
They're a rather imaginative bunch when it comes to cyber offensives, so let's imagine one ourselves.
They could scour your contacts and content for dissidents abroad, using that information to inform those operating one of their extralegal international "police stations" as to their whereabouts. [0]
Now, let's stop imagining. Let's see what they have been confirmed as actually doing with it.
They could collect geospatial data and combine that information with other personal details to compromise the security of people who work in sensitive places. This has actually led a number of nations, including Norway, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK to ban TikTok from being installed on devices with access to government networks [1]
It's worth remembering that the US only banned the TikTok app - they could have continued operating in the US through a mobile webpage, but decided not to and threw a fit until Trump rearranged (perhaps extralegally) the law banning the app. Why? Because apps give far more access to devices than webpages, which have sandboxed processes and other checks on what code can access. If keeping American eyes on TikTok was the one and only goal, that app would have been a sacrifice that they were willing to make. The fact that they had to have the app tells me that they may have wanted the extra access that native apps afford.
> Vs the USA where there is documented proof that the NSA was used against Vietnam War critics etc.
I'm not saying the American intelligence apparatus has clean hands. If that's the concern, then again, cut back on social media and apps that collect unknown quantities and qualities of data, instead of opening up more accounts to totalitarian governments that have a long history of using censorship and surveillance in a very straightforward way to achieve their political aims.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_servic... [1]https://www.context.news/big-tech/us-tiktok-ban-which-other-...
Some of us have a definition of "authoritarian" that is different from that of reality. I've lost count of the number of political dissent posts I've seen towards both sides of the political spectrum in the United States on American-based social media platforms.
And if authoritarianism is really a problem, why double down on the governments you give your data to?
> And without a doubt as someone living there they have massively more influence over my life.
Compared to the influence that the Chinese government has over the Chinese people, it's minor. That also goes for the governments of most places China has strong ties with. Strengthening their sphere of influence in the US is not the act of those who have concerns over authoritarian regimes influencing their lives.
> poof China has all my data - what do they do with it?
They're a rather imaginative bunch when it comes to cyber offensives, so let's imagine one ourselves.
They could scour your contacts and content for dissidents abroad, using that information to inform those operating one of their extralegal international "police stations" as to their whereabouts. [0]
Now, let's stop imagining. Let's see what they have been confirmed as actually doing with it.
They could collect geospatial data and combine that information with other personal details to compromise the security of people who work in sensitive places. This has actually led a number of nations, including Norway, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK to ban TikTok from being installed on devices with access to government networks [1]
It's worth remembering that the US only banned the TikTok app - they could have continued operating in the US through a mobile webpage, but decided not to and threw a fit until Trump rearranged (perhaps extralegally) the law banning the app. Why? Because apps give far more access to devices than webpages, which have sandboxed processes and other checks on what code can access. If keeping American eyes on TikTok was the one and only goal, that app would have been a sacrifice that they were willing to make. The fact that they had to have the app tells me that they may have wanted the extra access that native apps afford.
> Vs the USA where there is documented proof that the NSA was used against Vietnam War critics etc.
I'm not saying the American intelligence apparatus has clean hands. If that's the concern, then again, cut back on social media and apps that collect unknown quantities and qualities of data, instead of opening up more accounts to totalitarian governments that have a long history of using censorship and surveillance in a very straightforward way to achieve their political aims.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_servic... [1]https://www.context.news/big-tech/us-tiktok-ban-which-other-...
Hey I'm all for not using either, that's what I do. And I get banning it on government phones. They ought to ban almost everyhring on those, but especially foreign controlled apps. And I don't like what China does to their citizens either.
But you'll never convince me that the main reason for the ban wasn't to replace Chinese propaganda with American / Billionaire propaganda and tbh that one's less charming.
And if your imaginative worst case scenario is that they use my data to root out and extrajudiciously kill ex-Chinese dissidents in America then idk why that would be a problem for me since I don't know any of those. I do know some American activists, though.
I can easily invent way more damning fantasies of what the US Govt could do to me, a US citizen, if they had an admin willing to subvert constitutional norms and more visibly use the PRISM surveillance tools.
But you'll never convince me that the main reason for the ban wasn't to replace Chinese propaganda with American / Billionaire propaganda and tbh that one's less charming.
And if your imaginative worst case scenario is that they use my data to root out and extrajudiciously kill ex-Chinese dissidents in America then idk why that would be a problem for me since I don't know any of those. I do know some American activists, though.
I can easily invent way more damning fantasies of what the US Govt could do to me, a US citizen, if they had an admin willing to subvert constitutional norms and more visibly use the PRISM surveillance tools.
You think the purpose of civics education is to teach young people to trust American big tech and the American government above foreigners regardless of evidence??
Where did I say that?
Conversely, why wouldn't we expect the rest of the world to abandon American technology? We have members of the current administration in Germany stumping for AfD, and all of the American tech giants are toeing the party line.
For the rest of the world, the risk and dangers of American interference in their elections appears to be more present and explicit than the dangers of Chinese interference.
For the rest of the world, the risk and dangers of American interference in their elections appears to be more present and explicit than the dangers of Chinese interference.
If that's their reasoning, then there's not much we can say to change their minds.
After all, look at China's thriving, diverse political environment.
After all, look at China's thriving, diverse political environment.
The impression for better or worse is that the U.S interferes abroad far more than China, so they are a safer bet.
I find it hard to empathize with your views that American political life is healthy and democratic, and China is corrupt and stagnant.
American imprisons 10 times as many of its citizens than PRC. Most of these people are imprisoned for ideological crimes ("Protestant norms say that you should not intoxicate yourself") or political crimes ("our system holds that no one is entitled to the necessities of human life").
American imprisons 10 times as many of its citizens than PRC. Most of these people are imprisoned for ideological crimes ("Protestant norms say that you should not intoxicate yourself") or political crimes ("our system holds that no one is entitled to the necessities of human life").
> I find it hard to empathize with your views that American political life is healthy and democratic
Did I say that the US has a healthy and democratic political life?
Of course the US has its problems. Just look at the government now.
It's just not a constitutionally-defined single-party totalitarian state.
Did I say that the US has a healthy and democratic political life?
Of course the US has its problems. Just look at the government now.
It's just not a constitutionally-defined single-party totalitarian state.
> It's just not a constitutionally-defined single-party totalitarian state.
Why is this specific thing worse than a similar way of describing the US system?
Why is this specific thing worse than a similar way of describing the US system?
Because the similar way of describing the US system is fundamentally untrue. There is no part of the US Constitution that specifies, by name, which party shall rule.
Could that change? Sure. Especially with so many people apathetic to what happens in China.
Could that change? Sure. Especially with so many people apathetic to what happens in China.
> Is it a bratty thing ... govt took away what I was using and so Im going to go all in and only use Chinese Tiktok competitors?
I wouldn't call it "bratty," but that is certainly part of it. My impression of the situation is that yes, folks flocked to a Chinese app because they were a) angry at the US government and wanted to undermine the purpose of the TikTok ban; b) equally angry at US social media services that are seen as being to willing to acquiesce to the demands of the US government in general and the current administration in particular, and c) ultimately unconcerned about who has their data.
I have a hypothesis about my point c, which is that TikTok's user population skews younger, and so we have a population of social media users who grew up with the understanding that their data and attention are packaged, sold, and analyzed by anyone and everyone; they're not concerned about the implications of giving data to China, and it strikes them as hypocritical for the US government to spend decades on data collection and only express concern when users decide to take that data outside the the US sphere of influence.
I wouldn't call it "bratty," but that is certainly part of it. My impression of the situation is that yes, folks flocked to a Chinese app because they were a) angry at the US government and wanted to undermine the purpose of the TikTok ban; b) equally angry at US social media services that are seen as being to willing to acquiesce to the demands of the US government in general and the current administration in particular, and c) ultimately unconcerned about who has their data.
I have a hypothesis about my point c, which is that TikTok's user population skews younger, and so we have a population of social media users who grew up with the understanding that their data and attention are packaged, sold, and analyzed by anyone and everyone; they're not concerned about the implications of giving data to China, and it strikes them as hypocritical for the US government to spend decades on data collection and only express concern when users decide to take that data outside the the US sphere of influence.
[deleted]
I agree with you. I actually had a nice group chat with some family members about this particular thing recently. This stood out in particular which my niece posted:
"The only thing China has ever done to me is sell me cheap stuff, which is great because the main way people get money who aren't rich are through jobs, and companies don't really want to A) have employees and B) pay them anything. Companies are controlling everything so everyone I know is poor and just going to get poorer. I don't know how China is supposed to be harming me through Tiktok. I don't know how China is going to use my data to hurt me. Honestly I don't know why people want data so badly when everyone's broke-why don't you already know that. The only chinese stuff I see on Tiktok are people cooking and burning incense. I would understand if I like worked for the government but I work at a fast food place so ... what are they gonna do? Get me fired from Mcdonalds? Lol you could have multiple felonies and still work at Mcdonalds. Now they're gonna take Tiktok away like they take everything else and it's stupid. The other stuff sucks-Facebook is for old people and dumb minion memes, I keep seeing dumb alpha male crap on YouTube, and Instagram doesn't show me anything new after scrolling on it for ten minutes. Why do like 3 companies have to control everything?"
Lots of fallacies and issues with those statements. We had lots of conversation after that. But I think that shows the general mood among those who are sticking with Tiktok. A lot of the value is that it's simply not Meta.
"The only thing China has ever done to me is sell me cheap stuff, which is great because the main way people get money who aren't rich are through jobs, and companies don't really want to A) have employees and B) pay them anything. Companies are controlling everything so everyone I know is poor and just going to get poorer. I don't know how China is supposed to be harming me through Tiktok. I don't know how China is going to use my data to hurt me. Honestly I don't know why people want data so badly when everyone's broke-why don't you already know that. The only chinese stuff I see on Tiktok are people cooking and burning incense. I would understand if I like worked for the government but I work at a fast food place so ... what are they gonna do? Get me fired from Mcdonalds? Lol you could have multiple felonies and still work at Mcdonalds. Now they're gonna take Tiktok away like they take everything else and it's stupid. The other stuff sucks-Facebook is for old people and dumb minion memes, I keep seeing dumb alpha male crap on YouTube, and Instagram doesn't show me anything new after scrolling on it for ten minutes. Why do like 3 companies have to control everything?"
Lots of fallacies and issues with those statements. We had lots of conversation after that. But I think that shows the general mood among those who are sticking with Tiktok. A lot of the value is that it's simply not Meta.
kinda agree with everything there tbh
I don't really see the fallacies and issues in what your niece said, sounds like she's got a good head on her shoulders.
What wrong did she say?
I think the whole Deepseek fiasco revealed a lot about where the American technology world is at, which is funneling huge sums of money into tech monopolies. If Chinese companies disrupt American monopolies, to me that's a good thing.
I mean, the company happens to be Chinese but I don't think that's why anyone is using it. The "little red book" app was a flash in the pan because it was hyped as a successor, but the download charts are ephemeral.
The reason that TikTok is winning is because it is a superior app in pretty much every way to its competitors (reels or shorts). The UI is clean and simple for producers and consumers, the interactions are all well done, and most of all, the content is all there, with some cross-posted to the others but mostly for larger channels that can afford to invest in boosting their reach.
You can bemoan its addictiveness or whatever, but don't pretend that it's a bad app that people use because they are desperate for Chinese propaganda. It's so much better that the US government is actively trying to kill it so that the domestic alternatives have a chance.
The reason that TikTok is winning is because it is a superior app in pretty much every way to its competitors (reels or shorts). The UI is clean and simple for producers and consumers, the interactions are all well done, and most of all, the content is all there, with some cross-posted to the others but mostly for larger channels that can afford to invest in boosting their reach.
You can bemoan its addictiveness or whatever, but don't pretend that it's a bad app that people use because they are desperate for Chinese propaganda. It's so much better that the US government is actively trying to kill it so that the domestic alternatives have a chance.
Makes me really want to work for TikTok
I'm always bearish on social networks that have to poach creators, it's a sign that there's no underlying culture or authenticity. A related case is Twitch which people have been relatively negative about, but it seems pretty telling to me that every time a creator leaves it's generally for a fat contract, and the moment that runs out they're immediately back.
I'd always bet on the platforms that have a natural draw and appeal even with worse payment, and TikTok is one such case. It seems kind of painful honestly how hard Meta or Youtube with shorts have tried to emulate it while it's pretty obvious they're out of touch in some way.
Facebook and even Zuckerberg himself personally with his cringy rebranding has increasingly that "How do you do fellow kids" energy to him
I'd always bet on the platforms that have a natural draw and appeal even with worse payment, and TikTok is one such case. It seems kind of painful honestly how hard Meta or Youtube with shorts have tried to emulate it while it's pretty obvious they're out of touch in some way.
Facebook and even Zuckerberg himself personally with his cringy rebranding has increasingly that "How do you do fellow kids" energy to him
I am surprised about the lack of alternatives. I grew up during live journal and Myspace days so it felt like new communities were developing all the time. Don't young folks want to rebel against the status quo (including tik tok)?
You couldn't avoid interacting with the rest of the tech stack that provided access to Myspace. You can use TikTok, even have a career on it, and never know a single thing about the web, internet, tech, etc. This is increasingly the normal experience. There's no built in way to learn there's other possibilities unless they happen upon a video about it.
No I think young people want to be a part of the status quo more than anything.
There's a huge moat with getting the critical mass of users to produce/consume content to make everyone follow-on to the platform before your startup cash runs out. That all depends on technical competency to make and keep it smooth, on top of offering enough to creators and advertisers to be competitive.
They like attention more
They could post their content to instagram today and "make" money themselves. I do a little bit of advertising for some projects I work on, we cut instagram because it has the lowest of all traffic. I have videos getting 180K-10K views hundreds of likes and comments on some platforms, 3 on instagram. It's not even worth the effort...
Reels are reportedly easier to go viral for organic marketing vs TT for <1 minute content. Assume you’re talking about paid ads
All of our videos are under a minute. We have hundreds of them. We have over a million views on TikTok and YT, and almost nothing on Instagram. The interesting part is we did a project awhile back on Instagram and we got tons of followers but little engagement. This could all be antidotal and something we're not doing right, but we didn't try cracking some code on the other platforms, we upload and it mostly does its thing.
What kind of content are you producing and whom are you targeting as customer?
Anecdotal
Please post an example if you’re comfortable
Nothing surprising. We are deep into the age of griefter economy - make a cringey video - making a scene - whether it's an argument between people or "owning someone", get people roiled up against each other, start selling merch like shirts or a book full of your "wisdom" and you are set for life. Tiktok is the perfect platform for stuff like that with practically 0 regulation. Meta just wants a piece of that cake, simple as that. 300k may as well be well worth it. The sad part is that ultimately it is us, the users that end up suffering. A decade ago science videos were thriving on YouTube and I loved it. These days we are lucky if we get two videos out of hundreds if not thousands of youtubers that used to push 40 minutes of videos each every month. I don't blame them, I'd also find it utterly demotivating to have a team of people and a month worth of work from dawn till dusk every month just to get a microscopical fraction of what some teen gets for shouting at a minecraft screen for 30 minutes.
I think that in some ways, certain parts of TikTok feel like the old YouTube. It's usually one person talking into a camera about a subject they know a lot about and it's usually straight to the point. Videos aren't as long as they're on YouTube but there's a lot of 3-5 min long content.
https://nebula.tv/ is a nice YouTube alternative for that kind of stuff (disclaimer: I'm mostly a subscriber for the music content, so my perception may be skewed).
I pine for an in-between world. My youtube feed and Watch Later list is filled to the brim with 40-90 minute videos I'll likely never get to. Youtube seems determined to push longer videos on me. I'd much prefer more 8-15 minute videos which seem to be as rare as hen's teeth. It feels like you either get 4 seconds or 45 minutes. Nothing in between.
I think your point about the grift is well-put.
But I disagree with your comment about YouTube. I think YouTube recommendations work extremely well, and I only see videos that are related to the 5-6 topics I am exploring on YouTube in the previous few weeks. And when I explore a new topic I start seeing those recommendations instead.
I have never seen a Mr Beast video (or any other video by similar hucksters) on my feed.
You do need to be logged in though. But I use Premium, so that's a given.
But I disagree with your comment about YouTube. I think YouTube recommendations work extremely well, and I only see videos that are related to the 5-6 topics I am exploring on YouTube in the previous few weeks. And when I explore a new topic I start seeing those recommendations instead.
I have never seen a Mr Beast video (or any other video by similar hucksters) on my feed.
You do need to be logged in though. But I use Premium, so that's a given.
Yeah, I thought it was odd to call out Youtube, especially science videos in particular. To me it's always seemed Youtube is one part of the internet that has managed to maintain some decently sane bits among the brainrot. I'm not even logged in half the time, but the recommendation algorithm kicks quite well after a video or two, even in incognito (after you make it past the whiplash of the "default" home page, which is admittedly pretty nasty). My sidebar is typically mostly edutainment type stuff (AlphaPhoenix, Technology Connections, Applied Science, NileRed...) and while it's not refined university-level content or anything, it's quite alright. (And I'm confused why the parent comment lamented the lack of science videos! There's honestly so much neat stuff still being made today. Heck, look at 3b1b.) Like you said, I never really see Mr. Beast or alt-right pipeline stuff or anything like that. If anything, maybe the other platforms could learn from Youtube - I get the feeling they've cleaned up their algorithm in recent years?
I generally agree that YouTube seems relatively sane compared to Meta/TikTok (emphasis on the "relative" part).
I do think that will change though, probably in the near term. YouTube seems determined to push their own shorts. More concerning though, it seems there's now a very strong emphasize on very new content. Several channels have mentioned that videos have to succeed almost immediately and will get little traffic over longer time frames. LTT mentioned this and I've seen it on my own (tiny) channel. I expect this will incentivize publishers to churn out more content more quickly to increase potential success rates, to the determent of quality.
Also, I'm increasingly seeing longer, clearly AI generated listicle-style content showing up in my feeds. I made the mistake of starting one of these a few weeks ago, and now half my feed is similar junk content.
I do think that will change though, probably in the near term. YouTube seems determined to push their own shorts. More concerning though, it seems there's now a very strong emphasize on very new content. Several channels have mentioned that videos have to succeed almost immediately and will get little traffic over longer time frames. LTT mentioned this and I've seen it on my own (tiny) channel. I expect this will incentivize publishers to churn out more content more quickly to increase potential success rates, to the determent of quality.
Also, I'm increasingly seeing longer, clearly AI generated listicle-style content showing up in my feeds. I made the mistake of starting one of these a few weeks ago, and now half my feed is similar junk content.
> I made the mistake of starting one of these a few weeks ago, and now half my feed is similar junk content.
If you accidentally click on something that turns out to be junk, it's vital you go into the "History" section in the sidebar and remove it from there. This removes it from the stuff considered by the algorithm.
If you accidentally click on something that turns out to be junk, it's vital you go into the "History" section in the sidebar and remove it from there. This removes it from the stuff considered by the algorithm.
I think it varies by topic. Some topics certainly lead you on a downward spiral of garbage content. I occasionally enjoy watching videos about firearms for example, and I have to avoid them on YouTube or make sure to clear them from my history or all sorts of wild shit starts popping up. But I am also free from Mr Beast.
I think like with anything on the Internet, this dynamic didn't change from how it was before. Jerry Springer was wildly more popular than Nova. It just scaled up.
This is why any sale of Tiktok without the algorithm will fail. The Chinese will just stand up another app with the TT algo and just incentivize a ton of creators with big paycheques. The eyeballs will follow, TT will die and we'll move onto the next Chinese surveillance app. Hence why the US should have been more broad in their law rather than target TT specifically.
> the US should have been more broad in their law rather than target TT specifically
This is already the case; the law doesn’t just target TT, it is applicable to other platforms too.
“It would ban social networking services within 270 days if they are determined by the president of the United States and relevant provisions to be a "foreign adversary controlled application"”[1]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fo...
This is already the case; the law doesn’t just target TT, it is applicable to other platforms too.
“It would ban social networking services within 270 days if they are determined by the president of the United States and relevant provisions to be a "foreign adversary controlled application"”[1]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fo...
edit: Parent comment previously stated simply that the law didn't target TikTok specifically.
Yes, it does.
https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/PLAW/118/public/PLAW-118pub...
> (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
> (ii) TikTok;
> (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
> (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
It can be applied to others, but there's a process.
Yes, it does.
https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/PLAW/118/public/PLAW-118pub...
> (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
> (ii) TikTok;
> (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
> (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
It can be applied to others, but there's a process.
(iii) would be easy to show for any new Chinese app that gets anywhere near as big as TT
No, not unless it has shared ownership/assets/employees etc. with ByteDance/TikTok. A new Chinese app falls under the later part of the law; there's more process (Presidential assessment, declaration, and report to Congress). ByteDance/TikTok specifically are deemed already problematic in the law.
I didn't say there wouldn't be any process, but it's easy to show since all media corporations in China are subject to control by the CCP -- it's not a secret or difficult to detect, and it doesn't necessarily involve identifying shareholders.
OK, but that's not this part of the law; this part is entirely specific to ByteDance and its TikTok subsidiary. Non-ByteDance Chinese companies would fall under the separate extra-process bit here:
> (B) a covered company that (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of a public notice proposing such determination; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
> (B) a covered company that (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of a public notice proposing such determination; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
right, good point
Isn't the algorithm publicly known? Any video show it to at least one person, if they watch it show it to more.
Which people on TikTok early on called the most fair algorithm. However, I suspect Youtube initially had the same or a very similar one.
And in both cases I suspect once the app becomes very popular the algorithm is updated to be more profitable, whatever that requires.
In other words, enshittification affects everything.
Which people on TikTok early on called the most fair algorithm. However, I suspect Youtube initially had the same or a very similar one.
And in both cases I suspect once the app becomes very popular the algorithm is updated to be more profitable, whatever that requires.
In other words, enshittification affects everything.
> In other words, enshittification affects everything.
The presence of this comment in every HN thread is a meta-example.
The presence of this comment in every HN thread is a meta-example.