TikTok sued by 13 states and DC, accused of harming younger users(reuters.com)
reuters.com
TikTok sued by 13 states and DC, accused of harming younger users
https://www.reuters.com/legal/tiktok-sued-by-13-states-dc-accused-harming-younger-users-2024-10-08/
94 comments
You can still be convicted of something even if other people are doing the same thing and getting away with it.
So it doesn't matter whether this practice is unique to TikTok. "What about all my competitors doing the same thing" isn't a viable defense in court.
So it doesn't matter whether this practice is unique to TikTok. "What about all my competitors doing the same thing" isn't a viable defense in court.
You can, but you shouldn't. Especially when the other people doing it are not, like, difficult to catch.
Laws that are enforced very inconsistently aren't exactly the sort of thing that you want in a society with rule of law. They are exactly the sort of thing you want in a society with rule by law, though...
Laws that are enforced very inconsistently aren't exactly the sort of thing that you want in a society with rule of law. They are exactly the sort of thing you want in a society with rule by law, though...
You’re arguing against establishing an important precedent that can be used against other social networks.
I'd love for a precedent to be established, but I have zero confidence that it will actually be used for anything that doesn't come from China.
Given it's very spotty track record, I have very little confidence that the US is actually a country where nobody is above the law. I'd be very pleasantly surprised if this actually goes the other way, but I would not bet on it. The entire discourse so far about TikTok has been about how it's bad because it's foreign media, not about a principled approach to why it and other things like it are bad.
What makes you think it'll turn around, and extend to other social media?
Given it's very spotty track record, I have very little confidence that the US is actually a country where nobody is above the law. I'd be very pleasantly surprised if this actually goes the other way, but I would not bet on it. The entire discourse so far about TikTok has been about how it's bad because it's foreign media, not about a principled approach to why it and other things like it are bad.
What makes you think it'll turn around, and extend to other social media?
> have zero confidence that it will actually be used for anything that doesn't come from China
Despite this case using the case filed last year against Instagram as precedent? (Tactically speaking, as it hasn’t been decided yet.)
Despite this case using the case filed last year against Instagram as precedent? (Tactically speaking, as it hasn’t been decided yet.)
I wasn't aware of that.
We can wait and see about the reasoning used in the two cases once they conclude.
We can wait and see about the reasoning used in the two cases once they conclude.
Maybe if they actually named some American competitors there'd be an actual argument.
As it states, it's just a case of whataboutism. Various states have sued various companies in the past so we're still in a rule of law situation.
As it states, it's just a case of whataboutism. Various states have sued various companies in the past so we're still in a rule of law situation.
The point isn't to argue for TikTok, or anyone else's, defense. It's to argue the motivation and transparency of those bringing the action.
"Should this lawsuit succeed, would that open up American companies to the same claims?"
"Should this lawsuit succeed, would that open up American companies to the same claims?"
The complaint [1] is very specific to TikTok and alleges specific violations of the Consumer Fraud Act on their part. While other companies may produce similar results, it would be the burden of the state to establish all elements of the crime.
[1] https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases24/2024-1008_Complaint-Fi...
[1] https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases24/2024-1008_Complaint-Fi...
> How is this unique to TikTok?
FTA:"Chinese-owned TikTok"
> This smells very election-yearish.
Is there a term for the phenomenon whereby when a conversation is being had by a group of people, and all participants know that the conversation is non-genuine (the talking points of the various parties are knowingly untruthful), but it hasn't yet been explicitly acknowledged that everyone is telling fibs?
I think it's funny that almost everything in the world runs in this general state, but we hardly ever talk about it. And then we whine about how everything is such a mess.
Is there anyone other than me out there that wonders about why we do things this way? No known laws of physics force us to do it, and yet we do almost only this (it is mainly a question of the degree to which "we" do it in any given situation, and there are many very obvious patterns of domains/topics where we tend to do it more so than in others). Might there be some other forces in our midst that we are overlooking?
FTA:"Chinese-owned TikTok"
> This smells very election-yearish.
Is there a term for the phenomenon whereby when a conversation is being had by a group of people, and all participants know that the conversation is non-genuine (the talking points of the various parties are knowingly untruthful), but it hasn't yet been explicitly acknowledged that everyone is telling fibs?
I think it's funny that almost everything in the world runs in this general state, but we hardly ever talk about it. And then we whine about how everything is such a mess.
Is there anyone other than me out there that wonders about why we do things this way? No known laws of physics force us to do it, and yet we do almost only this (it is mainly a question of the degree to which "we" do it in any given situation, and there are many very obvious patterns of domains/topics where we tend to do it more so than in others). Might there be some other forces in our midst that we are overlooking?
I'm curious how this will affect YouTube Shorts which is an obvious copy of TikTok.
None of the short form knockoffs that I've seen do more than copy the surface level features, while the actual thing that makes tiktok seem magical is how it _stops_ showing you shit you don't watch, and doesn't get stuck showing you (say) camping videos just because you watched one to completion one time.
> How is this unique to TikTok?
It's not [1]. Instagram was sued last year by a similar cohort [2].
TikTok isn't being singled out in this. It's almost suspicious how many people are peddling this false whataboutism. (And if two people are beating up your kid, why is the priority in what order you stop them?)
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/people-of-the-...
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/1/people-of-th...
It's not [1]. Instagram was sued last year by a similar cohort [2].
TikTok isn't being singled out in this. It's almost suspicious how many people are peddling this false whataboutism. (And if two people are beating up your kid, why is the priority in what order you stop them?)
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/people-of-the-...
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/1/people-of-th...
Technically, it isn't possible for you to know what is going on. I suspect you are mistaking belief for knowledge, as is our cultural conditioning, here in the land of Freedom and Truth.
> you are mistaking belief for knowledge
If you response to evidence that challenges your worldview with Cartesian nihilism, you’re not operating in truth or knowledge but faith.
That’s fine. Faith is powerful. But it’s good to be clear eyed about which beliefs you hold that no amount of evidence will change your mind about.
If you response to evidence that challenges your worldview with Cartesian nihilism, you’re not operating in truth or knowledge but faith.
That’s fine. Faith is powerful. But it’s good to be clear eyed about which beliefs you hold that no amount of evidence will change your mind about.
> that challenges your worldview
Would you be willing to share some concrete, context-specific details about what you believe yourself to be referring to here?
> with Cartesian nihilism
Is this knowledge?
Is it necessarily accurate (in no way misleading)?
> That’s fine. Faith is powerful...
Is this to say that I am operating on Faith with respect to a certain proposition? If so, would you mind sharing what that proposition is with the rest of us?
And, does this apply to you as well? Or, are you perhaps under the impression that you have, in fact, a superior methodology to me in this regard?
For example: do you realize that you made a claim of fact above? Do you have the ability to substantiate that claim, in a matter that is resilient to valid questioning?
Would you be willing to share some concrete, context-specific details about what you believe yourself to be referring to here?
> with Cartesian nihilism
Is this knowledge?
Is it necessarily accurate (in no way misleading)?
> That’s fine. Faith is powerful...
Is this to say that I am operating on Faith with respect to a certain proposition? If so, would you mind sharing what that proposition is with the rest of us?
And, does this apply to you as well? Or, are you perhaps under the impression that you have, in fact, a superior methodology to me in this regard?
For example: do you realize that you made a claim of fact above? Do you have the ability to substantiate that claim, in a matter that is resilient to valid questioning?
I mean, if observing N > 1 doesn’t refute a claim of singularity we’re literally arguing about why 2 != 1.
Following your lead, are we not also arguing about the airspeed of a European swallow?
[deleted]
They're just the best at it.
According to?
I don't have any sources for you, my comment was just from observation of random polls that track daily usage habits. TikTok consistently ranks significantly higher in watch time than Instagram for nearly all polls and demographics I've happened over the last couple of years.
"The market" for starters. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/tiktok-demographics
parents
> Should this lawsuit succeed, would that open up American companies to the same claims?
No. They are spying the kids for your own good. Remember, everybody can be a terrorist. /s
No. They are spying the kids for your own good. Remember, everybody can be a terrorist. /s
I dislike the "singled-out" aspect of it. If we're leaving Insta alone than it's pointless imho. Either bring the case properly with the big offenders or don't bother. Dumping the TikTok audience into Insta & YT won't accomplish anything.
> dislike the "singled-out" aspect of it. If we're leaving Insta alone
We're not. Instagram was sued last year [1].
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/people-of-the-...
We're not. Instagram was sued last year [1].
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/people-of-the-...
If this case succeeds it would establish strong precedent for going after the rest. If you want a world where this sort of attention hacking is illegal than this is an excellent start.
I think the concern is TikTok's Chinese ownership.
I don't really like the data collection of Instagram or YouTube either, but at least those are owned by US companies, and as such aren't centralized in a country we have an semi-adversarial relationship with.
I don't really like the data collection of Instagram or YouTube either, but at least those are owned by US companies, and as such aren't centralized in a country we have an semi-adversarial relationship with.
This is a fine argument if you're a US citizen, but if you're a citizen of another country it's also a good argument to go after Instagram, Youtube, and all the rest.
There's also the opposite argument that the Chinese government has little ability to influence your life and so surveillance by a US company is worse since there's a higher risk that the information gathered can be used against you.
There's also the opposite argument that the Chinese government has little ability to influence your life and so surveillance by a US company is worse since there's a higher risk that the information gathered can be used against you.
I mostly agree, though I don't think the concern would be as much if TikTok were British or Canadian or French, since the US doesn't have an adversarial relation with them. The concern is that China, a country that we sort-of-kind-of have a problem with, surveilling and potentially influencing us.
> don't think the concern would be as much if TikTok were British or Canadian or French
Under the TikTok ban bill, TikTok being sold to a Canadian or French owner would let them stay in American app stores.
Under the TikTok ban bill, TikTok being sold to a Canadian or French owner would let them stay in American app stores.
That's a good argument in favor of the federal TikTok ban. This particular lawsuit isn't about that, though. It's about harming children, and it's quite similar to the recent New Mexico lawsuit against Snapchat.
The geopolitical angle I can get behind. But these "failed to protect children" lawsuits are a lot more sprawling, authoritarian, and potentially damaging to the internet at large.
The geopolitical angle I can get behind. But these "failed to protect children" lawsuits are a lot more sprawling, authoritarian, and potentially damaging to the internet at large.
[deleted]
Why are you ok with state surveillance when you’re a resident?
I'm not ok with it (and said as much), but it's not equivalent to a foreign adversary surveilling us.
Ok, so what about a foreign "ally"? Considering fb and google are known to have been compromised by israeli intelligence I'm not really sure there is practically much difference. https://www.mintpressnews.com/revealed-former-israeli-spies-...
This seems like it is political and about removing chinese competition from american markets. The protecting American's privacy from foreign actors bit is pure rhetoric not likely to be applied to american companies in the same market even though there is similar exposure.
This seems like it is political and about removing chinese competition from american markets. The protecting American's privacy from foreign actors bit is pure rhetoric not likely to be applied to american companies in the same market even though there is similar exposure.
IDF also trains police forces across America on how to use the surveillance tech that’s been deployed to them
TikTok has no real political allies in the US so it is vulnerable to a pile on attack that American tech giants (that commit the same sins) are not. This would make it easier to win a case against them and set a precedent that could be used to sue the American giants.
It probably won't play out that way though since the whole political push isn't really about harming kids or addictive behaviors of social media, it's just about destroying an outside interloper that isn't part of the existing propaganda apparatus and competes with American tech giants.
It probably won't play out that way though since the whole political push isn't really about harming kids or addictive behaviors of social media, it's just about destroying an outside interloper that isn't part of the existing propaganda apparatus and competes with American tech giants.
> probably won't play out that way
Do you revise your opinion in light of Instagram having been sued by a similar coalion of states for similar reasons last year [1]?
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/1/people-of-th...
Do you revise your opinion in light of Instagram having been sued by a similar coalion of states for similar reasons last year [1]?
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/1/people-of-th...
I answered the parent why I thought some one might pursue suing a weaker entity for the same sins as a more powerful one instead of going after the powerful one first as part of a logical strategy. And I also mused why I thought that wouldn't help in this case. This information suggests either they thought Instagram was weaker before or that they aren't pursuing a strategy that I don't think would work anyway. That doesn't change my opinion on the hypothetical strategy they might be pursuing.
Instagram is far too popular among voters. TikTok benefits from a bad reputation among parents, which will make the lawsuit popular.
List of states: California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington
Interesting political distribution, mirrors the congressional vote.
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-us-ban-sale-china-congress...
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-us-ban-sale-china-congress...
[deleted]
Now lets see whom is getting paid by US social media company lobbyists
If this is true -- and I think it is -- then YouTube, Instagram, Roblox, most of the mobile gaming industry, and loads of other infinite dopamine hit machines are guilty of the same thing.
I'm very glad my kids have never really even seen TikTok. We had to ban YouTube, and doing so was possibly the single best boundary we've set as parents. If we hadn't we'd probably have never spoken to our kids again. They'd get on that thing and just be gone for unlimited amounts of time watching the most mindless idiotic trash you can imagine. These days YT is getting even worse. It's full of AI slop including pop science channels full of completely false AI-generated information. It's absolutely cursed.
I guess TikTok is like everything bad about YouTube but with less attention span and controlled by the CCP.
I'm very glad my kids have never really even seen TikTok. We had to ban YouTube, and doing so was possibly the single best boundary we've set as parents. If we hadn't we'd probably have never spoken to our kids again. They'd get on that thing and just be gone for unlimited amounts of time watching the most mindless idiotic trash you can imagine. These days YT is getting even worse. It's full of AI slop including pop science channels full of completely false AI-generated information. It's absolutely cursed.
I guess TikTok is like everything bad about YouTube but with less attention span and controlled by the CCP.
Please please please encourage them to read books by giving them rewards and make them do activities that require concentration also send them to a mathcamp or a cscamp and make sure they get the education they need the US education system is getting worse every year with students who can barely read and can't do algebra coming to college.
> I guess TikTok is like everything bad about YouTube but with less attention span
YouTube has "Shorts", attempting to duplicate the TikTok experience.
YouTube has "Shorts", attempting to duplicate the TikTok experience.
My kid is allowed to watch 2 hours of youtube a week, but it's always supervised by me or my partner. He chooses what he wants to watch and gravitates towards science experiments, cartoons and some shows for kids. He stumbled a few times into dead ends such as mindless content (other kids or adults influencers playing Minecraft for example) but we guided him out of it. He now knows how to stay away from all that. As parents we do a lot more to keep him engaged with reading, outdoor play and other activities. Technology is an inescapable part of the future but we try to mitigate its bad effects and let him take the good parts. Seems to be working wonderfully. The goal is for him to realize what is good and what's bad without parental policing. Apart from Youtube there's Duolingo music and math that he does a few days a week. It's wonderful to see him resist the pull, turn off the device and go to some other activity by himself.
Maybe Libretube etc. might be good to use with children? One of the main problems with Youtube is the algorithmic feed of recommendation.
For kids it seem to converge in 'lets play', unboxing of toys and AI spam.
For kids it seem to converge in 'lets play', unboxing of toys and AI spam.
The problem is absolutely the YT algorithm. You can start them on decent stuff but if they follow the gradient they will end up in a gutter of absolute trash.
I feel like this experiment in rapid feedback optimization for engagement has yielded a truth about the human condition that ought to become one of those "laws": trash maximizes engagement.
It sounds pessimistic and awful but I think it's one of those things that makes sense in retrospect. Consider the following:
Let's say two people walk past you on the street. One of them says 'hi' and you have a brief light chat with them. The other smears themselves with peanut butter and starts clucking like a chicken and saluting Hitler. Which maximizes engagement?
This implies that any system that optimized for maximum engagement will converge on some kind of trash.
This is interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1bn8gfq/researcher...
I feel like this experiment in rapid feedback optimization for engagement has yielded a truth about the human condition that ought to become one of those "laws": trash maximizes engagement.
It sounds pessimistic and awful but I think it's one of those things that makes sense in retrospect. Consider the following:
Let's say two people walk past you on the street. One of them says 'hi' and you have a brief light chat with them. The other smears themselves with peanut butter and starts clucking like a chicken and saluting Hitler. Which maximizes engagement?
This implies that any system that optimized for maximum engagement will converge on some kind of trash.
This is interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1bn8gfq/researcher...
> It sounds pessimistic and awful
It isn't really. I don't know you but what e.g. movie or music taste we have in common is probably quite blend and boring. The art is in the niche.
And for some reason the algorithm thinks we love what we have in common with others. Click one 'blend' video and its genre takes over your feed.
It isn't really. I don't know you but what e.g. movie or music taste we have in common is probably quite blend and boring. The art is in the niche.
And for some reason the algorithm thinks we love what we have in common with others. Click one 'blend' video and its genre takes over your feed.
>We had to ban YouTube, and doing so was possibly the single best boundary we've set as parents
Sounds horrible. My young teens have been on youtube for like 6+ years. They can watch hour long videos no problem. So what if they are trash sometimes? They are into it, paying attention and it's their entertainment. But then they also end up watching and learning so many different things they aren't going to see anywhere else. Or randomly come across chess videos then start watching those etc.
My kids have more screen time than 99% of kids I know, yet they are super well behaved, have many interests, do well in school, etc. I couldn't ask for better kids.
>If we hadn't we'd probably have never spoken to our kids again.
Sounds like a You problem. Not a YouTube problem.
Sounds horrible. My young teens have been on youtube for like 6+ years. They can watch hour long videos no problem. So what if they are trash sometimes? They are into it, paying attention and it's their entertainment. But then they also end up watching and learning so many different things they aren't going to see anywhere else. Or randomly come across chess videos then start watching those etc.
My kids have more screen time than 99% of kids I know, yet they are super well behaved, have many interests, do well in school, etc. I couldn't ask for better kids.
>If we hadn't we'd probably have never spoken to our kids again.
Sounds like a You problem. Not a YouTube problem.
I’m in a similar situation. Haven’t found a need to lock down things like YouTube or even TikTok. My kids aren’t endlessly scrolling. They are playing games with friends or reading or practicing sports / music. My middlest daughter recently took up pottery and previously knitting because of content she watched on TikTok. My youngest is constantly asking to do home chemistry stuff she learned watching such content. We had to cut her off from the home made slime, but not the content that got her interested enough to want to try it herself. My children are more well rounded due to these services. Far from the mindless doom scrollers everyone else claims these apps turn kids into.
Hello, fellow luddite! We have also managed to keep our kids, somehow, off any Meta product, TikTok, and mostly, YT. Even as they roll into and through highschool.
There are occasional moments when the fact that "everyone" else is on them, are challenging.
But it's been worth it.
There are occasional moments when the fact that "everyone" else is on them, are challenging.
But it's been worth it.
I don't see it as luddite at all any more than not allowing your kids to use cocaine means you are against pharmaceuticals or medicines.
The problem isn't the screen. It's what's on the screen. It's specific products that are engineered to maximize addiction.
Our kids play video games and we don't limit access to kids Netflix and many other things. They'll play games, watch a show, whatever, and then do something else. With YouTube they would watch, and watch, and watch, and watch, forever, to the exclusion of all other activities, and when we looked at what they were watching it was 100% repetitive content-free mesmerizing trash.
The biggest difference we saw is that when friends were around they'd drop video games or shows to play with their friends, but with YouTube they would not. Nothing could compete with trash YouTube videos. Examples included random incoherent blabbering while playing video games, videos of cars running over expensive things, unboxing videos, disturbing AI-generated trash, etc. The algorithm seems to have a bias toward increasingly mindless content. You can start with something mildly interesting and pretty soon you're watching someone smash things for six hours.
I see a few replies here questioning this and being like "but my kids are fine." It's possible that different people vary in terms of their susceptibility to this stuff in the same way that different people vary in, say, their propensity to become addicted to opioids. There are people who can use opioids for a while and then just walk away and there are people who use them once and think about them for the rest of their lives. The difference is probably genetic or brain developmental.
The problem isn't the screen. It's what's on the screen. It's specific products that are engineered to maximize addiction.
Our kids play video games and we don't limit access to kids Netflix and many other things. They'll play games, watch a show, whatever, and then do something else. With YouTube they would watch, and watch, and watch, and watch, forever, to the exclusion of all other activities, and when we looked at what they were watching it was 100% repetitive content-free mesmerizing trash.
The biggest difference we saw is that when friends were around they'd drop video games or shows to play with their friends, but with YouTube they would not. Nothing could compete with trash YouTube videos. Examples included random incoherent blabbering while playing video games, videos of cars running over expensive things, unboxing videos, disturbing AI-generated trash, etc. The algorithm seems to have a bias toward increasingly mindless content. You can start with something mildly interesting and pretty soon you're watching someone smash things for six hours.
I see a few replies here questioning this and being like "but my kids are fine." It's possible that different people vary in terms of their susceptibility to this stuff in the same way that different people vary in, say, their propensity to become addicted to opioids. There are people who can use opioids for a while and then just walk away and there are people who use them once and think about them for the rest of their lives. The difference is probably genetic or brain developmental.
the real killer feature of tiktok is how easy, how much it encourages (or at least used to?) remixing anything and contributing your own content back.
it's like youtube combined with instagram upload fitlers or something like that
it's like youtube combined with instagram upload fitlers or something like that
> These days YT is getting even worse. It's full of AI slop including pop science channels full of completely false AI-generated information. It's absolutely cursed.
How would you know if you don't watch YouTube? Or I hope you don't, to be morally consistent with your own positions.
How would you know if you don't watch YouTube? Or I hope you don't, to be morally consistent with your own positions.
I have a beer now and again despite not letting my kids do so.
Their position is wider than the kid ban. Why would you watch something you characterize as such. So two options, either they are hypocritical and inconsistent and actually watch a bunch of YouTube to form such an informed position that it is all slop OR they don't actually watch so they wouldn't really know. The kid part is almost besides the point. I bet on hypocritical, watching a bunch of hours but then complaining that it all sucks, I've seen plenty of people do that.
How is that hypocritical? Many smokers know they're killing themselves and if asked will discourage you from starting, but they keep smoking. Addictive experiences are like that sometimes - it's harder to quit than to not start.
Edit: Thinking more about this sentence:
> So two options, either they are hypocritical and inconsistent and actually watch a bunch of YouTube to form such an informed position that it is all slop OR they don't actually watch so they wouldn't really know.
Doesn't this imply that no one is in a position to call YouTube content crap since they either haven't seen it or are hypocrites? Whose opinion that YouTube content is crap would be valid then or are only positive opinions about YouTube valid?
Edit: Thinking more about this sentence:
> So two options, either they are hypocritical and inconsistent and actually watch a bunch of YouTube to form such an informed position that it is all slop OR they don't actually watch so they wouldn't really know.
Doesn't this imply that no one is in a position to call YouTube content crap since they either haven't seen it or are hypocrites? Whose opinion that YouTube content is crap would be valid then or are only positive opinions about YouTube valid?
[deleted]
> I guess TikTok is like everything bad about YouTube but with less attention span and controlled by the CCP.
I feel like YouTube has more content with actual effort put into it, and if you took the top N videos on each platform on any given day, the ones on YouTube would be substantially better.
Can I prove that? Nope. Does it even matter if the algorithm is just feeding you trash anyway? Perhaps not.
But at least YouTube *can* be used in a way that's not absolute mind rot. If that's even possible with TikTok, it's gotta be done by a substantially smaller chunk of the user base.
I feel like YouTube has more content with actual effort put into it, and if you took the top N videos on each platform on any given day, the ones on YouTube would be substantially better.
Can I prove that? Nope. Does it even matter if the algorithm is just feeding you trash anyway? Perhaps not.
But at least YouTube *can* be used in a way that's not absolute mind rot. If that's even possible with TikTok, it's gotta be done by a substantially smaller chunk of the user base.
dylan604(2)
Surely Facebook and YouTube should follow? I mean they have basically entirely copied the TikTok content model for their "shorts" - and pushing it on their existing audiences.
I think YouTube would also deserve condemnation for the same. Many of the most popular kids content on YouTube is such a toxic addictive brew
The TikTok ban story deserves more coverage than it's gotten so far, though today might be a turning point. I strongly expect that they will disappear from the main US App stores on 19th January 2025; whether or not I think this is just.
I saw a lot of people dismiss the ban bill out of hand after it was signed. However, I see a lot lining up against them:
1) Flat out refusal by the parent company to sell both strengthens the USG's case and cuts off a major 'win-win' outcome that could otherwise save them
2) The fact that they're the only major foreign owned social media company in the whole pool. This means that USG has far more latitude, legally and politically, to go after them then any other major platform.
3) The zeitgeist shifting away from Social Media in general, as seen in these lawsuits and just in... the world lately.
I could be wrong but I'd definitely bet on it.
I saw a lot of people dismiss the ban bill out of hand after it was signed. However, I see a lot lining up against them:
1) Flat out refusal by the parent company to sell both strengthens the USG's case and cuts off a major 'win-win' outcome that could otherwise save them
2) The fact that they're the only major foreign owned social media company in the whole pool. This means that USG has far more latitude, legally and politically, to go after them then any other major platform.
3) The zeitgeist shifting away from Social Media in general, as seen in these lawsuits and just in... the world lately.
I could be wrong but I'd definitely bet on it.
It seems wrong to be able to force people to sell a company because they're foreign
> seems wrong to be able to force people to sell a company because they're foreign
Forced sale to stay in the country is the same as forced JV to enter. Most media markets have, historically, been regulated with respect to foreign ownership.
Forced sale to stay in the country is the same as forced JV to enter. Most media markets have, historically, been regulated with respect to foreign ownership.
Right or wrong, the USG can do more stuff to inhibit foreign corporations operating here than it can to domestically owned ones. I expect we will see that play out as the deadline approaches here.
> The fact that they're the only major foreign owned social media company in the whole pool
Kind of out a big question mark over ‘free and fair competition’ thing.
Kind of out a big question mark over ‘free and fair competition’ thing.
> strongly expect that they will disappear from the main US App stores on 19th January 2025
Eh, they'll still be on TikTok.com. Keep in mind, too, that the app store monopolies are being dismantled.
Eh, they'll still be on TikTok.com. Keep in mind, too, that the app store monopolies are being dismantled.
For sure, and I'm glad that the Government's powers don't go any further to truly "censoring" the content regardless of the platform. Even this current order is borderline, hence why I dance around the morality of it as I comment.
I do think that an App Store ban would be an effective tool. I don't think that average consumers would use the .com, over YT shorts or threads or whatever.
I do think that an App Store ban would be an effective tool. I don't think that average consumers would use the .com, over YT shorts or threads or whatever.
ive been fascinated by the tiktok melodrama in the states.
congress and senate insist its a sinister communist plot.
activist groups grown from whole cloth in the past year insist its causing immeasurable harm to children despite similar stateside competitors having existed for nearly two decades.
but i feel the reality is much simpler. Bytedance is a 120bn private foreign company thats squished all four of its major competitors in the US. Its not open for investment, it wont accept a buyout from FAANG, and most importantly its a massive media outlet that cant be influenced by the manufactured consent of the existing media in the US.
on tiktok you frequently see a very unbiased, very unflattering depiction of the nation that encourages viewers to critique and discuss controversial western topics.
congress and senate insist its a sinister communist plot.
activist groups grown from whole cloth in the past year insist its causing immeasurable harm to children despite similar stateside competitors having existed for nearly two decades.
but i feel the reality is much simpler. Bytedance is a 120bn private foreign company thats squished all four of its major competitors in the US. Its not open for investment, it wont accept a buyout from FAANG, and most importantly its a massive media outlet that cant be influenced by the manufactured consent of the existing media in the US.
on tiktok you frequently see a very unbiased, very unflattering depiction of the nation that encourages viewers to critique and discuss controversial western topics.
More like switching from one extreme of propaganda to another.
Like what were you doing during the late 2000s and the early 2010s? All of these "controversial" topics, the skeletons in the closet and self-critique have been open and available for viewing from the beginning.
The only difference is that how they are viewed, in the past as lessons to inform the future, today as ammunition to attack, or to distract from one's own misdeeds.
Like what were you doing during the late 2000s and the early 2010s? All of these "controversial" topics, the skeletons in the closet and self-critique have been open and available for viewing from the beginning.
The only difference is that how they are viewed, in the past as lessons to inform the future, today as ammunition to attack, or to distract from one's own misdeeds.
> not open for investment
60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group
60% of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group
I disagree with the unbiased part of the comment. IMO all social medias, whether it's Instagram, YouTube, or TikTok - they are all heavily censored and their algorithm is tipped in a direction that optimizes attention, click throughs, and in general, is not good for you.
Notice how on TikTok, even accounts you follow sometimes will show up with the + sign, begging you to click Follow eventhough you are already following them. This isn't a bug, rather, it's dark UX tricks to keep you trained on clicking the follow button.
On Meta (be it Facebook or Instagram), you only need to be sympathetic to what people in Gaza are experiencing to begin to see the censorship. It's blatantly obvious.
Coming back to TikTok, similar to Meta, they have crafted an incredible algorithm that will keep you glued to your phone. We have no idea if they have adjusted the levers to increase dissent in young people in the West. Just because they are saying they haven't, or we have not been able to prove that they haven't, doesn't mean they won't. I can tell you with a guarantee that if Instagram or YouTube were allowed to operate in China, they would certainly use these levers to increase dissent against the CCP. We already have an example of what these companies are doing to censor certain content and boost others in places like India and Pakistan.
In general, all of these social media companies are this generations cigarette companies. We need heavy regulation from congress. We need to take tech's lobbyist money and not do their bidding.
We need to shutdown lunatics like Andreessen Horowitz and more.
Notice how on TikTok, even accounts you follow sometimes will show up with the + sign, begging you to click Follow eventhough you are already following them. This isn't a bug, rather, it's dark UX tricks to keep you trained on clicking the follow button.
On Meta (be it Facebook or Instagram), you only need to be sympathetic to what people in Gaza are experiencing to begin to see the censorship. It's blatantly obvious.
Coming back to TikTok, similar to Meta, they have crafted an incredible algorithm that will keep you glued to your phone. We have no idea if they have adjusted the levers to increase dissent in young people in the West. Just because they are saying they haven't, or we have not been able to prove that they haven't, doesn't mean they won't. I can tell you with a guarantee that if Instagram or YouTube were allowed to operate in China, they would certainly use these levers to increase dissent against the CCP. We already have an example of what these companies are doing to censor certain content and boost others in places like India and Pakistan.
In general, all of these social media companies are this generations cigarette companies. We need heavy regulation from congress. We need to take tech's lobbyist money and not do their bidding.
We need to shutdown lunatics like Andreessen Horowitz and more.
Here, have your 5 yuan, comrade.
Will American judges play ball with this nonsense? Will they realize what absolutely nutty precedents they will set should they find TikTok guilty?
widespread social media ban for children under 16. just make it happen.
Labelling a service like TikTok as "intentionally addictive" is just the height of stupidity around semantic games. It is obviously not addictive in any medical sense of the word, and insofar as we stretch the definition of "addictive" to include things like this we dilute the term enough that it becomes another word for "enjoyable".
You can read at least New Jersey's complaint here [1]. They do rightly point out the degree to which TikTok is used by the CCP to direct users to videos that serve as whitewashing propaganda, but the vast majority of the complaint is all junk science around dopamine hits and other bullshit.
At this point might as well ban Eragon and Percy Jackson and Harry Potter and all the other "addictive" books my kids read -- they can't help but turn the next page! And even after they finish they're asking for more books! ADDICTIVE!
I continue to maintain [2] that the use of the term "social media" is itself extremely deceptive as it confuses the consumption of content with the creation of content as well as the social network effects.
[1] https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases24/2024-1008_Complaint-Fi...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40718848
You can read at least New Jersey's complaint here [1]. They do rightly point out the degree to which TikTok is used by the CCP to direct users to videos that serve as whitewashing propaganda, but the vast majority of the complaint is all junk science around dopamine hits and other bullshit.
At this point might as well ban Eragon and Percy Jackson and Harry Potter and all the other "addictive" books my kids read -- they can't help but turn the next page! And even after they finish they're asking for more books! ADDICTIVE!
I continue to maintain [2] that the use of the term "social media" is itself extremely deceptive as it confuses the consumption of content with the creation of content as well as the social network effects.
[1] https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases24/2024-1008_Complaint-Fi...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40718848
How is this unique to TikTok? Should this lawsuit succeed, would that open up American companies to the same claims?
This smells very election-yearish.