Anyways, my criticism was not time delineated, you asked for evidence, and now are claiming the evidence I provided to support my initial claim isn’t good enough because of a new condition you’ve brought out. That’s… I don’t have another colloquial term to describe it besides “shifting the goalpost”. You’re changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid. There’s a term for that (a point I think I’ve amply belaboured by now).
And sure, poor behavior can absolutely be learned from. Thats a core tenet of society. But, just for fun, could you please give me an example of a massive multinational corporation, or a social media platform, voluntarily becoming less evil? There’s been absolutely no indication that TikTok has ever stopped these practices, too. So why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they ever done anything to justify such high regard?
Look I’m sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist? Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You’d think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human. So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?
So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?
It shouldn’t be banned for the reasons the law is stating. I’m all for people moving to better places. Centralized moderation will always be influenced by the ownership and succiptible to problematic choices (intentional or unintentional) that will effect people. some content will be less moderated on different platforms and that will change over time, which is just the reality of the current social media landscape.
Look I’m sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist?
I’d be happy to see a better option that works for people currently using Tiktok that doesnt have the baggage of the corporation. Maybe Loops can be that one day. Maybe something else will show up. But I’m not wishing an entire platform to just evaporate even if I have major issues with it, and pointing out things that it is good for compared to alternatives is not the same as being an apologist. Pointing out that a ton of people incomes (in a country in a time where small businesses and self employed income is at every increasing risk) is not defending EVERYTHING tiktok has done, currently does, or will do. Nor is any of that claiming it’s an egalitarian wonder app.
Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You’d think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human.
I’m all for people abandoning Facebook. While I’d be less caring if it got banned in a similar way, i would not celebrate it. There are still tons of normal people using it for normal reasons and they shouldnt be suddenly cut off like this. They should absolutely move away from it or their own voilition, not due to authoritarian intervention.
Facebook has actively promoted a genocide entirely of its own creation, which is quite a different issue from content suppression. You are mischaracterizing my arguments by making it out to be equivilant to a completely different situation.
You’re changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid.
I never said your evidence was invalid, I just said it needed context.
I offered my opinion (which is absolutely personal experience bias!). I suggested you consider that the article in question it may not be universally applicable to the current state of the App due to its age. I did not say you had an invalid opinion or reason to dislike it. I did not say that there was not a problem. I did not say that there still aren’t problems.
Being in a minority on social media sometimes means choosing the places that are the least awful. Tiktok can be both good and bad for groups. That doesn’t mean it deserves to be banned.
Look, I’m just advocating for people who are being harmed by the actions of an authoritarian government against an app and suggesting that celebrating the actions of said authoritarian government is problematic, even if there are other reasons to dislike the app.
I really dislike point by point breakdowns, it’s too easy to take individual statements out of context and the lack of a clear thesis makes it incredibly difficult to respond without resorting to comments of even greater length.
In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it’s okay to still use it because it’s extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? “The good outweighs the ill” as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.
(That’s not me being bitchy, I just genuinely do not have the time to respond to every single thing you’ve said there. Explaining the literary difference between explicit and implicit dismissal of evidence would alone take us beyond the character limit, as my self indulgent explanation spiraled further and further into the jargony depths of academic tedium…)
Not the biggest fan either but sometimes it’s the only way to organize a response in text with multiple layers of context. Far to easy in async discussion to branch off and it can be difficult to circle back or ask for clarification while addressing other items and it provides a way to organize.
I’m not here to have an in depth academic, cited, philosophical discussion. Not right now. I understand that you are pushing more in that direction and there’s nothing wrong with it. As such, I’m not formulating arguments or discussing with that in mind. We don’t need to have a discussion of dismissal of evidence because I’m sure we’re on the same page. But I don’t owe you a perfectly crafted argument in a Lemmy thread. This is informal, and as such there are times where one has to leave space for less rigid constructs for presenting evidence.
I’ve found this frustrating. But I don’t think you are outright trying to troll which is why I’ve engaged. I hope you understand that I’m not going to engage at the level you might wish I would. (Its exhausting to do so in a context like this even though I’m an academic and philosophical discussion-minded person at heart)
I’m more concerned about the methodology of the ban and its downstream effects of it than whether (in your case, extremely valid criticism) amounts to it deserving a ban. I’m not going to find some articles for you or counter that because it’s not something I want to spend my time doing since the reality is extremely nuanced and we could present evidence from both perspectives for days.
In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it’s okay to still use it because it’s extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? “The good outweighs the ill” as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.
More or less. I think there are plenty of things to criticize the platform for and/or strive to adopt a less-bad platform for. Users of the platform should be allowed to stay or not stay, and not be abruptly cut off for a political stunt by an authoritarian act of government, and as such, my position is that celebrating this particular ban is antithetical to the overall goals that one would expect from people using the fediverse.
(um, name calling?)
Anyways, my criticism was not time delineated, you asked for evidence, and now are claiming the evidence I provided to support my initial claim isn’t good enough because of a new condition you’ve brought out. That’s… I don’t have another colloquial term to describe it besides “shifting the goalpost”. You’re changing the requirements for evidence to render previous valid evidence invalid. There’s a term for that (a point I think I’ve amply belaboured by now).
And sure, poor behavior can absolutely be learned from. Thats a core tenet of society. But, just for fun, could you please give me an example of a massive multinational corporation, or a social media platform, voluntarily becoming less evil? There’s been absolutely no indication that TikTok has ever stopped these practices, too. So why are you giving them the benefit of the doubt? Have they ever done anything to justify such high regard?
Look I’m sorry this apparent egalitarian wonder app is on the chopping block, but do you seriously want to be a TikTok Apologist? Could you imagine your reaction to someone this zealously defending, say, Facebook? You’d think they were nuts, facebook has been exhaustively shown to be so evil their CEO is widely rumored not to be human. So why is tiktok, an equally bad app (but one you like), suddenly okay?
It shouldn’t be banned for the reasons the law is stating. I’m all for people moving to better places. Centralized moderation will always be influenced by the ownership and succiptible to problematic choices (intentional or unintentional) that will effect people. some content will be less moderated on different platforms and that will change over time, which is just the reality of the current social media landscape.
I’d be happy to see a better option that works for people currently using Tiktok that doesnt have the baggage of the corporation. Maybe Loops can be that one day. Maybe something else will show up. But I’m not wishing an entire platform to just evaporate even if I have major issues with it, and pointing out things that it is good for compared to alternatives is not the same as being an apologist. Pointing out that a ton of people incomes (in a country in a time where small businesses and self employed income is at every increasing risk) is not defending EVERYTHING tiktok has done, currently does, or will do. Nor is any of that claiming it’s an egalitarian wonder app.
I’m all for people abandoning Facebook. While I’d be less caring if it got banned in a similar way, i would not celebrate it. There are still tons of normal people using it for normal reasons and they shouldnt be suddenly cut off like this. They should absolutely move away from it or their own voilition, not due to authoritarian intervention.
Facebook has actively promoted a genocide entirely of its own creation, which is quite a different issue from content suppression. You are mischaracterizing my arguments by making it out to be equivilant to a completely different situation.
I never said your evidence was invalid, I just said it needed context.
I offered my opinion (which is absolutely personal experience bias!). I suggested you consider that the article in question it may not be universally applicable to the current state of the App due to its age. I did not say you had an invalid opinion or reason to dislike it. I did not say that there was not a problem. I did not say that there still aren’t problems.
Being in a minority on social media sometimes means choosing the places that are the least awful. Tiktok can be both good and bad for groups. That doesn’t mean it deserves to be banned.
Look, I’m just advocating for people who are being harmed by the actions of an authoritarian government against an app and suggesting that celebrating the actions of said authoritarian government is problematic, even if there are other reasons to dislike the app.
I really dislike point by point breakdowns, it’s too easy to take individual statements out of context and the lack of a clear thesis makes it incredibly difficult to respond without resorting to comments of even greater length.
In an effort to combat this, would it be fair to say your position is that while TikTok is bad, it’s okay to still use it because it’s extremely popular, and thus the ability to do things like engage or organize with other people in your subcultures is consequently quite high? “The good outweighs the ill” as it were? Which is a reasonable position to take, to be clear, even if your actual feelings are more nuanced.
(That’s not me being bitchy, I just genuinely do not have the time to respond to every single thing you’ve said there. Explaining the literary difference between explicit and implicit dismissal of evidence would alone take us beyond the character limit, as my self indulgent explanation spiraled further and further into the jargony depths of academic tedium…)
Not the biggest fan either but sometimes it’s the only way to organize a response in text with multiple layers of context. Far to easy in async discussion to branch off and it can be difficult to circle back or ask for clarification while addressing other items and it provides a way to organize.
I’m not here to have an in depth academic, cited, philosophical discussion. Not right now. I understand that you are pushing more in that direction and there’s nothing wrong with it. As such, I’m not formulating arguments or discussing with that in mind. We don’t need to have a discussion of dismissal of evidence because I’m sure we’re on the same page. But I don’t owe you a perfectly crafted argument in a Lemmy thread. This is informal, and as such there are times where one has to leave space for less rigid constructs for presenting evidence.
I’ve found this frustrating. But I don’t think you are outright trying to troll which is why I’ve engaged. I hope you understand that I’m not going to engage at the level you might wish I would. (Its exhausting to do so in a context like this even though I’m an academic and philosophical discussion-minded person at heart)
I’m more concerned about the methodology of the ban and its downstream effects of it than whether (in your case, extremely valid criticism) amounts to it deserving a ban. I’m not going to find some articles for you or counter that because it’s not something I want to spend my time doing since the reality is extremely nuanced and we could present evidence from both perspectives for days.
More or less. I think there are plenty of things to criticize the platform for and/or strive to adopt a less-bad platform for. Users of the platform should be allowed to stay or not stay, and not be abruptly cut off for a political stunt by an authoritarian act of government, and as such, my position is that celebrating this particular ban is antithetical to the overall goals that one would expect from people using the fediverse.