Why TikTok Should or Shouldn’t be Banned?

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

The only part (from what you have listed) that im unsure about is the "how to properly limit" part.

I havent looked up any empirical research on this, so this is only based on my intuition, but Im unsure how you can limit supernormal stimuli (I would consider tiktok to have supernormal stimuli to it). Because it seems to me, that you can't really productively fight against it (once you receive it - it is extremely predictable how you are going to react to it and it seems to be mostly an unconscious reaction rather than an agency driven choice.) . 

Not sure if you're familiar with HealthyGamerGG, but it's a YouTube channel run by a psychiatrist who's had training as a monk, where the entire shtick is about how to have a healthy relationship with technology (exaggerating a bit, but this is a major focus of the channel).

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Not sure if you're familiar with HealthyGamerGG, but it's a YouTube channel run by a psychiatrist who's had training as a monk, where the entire shtick is about how to have a healthy relationship with technology (exaggerating a bit, but this is a major focus of the channel).

Im familiar with Dr K, but I havent watched too much HealthyGamerGG content, but I will check out some of his videos that are specifically related to this topic. 

[DocWatts]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@zurew

   And intuitively because of this I'm more pro regulation or even ban against Tik Tok, it's that addictive and really well designed for hyper addiction that it's the best soft invasion weapon used by China against USA and other western countries. It's both amazing and disturbing. Also would you expect empirical research when it may make big tech companies look bad?

Jonathan Haidt uses cigarettes as an example of how we can regulate something without banning it. Where we collectively decided that it was worth inconveniencing adults (no more buying cigs at vending machines, taxes on them much higher, etc) to protect kids and adolescents.

A parallel to this might be a ban on targeting online advertising directed at minors (similar to how cigarette ads aren't allowed on Nickelodeon).

Personally I'd advocate for de-privatizing these platforms and making these huge social media platforms public goods (similar to what we should do for utility companies), but I realize that this isn't feasible in the current political climate.

A blanket ban on TikTok is a clumsy (and lazy) way of handling the problem. 

Edited April 28 by DocWatts

[DocWatts]

5 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@DocWatts

1. So he doesn't think that bans are effective, and all bans are useless? Including the ban on certain drugs like Cocaine, heroine, Meth, the hard addictive drugs, and drug sourcing? Bans on certain porn materials?

2. How would you teach your child self restraints and healthy limits against Tik Tok, which is engineered to be the most addictive social media platform on the planet? From no time markers, to infinite scrolls, to flashy visuals and audio, and an A.I program that hyper curates content to user biases, how can you realistically expect children, whilst they're developing their brains and developing their Neo cortex, to will power and self restrain and self discipline against a super addictive app?

3. While I partly agree communally addressing, we cannot ignore the individual's free agency to desire for better change. Use myself as an example, it took 3 years for me to free myself from Coke Cola addiction, not because of community, but because of several personal reasons like health, energy levels, weight lose, diet, and other issues that I found has a common factor: Coke Cola. I've even started using Tik Tok a little bit, but after some weeks I can't continue because of how trash and toxic the app contents are. It's so blatantly assaulting my eyes and ears that I couldn't continue using Tik Tok, and that wasn't pressured by my friends or family or community to change that, but because my free will soul was being disturbed by that thing.

4. Mostly agree here, but in practice more freedom to children in the real world would  be a bit difficult if the environments aren't safe enough, and there'd be sexual preds lurking in some neighborhoods, and also some children can be inherently evil and pick on more younger children.

1) To use your own example, drug prohibition in countries like the US has been an utter and complete failure. Countries which have adopted a harm reduction policy (such as Portugal) have had far better outcomes as far as reducing the social harms that come from substance abuse.

2) Already posted a recommendation for HealthyGamerGG as probably the go to place for good advice on how to cultivate a healthy relationship to technology . But in short, what he advocates is parents working with thier child to cultivate these healthy habits. Obviously this does include some limitations, but it also means giving young people access to activities that they find intrinsically valuable in the real world (whether that's martial arts, offline hobbies, IRL time spent with friends). The goal is to help give kids things they can be excited about in the real world. Just taking away a 14 year old's phone without this will only cause them to suffer without a sustainable strategy to develop intrinsic motivation to develop healthy habits.

3) Agency and responsibility matters, but they take.place within a social context. The coca cola example is missing the tragedy of the commons element of adolescent smart phone use. Take one kid's phone away and they'll be socially isolated; rather, he advocates for changing norms around phone use for kids so that they can have more embodied, engaged interactions with their peers 

4) In the real world, child abduction is overwhelmingly likely to happen by a family member, or someone that the child already knows. (Just how you're overwhelmingly more likely to be murdered by someone you know, such as a romantic partner, than stranger). Profit driven sensationalist news media which spreads fear and suspicion is to blame for the mistaken perceptions that society is less safe than a generation or two ago (the exact opposite is true, crime has been declining for decades for a confluence of reasons). Car dependency is actually a far bigger concern here, due to cities and towns being designed for cars rather than people, is a very legitimate concern. You'd be forgiven for thinking that huge pickup trucks and SUVs were designed to murder children, due to how unsafe they are for pedestrians.

Unfortunately there's not an easy solution for bullying, but I'd offer that bullying simply moved online due to social media, and is arguably more pervasive than IRL bullying of a generation ago (where it only happened at school, at the playground, etc).

Edited April 29 by DocWatts

[petar8p]

First after realizing how addictive it is I uninstalled tik tok. Later on I used it to create content and it's way more fun to be on the opposite side..  

Good for promoting music and educational content perhaps? Kids are probably spoiled with or without Tik tok, but I think it's definitely bad on the brain and affects child development/attention span..

Edited April 29 by petar8p

[petar8p]

On 27. 04. 2024. at 2:33 AM, Leo Gura said:

I don't want to be on a platform that is made entirely of shorts and no way to control the content but endless scrolling. This is a trash format designed for mindless addicted rats.

Very true yes

[Carl-Richard]

On 27.4.2024 at 8:16 AM, mmKay said:

 

My guy explained a conceptualization of stress as if it's not stress but some mystical force 

Edited April 30 by Carl-Richard

[bebotalk]

It should be banned.

Fuck free speech.

Free speech isn't an absolute right.

It's clear that there are links between social manipulation and Chinese state interests.

What the US Feds should do is take the IP and source code and create a rival. Let the Chinese state sue. who gives a shit? 

 

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

14 hours ago, bebotalk said:

It should be banned.

Fuck free speech.

Free speech isn't an absolute right.

It's clear that there are links between social manipulation and Chinese state interests.

What the US Feds should do is take the IP and source code and create a rival. Let the Chinese state sue. who gives a shit? 

 

   That's actually a good idea, falls in line with capitalisms principles and competition 101.😁

[Leo Gura]

16 hours ago, bebotalk said:

What the US Feds should do is take the IP and source code and create a rival. Let the Chinese state sue. who gives a shit? 

Great integrity there.

 

[bebotalk]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Great integrity there.

 

Countries break rules all the time. It's why there are courts of arbitration by the UN and other bodies. If China is an "enemy", then China cannot expect much else. 

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

Countries break rules all the time. It's why there are courts of arbitration by the UN and other bodies. If China is an "enemy", then China cannot expect much else. 

There are many evil people in the world. That doesn't mean you should join them.

[bebotalk]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There are many evil people in the world. That doesn't mean you should join them.

What's the evil? in acknowledging China is potentially using it for clandestine means? China can't expect much better from the US. If China is using it for clandestine means, then yes, it's more than justified to take the source code and produce a US-based rival. China would be whining that the USA stole something that it was using for ill-intent as it stood. yes, the moral "righteous" party there. 

 

 

Edited May 12 by bebotalk

[bebotalk]

https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/14/24156778/tiktok-creators-sue-us-divest-or-ban-law

National security trumps livelihoods. 

 

[DocWatts]

9 hours ago, bebotalk said:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/14/24156778/tiktok-creators-sue-us-divest-or-ban-law

National security trumps livelihoods. 

Hard to take this claim seriously when a huge chunk of folks who are pushing this angle are also planning on voting for someone who stashed classified national security documents (that he wasn't supposed to have) in cardboard boxes piled from floor to ceiling in a gaudy looking bathroom 

Edited May 15 by DocWatts

[bebotalk]

On 12/05/2024 at 5:54 PM, Danioover9000 said:

@bebotalk

   That's actually a good idea, falls in line with capitalisms principles and competition 101.😁

If China is using it to snoop on America as suspected or purported, they cannot complain. 

[bebotalk]

On 15/05/2024 at 10:58 PM, DocWatts said:

Hard to take this claim seriously when a huge chunk of folks who are pushing this angle are also planning on voting for someone who stashed classified national security documents (that he wasn't supposed to have) in cardboard boxes piled from floor to ceiling in a gaudy looking bathroom 

Biden signed it. Whilst Trump started it, Biden continued it. As I understand both Democrat and GOP Congresspeople agreed to it. And as. understand the US Constitution, Presidents don't have to sign bills. It appears to be a bipartisan thing based off national security information not in the public domain.

IF the info is false, then yes, America IMHO would be in the wrong .

[Hatfort]

Why? Because they cannot ban speech in favor of Palestine and hide the carnage that Israel is causing to an innocent group of people in Gaza and other parts of the occupied territory as much as they want and they do in other ones. They also want a successful platform for their monetary interests for themselves, but it's mostly the information and propaganda war. Not only about the cited issue, but this ignited the rapid government action, which is usually slow to desperation.

[bebotalk]

On 12/05/2024 at 5:54 PM, Danioover9000 said:

@bebotalk

   That's actually a good idea, falls in line with capitalisms principles and competition 101.😁

Capitalism isn't unlimited. Not when national security is an issue. You tell me whether capitalism is unlimited in the USA. if you think health and safety laws are immoral, then lobby your Congressperson to repeal them to get unlimited capitalism. 

[bebotalk]

On 12/05/2024 at 11:17 PM, Leo Gura said:

There are many evil people in the world. That doesn't mean you should join them.

With respect, you dont read contexts well. You said a while back that you don't believe corruption differs between countries and there could be differences in perceived corruption based on cultural differences. When this is accepted worldwide. 

You state then how you'd respond if your country was snooped on.