There was a protest and the state media was reporting on it. When the reporter said, "our camera broke down and we can only show black and white pictures", my father IMMEDIATELY jumped up and angrily said, "that's bs, you don't want to show how they [the protesting students] got beaten up [by the police]!"
This was an interesting life lesson. So yeah, sure, technical difficulties..
I really wonder how my life would be different if someone told be that the US, which for me was as close to a paradise as it gets, will go down the same road in the future - I think it would shatter quite a lot of my dreams of a better life.
US is nowhere near as bad as it was on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, but it's on a fast track to it for sure.
That reminds me of one of the things that stuck with me from The Man in the High Castle (the book). The main story is an alternate timeline where the Nazis/Japanese won WWII and conquered America. Then there's an alternate-timeline-within-the-alternate-timeline where America/Britain won WWII, but it's not our timeline (and it's hinted there that the liberal US was eventually defeated by a British Empire gone full authoritarian). Everything passes away. The good guys sometimes win, but eventually they lose too.
I have already retrieved the book & will start it tonight.
There is also a TV series based on it (on Amazon Prime I think), but as usually, it's not as good as the book.
* The Black Dossier
Of course there was always a bit, sometimes a lot, of propaganda everywhere. But at least it was (mostly) for the right causes and ideals. Right now, US is being governed by what I see as the worst possible people, with 0 morals.
It’s why the first move of the administration was to replace senior FBI and military leaders with cronies. To hold the pendulum back.
They absolutely know there will eventually be consequences (by default), which is why they work so hard to throw other people under the bus and make a giant confusing mess of things. To try to avoid them.
And besides, "One may genuinly debate the genocide, racism, imperialism etc" is an essential part of why the working class had a good quality of life in the decades following WW2, particularly white people.
It's easy to build up a good lifestyle when you exploit foreign countries for resources and outsource your labor to poor people across the world because you're not the one paying the bill. But how do you sustain that when those people start demanding the same quality of life that you have? You don't, as we're seeing now.
I do not think it is. The story of the US contains all those things. And just as the story of the US contains Abu Ghraib, it also contains functioning courts sending Abu Ghraib perpetrators to jail. You can call it the permanent struggle between good and evil. There is no country in the world without evil. But there is a difference between evil being present and evil dominating. When functioning courts are dismantled, the perpetrators rewarded, you are forbidden to even talk about it, and there is no recourse left, it will be different. People who have not lived through a totalitarian regime sometimes miss that distinction. I also grew up in a communist Czechoslovakia, and I did not idolize the US because I was blind to the bad parts. I idolized it because you had evil, but not evil fully controlling the game. Even now, you can still simply move out of the US. Sure, there might be some bureaucratic hurdles, but you can fly away on a plane - your only way out is not to try to crawl under barbed wire and risk getting shot.
I will be honest - when people say something like “it’s all the same, Russia, the US, all are bad”, I think to myself... óóóh, you have no idea what you are talking about. Unfortunately, the current US is going in that direction, so you might find out. Not that I wish that on anyone.
* The revolution won't be televised because they won't show it to you.
* The revolution won't be televised because it's not a passive, external experience that you just consume.
* The revolution won't be televised because it starts inside yourself.
"A lot of times people see battles and skirmishes on TV and they say 'Ah-ha! The revolution is being televised!' Nah. The results of the revolution are being televised. The first revolution is when you change your mind, about how you look at things, and see that there might be another way to look at it that you have not been shown. What you see later on is the results of that, but the revolution, that change that takes place, will not be televised."
Compare with now: revolution may be televised, but its spread not amplified and its authenticity denied. And if you have sufficient tribalism, it will not make a dent.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/turkey...
And by the way the covid "fact checking" wasn't based on "truth", it was at political request of White House as Zuck later said, and he did later called the FB fact checking a censorship when disbanding it.
Not all fields of study are amenable to the scientific method, and lesser scientific methods are the best possible. We can't duplicate earth and flood one with CO2. We have to reach farther down the heuristic ladder, like studying two glass bottles, one filled with CO2. This can be extrapolated to calculate what a planet filled with CO2 would do, but the maths required is much less accessible.
1% of climate scientists: climate change is probably just something that happens and we can't do anything about it
Legacy media: it's important that we give equal time to both sides of this argument.
Social media: climate change is a lie and you can tell because 99% of climate scientists all agree that it's real! That's how you know it's a conspiracy! You can't trust the institution! Also buy these supplements, they cure covid and cancer and chemtrails!
We're doomed.
It's often hard to establish scientific consensus. When it's not hard, it can take a long time. Cases such as climate change are as easy as it gets: models are always a flawed approximation for reality, but denying climate change on a scientific basis is almost impossible nowadays because we have too much data and too many converging studies.
About a century ago, the "scientific" consensus in the western world was that there were different human races with very different characteristics, and phrenology was considered a science.
The question of who establishes the ground truth, and who checks the checkers still stands. Science advances by asking sometimes inconvenient, sometimes outright weird questions. And sometimes the answers provided are plain wrong (but not for obvious reasons or malice), which is why reproducibility is so important.
I don't think any entity should have the power to prevent people from questioning the status quo. Especially since censorship feeds into the mindset of the conspiracy theorists and their real truth that "THEY" don't want you to see.
The fact that so much money was given to private corporations, in secret deals outside any legal proceedings, on unproven products, all while censoring any critics, really gave the conspiracy theorists water for their mill.
I believe they would have had a much harder time spreading their misinformation, if they couldn't have the street cred of having "the system" against them. That is, if we had the voice of doctors vs random loonies, instead of our respective corrupt governments vs anyone they're trying to censor.
It's typical for people in science and related fields to use carefully chosen wording, to hedge, and to speak in terms of probabilities instead of certainties.
For a general public who is used to the unashamed and unearned confidence of the usual people who get in front of a camera (politicians, celebrities, pundits) this can make it appear as though the scientific position is one with a less solid foundation, when it's usually the opposite case.
Scientific communication has been focused on insiders for so long that many communicators don't realise how it sounds to the outside world. Even the fundamental terminology is affected - a scientific theory is an overarching explanation that combines multiple pieces of evidence and creates the best synthesis we can on a topic, but to a layperson the word theory means "vague idea".
[1] The government decides which scientists specifically.
Btw, how many top world infectious diseases scientists were among FB “fact checkers”?
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter in the slightest if some times the excuse is actually true. The intuition is good to have at all times, as Intel's founder Andy Grove used to say - "Only the paranoid survive".
> hence the existence of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you're probably thinking of Hanlon's razor which is a dumb idea 99% of the time, regardless of what actually produced it - stupidity or malice.
Be it flying monkeys, boot lickers, or the abuser themselves. It’s a thought terminating cliche that's designed to stop to critical thinking and minimize the act and reduce the response, making it seem though it were a forgivable mistake instead of a deliberate action.
Because as you said: regardless of malice or stupidity, the harm is real.
Relevant story: my mother grew up in the Soviet Block where they taught her about American Segregation in elementary school. She said she and all her friends immediately dismissed it as made-up propaganda
In that case she was wrong. But I think the intuition is the correct "rule of thumb" to take. By your application of Occam's razor, you would end up believing most propaganda the Soviet education system pushed as long as it offered a simpler explanation. I don't think that's a good intuition to have either.
If you are in Iran - keep your head down.
As an aside, if you check in on r/tiktok every time something major like this is happening with Tik Tok you can see how users feel about it. I've seen different waves of users flat out deleting their Tik Tok accounts in protest.
Its different: _they_ were doing it. The Bad Guys. Now _we_, the Good Guys, are doing it. Therefore, the thing itself is no longer Bad - it is Good.
The comment above was ironic. I have to specify because supposedly intelligent people really think that way: https://x.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
In Florida, a surgeon refused to administer anesthetic to Republicans under the law intended to made it legal to deny abortions, since it said it was legal for any medical professional to deny any healthcare on religious or moral grounds. Not really — unfortunately that was a hoax screenshot, photoshopped. But it would make them repeal that law post–haste.
People imagine that they are part of the in-group, and not the out-group that gets the boot for exercising basic rights that the in-group gets. And perhaps they are, if they have enough money and power. But ultimately most of these people know that they are not in power but that as long as they see the boot stomping on others, and they can imagine a boundary that keeps them in the in-group (skin color, political ideology, gender, etc.), they approve as long as that group boundary is clear.
Now, when that boundary begins to blur, and people understand that the person getting the boot could be themselves, then attitudes start to change.
[0] https://bsky.app/profile/joshuaeakle.com/post/3mdfsnpy57k26
It is the right way to think (with caveats).
Basically, no matter which way you put it, people need some form of government (or more abstractly a state that has authority over people with those people having reduced set of freedoms compared to anarchy). Human nature doesn't bode well with long term planning. For example, with unrestricted capitalism, you have a price on human labor hours that doesn't account for the value of human life - i.e as long as someone can do the job, it doesn't matter what their health is at the end of the job as long as they are replaceable, as this is the most optimal in terms of labor spending. So you need people to collectively form an entity with power of enforcement that is agreed upon by everyone, so that the entity can step in and take action.
Therefore, the goal shouldn't be to restrict the entities power. Doing so is essentially very selfish, which is on par with any libertarian/conservative mindset - as history shows, everyone on the right wing who was crying about censorship on social media for social/political issues has no problem when their side censors it, and broadly oversteps in their alloted power, ignoring the law.
The goal should be to determine whether or not the restricted access makes sense given the current status of the country, and the most importantly, ensuring that the state follows the code of law before anything else. I.e on a very broad sense, instead of arguing who is right and who is wrong, argue what is the metric by which you can get the answer, and then codify it as law.
In a lot of cases, censorship makes sense. And as with any rule, there is going to be some cases where its applied and the outcome is worse than if it wasn't applied. That should be acceptable. In the end, friction in the process still means that things are moving forward, but it also prevents much worse effects if things start moving backwards. Removing that friction means you can go backwards very quickly, like US has done.
What I'm referring to here is idealism [1]. Whether it's European colonial powers or the US, the basis for foreign intervention is, quite simply, that we are the Good Guys. Why? Because we're the Good Guys. Even slavery was justified in Christianity by converting the heathen and saving their immortal souls, a fundamentally idealistic argument.
What's the alternative? Materialism [2], the premise of which is that there is not anything metaphysical that defines "goodness". Rather, you are the product of your material circumstances. There is a constant feedback loop if you affecting your material surroundsina and those surroundings affect you.
[does not offer evidence]
> Yet, I can assure you ... they were much more satisfied with life than the vast majority of working class and unhoused americans today
How do you know this? How is this convincing to this audience?
> no amount of material wealth can compensate for severe mental illness
Are you asserting that mental illness occurred at lower rates in the past?
> I am certain you will be shocked at their extreme poverty and general hopefulness
There is no shortage of writing from the Great Depression expressing great hopelessness. The generation was popularly called the Lost Generation for decades by writers of the time.
We cannot conclusively know the overall happiness level of humanity at any time before the Industrial Revolution. But we can use general proxies, such as starvation rates, violent deaths, and child mortality. Those metrics have, by all knowable measures, improved by an order of magnitude after the Industrial Revolution when compared to all previous history.
As long as person's basic needs are met and they are covered in the case of an emergency (for example, not going bankrupt because of cancer) they can be happy.
The barrier though is other people who make you unhappy. Your friends or family can cause you to compare your wealth to others.
The news and politicians can make you feel unhappy by telling you things are worse than they used to be and/or theyre getting worse.
Media can show you things you don't have and worse make you feel as though you would be happier, more excited, or more relaxed if you had these things.
Even though it's possible to ignore this, it's extremely difficult. We aren't as strong as we think when it comes to negative emotions.
/s
yes, materialism and cause and effect etc. etc. agreed on that. it is a thing. interestingly though, as people sit static and just work on becoming more aware of that feedback loop you mentioned it can lead to people trying to not be so much of an arsehole -- through refraining from doing a thing -- because they can see their part in causing things to happen in the world. and that's not just limited to immediate surroundings. i know that i affect everything with every action i do (or do not do).
idealism becomes useful at that point. it can provide people with a set of loose guidelines on how to "not be an arsehole" aka how to not affect everything in a way that's going to cause problems.
the problems come when people do idealism without being aware of that materialistic feedback loop. they're usually doing it out of rule based dogma based on tribalism. sometimes it's "we're better than you are" or sometimes it's "outsiders are not welcome".
caveat: this is all just my personal experience, but i think it would scale if enough people became aware that their actions matter and have profound consequences, so try to not be an arsehole to anyone today
It's not just "western" political thought if such a thing even exists. It's political thought.
For example, Japan's stated goal in ww2 was to liberate asia from european invaders. They portrayed themselves as the good guys. The liberators. That's true for every empire and war in history, "western" or "eastern" or "northern" or "southern". It was always the self-proclaimed "good guys" fighting self-proclaimed "good guys". The winner gets to keep the "good guy" handle while the loser gets assigned the "bad guy" handle.
Had japan won ww2, that's how history would have taught ww2. Instead, japan lost and the US won and hence we get to claim to be the good guys while japan does not.
Nowadays however, we have the USA rounding up non-white people and putting them in brutal concentration camps (it's not a prison if there's no due process) whilst openly murdering opposition in the streets whilst Germany is acting as a trusted and stable partner. It's not the country, but the monsters that may be put in charge by a misled population.
(Western) Internet was mostly censorship free, unlike places like Iran, China and the like. Things were removed only if outright illegan, and then just because of a court order.
Then about ten years ago things changed.
ISIS videos about the Syrian revolution removed from Youtube because they were radicalizing people.
Conspiracy theories about COVID purged because they were dangerous.
Posts against Woke ideals down-ranked, purged or the people posting themselves canceled.
"Be careful, once the tables turn, it will be your turn" some people said.
Guess what, the tables turned, and the result is ugly.
No, they didn't.
We had McCarthy in the 50s. We had Focus on the Family and the Catholic League getting shows canceled. The Simpsons had a public feud with George Bush Sr.
Cancel culture long predates the internet. Hell, it predates humans; plenty of other species kick antisocial members out of group gatherings.
It used to be that anybody could post anything on the Internet. If it was something illegal sooner or later the state FBI/a Judge/Whatever would come for you, but it was a matter between you and the law. Your Internet provider, your hosting provider, etc. couldn't care less because they were not involved in your activity, in the same way that the post office is not to blame if you send an explosive letter using their service.
That's Section 230. While it's an USA-specific law it was in the spirit followed also in most of the other Western countries.
This was never the case. We had occasional law enforcement contact back in the 90s when I ran a gaming vBulletin board in high school. Your IP was trivially traced to a physical landline location and VPNs were in their infancy, and Facebook.com didn't get HTTPS by default until well into the 2000s (after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firesheep).
Section 230 protects the ISPs and websites from liability, not the posters. It made it safer to host potentially actionable user-generated speech at scale, not harder.
I know. That's not what I am complaining about.
I am not an anarchist. I am fine with enforcement asking an ISP, a website, a forum, whatever to remove content because it breaks some law.
What I am complaining about is: it used to be that a platform would let you use it as you saw fit. If you were doing something illegal sooner or later law enforcement would come after you but then the platform wouldn't care much because it was YOUR fault not theirs.
The exception to this was very high level. e.g. phpBB forums with moderators. But those where not platform. They were quite small in size. I consided something like Youtube closer to an ISP or a Registar than a bulletin board. You cannot really escape them.
It used to be that those would only act after the fact (as you said). Only recently (past 10 years) they started to proactively censor their content. It is not completely their fault, they have been pressured to do so, but still they have.
25 Million donation to MAGA from Brockman alone! I suspect he is a single issue donor (AI infra above all)
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/o...
Its insane how immoral people can be - anyone can see Trump is a conman
These people should be made social pariahs.
My reframe was, "If you're a Dem, don't you think Brockman should donate $25M to Trump, because I'm told I have to vote Dem if I don't like GOP, because Dems are the lesser evil, thus, Dems believe it is okay to support evil if it is in your self-interest?"
Assuming that, then turning back to theory, "Lesser evil" is a constraint on imperfect choices, not a moral voucher that turns any tactic into virtue. If you can justify writing a $25M check to someone you think is dangerous because it helps your side, then your issue was never "good vs. bad" - it was "my team wins," and you’re just shopping for a cleaner-sounding label.
I reject the premise that whatever this guy wants from Trump is a moral good greater than the harm that is being wrought. It is almost certainly not about pushing the common good, but ensuring that his wealth continues to grow unabated by government interference.
I find this motivation especially despicable, because he has "donates $25m to political campaigns" level wealth already. He could quit Open AI today and live out an early retirement in unparalleled luxury. But that isn't enough for him. He has to keep pouring gasoline on the dumpster fire that is American politics, leaving the rest of us to suffer, because he doesn't think hundreds of millions of dollars is enough for one person.
This might be the best (compressed) analogy / short-cut when trying to educate others about WTF is going on here.
I will totally steal and use that.
Again, thank you.
(my guess: Soviet-style repression differences b/t USSR and satellites; reads as fake to you because non-USSR was more lax, i.e. you'll be fine speaking honestly in private, just not in public)
The TikTok algorithm in South America. Content about Tiananmen Square and Tibet gets filtered out. Content about the United States government rolling through protesters in armored vehicles, killing people in Venezuela with bombs, and threatening Greenland, straight to top of feed.
The most brutally honest propaganda is always the most effective propaganda.
There's also the degree of relevance. Tiananmen was over a quarter of a century ago. The USA is killing protestors, bombing Venezuela, threatening Greenland now.
https://www.rfa.org/english/uyghur/2024/11/05/uyghur-tiktok-...
Do you remember the last Vietnam War? Oh no, not the one you're thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
Several hundred thousand Chinese troops invaded Vietnam with 500 tanks in 1979.
That's not exactly imperialist aggression is it?
The situations are not comparable at all.
Americans who are currently protesting should consider if the apparatus will be subtly manipulating their environment not just in the next months or years but from now on with high quality data it will have perfectly categorized mined and will re-mine.
> Content about the United States government rolling through protesters in armored vehicles, killing people in Venezuela with bombs, and threatening Greenland, straight to top of feed.
None of this is propaganda, it's just facts.
You need far better propaganda materials for your "great leap forward" blames in 2026. There were bad policies, but the intention good, it was all about moving the country forward. It failed horribly with huge consequences, that is just the reminder that a full scale industrialisation for over 1 billion people is not something that can be earned easily.
Like it or not, the "Exceeding the UK, catching the USA" (超英赶美) goal of the great leap forward has been overfulfilled under the leadership of the CCP with the help of brutal state capitalism. Everything else is just cheap talk.
Having a full scale industrialization larger than the G7 combined is not something handed to China on a silver platter - those very sad deaths caused by the failed attempts during the great leap forward was a part of the costs.
> and the cultural revolution have not comparison.
The cultural revolution is brutal, nothing should be used to defend it. It is just so wrong. That being said, the west is going through the exact same cultural revolution -
* extremely polarised society with everything is politicalised * populism taking control * suicidal policies destroying the civilizational foundations
the difference is 99% Han Chinese consider the cultural revolution as extremely bad, while the west is enjoying having its own ongoing cultural revolution.
if you add the recent woke cancer, the western version of the ongoing cultural revolution is far more brutal.
Example, 99% of people are normal, but if all you see is the 1% that isn't you'll start to believe more than 1% aren't normal. Especially if that 1% is of a recognisable ethnicity / religion / background. This is why there's a shift to the right.
> Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic manipulation of information—including facts, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion, attitudes, and behaviors toward a specific cause, ideology, or agenda.
Even including ICE in this statistic, you will never even meet someone who knows someone who was murdered by a cop. Police encounters that turn deadly, not even blatant murder, are on the order of 1 in 50,000.
However, that stream of police murder videos are definitely real.
Propaganda is often stoking tiny sparks into large raging forest fires.
Well that's exactly the problem. There's nothing stopping them: no accountability, no justice. Many cops just don't feel like randomly shooting people, and that's good. The problem is if they do, and even if they brag about it, little will be done.
Take for example the latest Sainte-Soline repression scandal revealed a few months back by Mediapart [1] where videos show dozens of riot cops making a contest about maiming the most people, encouraging one another to break engagement rules, and advocating for outright murder. Everybody knew before the bodycam videos, but now that we have official proof, we're still waiting for any kind of accountability.
If i go around and shoot people, there is no way i will avoid prison. If a cop goes around and shoots people, or strangles people to death, prison is a very unlikely outcome.
> you will never even meet someone who knows someone who was murdered by a cop
That's not how statistics work. Police abuse tends to happen in the same low-income social groups (and ethnic minorities). As an example, living in France, i've met several people who had a family member killed by police. Statistically unlikely if i only hung around in "startup nation" or "intellectual bourgeoisie" circles, which is not my case.
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifestation_du_25_mars_2023_...
Police in the US kill somewhere around 1000 people a year. But of those, it's something like 5-10 that are murders. There is maybe 1 every few years where the cop is itching to shoot someone who is clearly compliant and not a threat.
The 990 police killing videos that become available every year now are not particularly compelling, because its bad actors trying to kill police and getting themselves killed.
Sorry, I don't know anything about France and police though. The US has a different dynamic because guns are everywhere, especially where crime is. Every cop knows about the ~50 cops who are killed by guns every year.
We don't have guns circulating freely around here (though some people have them such as for hunting). Many police murders take place in police custody (such as El Hacen Diarra just this month). According to the most comprehensive stats i could find [2], out of 489 deaths by police shootings (1977-2022), 275 victims were entirely unarmed.
[1] Not very scientific method: any case of police being assaulted and using "self-defense" is widely spread in the media, and those few cases per year don't account for the dozens of deaths every year.
It's easy to track because anytime it happens it's instant major news on the internet. Trust me, in the economy of social media clout, few things rank as valuable as police murder.
Pretti was frontpage of reddit within 30(!) minutes of being shot. Even without bystanders there is a whole group of creators whose whole channel is combing bodycam footage for wrong doing. These videos are worth (tens) of thousands in ad views if nothing else.
As I understand it, the footage is not from bodycams as ICE don't wear them and police will turn them off when it suits them.
Police also definitely don't turn it off when it suites them, although some have, but again, it's a Streisand effect when they do. I really cannot stress enough that police doing bad things has extremely high monetary value for the people who find it, and you also get paid for the crazy bodycam videos you find along the way. If you're a cop and you turn off your cam before breaking the law, you are almost certainly going to be the face of a 1M+ view youtube video. People, like yourself and me, gobble that up.
It doesn't matter much anyway, because there is 100x more footage of cops doing bad things with their cam on.
Relying on the YouTube algorithm for keeping police brutality in check is a flawed methodology as the current censoring of TikTok demonstrates.
That just shows that people's social circles aren't that wide. 1 in 50,000 is rare in your personal bubble. For a town of 1 million people, thats 20 people.
Sounds tiny, but if we were to line up 20 people and have them murdered by law enforcement, it'd pretty much end the careers of anyone in that chain of command. Because that's not a behavior you want to let spread and expand.
And, what are we doing with those facts? We're manipulating them lol
Manipulating the feed of a social media website for the purpose of swaying the viewer's opinion is a cut and dry example of propaganda. Doesn't matter who does it or whether the information displayed is factual or not. Those things make zero difference.
If people are given a wide perspective of a situation and adjusts bias for the Overton window (aka, we don't let Nazis have an equal platform to a more progressive group), then we just call that good reporting. The act of convincing people isn't inherently a bad thing. How you do it matters a lot.
As you said, how you do it matters a lot.
You've also gone and (IIUC) equated the general biases of an outlet with propaganda which I certainly wouldn't agree with. They're similar, and the former can certainly morph into the latter, but they aren't the same thing.
If you think "propaganda" is defined as something being lies, then you have misunderstood the word.
Product advertising is the most widespread form of propaganda. And in some non-english countries it is called "propaganda" and not "marketing".
Besides, you're comparing it with the US which is also known for its human rights violations ever since the continent was discovered.
I am responding to the fact US TikTok does not show videos of an armored vehicle driving through a crowd of protesters standing in front of it like the lone man in Tiananmen Square. They are being removed.
This ability to control what information TikTok users are presented with is the reason TikTok was originally banned in the United States.
I am being objective discussion how TikTok is being used as a propaganda tool whether or not I personally agree with China influencing people in South America or whether or not what the United States government is doing to protestors is good or bad. I'm not putting a value on it. I'm pointing out that when I'm in South America and someone links a video in a text message and I start to doom scroll after a while I will start to be introduced to videos of the Unites States government committing violence against Spanish speaking people.
> might be immensely popular in South America
Objectively the current United States regime was hugely popular in Spanish speaking countries like it was in Spanish speaking Florida. Up until a couple months ago, people would tell me how much they support and admire the current regime in the United States. That has changed recently which likely has to do with the content they receive via TikTok which is controlled by the Chinese government which is why it was banned in the United States. After being sold, it is not surprising that the United States is using it the way they accused the Chinese of using it.
Another reason why feed ranking algorithms should be published. If we can see the algorithm we can stop playing these yes/no games. The real enemies are social media companies, not the other side of politics.
Aren't these recent events? A better example would be showing US atrocities from the last 50 years, but not Chinese.
Or hiding the suffering of Ukranian and Iranian peoples.
If I doom scroll TikTok without cookies from a residence in South America, after a while, I will be presented with anti American propaganda showing videos of recent events or people speaking in Spanish about the atrocities that the United States is committing against Spanish speaking people that is recent.
I'm am describing objectively what I see.
The United States didn't want TikTok controlling what is visible to people in the United States so they banned TikTok. Later the United States offered allowing it to be sold to an American company.
Currently, there are two extremely influential forces for people under 25 years old in Spanish speaking Latin America, TikTok, a Chinese company, and an American music artist, Bad Bunny, who likely is the single most influential person in the Spanish speaking world. Let's stay tuned for the Superbowl.
But this isn't new either, western services operating abroad will often comply with local laws, which includes country or region specific laws on acceptable content. Google pulled out of China for a good while because they didn't want to, but they eventually cracked and complied with their content laws. Of course, by then the competition was dominant already.
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Is this something that's happened (ever)?
e:
1. tracking string removed per request.
2. it's a video of a WCCO news (local MSP TV station) segment which shows an armored vehicle pushing protesters out of the way.
There’s an enormous difference between driving slowly through a crowd of protestors with no injuries versus running over protesters with a tank.
>> the United States government rolling through protesters in armored vehicles
> I'm sorry, did I miss something? Is this something that's happened (ever)?
Your comment showed the actual event, thanks. It showed an armored vehicle slowly pushing through protesters to gain access to something.
Not remotely comparable scenes, so I must assume intentional twisting of words. My comment was written sloppily.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal...
The person who said I was twisting words said (emphasis mine), "There’s an enormous difference between driving slowly through a crowd of protestors with no injuries versus running over protesters with a tank."
At no point did I nor the comment I responded to use the words, 'running over protesters with a tank'.
"United States government rolling through protesters in armored vehicles"
"Did this really happen?"
You: Video of it actually happening.
Response: Yea, but that video didn't show them "running over protesters with a tank"
you got brainwashed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1k2ungn/pla_armor...
too bad that China didn't embrace its Beijing Spring back in 1989.
The US has been applying soft power and hard power in South America - to put it euphemistically, as the most recent US intervention was just days ago - for close to a century. The Chinese... haven't.
Why should people in South America give a shit about Tiananmen or Tibet and at the same time not give a shit about the escalating authoritarian grip of the US regime, which is infinitely more relevant to their lives?
if someone goes to your local walmart and buy stuff from them, is that considered as using soft power on walmart? LOL
I threw my computer off the balcony. I look at a web design business. "No fair!" I think to myself, "if only I had a computer I could have a web design business too!"
I smash the web designer's computer out of spite.
I don't know how much more would need to be done for you to think things are being done.
What it should be about is preventing someone else from blocking the spreading of truth.
"Block the spreading of lies" is something authoritarians say when they want to declare any criticism of themselves to be a lie and censor it. You can't block the spreading of "lies" without ordaining someone as the decider of truth and there is nobody you can trust to have that power.
But if we were actually doing what we should then what we would be doing is developing censorship-resistant uncentralized systems rather than fighting over the keys to the censorship apparatus.
When you're in an abusive relationship they say intentions don't matter, only impact does. Because victims often focus on the intentions of their abuser and stay in the cycle of abuse.
Let me repeat it, intentions don't matter, only impact does.
If your prosperity depends on using technocracy to deny 1.3 billion people the ability to communicate and share ideas with your citizens, a few things are true:
1) You have created a digital iron curtain
2) You are doomed because information wants to be free
3) If you succeed the result will be war, the only thing left when communication breaks down
I think some people live in movies where the bad guy always loses. Reality doesn't work this way. Bad situations where information is denied from people can last lifetimes.
With modern technology we may be creating systems that end up imprisoning our minds for generations with no escape because you'll be killed the moment your technological monitor realizes you're going to fight back.
>With modern technology we may be creating systems that end up imprisoning our minds for generations with no escape
That has been the goal of authoritarians for a long time. Orwell's vision of it involved obliterating even the capacity to think or speak about anti-state themes.
If I was the US blessed feed, let me have it. If I wasn't the Chinese maintained one, why not.
Or, even better, let me make my own! Or use one from an open source that I, the user, trusts.
Hell, EXPOSE THE ALGORITHMS. The simple fact that we can't see the weights, or measure inputs to outputs, means we are in total control of whomever currently holds the reins, and they can literally play God behind the scenes if they have control over enough eyeballs.
In any case, entirely Western oriented platforms also push brainrot to Western viewers, so I don't think there's any conspiracy so much as just cultural differences.
Don't need tiktok for that. Besides, a certain party prefers it that way.
Buying TikTok to censor it is the move of a fascist government.
Suppose there are thousands of law enforcement officials in the US, some minority of them are violent offenders and as a result of that some minority of police shootings are murders rather than legitimate self-defense or protection of the innocent, where the number of annual illegitimate police shootings is somewhere between 2 and 999, and the propensity for those people to be prosecuted is lower than it ought to be. Suppose further that China has over a million Uyghurs in concentration camps and is using them as slave labor and subjecting them to forced sterilization.
Is the first one bad? Yes. Is it as bad? Uh, no. But you can present a distorted picture through selective censorship.
Obviously what you want is for neither of them to be censored, but not wanting a foreign power to be the ones who decide what people see is fully legitimate.
It's less legitimate when you don't want a foreign power to be the ones who decide what people see on their own platforms. The US for example shouldn't dictate what US users see when they visit www.bbc.co.uk
The just US got mad because a Chinese owned/operated social media platform got massively popular and they just wanted the ability to control and censor it.
How the feed is filtered should be a fungible commodity that anyone can swap out for themselves or offer to others without sacrificing the network effect, because the network itself shouldn't be owned.
Notice that the US doesn't censor bbc.co.uk, because the web is a decentralized system. But then ordinary people end up on Facebook or TikTok, which isn't.
I think there are a number of things occurring all at once and it's going to lead to the destabilization of most democracies (which China is a big winner if this occurs).
Democracy has never really been as free as the people living in democracies believe. The rich and large media entities have always controlled the vote with much more impact than the actual issues individual voters had.
If you believe this previous statement to be true this leads to a number of issues in the modern world.
One is that previous to now most countries demanded some kind of local media ownership, so the message would be more aligned with someone living in the country rather than some other entity (not perfect, but still better than nothing).
Another is media groups tended to be smaller and more fractured. They may hold conflicting opinions on things.
Which bring us to now, with huge foreign media organizations holding massive sway over gigantic audiences. This isn't just about China over the US, it's just as much about the US over many EU entities. These are potential powers that can change course of the world and they have governments behind them directing them where to go.
Also don't forget the US absolutely loves to control what gets in the media. The right in the US didn't just start brining up socialism and communism yesterday, it's been a control mechanism on what can be published and what you can see for over 100 years.
Except for China, where TikTok is nothing like the TikTok for the rest of the world
The point is brainwashing.
This kind of narrative is actually one of the more popular forms of propaganda.
"We are the side of the revolutionaries. The status quo is wrong but only about the things we want to change and not the things we want to stay the same. Powerful people are our opponents."
All politics is about opposing powerful people, because if they weren't powerful then it would be easy to defeat them. But there are different groups of powerful people, with different interests, and then it rather matters which ones you align yourself with on a given issue. And if it's always the same ones then you're doing partisanship rather than reasoning.
Commentators: What are we, some kind of Asians?
The US has traditionally had at least some counterweight to the state, in the form of a free press, free speech, opposition parties, checks and balances in branches of government, and an armed populace. The effectiveness of these measures has varied over time but there has never been a point when any single institution had control over the United States to the point that the CPC has control over mainland China.
People are concerned that the US is taking an authoritarian bent under Trump, and many of the tactics being used would lead to a state far more similar to the PRC than the historical US.
Oceania has always gotten tech tips from Eastasia.
that is a common mistake. it is called the "If China can do it, I can do it too" symptom, which has been discussed like a million times on Chinese social media. interestingly, the biggest obstacle for other countries to repeat it is the fact that there is a country called China.
China isn't to blame, but they are a frightening example of where things are headed and they're giving the robber barons screwing us a blueprint to follow.
An interesting thought I read a couple days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/opinion/trump-carney-chin...:
> Finally, and most controversially, I suspect the same “if not America, then China” logic applies to political ordering as well. The United States under Trumpian conditions has allowed populism to come to power, bringing chaos and authoritarian behavior in its train. Recoil from that by all means — but recognize that it happened through democratic mechanisms, under freewheeling political conditions.
> Meanwhile, the modes through which Europe and Canada have sought to suppress populism involve harsh restrictions on speech, elite collusion and other expression of managerial illiberalism. And what is China’s dictatorship if not managerial illiberalism in full flower? When European elites talk about China as a potentially more stable partner than the whipsawing United States, when they talk admiringly about its environmental goals and technocratic capacity, they aren’t defending a liberal alternative to Trumpian populism. They are letting the magnet of Chinese power draw them away from their own democratic traditions.
As a person whose country is being threatened by China, I support the US.
If China were as developed as the US, a lot of China’s threats would have been reality.
It would be efficient for China to have Russia undermine the US while Russia also weakens itself.
China has made huge inroads in Africa, which gives it access to essential metals and other raw materials, and also puts it in a strong position diplomatically.
Taiwan and where else?
But I have a feeling your position is basically "Except for all the cases where they're threatening their neighbors, they're not threatening their neighbors at all."
No, not at all. I don't follow China closely, and was genuinely asking.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna245797
Tibet and Xinjiang already conquered and we have forgotten about them.
I suppose you could also make the argument that they already did invade Tibet and Hong Kong, though that's splitting hairs.
It’s certainly not a given that donating it to China was the right call.
The right call for who?
For the people there? Not good.
For a contracting British empire facing a clearly growing-in-power China it was a graceful exit without military conflict.
I think that's definitely a thing. What's the term? The narcissism of small differences? That contempt is there, and I've long felt it, and (unusually) I think it's also mirrored by some Americans.
There are a lot of internal contradictions and tensions that Trump is bringing to the surface.
Authoritarianism has been starting to become normalized because China and Russia are increasingly able to mess with our society in the same way our leaders always messed with theirs.
Don’t worry, everything will return to normal one day. Pinky swear.
It used to be marketed as that by "China evil" people. Western politicians have always seen this as an arms race. They claim infinite brutal censorship and suppression in China in order to claim that not having it here is a strategic disadvantage. Meanwhile, China's "social credit" is just like a US credit score, which in most countries is an illegal thing to do.
This is completely bipartisan, both US parties take turns shitting on their two greatest enemies: the Bill of Rights and (almost completely defeated at this point) antitrust law. Those are painted as China's advantages: that they don't have to respect anyone's rights and that their government directly runs companies. 1) Neither of those things are true, and 2) they just ignore that China manufactures things and invests in infrastructure (which US politicians as individuals have no idea how to do because they are lawyers and marketers), and pretend that everything can be reduced to gamified finance and propaganda tricks.
It's the "missile gap" again. The US pretended and marketed that Russia had an enormous amount of nuclear weapons in order to fool us into allowing US politicians to dedicate the economy to producing an enormous amount of nuclear weapons.
The result, the child of the Oracle guy owns half the media, and uses it for explicitly political purposes that align with the administration (whichever it may be.)
Ignoring the magnitude to draw a false equivalence is a great way to discredit your position. Neither party is perfect but only one of them is denying the full personhood of over half the population, having armed men threaten the public with lethal violence over constitutionally-protected activities, or saying that the executive should be able to direct private industries for profit. Debates about things like how much the government should ask private companies to enforce their terms of service are valid but it’s like arguing over a hangnail while you’re having a heart attack.
I guess in 90ies version of polymarket nobody would have had that result on their bingo sheet. But, well, they probably also didn't have "something like polymarket could exist in the free world" on those bingo cards, either...
I'd like to see evidence of that. A third of the country voted to burn the bill of rights, and another third voted they don't care but they'd be ok with it happening.
TikTok is known for tipping the scales on political keywords everywhere. In the past they haven’t outright censored because that’s too obvious, but uploading videos on the wrong side (according to TikTok, of course) of a political topic will result in very few views.
I wouldn’t be surprised if as part of the transition they’re struggling with the previous methods of simply burying topics, so the obvious ban was their intermediate step.
The comments claiming this is specific to the US are simply wrong. TikTok has always done this everywhere.
All social media does this. Even HN (through its users flagging articles). This article will be flagged by users and removed from the front page very soon, just as a similar one[1] was already.
I don't consider user-directed upvotes/downvotes/flags to be in the same category as company or state decided censorship.
They got the same version of the app that people in China got. I haven't seen any formal studies but my impression, at the time, was that Chinese people were far better informed about the US than Americans were about China.
(reminded of ex-tech influencer Naomi Wu, who basically went dark with a post along the lines of "the police have told me to stop posting")
That's HSK2 being generous, if you had to plug it into Google Translate, how can you say you know more than the people who speak the language and live there?
but of course. the benchmark is minor influencer and HN darling naomi wu.
As a baseline, they have experience living in about twice as many countries as the locals. They picked up their lives, often learned a second language, and established a home with minimal social support. They tend to be highly motivated people.
In many cases, they know more about the country than the locals do because they've traveled all over said country while the locals never left their home town.
edit: I just realized this might be confusing. By "foreigner" I mean someone who is from a place other than where they currently live. I'm not referring to people who only know about a country through hearsay.
In any case, I think it also applies to some degree to people who live outside the US just purely based on media diet. We all see clips of CNN and MSNBC and Fox on YouTube, but a person elsewhere will have the additional perspective of BBC, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, The Guardian, etc.
We all know that advertising and marketing is manipulation, yet even the most contrarian among us are still influenced it.
What are the opinions of illegal immigration over there? How do they police it? (If at all).
Does this look like normal government activity? Or are they appalled at the lack of “freedoms” in America?
I am truly naive on their culture or politics around this and how they would use it to show the US as boogeymen government and how their government is better. Is it a grass isn’t always greener type thing for them or is it a way to actually think we’re evil and should be stopped.
As well as racial profiling. There's not that much immigration to China in the first place, legal or otherwise.
My experience in China was that the police were a bit on the bureaucratic side but otherwise far less obtrusive than in the US.
They divide their police forces into civil police and armed police. The civil police tend to be bored looking middle aged guys lounging around in guard booths at museums. They don't have weapons. The only armed police I saw stood at attention at the airport except when they had a changing of the guard ceremony.
As near as I can tell, China only allows immigration if they think that will benefit China. They've been pushing hard on academic scholarships and, in recent years, they've managed to shift net visits from the US to China.
They also seem to be pushing really hard on increasing the number of visiting African scholars. That's likely straight out of the US playbook; they see China as a rising power and want to make sure that their emerging leaders were educated in China and have ties to China.
As near as I can tell, there are essentially 2 kinds of laws; laws that people agree with and laws that they don't.
For the second type, governments often have trouble enforcing them consistently so they often try to compensate by making the punishments harsher (eg mandatory minimum sentencing). As near as I can tell, that tends to fail miserably.
Our government here has been shooting people in the streets and that hasn't stopped protesters from pouring out.
When you see a bunch of people peacefully following laws the most likely explanation is that they just think those laws are reasonable.
Of course not, but other stuff is.
Interestingly, my understanding is government pressure forces Douyin to be more "positive" and "encouraging" than Tiktok (i.e. outrage is an easy way drive engagement with obvious negative externalities, and that path is blocked).
"The forced US hosted tik-tok sale is all about hiding information from the US public that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to."
In the most point-missing, technical kind of way.
Saying "But China also censors!" is the one missing the point.
That's too black and white. The Tiktok sale isn't just one thing by one actor for one reason, it's more complicated. There's the Biden administration bill, there's Trump's deal implementing it, etc. I don't think the bill that forced the sale was passed "so the US can censor stuff the US government doesn't like." Before Trump got involved, it was heading for a straight blackout (which IMHO would have been better for everyone).
I don't think the original intent of the tiktok sale was about censorship as much as it was about the chinese not allowing american platforms in china. Doesn't change that they're trying to use it to its 'fullest'.
EU is coming.
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/cornerstonefinland?lang=en-150
I’m just saying that here in the US we are going to see some funkiness in suggested content soon. Because we hit different servers than you. Even if they are hosted on Oracle Cloud.
It’s really no different than a large org having two clouds that need data synchronized. AWS and Azure for example. Systems Design…
I’m not a TikTok user so I couldn’t recommend content for you to try.
Its been a conservative/zionist talking point for years now that "the youth are getting brainwashed by tiktok", and Ellison in particular seems to be in the "I've gone hard right due to the latest Israel conflict" camp. So of course they're not being subtle about it.
1) A philosophical debate along the lines you've indicated here, how much is it worth to control the algorithm, and how much does that equate to controlling speech.
2) The allegation that current buyers bought it specifically to bring their ideology to the algorithm, however effective or valid you think that is (I think it just hastens TikTok becoming something for "old people").
> its about scrolling and recommendations
Don't scroll and don't take recommendations from these platforms. It's better now that it's American owned, but you really shouldn't have been using it when the Chinese Communist Party owned it.
And I'm only talking about TikTok because that's the OP. I don't use any social media platforms besides LinkedIn, and LinkedIn is such a big piece of trash I don't think it matters if anyone uses it.
Whether you or I think that's effective or not is up for debate, I also avoid social media, but OP made a statement about intentions.
(And, aside, the current intentions appear far more pointed and ideological than when it was owned by ByteDance as a lottery winner with a surprise overseas success, optimizing for youth engagement.)
Restating the OP ^
I don't know exactly what the OP intended, and they are welcome to clarify, but based on the words above I read it as selling TikTok is a means of suppressing information that the rest of the world has access to from Americans. I disagree with the notion because what matters is whether or not information is suppressed holistically, not whether or not information is suppressed in a limited manner on a platform. If you think it's a problem, by the way, you should reach out to the EU, China, India, and every other major government that influences what content is posted on social media platforms including but not limited to TikTok.
If you want to argue the US obtaining control of the content from TikTok in America is tantamount to information suppression, you can only do so by also arguing it's true only for people who use TikTok. In which case it's an improvement anyway since the CCP is no longer influencing content.
Ok, well here where I live the government has never physically assaulted me or my neighbors, nor used tear gas around the elementary school my friends and family members children attend. But the government is clearing my streets of snow, gave me an opportunity to get an education, and generally helps make sure my life isn't so bad.
On the other hand, the CCP (and others) has created lots of fake accounts, engaged in paying off people to help incite riots, and is responsible for algorithmically promoting divisive content which has caused people to go out and riot, shoot at each other, become white nationalist goons or antifa goons, and helped get Donald Trump elected.
Donald Trump himself claims TikTok helped him get elected, he was wildly popular on the platform.
> It's interesting to me that you're so certain about your threat model here but I don't share it.
It's not that interesting, and this isn't warranted. I don't even know what you mean by threat model, and you never asked, so there was never an opportunity for it to be shared. Please don't wantonly levy suspicion here.
Lucky for you I hope you can keep saying that. But uh, where you live didn't need to have a civil rights movement?
Plain and simple I think americans, and the american government, and movements formed in america and made of americans, are far more likely to harm me than any foreign power and I act accordingly.
In fact they already have!
> On the other hand, the CCP (and others) has created lots of fake accounts, engaged in paying off people to help incite riots, and is responsible for algorithmically promoting divisive content which has caused people to go out and riot, shoot at each other, become white nationalist goons or antifa goons
This is americans doing this to americans with the help of the american tech industry for the benefit of american elites. How have you come to lay the whole thing at chinese feet. I know... but do you know? You worried about the wrong propaganda my man.
What that commenter means by easy access is that the information is in mainstream sources pushed to people such that you are likely to know about it without having looked.
For example I made a comment here on HN recently that immigrants commit crimes at fewer rates than US born people. That sends a segment of Americans into a flying rage even though they have access to that information, they were never going to hear it in their ordinary channels, even if they stick to "mainstream" media.
Sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test for me.
But this complaint is pretty old, I think of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. (Setting aside his Epstein connections for a moment) The way we do censorship is much less the methods of a traditional totalitarian state and more like the private sector policing what is acceptable discourse.
As for what he suggested, this is reminding me that I never read his work On anarchism. I heard him speak favorably about the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. I also found that topic very interesting when I was getting a Spanish minor many years ago at college. I am sure many HN commenters will disagree that it's something to emulate.
I think his writing is very interesting, in general, and it always helps expand the mind to new or reframed ideas.
Whataboutism. You presumably know full well what the parent was describing, but if not:
TikTok presents users with feeds of videos. For many users, this is their primary news source.
An American oligarch and party loyalist now has de facto control of the app. Therefore, the regime has the capability to shape the narrative by boosting or hiding videos from the feed (whether or not they are doing so is an open question).
Could users still hypothetically find the same information elsewhere? Sure. But if this app is their primary source of information, would they even know they should bother doing so?
That's their problem. You can't make blanket claims saying Americans now don't have easy access to information when there are other sources, ranging from the NYT to the Intercept, to anything you want to read being written and translated right on your computer from the EU or Japan or anywhere else you want to read.
> An American oligarch and party loyalist now has de facto control of the app.
Chinese oligarch, American oligarch. Either way someone without your best intentions in mind owns your platform. Maybe you should stop using it.
The post you were replying to stated:
> hiding information from the US public
They didn't say "Americans now don't have easy access to information" (your words). They said this sort of manipulation would be to hide information from the American public.
Many people in the American public only see news on TikTok. If information is suppressed within TikTok, it is hidden to them.
If TikTok stops showing content, can they find it some other way? Yes, if they know to look. It's not blocked or destroyed, but it's hidden.
Is that a problem? Yes. TikTok's dominance was and is a problem in and of itself. But that isn't an excuse to abuse its dominance for propaganda purposes.
As X has shown, these platforms are crucial to the information ecosystem, and their selective curation can warp the views of an entire population.
> The post you were replying to stated:
Now you're cherry-picking what the OP wrote.
> But that isn't an excuse to abuse its dominance for propaganda purposes.
I didn't suggest that any of that was an "excuse" for anything - instead I called out that regardless of how TikTok operates you still have access to whatever information you want. If you choose to silo yourself, whether that's TikTok or FoxNews, that doesn't change the fact that you still have access to information.
Reminder of the OP:
> The forced US hosted tik-tok sale is all about hiding information from the US public that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to.
If what you are suggesting is true, than OP's claim is untrue because all governments and all social media platforms regardless of where they exist or who owns them curate content to some degree and are thus "hiding information from the public".
You can't have it both ways here.
This is the notable example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_CECOT
The 60 Minutes Episode on CECOT aired on Jan 18 and it is also on CBS News' website: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-deported-venezuelans-endur...
In the long run, they bought out some dying legacy media in CBS and social media has a short half-life. Nobody's saying they're geniuses but it's clear what they're trying to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_CECOT#Broadcast_postpon...
The information is everywhere. Visit any news site, open any general social media feed, turn on any TV. We’re discussing it right now in the front page of HN!
Everyone in the US has easy access to the same information. Acting like only the rest of the world has easy access to this information is ridiculous.
I’m saying it’s silly hyperbole to make the leap to implying that only people in other countries have easy access to information.
These absurd claims always turn into a game of motte and bailey when they’re called out, with retreats to safer claims. I’m talking about the original claim, that “people in other countries” have easy access to this information which we, in the US, see everywhere all the time right now (except TikTok apparently).
Censorship of TikTok is inevitable given the owners, and it will inevitably lead to a new news bubble.
TikTok users are also known for being experts at evading filters and censors. Remember the rising popularity of “unalived” when talk of suicide was filtered out on the platform?
I’m not saying this ICE censorship is good, because it’s not! I’m saying it’s ridiculous to claim that only people in other countries have easy access to information.
I hope not because it’s bad and that’s really all that matters in this conversation. And nitpicking whether or not there are other avenues for information is completely besides the point. I don’t even really understand what point you’re trying to make. If you think this is bad, then say it’s bad and we shouldn’t be ok with it. Saying “I’m not saying it’s good” then muddying the waters reads like you’re trying to defend the action.
That was literally the argument I was responding to and talking about.
Given the downvotes and angry responses I think a lot of people misinterpreted it as something else. I should learn to avoid comment sections about politics.
If you’re looking for feedback, “I’m not saying…” without saying what you are saying generally comes off as obfuscating or at best wishy washy.
When it comes to the _younger generation_, I don't think it's an over-estimation; they don't read news sites at all.
For those who know to look for it, sure.
For those who do not already know it, discovery is increasingly challenged by the deliberately obscurant curators of the information space, who are oddly tightly and uniformly aligned with special interest groups openly declaring their intent to hide that information and punish dissemination thereof.
Without antitrust regulation, TikTok would have been sold to Meta, and that would be it. We'd have an even worse monopoly (which is not a good thing), but at least we wouldn't have this. With such regulations present, the US government both forced a sale and disallowed a sale to anybody who they didn't like, basically forcing TikTok to choose a government-approved partner. What did that partner do to become government approved? We'll never know.
Antitrust in the US (and GDPR in Europe) give regulators wide latitude over who to prosecute and for what. This makes it much easier to do under-the-table deals to achieve objectives that you can't or don't want to achieve by regulation, like restricting free speech.
Subjecting companies to such regulation was ok when it was about transporting cattle or selling bricks, but giving governments the ability to regulate companies that have a wide impact on speech, even if the regulations don't seem to have anything to do with speech, is just asking for trouble.
I think you might have forgotten recent moves from Meta about removal of moderation, relaxing rules on hate speech, settling lawsuits with Trump and similar moves that imply they wouldn't really fight hard against what this administration wants.
Zhang Youxia Arrested After Failed Coup; Gunfight Allegedly Occurred at Jingxi Hotel in Western Beijing (https://www.peoplenewstoday.com/news/en/2026/01/25/1130776.h...)
The spectator is allegedly a reliable media source, I am not personally familiar.
(by contrast, while the Daily Mail is absolutely terrible at opinion and domestic news, they seem to have some capacity left for doing overseas reporting that isn't just wire service, so if they report on overseas events you can be reasonably sure that something like that happened)
(I really don’t know, but it does seem that this info at least is coming from multiple places?)
It's a funny old magazine though, they really do get all sorts in there and print stuff that others wouldn't. It's entirely editorial though with huge biases.
I'm glad it exists and read it often, but I'd go checking everything I read in it if I was after some facts.
The question isn't whether to trust The Spectator, it's whether to trust this unconfirmed, unnamed source.
Gordon Chang has been making this prediction for almost a quarter century. Will it happen before or after the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world??
both are bad, I liked when tiktok was supposed to be just "banned". it's always been a tool for repressive governments
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-28/tiktok-huawei-surveil...
No, at least during the Biden administration when the law was passed, it wasn't.
This shit is a lot more complicated that a hot take based on today's news.
You mean execute American citizens in broad daylight in the middle of the street? Because that's what they are doing. Or tell me, what crimes did the 5 year old they kidnapped commit?
People like you overwhelmingly misunderstand the position of others and in making incorrect assessments create more noise to divide the nation further. You try it is “criminal” to lump together the cartel death squad and MS13 street gang type people together into the same cohort as people who simply came here illegally and have lived here peacefully even contributing to our society and economy positively.
This kind of history resonates today as you can see people continue to make these kinds of accusations because we are the good guys and revealing derogatory information about our society is basically treason.
The issue is you can't easily justify oppressing people if you have a finite checklist of needs. You clearly can if you use a nebulous debatable term like "rights".
I'm sure it leaks privacy like crazy, just like any other social app. I'm just still unclear on just how useful it would be, and whether that really merited intervention at the very highest levels.
Note that there have been multiple instances over the past two years of high level ex/current officials repeating the same general point.
That’s not what Romney said. His - and the wider establishment’s - concern is that unsanctioned content is allowed to be treated the same as any other content.
Anyone knows that TikTok simply tailors your feed to your interests & interactions. But even this is not acceptable when it comes to topics the establishment doesn’t want disseminated.
And if they had undeniable proof that TikTok was boosting/manipulating such content, why haven’t they revealed it now that TikTok US is under US control?
But it’s okay to not be concerned. Just don’t come crying when the book burning starts.
The axios article you linked was not actually very clear about what Romney said, and the actual quotes are consistent with my points.
> Anyone knows that TikTok simply tailors your feed to your interests & interactions.
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that's all that it does or all that it will ever do. Think about it: the most effective kind of influence and manipulation would also be "[tailored] to your interests & interactions," and subtle enough that you don't perceive it as manipulation.
> And if they had undeniable proof that TikTok was boosting/manipulating such content, why haven’t they revealed it now that TikTok US is under US control?
They don't need undeniable proof, just like I don't need undeniable proof that I've been hacked to lock down my router. Are you saying I should enable remote admin and leave a weak password until I have undeniable proof I've been compromised? Because that's the standard you seem to be setting for mitigating vulnerabilities.
If you haven't noticed a sweeping attack on free speech in US media, then I just don't think you're paying attention, and playing it off as if it's "just" Tiktok is at best disingenuous.
Sucks to suck, I guess.
You'd do that I guess, right, if you saw something happening you thought was bad - you'd run straight into a legal fight that could bankrupt you? Nah, you're a tough guy on the internet! Nothing scares you!
Now you wonder what these companies are doing to shape events, and the answer is that Tim Cook is attending a private showing of a PR project for the wife of the president premiering on a competing streaming network whilst people hold vigils for the people that the regime has murdered.
Alternate explanation: they are paying intense attention... to the palms that are pressed desperately against their eye sockets as they attempt to See No Evil.
Are we talking about the Trump administration or the Biden administration? The current ban was passed under Biden with supermajorities in both houses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_ban_TikTok_in_the_U...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
Boden's good, Grump's bad, simple as that. Or Grump's good, Boden's bad doesn't matter.
I'm not sure why the meme on the right is that the left wants to protect Biden or anyone else. Who cares, they all can come crashing down.
No, the point isn't "protecting Biden", it's pure self interest. Tiktok is a social media platform that's very popular with Democrat's electorate and is already left leaning. Why risk it falling into the other party's control (especially near the end of Biden's term), just so you can maybe push more left leaning talking points?
> control of tiktok doesn't pass to the next administration
Huh?
But I'm talking about political tools. Breaking down the norms about how power is supposed to be wielded. Concentrating more and more power in the executive because Congress would rather be powerless and blameless than have responsibility.
For example, giving the President the power to set tariffs was done with the understanding that the President would use this power wisely in an actual national emergency. That created a political tool. Now we have a deeply unwise President who declared a nonsense national emergency and is playing havoc with trade using this tool. If the tool hadn't been created then I don't think we'd have that problem. I doubt Congress would be willing to pass sweeping emergency powers in an environment where there is no emergency and no need for those powers. And there was never a need for those powers. Tariffs don't need to be enacted so rapidly that they can't wait for Congress to convene and pass a law.
In this case, we've created a political tool giving the President broad power to interfere in a specific private business. It's no surprise if that tool gets abused, and it was completely unnecessary to begin with.
So I'd phrase it as: "Good guys shouldn't make political tools that are far more powerful than they need to be assuming that they'll be used wisely, because bad guys will happily use the full power of those tools."
It would be interesting to consider if there is a form of democracy such that voters themselves can't vote their way out of, I personally doubt it, rules themselves are chosen by votes. If you insist on voting for hostility for the current system of rules, there's a chance you'll win a majority and those rules can go away.
We in the US need to suck it up and accept the truth, voting Trump has consequences, doing it twice lol good luck with that.
Now I’m not saying things are inevitable. Trump has a bull-in-china-shop mentality. But he is only being manipulated to set the same agenda, just faster than any president in living memory.
Just murdered two protestors. A bit of a change there.
It is literally on the front page of news papers....
Also, you can see it on Instagram, X, etc.
Even a cursory search on TikTok reveals anti-ICE content...
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240737627/meta-limit-politic...
https://www.reddit.com/r/OptimistsUnite/comments/1i9zf5u/rco...
This is why the administration has gone out of its way to try to get Kimmel and Colbert off the air, why it has commandeered CBS and tried to kill 60 minutes pieces critical of the administration, why it violated the law in order to keep TikTok (already fervently pro-Trump) up and running, and why allies of the administration have been put in charge of TikTok after the transition. It's why Bezos is slowly strangling the Washington Post, why Patrick Soon-Shiong is doing the same to the LA Times, and why the administration is putting their thumb on the scale for Paramount, rather than Netflix, to buy Warner Brothers Discovery (which owns CNN). It's why Musk bought Twitter. It's why they blatantly lie in their press conferences and statements to the media about how the ICE killings happened.
If you walked into a Turning-Point USA meeting in a high school, do you think the kids attending that meeting could accurately tell you what ICE has been doing? I don't.
If you introduce friction with something that millions or more use, a few % peeling off or missing things means tens of thousands of people are impacted. And tiktok has a hell of a lot more than a million users.
I still don’t get what you’re trying to say or why you’re downplaying this.
But this is exactly why all citizens should be concerned about the infringement of rights happening in Minnesota. If it is allowed without prosecution, you are next.
that is to say, the law only applies to you if you do "bad" things. and ill be honest, there is a level of truth to this to me. from a practical standpoint, it is infeasible to formally understand every nuance of every law ever created just to be a citizen. The underlying core social contract does appear to be one of "if you do 'good' things, generally the law will agree with you and if it doesnt then we wont hold it against you the first time"
*the important caveat here is that this leaves a rather disgustingly large and exploitable gap in what is considered good vs bad behavior, with some people having biases that can spin any observable facts into good or bad based on their political agenda. Additionally, personal biases like racism for example, influence this judgement to value judge your actions in superficial ways
I feel like this is basically the case in everything.
* A lot of people don't read the article before commenting.
* Nobody reads TOS for things.
* Most people don't read academic papers.
* MIT or BSD license is easy, but how many people here have actually read the whole GPL, Apache, or Mozilla licenses.
* Voter turnout in Municipal elections here in Ontario is incredibly low.
There is too much information out there for one person. Everything is done with value judgements.
We really shouldnt be allowing things like, "this is a location dedicated to peace and non-violence" and then section 32 subsection C part 2 (a) says "we can kick the shit out of you if you photograph the premises". Just a random made up example for communication purposes, but it applies to all sorts of things. Personally, I think it should apply to social media. there was a implied sense of privacy to it, that people could not see my information if i did not approve it - and then the fine print says except for the company running the page who can sell the information to whoever they want. Like WTF was that about? I wont say its an ignored thing, there plenty of outrage over it - but i think its incredibly fundamental to whats going wrong and feeding this information overload in a dangerous / stressful way.
Companies shouldnt need 10 pages of TOS to say all the obvious things, and appealing to this idea that only whats written down is what matters shouldnt allow for just any arbitrary set of things to be written down and called reasonable
Less about value judgements. More about outsourcing to people/brands we trust.
When it comes to software licenses, we aren’t lawyers, so the informed people will use a primer created by a trusted 3rd party. Maybe GitHub’s “which license is right for me?” Page.
Who to vote for in local elections is usually decided via one of the following: (1) I know/met the person, (2) I trust the party they affiliate with, (3) I trust the newspaper/news source which recommended them.
Academic papers are usually thick, long, and inaccuracies are difficult for anyone not in that field of expertise (or something relevant like statistics) to identify. Most people require an overview of the article by an expert. Hopefully (but unlikely) they can choose one which is impartial / minimally biased and who can give an opinion on how definitive or significant the findings are.
To me, the system of codified law and courts makes intuitive sense, and most people misunderstand or abuse the system. But other people's intuitive understanding of the law as you mentioned is a much easier way to understand and actually IS a rough approximation of what the system does.
In an ideal world, when this happen, it should be anarchy until a new set of government, that uphold the law equal to everybody, is enacted. But we don't live in ideal world.
What should happen is that everyone who is flagrantly violating the law and looting the federal govt right now should be quickly and aggressively prosecuted. Real concrete legislative reforms should be enacted to limit future corruption and dangerous adventurism by demented leaders.
I expect none of that to actually happen.
It would be orders of magnitude more productive if we did that.
I think my concern was that we think too much in terms popular culture. That itself is a problem. Still, as problems go, it is not urgent. Hence my apology.
That said, I was thinking more about people all of us building tools that got us into the situation we are in now.
Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
I was just thinking how in my country immigration officials would be probably wearing formal clothes and have clipboards and paperwork.
Your comment about armed IRS agents made me laugh / reminded me about this.
The word "bias" clearly has two senses in this context. The original term from signal processing indicates a persistent offset, which got appropriated in politics to reflect the idea of a "lean" in coverage. So now "Bias" means "politically charged in some direction or another".
So you can have a "biased" term ("occupy") next to another biased term ("tea party") in a search. And it's reasonable to call the whole thing a collection of biased terms even though by the original definition I guess you'd say they cancel out and are "unbiased".
Language is language. It may not be rational but it's by definition never "nonsense". Don't argue with it except to clarify.
Sigh, here we go.
> Individual data points in a population cannot be biased.
Indeed they[1] cannot! By the first definition I listed.
Conversely, the term "tea party" is a "biased" political term by the second, as it connotes a particular political perspective.
I didn't make this stuff up, check definition 1a in M-W: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias#h1
[1] The discussion is about search terms, btw. Not "data points", which sort of confounds your analysis.
What baffles me is how conservatives supporting the current government overreach aren't worried about the coming backlash. Do they think they'll just win all the future elections? Even when there is no more Trump?
Let's say the administration require physical in-person voting due to supposedly mail-in vote fraud and similar in past elections, like when Trump lost.
Then they place a bunch of ICE agents outside of each voting location, checking any immigrants and others they've declared unwanted that are about to vote. Suddenly a lot of democratic voters no longer feel safe voting.
Will the democrats still win?
There's a degree of that. But really it's learned behavior; MAGA literally sacked the Capitol in a violent insurrection and Democrats managed to botch the response to that. The only reason we're talking about future malfeasance is because Democrats didn't punish past malfeasance, thereby shifting the Overton window. And of course this goes back further than Jan 6 -- Trump might actually get a pardon from the next Democratic president if history repeats.
In any case it’s also historically illiterate, the IRS has long been used as a political weapon, infamously against “Tea Party” activists.
That isn't the issue being discussed. This is illustrating that armed, masked goons as a political weapon is a pandora's box that will get turned against everyone, regardless of status. Some people just don't care about the violence in Minnesota because it isn't happening to them.
It's not about whether the US deports criminals. It's about how we go about doing it.
Obama even gave Tom Homan a medal for his work.
If it was about stopping violent criminals, they wouldn't raid restaurant kitchens and crop fields, where workers are trying to make an honest living for their family.
It's nationalism and racism, full stop.
Just want to point out that for conservatives the set “illegal immigrants” include, large numbers of legal ones because they generally thought the asylum process was too simple and shouldn’t count.
"The despondent faces and screaming, wailing and pleading from these men, women and children in cells will forever haunt me. But perhaps more haunting still was the sound of agents nearby laughing."
Yes, very not Nazi. And the press is not the reason people in Minneapolis are livid and putting their lives on the line, out in the freezing cold. Instead of getting angrier and angrier as "useful idiots" continue to do the same all across the country and in ever greater numbers, maybe take the chance to revisit your assumptions and pull yourself out of whatever dark propaganda pit you're in.
Do you think Alex Pretti or Renee Good deserved 15 years of hard labor for disobeying ICE? How about just five years? Because what actually happened was they were executed on the spot.
There is no FAFO exception in the US Constitution.
No, I don't think either person deserved fifteen years of hard labor, or five years.
What actually happened is not that they were executed on the spot, no.
You've just presented a new argument.
Many, many people are killed by LEO each year; how many are considered 6th amendment violations? (None. LEO is not out there "administering judgement", they are responding to deadly-force encounters, guns, etc)
> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
This is naked bootlicking. You only support it because you view it as “your team” or “your tribe” and do not feel threatened by it. Tables turn in time. Maybe you are not old or wise or well-read enough to recognize that.
Pretti was a cluster like I said. I don't think he should have been shot, but it's going to be really hard to find anyone guilty.
They're hands on with an armed person who is resisting them, and he is shot in the chaos. I personally believe the first shot was by the officer who drew, but was unintentional and I don't think he realized it was his own gun.
The time from him being disarmed to the first shot was well under a second, wasn't it? Not enough time to send a memo to everyone about the current status of the armed opposition.
I’m curious how you came to this conclusion. Maybe you generally believe that federal agents do not have a responsibility to deescalate / not put themselves in situations where lethal force could even become something within the realm of being discussed? They are, after all, the ones with the guns and therefore a responsibility to not escalate.
This belief, that federal agents should be held to a higher standard, and not agitate or escalate, seems to be the dividing line. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The most damning moments in that encounter to me were when he switched the hand his phone was in before moving in front of the car while interacting with the wife, clearly giving himself the opportunity to unholster his gun, and then moving in front of the car, and then seeing in the video that his hand was already on his gun before the car started moving forward, and then calling her a “fucking bitch” after unloading a clip into her side window.
Not that any of that matters, because in the end they have effective immunity because the government refuses to perform a public investigation, and even invites more similar violence by effectively celebrating the occasion.
And you’re a part of the problem by enabling all of this with your sniveling justifications.
Sure, agreed.
> ICE deporting people isn't new, either.
Yeah, agreed.
> What's new is the folks trying to stop federal agents from doing their jobs...
Nah. Cops of all flavors have been lying (even under oath) about how they beat the shit out of (or assaulted with chemical weapons (or killed)) someone because "I was afraid for my life", "I was being obstructed during the discharge of my lawful duties", and similar for ages. That's nothing new.
What is probably new is the scale of the deployments of killer cops. What's definitely new is the extent of the media coverage of the obviously-illegal-but-roughly-noone-will-be-punished actions of many of those cops.
That these cops are injuring folks, stealing and breaking their property, kidnapping folks, and killing folks is one huge fucked-up thing. The other huge fucked-up thing is that approximately noone will ask "So, why aren't these cops immediately in jail awaiting trial? Why don't the courts think this is obviously illegal? What has gone wrong here?". Instead, this will generally be pinned on either the Trump Administration, or Trump personally... so once he's out of office, folks will go "Job's done!" and nothing will change to fix the underlying long-standing problem. [0]
[0] Do carefully note: I'm absolutely not saying that the Trump Administration (or perhaps Trump, himself) is blameless. They absolutely are responsible for the flood of poorly-trained ICE officers who pretty clearly have orders to engage in domestic terrorism. I'm pointing out that these domestic terrorists absolutely should be immediately sent to jail for what they've done. Trump and the Trump Administration have pretty much nothing to do with the fact that USian cops can kidnap, brutalize, steal, and murder with almost complete impunity... that's a long-standing problem.
Nothing in Minnesota has changed the game, except masks maybe, since they're being doxxed.
The same thing has been going on the same way for decades.
This is one of the worst takes I have ever seen, to the point that you must just be trolling.
Disobeying law enforcement is not a death sentence. It is often not even illegal. Just because LEO shouts "I am giving you a lawful order" does not in fact make it a lawful order. And this certainly is not happening in most other countries.
The desire to be part of the Trump Tribe has made people forget what actually made America great.
But what she was given was a lawful order. That's the one I'm talking about.
I'm not a trump voter.
Law enforcement can order you out of your vehicle, and you must comply.
When an ICE agent shot and killed a kid their Bivens claim was still denied.
"Just go to court to solve it is not serious.
I see it constantly in my courtroom youtube feeds. Judge: "And what was the probable cause?"
Prosecutor: "(some bullshit that's not legit PC)"
Judge: ::incredulous look:: "Mr. Criminal, I'm going to dismiss this case based on lack of probable cause. I suggest you take this opportunity to fix your problems and stay out of my courtroom...blah blah blah"
The smaller the crime (like obstruction, not exactly murder or anything), the more likely it works. I think because police often use small crimes as retaliation.
There's no mountain-sized barrier, you just have your attorney bring up probable cause with the judge.
What we're watching is the collapse of such an unsustainable approach.
And ICE says they only go after illegals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
> Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.
Similarly, you can think it would be good to catch tax fraud, but think that it should be handled without executing folks.
That's one take. Another is that he needs serious remedial training as he's put himself in a stupidly risky spot in direct violation of ICE policies at least twice now.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20260108/118805/HMKP...
"ICE officers are trained to never approach a vehicle from the front and instead to approach in a “tactical L” 90-degree angle to prevent injury or cross-fire, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News."
Facts: He's actually trained not to do what he did (twice).
Now that you've got an actual take, I can respond:
He was trained to respond to deadly force with deadly force. That's what I'm talking about, the shooting. It was by the book.
Where he positions himself is about his own safety, nothing to do with whether he should pull the trigger or not.
He won't be found liable or guilty of anything.
We have plenty of footage of the Good shooting, including clear footage showing the tires pointed away from him.
> Where he positions himself is about his own safety…
He placed himself in a dangerous position, in direct contravention of ICE policy on the matter. At least twice!
> He won't be found liable or guilty of anything.
Sure, but that's not because he shouldn't be.
You want him to be found guilty of a policy violation? Do you think there's real consequences for that?
He's not guilty of a crime. Look at some legal analysis or something, it's not hard to find.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...
> U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, said the child — identified in court papers by the initials “V.M.L.” — appeared to have been released in Honduras earlier Friday, along with her Honduran-born mother and sister, who had been detained by immigration officials earlier in the week.
> The judge on Friday scheduled a hearing for May 16, which he said was “in the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.”
that claim was disproved by the way
but, it is famously how the feds managed to get Al Capone
This was spun as "targeting conservatives".
1. Republican breaks norms/laws
2. Democrat cleans up after, but by *not* breaking norms, doesn't go far enough to actually undo all the damage
3. We end up with a more broken governmental configuration, and head back to (1)
Most Democratic politicians are in on the game too. Its all just political theater and their in-group rotates out who gets to be the bad guys.
Yes Democrats clean-up by not breaking norms, but as mentioned they never go far enough because they legitimately do not want to go too far due to corporate interests and the elite.
I am left leaning but do not align with the majority of the Democratic party because they are in on this too. They have the tools to be much more antagonistic to the GOP but they purposely don't use them
I'm not sure what you mean by "they consistently come up with the exact small number of Democrats needed to push legislation and bills that the party proposes to be against" -- if you mean the Republicans manage to get some Democrats to "switch sides" -- it's important to remember that this is how everything used to get done. Check the old votes: party-line was less common back in the day. And even now, Democrats tolerate members with differing opinions far more than the GOP does, and it shows in their voting patterns.
If it helps, I appreciate going meta after me, but there is not much to dissect here. I stand by my bemused. You may think it is some soft of grand struggle and kudos for you for finding something to believe in, but don't project onto others.
I really do think you're fundamental warning is spot on: people really should consider how power is going to be used against them when calculating how much of it to give up in the pursuit of a goal. I also happen to think its sort of ridiculous (and impossible) for us all to wail and gnash our teeth each time a person dies unjustly. But I also think its probably wrong to be amused by it, even if it is commonplace in human affairs.
This may be the source of disconnect. While it might seem like I am amused by suffering, this is explicitly not the case. I shudder at the thought that people would take my argument as meaning that.
All I am saying is: things exist after their original purpose has been served ( or not served ). But those things continue to exist, because we, as a species, can't seem to help ourselves.
That weird drive within us is what I would call bemusing ( and not amusing ).
On a different webforum one or the other might become agitated and emotional, at which point it does not matter what the intent was, now it only matters to "be right". Great that it was just resolved cleanly.
This is different from what parent post describes. Parent means developing tools by one side of a barricade, that the other may eventually use against them, e.g. when the power shifts to them. Whereas you speak about developing the tools to be used abroad, but those tools eventually also get used domestically, but the administrator remains the same.
I don't subscribe to the hypocritical vies that people are expected to have "free will" and "freedom", while also being "influenced by the algorithm".
Its either one or the other. Personally I think its the former, and Tik Tok is just confirming to people what they want to hear.
Why would that be a given? If we remove tiktok and replace it with anything else, that replaced influence does not automatically negate my will? Case in point, when I call my mother to talk a new car purchase, does her disliking my choice automatically mean I either influenced and therefore have no will?
I am not certain you considered edge cases here.
Both parties seem to be on an authoritarian bent over the last 10-15 years, which sucks.
Seems unlikely.
If the implication is that the tools won't exist if I don't build them, that's beyond a pipe dream. We'll never get a globe of 8 billion people to agree unanimously on anything. Let alone agreeing not to build something that gives them power over their adversaries.
As simple as the project was, the employee had the presence of mind to ask his seniors some thoughtful questions of what makes sense, what is too intrusive, what is acceptable. He felt uncomfortable and that was with something that corps build on a daily basis.
Now.. not everyone wakes up thinking they are building database intended to enslave humanity as a whole, but I would like to think that one person simply questioning it can make a difference.
Democrats would really love some extra help from WikiLeaks right now, if only not Bidens administration who helped to extradite Julian.
ICE and border patrol wasn't really designed either legally or in training for these sorts of large operations, so it's created lots of dangerous situations like how to do crowd control broadly under laws like "interfering with a federal investigation", while commanders are pushing them hard for results.
On the matter of social media "moderation," this is the phase you're actually in, right now.
Edit: here’s a link to an example https://bsky.app/profile/seaniebyrne.bsky.social/post/3mby7j...
Welp, guess I didn't want to learn about that anyway
Reminds me of how someone lately was going crazy about weird video-artifacts on Youtube. It was fixed (for his videos) after contacting somebody on the technical side of Youtube, but there was never an explanation AFAIK of what actually went wrong, so I was left pondering if that could be a result of some more ambitious ML-experiments in attempt to improve compression rates or something, but never found out conclusively.
Something definitely broke.
[Edit]: I shouldn't have made the "touch grass" comment. Sorry.
There are polarizing events getting more coverage right now, by far, than anything else in the USA, and HN user infecto is subscribing to the idea that the algorithm isn't going to try to check if these important ongoing events interest them.
It's very unlikely that "this time might be different"; the far more likely answer is that this is run-of-the-mill algorithm exploration injection.
Infecto replied me I said "you are wrong". I didn't. My original comment was assuring, in good faith, made to let them know that TikTok changing theit FYP feed is normal. They hadn't yet mentioned they already knew about algo resets and that they were leaning in to the conspiracies. Their reply to me was not in good faith, and did not respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what I originally commented.
No conspiracy theory here. Long time user of TikTok. The sometimes part is that I am not hooked on it but I do use its regularly. I started using it after being a user on Douyin.
Like I already said I have no input on the censorship but just anecdotally to me something’s dis change that was out of the norm for my usage that I never experienced before. If you want to say that’s normal ok but I am suggesting it was out of the norm as a long long time user.
Not sure why you are lumping me with a conspiracy theory just sharing a datapoint that something did change weather on purpose or not.
Sorry to offend you but please don’t misread and lump me into a conspiracy! I explicitly said I had no opinion or datapoint on the censorship but there was a massive change in the feed. Wild how many hoops you are jumping through here. You continue to call out my own experience as wrong and now pump me into a conspiracy theorist. Nutty.
That's not how these words work. A reasonable person wouldn't think these phrases are interchangeable when taking about something addictive -- in this case TicTok. Someone who "smokes sometimes" and someone who "smokes regularly" are very different groups. This isn't an attack; I understand you now, I'm just trying to get you to see where I was coming from.
> Like I already said I ... that I never experienced before.
You had not said that yet, you just said I said you were wrong.
> this was entirely different and coincided in time with the complaints of censorship.
If you think this statement isn't reasonably interpreted as you implying and leaning in to, or in the very least encouraging, this conspiracy theory, then I think you are being disingenuous.
I was trying to provide helpful information by giving someone who only "sometimes" uses tiktok some assurance that these changes are typical.
You’re reading into my words far deeper than you should. I have used the App for a long time off and on but enough to know something changed whether intentional or not over the last week.
I already stated in the very beginning that I have no comment or opinion on the censorship. That’s not my corner of the world but was sharing an anecdote that something most definitely changed in my feed around the same time. Could be related or not but it coincides with the timeline. Even with the timeline similarity it may simply be a bug in the recommendation engine. I was only sharing an anecdote and no it was not exploration injection. The anecdote was just that my experience and saying it follows the same timeline is not suggesting a conspiracy is happening but that yes something happened/broke in the feed and it aligns with my timeline.
Please stop attacking me. I have apologized for my words already they carried no ill intent but still amazed how you continue to invalidate my experience while also attacking me. Maybe you should take some of your advice.
Sloppy analogy time: Imagine you came in and said your vacuum cleaner broke and someone said "Yeah, that brand loses suction after six months, it's obnoxious." They're telling you it's normal for that type of vacuum, but they're not calling you wrong, they're trying to agree with you. If your problem is different, go ahead and correct them, but they're not denying your lived experience!
(And don't say they should have inferred you knew about that behavior and known you meant this was different. That's too close to expecting someone to read your mind. Especially when your original post didn't mention you were a long time user with enough dedication to notice that.)
Yes.
But the guy you're talking to had no way to know that, and you shouldn't have taken insult at what he said.
> wild conspiracy theories
What?
Edit: Also for your first sentence, have we been in an argument or something? But apparently I've made 5 comments a day all-time and 7.6 comments a day in the last year. If that's full time then I need to become a brand promotion contractor ASAP.
I no longer use TikTok, but I was pretty hooked for a while, and I felt those “waves” every now and then.
It was pretty noticeable because each time I started getting extreme right political content from my country, and I neither consume anything local nor right wing content.
There was a major storm over the weekend. I think the issues have been resolved. Is it still the case anti ICE videos can't be uploaded? Seems easy to test.
Much like how even relatively innocuous comments on many subreddits will just be shadow-deleted.
It is an incredible time-saving productivity hack to disregard what habitual liars say.
Go ahead and save your time, but remember your reputation is at risk as well, and I would consider you unreasonable.
I remember when everyone migrated from MySpace to Facebook and I assumed everyone was going to just keep moving over to the next big thing every few years but that actually didn't happen. Facebook became an institution.
This is a pretty obnoxious comment. You're welcome to your opinion that the apps are harmful, and I'm inclined to agree with you even though I use TikTok myself, but a blanket statement that only unhealthy people are on the apps is just inflammatory.
- 758 posts on home construction and interior design - 487 posts on cooking - 58 posts on relationship health - 605 posts on leadership - 58 posts on fitness - 19 posts on woodworking
, and countless others on travel and dining.
Would you like to restate your claim with more nuance? I have collected a vast amounts of knowledge through TikTok. Their algorithm is insanely good at capturing whatever it is you’re after. It’s a challenge to put the app down and I think any person that can’t impose their own healthy limits or can’t modulate their topical interests is going to have an even harder time. Let’s remember that amidst the real negative aspects, there is a really great system for learning buried in there.
You bookmarked those once, surely you meant to go back to them ;)
You could probably find the same information, most likely in more detail, in better context, and with improved searchability, from more "traditional" sources. Of course, if it's not clear what you want to know, the algorithm can certainly point you somewhere.
As for neglecting my bookmarks, I mean to do a lot of things ;) (I'll prune them this weekend, promise)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddles_(app)
TikTok showed that the platform lives and dies by the algorithm and ease of use. I'm not even a huge fan of TikTok's recommendations these days with too much slop slipping through the cracks. And their comment moderation is some of the worst.
If another platform ever gets popular enough, I'm sure the same people will find another way to neutralize it.
If AI removes any technical limitations, and automates content management, what's stopping a content creator from owning what they create and distributing it themselves?
How can centralization continue to survive?
The web started off as a pretty peer to peer system, but almost immediately people built directories and link farms as means to find things. You can make a system as distributed as you want, but that only works for content which people know to find. Which is great for piracy, as e.g. movies and TV shows are advertised everywhere else and can be found by title.
For social media, the recommendation engine is a critical part of the appeal to users.
Ranking posts/comments by the exponential of inverse IPAddress-post-frequency would solve bad actors posting behind VPNs/proxies like evil bot farms / state actors and marketers.
Real users have their own IP address, and IP addresses are expensive like $20-50 a month which would make mocking traffic an extremely expensive proposition.
Mocking 1% of reddit's 120M daily active user would cost 58M and you wouldn't want to share/sell these addresses with other actors since it would ruin your credibility
The idea is to accept bad actors but make it more expensive and also you can directly identify cliques by IP ect.
Doesn't this just incentivize posting a bunch of comments from your residential proxy IP addresses to launder them? This smells like a poor strategy that's likely to lead to more spam than not. Also, everyone has to start somewhere so your legit IP addresses are also going to seem spammy at first.
I'm not much of a blackhat so excuse my lack of knowledge on tricks of the trade
First, the obvious: if federation was clearly superior, it would've won. No medium since email has been federated and even that's dominated by a handful of players. Running your own email server is... nontrivial.
Second, users don't care abou tthis. Like at all.
Third, supposedly tech-savvy people don't seem willing or able to merely scratch the surface of what that looks like and how it would work.
Fourth, there's a lot of infrastructure you need such as moderation and safety that would need to be replicated for each federated provider.
Lastly, zero consideration is given to the problems this actually creates. Look at POTS. We have spam and providers that are bad actors and effectively launder spam calls and texts. You need some way to manage that.
Federated networks are theoretically and systematically superior to centralized, that's why people push it.
Humanity and social media isn't about technological superiority. Current platforms have inertia. Why would people fragment when all they care about is basic actions, and their network is already built?
Federated networks have been burdened by an onboarding tax, but this, along with moderation, can all be abstracted away by AI.
Let's see the current reality: social media platforms are currently American-dominated. A serious geopolitical problem, especially considering the amount of time younger generations spend on it.
There is more and more reason for governments to get involved and force the fragmentation of these platforms.
Everyone has a stake in getting accurate information, and therefore they have an interest in owning part of that system.
Why wouldn't this also apply to social media? Why is it better for 5 players to exist rather than 1000s?
Putting up a website is easy, pulling traffic away from bigger sites is much more difficult
no because we don't live in the best of all worlds. it starts to win pretty rapidly when centralized abuses of power become apparent. Bitchat (p2p mesh network messaging app) has been becoming quite popular in Uganda and Iran.
Decentralization is the basic guarantor for most of the freedoms we take for granted in democratic systems. Just because the average user doesn't exercise them, just like people who only start going on the treadmill when their chest starts to hurt at age 50, doesn't mean it isn't the answer.
If TikTok falls TikTokers will just use another centralized app.
Content creators don't have peertube instances for a reason.
To be clear, I think both censorship regimes are not good, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Though I am morbidly enjoying the irony of seeing those on the left suddenly discover an interest in free speech, and those on the right discover their love for campaigning to get people deplatformed.
The idea the government needs to step in to tell HR departments what mixture of ideas they’re allowed to hire and reward is ridiculous. That is an actual affront to free speech.
If you don’t like woketard social dynamics, make your own HR department that lacks them, duh.
I reported it for promoting violence, but TikTok found no violation of its guidelines.
It probably didn't help that the video was posted by the official White House TikTok account..
The only information outlet where we can have a reasonable expectation of freedom is the web itself, a good old websites on your own domain. Could be a txt file if you want to keep it simple ;)
I also do believe this is an incredibly hard technical moment. Elli-Tok has nearly no chance of suceeding in building their own algorithm, from square 1, since they don't have access to the ByteDance algorithms. I don't know what access they have to international content and internstional viewing habits, don't know if US content flows to TikTok actual and if they get any algorithmic help from that. This feels like a suicidal business, buying a brand name but lacking any and all of the means to maintain product quality.
There probably are real technical problems here. And feed preferences are probably just gone, while Elli-Tok rebuilds its own perhaps isolated perhaps loosely connected fork, while as said above probably lacking the content and viewer data to work from.
But just as Ellison's bought CBS then let it be overrun & destroyed by the hollow Free Press propogandists (pretending to be neutral, I say as my eyes roll out of my head), I also tend to think they thought they could get away with doing what they want. Maybe they will get away with this project. Maybe it is all isolated US only content, maybe it is swamped with right wing agitprop from here on out. Maybe half those viewers here keep scrolling forever and that's good enough to make the incredibly fantastically rich happy with their US government facilitated acquisition, that sundering an interesting diverse well tuned network is maybe or maybe not a delight but a necessary thing to claw under for this desired class propoganda. But I tend to think they're alas probably smart enough to learn quickly this is not how you boil a frog, and tend to think Elli-Tok is going to (suck for a long while either way, but work to) dial down the right wingism & divisionism a lot, then slowly work it back up.
(But man, watching these buffons mishandle CBS, watching ridiculous bald faced "salute to Mark Rubio" sure makes it hard to believe they have any competence at all.)
Different topic but the extremely critical TikTok v. Garland and the First Amendment Anticanon by Evelyn Douek skewering the unanimous Supreme Court decision that ok'ed this absurd international media property theft is amazing to read. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6118706
From the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action.
This could very well be marked as an overheated discussion.
This comes up on HN constantly. The reason I feel confident that this is actually the case and not selective moderating is that these same exact comments pop up across posts from the entire political spectrum.
The issue is, that the tech is not a niche thing anymore - the biggest companies on earth are all tech now, and they played a very major role in installing the current US government. This topic is a great example too. Any current or future authoritarian state will be a very heavy user of technology, so it may very well be worth it debating these things here on HN.
For when someone is a new person here, they'll then first get mildly introduced and familiar with the expectations and aspirations of space through more neutral discussions. After their initial impression they're always free to seek out these hotter discussions on /active once they realize they happen here.
I don't think that was ever completely true - it was always "things hackers found interesting". But what was "interesting" then was a product of the much calmer times back then – talking about Blub and build-your-own Lisps, hikes across Japan, etc.
Unfortunately, "interesting" is polarizing – and that is by design by the politicians iin power instigating this.
They want Jesus on the throne, enforcing morality and making sure the poor people to work instead of being lazy grifters that take good people’s hard-earned money.
This isn’t a hot take. I’m a Christian who grew up that community. :(
It’s everywhere. And I hate what they are doing to my LGBTQ friends.
Basically every large advertiser requires this so it's pretty trivial to turn on.
it's just retaliation
and obviously, trump will play into this
Note: They also are having "technical difficulties" transmitting DMs with the string "epstein" in them.
I really only come here for tech news, but I doubt ICE cares.
You could leave tik-tok but that's where folks are at and the average tik-tok viewer is unlikely to leave their dank maymays just because of some "alleged" (and I use that term lightly) censorship
Going by the comments, people on TikTok seem very fast in seeing conspiracies, when many problems can be simply explained with normal problems or human failings. And it's good to be critical and aware of dangers, but I fear if they are so easy to call out problems, it will wear of fast, and people will start to ignore real problems again, like they used to be.
> I thought they were already using usa-based cloud infrastructure
Unless they were already using the same provider on the same account with the same IAM policies as their new owner (they were not, obviously) this is irrelevant.
Upscrolled looks like a promising alternative.
Meta and Google (including Youtube) kowtow to the administration in what speech they promote and suppress in the exact way the administration (both parties) says China might theoretically do in the future.
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...
[2]: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/metas-israel-policy-chief...
[3]: https://www.972mag.com/social-media-ukraine-palestinians-met...
[4]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
we're going to class this one as low priority / won't fix.
It was better when TikTok reported to the Third Department of the People's Liberation Army. They don't censor outside China.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2026/01/27/nx-s1-5689104/tiktok-epstein-...
Perhaps on the tiktok Blind?
If there was some "mask off" moment I don't know what it was, and I've been in this industry for a while. Perhaps you're just projecting out from Elon? It's a popular thing to do nowadays.
Perhaps you're one of those pro-Gestapo people? It's a popular thing nowadays.
I wonder if it is widespread knowledge internally or if just the select few know.
I don't think that one's personal moral compass and one's profession have much correlation at all. Otherwise, moral philosophy professors would be near saints. Moreover the moral philosophers at Harvard would be more ethical than those at Ohio State.
Civil engineers maybe. Software "engineers" were never known for their strong sense of ethics.
The same with X and, before that, Facebook.
TikTok has never worked for me though so maybe there's no real equivalent alternative. Maybe time to make one if not?
To me it says something about the public, but I'm not sure what. I'm tempted to attribute it to indifference or complacency but I'm aware of network effects and the reality of alternatives.
Sometimes I feel like education and theory about security practices needs to extend beyond micro-level phenomena like passwords, to things like administrative conflicts of interest and strength in decentralization and competition. Private monopolies and quasi-monopolies aren't just economically bad, they're bad for privacy and security, and make the public vulnerable through lack of choice. In important ways it doesn't matter if it's the government or a private company; whenever power concentrates it is easier to align and abuse.
Part of it too I guess is my personal experience with people I know who will complain about a platform repeatedly (in terms of algorithmic political manipulation) and then turn around and continue to use it voluminously, sending links to stuff on the platform over and over again, etc. (not speaking just about TikTok in particular, with a few sites). It has this feeling similar to if they complained about how awful a food item tastes, and expressed concerns about it being poison, but then continued to binge eat it daily.
Maybe they figure it's just inevitable or something, or maybe you're right about reinforcement contingencies. Maybe it's as simple as that.
Most people don’t pick one social media platform and use it for 100% of everything.
They’ll switch between TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, and others during the day.
It’s not hard to see when one of those platforms is missing discussion of current events.
the revolution won't be televised because the bastards who own the networks won't let you see it and you probably wouldn't watch it anyway— you're too busy with your beer and your phone and your comfortable numbness.
the revolution won't be televised because it's not entertainment, not something you can half-watch while you're scratching your ass and wondering what to eat for dinner.
you can't consume revolution like you consume everything else— passive, bored, already thinking about the next thing.
the revolution won't be televised because it happens in the place you're most afraid to look: inside your own goddamn skull.
it starts when you stop lying to yourself, stop swallowing their garbage, stop pretending this is fine. it's not on TV. it's not coming to save you. it's just you and the choice to keep sleeping or finally wake the hell up. nobody's going to film that.
If you can upload any video but ICE brutality then I want to conduct system design session with their architect, tech lead, and CTO!
Remember when the story about Hunter Biden’s Laptop got banned from all major media? A story that could have been confirmed true by just emailing the subjects and asking them if the emails were real?
Remember when Google admitted to being pressured (and caving into said pressure) to censor conservative voices?
When we learned that Twitter allowed the US Military to run influence campaigns at people in the Middle East?
This isn’t new, we just don’t like when our weapon gets turned on us.
Free speech absolutism is the only sensible option.
That government forces the platform to be sold to a billionaire ally.
Platform’s new owner immediately bans criticism of said government.
“Not a first amendment issue, it’s a private company”
Ah you mean an app that the US forced to be sold to a private company that certainly agreed behind the scenes to certain terms of the government?
Yeah.. completely independent private company...
A weak analogy (I know analogy are never allowed here because "they're not the same") is that you can fire someone at will. Unless it turns out you fired them because they are black (yes I know being black is much different than expressing an opinion). It didn't mean you can't fire them at will, just that you couldn't for that specific protected reason.
Although at this point we're well well past the goalpost of "Freedom of speech has literally never prevented a private company from controlling the content on its platform" and down into the weeds of how it happened. The case clearly prevented the company from fully controlling the content of its sidewalk platform.
These twitter files:
"After the first set of files was published, various technology and media journalists said that the reported evidence demonstrated little more than Twitter's policy team struggling with difficult decisions, but resolving such matters swiftly. Some conservatives said that the documents demonstrated what they called Twitter's liberal bias...
In June 2023, lawyers working for Twitter contested many of the claims made in the Twitter Files in court. According to CNN, 'the filing by Musk's own corporate lawyers represents a step-by-step refutation of some of the most explosive claims to come out of the Twitter Files and that in some cases have been promoted by Musk himself.'
"
The nothingburger Twitter Files?
The paragraph ”You can repeat that all you like. Wikipedia is bullshit on that and you know it.” is plainly not consistent with curious conversation.
What is your explanation for that?
You’ve multiple times claimed the Twitter files are a “nothing burger”…
The truth is that there is concrete evidence of the Biden administration, pressuring media companies to sensor specific posts about Covid that they considered harmful to the narrative. Direct first amendment violations.
You seem to not give any indication that you can have read Weiss or Taibbi’s articles.
Jack Dorsey admitted it was true. So did Zuckerberg. Wild position you seem to have forced yourself into.
It's sad that certain topics (anti-ICE, Epstein) neutered on a social media platform, but this went on for years when the politics were reversed.
Let everyone have their say, I say.
Pure user vote driven things like Reddit are a failure (echo chambers, emotional appeals, bot rings, etc). So I’m curious what you think would let that happen?
Even HN is heavily moderated to maintain topics.
I am not objecting to people expressing disagreement or labeling as an abstract exercise of free speech. I am pointing to a pattern that has become common online where disagreement quickly turns into coordinated pile-ons, identity assignment, and social signaling rather than substantive engagement with the argument itself.
Free speech protects the right to do that, but it does not mean the behavior is healthy or productive. When discourse collapses into binary alignment where nuance is treated as hostility, it discourages honest participation and pushes people toward silence or extremes.
So yes, others are exercising free speech. My concern is about the cultural outcome of how that speech is increasingly used, not whether it is permitted.
Increasingly society in America is either you are with us or not and at least for me my view of the world is more nuanced and day to day.
It's easy to fall prey to the fallacy that disagreement with you means the disagreers are failing to engage substantively to the topic, and are simply "social signaling".
It's easy to dismiss many people disagreeing with you as a "coordinated pile on".
In my experience, these accusations are usually a result of the "piled on"'s failure to understand and consider the others' perspective, and their unwillingness to change their mind.
Not to say that they must understand and consider others' perspectives, or that they must be willing to change their mind either! But engaging with a society means facing social pressure to conform with social norms. There's always not engaging with society in any meaningful way, as an option.
Where I differ is that I do not think this is only an individual perception problem. There are structural incentives online that reward signaling, amplification, and rapid norm enforcement over slower, substantive engagement. That does not require explicit coordination to function like a pile on, and it does not require bad intent from participants.
Social pressure and norm enforcement are inevitable in any society, as you note. My concern is about degree and speed. When the dominant response to a nonconforming view is immediate identity assignment or moral framing rather than argument, the space for persuasion narrows quickly. At that point, engagement becomes less about exchanging ideas and more about sorting people.
Opting out is always an option, but that feels like conceding that meaningful public discourse online is no longer worth defending. I am not convinced that is a good outcome either.
Those same structural incentives reward people organizing around a topic about which they're genuinely both passionate and informed. So how are you determining the difference?
> and rapid norm enforcement over slower, substantive engagement
Different people have different opinions over whether violation of norms should be tolerated, and how quickly. Note that this is different from tolerating disagreement, but some disagreement is so heinous as to violate norms in and of itself (e.g. a nazi salute).
> That does not require explicit coordination to function like a pile on, and it does not require bad intent from participants.
Sure, but a "pile on", which I'll refer to by the more impartial term "many people disagreeing with a person or their take" or "many people validly expressing that a person has violated norms" is totally okay and valid in a society. The speed and degree of that enforcement is itself a social norm, and if it seems people prefer a high speed and high degree, then that is the norm.
I could speculate why that has become the norm, but I'll just generalize that there is a lot of hurt going around, and a lot of callousness to it, and a lot of failures of the traditional ways of addressing it, like shame.
On norms, I agree there are cases where the content itself is the violation, not merely a disagreement. Extreme examples make that clear. Where it becomes tricky is that the boundary of what counts as norm violating has expanded and become more fluid, while the enforcement mechanisms have become faster and more punitive. That combination raises the risk of false positives and discourages exploratory or imperfect reasoning, even when the underlying intent is not malicious.
I also agree that many people disagreeing is not inherently a problem. What I am pushing back on is the framing that this is always just neutral preference aggregation. When enforcement becomes immediate, public, and identity focused, it changes the cost structure of participation. The fact that a norm exists does not automatically mean it is optimal for discourse, only that it is currently dominant.
Your last point about hurt and callousness is important. I suspect that is part of the explanation. But if widespread hurt leads us to default to faster and harsher sorting rather than engagement, it seems reasonable to ask whether that tradeoff is actually helping us understand each other better, or just making the lines more rigid.
> if widespread hurt leads us to default to faster and harsher sorting rather than engagement, it seems reasonable to ask whether that tradeoff is actually helping us understand each other better, or just making the lines more rigid.
I agree with these totally valid points. I think what we're seeing, though, is people are prioritizing "stopping the hurt" above "optimal for discourse". Most hurt animals will lash out and otherwise act in ways less rational than if they were feeling good. And as for the current scenario, where people are actively continuing to pile more hurt on? Forget about it.
That is free speech. And the violence you see is direct consequence of a culture that tuts tuts "this is rude" when someone says "these right wing people are fascists" rather then look at what those right wing people openly talk about.
Proclaiming oneself a centrist might seem like a noble, moderate position. But in 2026, with the Overton window basically being shifted outside the frame?
The point still stands brigading is a massive problem in America.
Maybe it’s not obvious but you compared the thread to an argument. I see no argument. Just a boneheaded reply from someone which was a great example of exactly what I was describing.
Your follow up is pretty on point too, somehow we go from the topic of brigading to maybe me being ok with the current state of things. This is a really great example of the problem I was describing. Thank you.
So why is it that self proclaimed centrists consistently talk in right-wing talking points? That's my entire point, you talk in cancel culture/culture war talking points as if those are real issues and even the single most pertinent issues in America. Even though in reality they are purely artificial constructions of right-wing propaganda, spread by Fox News, Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think-tanks and media figures. When I hear those mirrored back to me by someone who claims to be a centrist, I can't contain my frustration.
It's like this political illiteracy that gets on my nerves, it's people fed propaganda they internalized as some political congruent position that reads to me as completely incomprehensible gibberish. It's like a proto-fascist is in power that is rounding people up and putting them in concentration camps and you are undecided IDEOLOGICALLY, I'm sorry but that's just lack of very basic political education and being a severe victim of neoliberal depoliticization. Read a book.
I think that over the years, bad faith actors in the world of geopolitics have taken advantage of this in a very nefarious way in order to sow chaos, bad-faith/purposefully-inaccurate "talking points" and capture the hearts and minds of the ignorant, the stupid, and the willfully delusional masses who are desperate to cling to a conspiracy if it fits their worldview which is in turn reinforced by said bad actors.
Is it a potentially unconstitutional slippery slope? yes, absolutely. Is it something we need to tackle as adults and citizens? yes, absolutely. Should the desires of SV tech bro billionaires have any input in those discussions? no, absolutely not.
At some point, we definitely need a cooling-off period where people from both sides refrain from inciting anger from the masses.
The fediverse might not be booming with activity to the same degree as the big names, but there’s plenty out there and it has a pleasant small-forum vibe that went extinct on the bigger sites a long time ago.
At least on the surface level, I could believe this is just a full algorithm reset and they are having problems with it. But even after other algorithm resets that I believe I've experienced, Tiktok figured it out extremely quickly. If this continues, I will believe in the heavyhanded censorship theory.
Since 2020, when the first Trump administration attempted to ban TikTok, work has been ongoing to separate out the TikTok US business in all aspects from the parent company Bytedance. Setting up dedicated infrastructure for US users was already accomplished by 2023 for the most part, and this included the restriction that US user data couldn’t be used to train or otherwise influence non-US user operations.
However, there were a few major caveats. First, all the actual videos, at least if they’re public, were considered to be Bytedance data, even those created by US users (although the actual user intent signals - likes, watch behavior, and the like, were considered to be US user data). This allowed them to be used to train the main Bytedance-owned algorithm. Second, the Bytedance-trained algorithm continued to form the basis of the algorithm to serve US users. At least when I was there, US user data was used to tune the algorithm for US users, but the algorithm was not necessarily trained from scratch only on US user data in practice.
One of Bytedance’s main conditions for the TikTok US sale has always been that they own the algorithm (both the code and the models) and would not transfer it to the US, so this was definitely a foreseeable issue. With the chaos of the TikTok Us divestment between the Biden and Trump administrations, though, I suspect that it was hard to hire and retain ML engineers that could build a proper replacement for the algorithm in time for the divestment, let alone build one that matches the behavior of the previous algorithm.
If the algorithm is separated between US and non-US as strictly as the TikTok US Data Services mission always aimed for, then TikTok for US users is in many respects a new service entirely that shares the same UI and features. I also don’t know how US users get trained on non-US content, or if they’re even exposed, nor if any other countries use the US algorithm. So this change in content may last at least into the medium term, if not permanently. The question will be if you start seeing more left-wing anti-ICE content in the coming weeks or months.
It was a direct 1A violation. And cowards here pretend like it didn’t happen “for the greater good” or something.
These twitter files:
"After the first set of files was published, various technology and media journalists said that the reported evidence demonstrated little more than Twitter's policy team struggling with difficult decisions, but resolving such matters swiftly. Some conservatives said that the documents demonstrated what they called Twitter's liberal bias...
In June 2023, lawyers working for Twitter contested many of the claims made in the Twitter Files in court. According to CNN, 'the filing by Musk's own corporate lawyers represents a step-by-step refutation of some of the most explosive claims to come out of the Twitter Files and that in some cases have been promoted by Musk himself.'
"
The nothingburger Twitter Files?
Per https://www.npr.org/2026/01/27/nx-s1-5689104/tiktok-epstein-... :
> "We don't have rules against sharing the name 'Epstein' in direct messages and are investigating why some users are experiencing issues," a spokesman for TikTok's U.S. operation told NPR in a statement.
But the evidence in that Twitter thread should be weighed against the spokesperson's statement.
This is a thread about government-aligned owners censoring content on a platform the government forced a sale of. The authoritarians already have the thing.
https://gothamist.com/news/ai-videos-of-fake-nypdice-clashes...
I suspect these are some of those that have been banned from TikTok, and there's probably heightened moderation around this content at the moment since people are sharing AI-generated propaganda and riling others into violent confrontation with ICE.
They ALL do incredibly corrupt things
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/tiktok-epstein-trump-cens...
So I guess HN was just ahead of the curve.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This has not changed in over ten years https://web.archive.org/web/20140702092610/https://news.ycom...
I had expected an Orbanisation (aka, what happened to the media sphere in Hungary after Orban took over and his cronies bought up almost all media) of Tiktok, but not that fast, it's like less than a week after the deal [2].
Scary shit if you ask me, and it's made scarier by the fact that Tiktok has already been changing the way our youth speaks due to evading censorship (e.g. "graped" instead of "raped", "unalived" instead of kill/murder/execute/suicide).
[1] https://x.com/krassenstein/status/2015911471507530219
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/23/heres-whats-you-should-kno...
Why not? All the tech was already put in place by China. All that the U.S. had to do was change the filtered words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algospeak
Meanwhile you can report a bot who's posted 20+ comments under a video to advertise illegal drugs and all of the reports and subsequent appeals will consistently come back as "No violation found".
> I've never seen reports of censorship like this on TikTok before Ellison bought it.
That's not censorship problems.
That's advertisement problems. That's conflicts of interest problems. That's incentives problems. That's people-who-post-videos-just-to-make-money problems.
Well, okay, it can easily be turned into censorship problems: instead of just demonetizing the video, don't show it to anyone. It's quite a fine line, but the line is indeed there.
This seems like a fairly blunt attempt at quality-of-life improvement for the general platform vibes, no? Put some friction on the (legitimate) nutjobs who just want to say "Kill X, kill Y" all the time and are so insane they can't figure out euphemisms?
Duoyin (Chinese version of TikTok) would definitely not be different..
the cultural revolution famine the great leap forward Taiwanese independence Hong Kong self governance democracy human rights Falun Gong Uyghur people free speech KMT party Chiang Kai-shek
and that's just off the top of my head. there are likely hundreds of others.
Yup. China doesn't want you to know about Chinese problems or history, like Tianenmen Square.
> as far as I'm aware did not exist at all when it was owned by China.
Then either you weren't paying attention or the filters were working against you as intended.
Somehow I'm optimistic that this means the Trump Regime is on its last legs. But well, what's the quote about underestimating the stupidity of the American public?
Huh? They clearly are different - they have all the drawbacks with none of the positives.
Yup!
Worthy for fell for it again award.
If TikTok suddenly blocks videos on a topic, and they say it was "technical issues", I'm going to guess the new US overlords accidentally pressed the wrong button.
Wonder how long before that button comes for HN. If Dang starts talking like ChatGPT we'll all know.
People laugh at MAGA conspiration theories backed by Fox News, but their conpiration theories - backed by CNN - sound just as insane for anyone that didn't buy into any of the 2 extremes...
Interesting times…
My mother was born just after WWII—died a few years ago. As sad as I have been (still am) when I watch the world fall apart around me I am thankful that she at least lived through perhaps the best stretch American history—does not have to see the shit I am seeing daily (she was the type that would have been unconsolably anxious about it).
I feel badly, so far, for my daughters born roughly in the period around September 11, 2001. Still, I'm hopeful they might yet see even a brighter future than I had growing up in the 70's…
I was born in Canada in 1970 to loving and extraordinarily supportive parents and moved to the US in the mid 90's. I can't imagine a better time or place to have been born. I have kids around the same age as yours and their lives are so much more difficult even though they are smarter and harder working than I ever was.
Never I though that I would still see the return to such politics in my lifetime, even in Europe it is getting harder to push back on them.
I think the Vietnam War was much worse than what you are seeing daily...
The general principle of Section 230 is that a platform provider isn't generally liable for user generated content. This was a key piece of legislation that enabled forums, Reddit and ultimately social media. The platform provider does have responsibilities like moderating illegal content and responding to legal takedowns, etc.
Alternatively if you produce and publish your own content you are legally liable. You can be sued for defamation, etc in a way that you can't if you simply host user generated content (unless you fail to adequately moderate).
REcommendation algorithms (including news feeds) effectively allow a platform provider to select what content gets distributed and what doesn't. All algorithms express biases and goals of humans who create those algorithms. It's not a black box. It is a reflection of the company's goals.
So if you wanted to produce content that's, for example, only flattering to the administration even if you outright lie, you can be sued. But what if your users produce any content you want but you only distribute content that is favorable to the administration? At the same time, you suppress anti-administration content and content creators. It's the same end result but the latter has Section 230 protections. And it really shouldn't.
This isn't hypothetical. The Biden administration revived the dead Trump 1 Tiktok ban to suppress anti-Israel content [1][2][3].
What I find most funny about all this is that the American administration--both parties--are doing the exact thing they accuse China is possibly doing in the future.
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/tiktok-faces-renew...
[2]: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2024/03/18/yes-its-a-ban-...
This whole thing is such a shit show. The US government right now looks like a total ass of all asses on the world stage, but this TikTok business of the US demanding our country get to take over a social network preceeds this era of major fuckery by a good tick. And is just so stupid, so not what governments should do. Even if we hadn't had Trump just hand it over to his preferred "buyers" the Ellison's, it's just a grade a fuckup, absolute bedlam to do this, completely delegitmizes the US.
TikTok v. Garland and the First Amendment Anticanon paper by Evelyn Douek just came out, talking to what a first class First Amendment fuck up the unanimous Supreme Court decision was. Excellent read. Just could not have done a worst job, unbelievable nonsense that let this madness just persist & amplify. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6118706
Weren't anti-ICE people just calling it "freeze peach" a minute ago? This is what that looks like. This is the group that repeated "nothingburger" over and over again when you said that government directly and publicly threatening private businesses if they didn't censor individuals was bad.
This is political. The Democrats began their open hatred of the left in the 90s when the Democrats cracked down on free speech during the anti-globalization protests (the introduction of fenced-in "free speech zones"), the party went all in on Iraq against the wishes of all people who were paying attention, Hillary Clinton mocked the left for objecting to a wall between Mexico and the United States, and Rahm Emanuel described people who wanted single-payer as "fucking retards."
Now the bizarre group of media-addicted partisans that now calls themselves the "left" fight for free trade and imported slave labor. They remind you that there are jobs that are too awful for Americans that are totally appropriate for Mexicans. That manufacturing is actually worthless, and we should import everything because as a reserve currency there's no need to produce anything. Trade deficits can be infinite, and America is meant to be a black hole, sucking in the worlds production and handing it to the rich. But the rich are bad, although we're giving them every single thing they want. Their politics judged on policy are to the right of Nixon. The only illegal immigrants they know are their employees. They've left behind Floyd, Illegal is the new Black.
Now, on HN, this isn't politics. This is something else. Only black people and women are politics. The creation of a masked, militarized federal police force filled with morons to enforce federal immigration law because Democratic cities and states are refusing to enforce it themselves? Not politics. The performance of Trump's street roundups to rally his base (and the working people in this country that are undercut by illegal labor, and the racists who think every Mexican is a rapist) while ignoring and writing exceptions for the corporations that employ illegal labor? Not politics.
Sorry, I meant something something something Russia, China, Iran, Nazis. And some specious, offensive comparison of people who just got here in order to make money to Black Americans enslaved and segregated over centuries.
Given the low quality of a lot of comments under this story and the hyperbolic fighting going on, I don’t exactly blame them. Stories like this are very important and interesting but 75% of the comment section is a dumpster fire.
Comment sections that attract certain comment and downvote patterns can trigger the flame war filter which drops their rank.
It’s not a moderator coming in and hiding things. It’s the users flagging it and/or triggering the flame war filter.
Even with that, there are anti-ICE stories all over the front page every day.
I had a condescending response from a HN mod the other day telling me that HN isn't all that left wing, just a 'slight skew'. Well OK buddy, exhibit A, read through the diversity of opinions that aren't flagged in this thread. I'd go as far to say that HN is basically like Reddit, except more of you happen to have computer science degrees.
And that's fine, it is what it is, but let's not pretend this website doesn't have a heavy bias in a particular direction.
So what you're writing is aligned with tactics you'd expect...?
So simply supporting or opposing "immigration enforcement" must not be it. Something must be different about this situation. I encourage you to dig deeper, or actually ask those who disagree with you, what that difference might be. And beware of falling victim to the easy dismissal of 'more people are less rational and/or less informed than before', a variant of 'this person who doesn't agree with me must be less rational and/or less informed than me'.