Other side of the TikTok

[zurew]

24 minutes ago, Devin said:

Do you think society would have bern better off banning cigarettes and fastfood,

Right now banning them would be dumb, because people are already addicted to them, and there would be just a bigger blackmarket for them, but never creating market for them probably would have been better.

24 minutes ago, Devin said:

letting everyone learn they need to think for themselves more and not trust salesmen and adds?

The problem is that the "learning" you are talking about sometimes means fucking up people for no reason and sometimes there is no going back or the healing process from fucking them up is incredibly long. This idea, that people should be presented with more options (even with options that could be incredibly destructive) would be good, if we would live in a world right now, where all people would be psychologically and physically healthy, but most people are not and they get addicted to a bunch of shit and they lose their agency.

Also, is it really a choice if you get presented with "choices", where companies are hijacking your brain with shit (and you get your animal side activated where you lose your rational side for a while and then you are basically going with your animal instincts)? There are very consciously constructed business models (that are working with combining the power of AI + neurologists and psychologists [telling the company how to get people hooked on stuff] + a few thousand engineers).

These companies are incredibly effective at getting your attention, because they know more about you (collecting data from you) + knowing your psychology much better than you, therefore they can capture your attention however they want and you won't be able to fight with them most of the time, because your willpower is too limited compared to them (1 person fighting with a gaint company with thousand of engineers + AI + the knowledge of psychologists and neurologists]  and because you are a human its very easy to take advantage of your weaknesses.

 

Im not talking about, that you should only be presented with 1 option so you don't have to think - Im saying, ideally people should be presented with options that are not incredibly destructive for you and won't make you less and less capable to make your own decisions. When something is literally created to get you addicted, then you lose personal agency, and you have less and less capacity to make rational decisions for your own self.

The agent who makes the decision to start use tiktok 1-2 hours a day, 1 week later is probably a completely different agent who is addicted to tiktok and therefore you need to evaluate the same agent's decision making ability in a different way.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by zurew

[Devin]

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

Right now banning them would be dumb, because people are already addicted to them, and there would be just a bigger blackmarket for them, but never creating market for them probably would have been better.

The problem is that the "learning" you are talking about sometimes means fucking up people for no reason and sometimes there is no going back or the healing process from fucking them up is incredibly long. This idea, that people should be presented with more options (even with options that could be incredibly destructive) would be good, if we would live in a world right now, where all people would be psychologically and physically healthy, but most people are not and they get addicted to a bunch of shit and they lose their agency.

Also, is it really a choice if you get presented with "choices", where companies are hijacking your brain with shit (and you get your animal side activated where you lose your rational side for a while and then you are basically going with your animal instincts)? There are very consciously constructed business models (that are working with combining the power of AI + neurologists and psychologists [telling the company how to get people hooked on stuff] + a few thousand engineers).

These companies are incredibly effective at getting your attention, because they know more about you (collecting data from you) + knowing your psychology much better than you, therefore they can capture your attention however they want and you won't be able to fight with them most of the time, because your willpower is too limited compared to them (1 person fighting with a gaint company with thousand of engineers + AI + the knowledge of psychologists and neurologists]  and because you are a human its very easy to take advantage of your weaknesses.

 

Im not talking about, that you should only be presented with 1 option so you don't have to think - Im saying, ideally people should be presented with options that are not incredibly destructive for you and won't make you less and less capable to make your own decisions. When something is literally created to get you addicted, then you lose personal agency, and you have less and less capacity to make rational decisions for your own self.

The agent who makes the decision to start use tiktok 1-2 hours a day, 1 week later is probably a completely different agent who is addicted to tiktok and therefore you need to evaluate the same agent's decision making ability in a different way.

 

         Yeah I agree people will get harmed, addicted and not recover, BUT, without TickTock are those same people going to lead a life within the realm of what you would want for them. My schtick here is really the law of unintended consequences, your intentions are good but I think you're overlooking the grander picture of infantalisation.

          My comment on cigarettes and fastfood was actually coming from me seeing a benefit of society going through those issues, I think we're coming out of them better than if they were banned. Yes many individuals were severely harmed by them but society grew from it and would have regressed to more infantalisation had they been banned.

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Devin said:

Yeah I agree people will get harmed, addicted and not recover, BUT, without TickTock are those same people going to lead a life within the realm of what you would want for them

No they would probably end up doing and craving other addicting stuff. But here is the thing though, there are degrees to it and there are some important variables that we could use to make sense and to maybe rank some of these incredibly addicting goods and services. For example:

1. The accessability (including how much it cost to reach it and use it, and how fast you can reach it and what you need to have access to it), 
2. Would  banning it create a blackmarket for it or not,  
3. What would it take to ban it ( how much people, energy and resources would need to be used to be able to ban it )
4. after banning it, will people be able to live without it, without having a mental or physical breakdown? ( or in other words is there a need for something to replace it first or people will be fine without it)
5. Kind of related to the 4th one, do we know all the function(s) ,that that particular good/service has and will we be able to replace those functions or is it necessary in the firstplace to replace those functions?

 Those 5 variables definitely seem very important to me regarding this issue, but of course more could be given. 

6 minutes ago, Devin said:

My schtick here is really the law of unintended consequences, your intentions are good but I think you're overlooking the grander picture of infantalisation.

Yeah I get that, and I think your point is important and we should be very careful what we want to ban and why (because there could be bad or even worse unintended consequences), but at the end of the day some action is required.

7 minutes ago, Devin said:

My comment on cigarettes and fastfood was actually coming from me seeing a benefit of society going through those issues, I think we're coming out of them better than if they were banned. Yes many individuals were severely harmed by them but society grew from it and would have regressed to more infantalisation had they been banned.

I think banning them when the market is already in place for them would have created and would create worse consequences (than not banning them), but never creating a market for them in the firstplace would have been the best imo.

[Danioover9000]

@Devin

1 hour ago, Devin said:

@Danioover9000

Do you really think the majority of people will continue using it in a destructive way after they figure out the problems? Like do you think we should ban fast food? This sort of social fascism infantalizes society, it's like "The government will keep me from making any mistake therefore me no need to thinky.".

   I outright reject your framing of me as some social Nazi infantilizing society, what a disingenuous bad faith framing. If you've read my takes carefully in this thread and the other ones dealing with Tik Tok and social media. I've always stated the relativity of these claims, based on the stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits, states of being, life and lived experiences, other lines of development in various domains of life, and ideologies indoctrinated into your mind from upbringing, and the information ecology  person consumes that's misinformation, disinformation and partial information intakes, and the distortions of the mind.

   If you carefully watched all the videos I've shared, and the links I've shared, they show that Tik Tok is especially dangerous and manipulative in comparison to the other social media websites so far. Even China released their version that's heavily moderated, unlike Tik Tok in the western countries. Taking into account how Tik Tok is formated and designed for, and the slow business takeovers from ByteDance it's concerning..

[Devin]

30 minutes ago, zurew said:

No they would probably end up doing and craving other addicting stuff. But here is the thing though, there are degrees to it and there are some important variables that we could use to make sense and to maybe rank some of these incredibly addicting goods and services. For example:

1. The accessability (including how much it cost to reach it and use it, and how fast you can reach it and what you need to have access to it), 
2. Would  banning it create a blackmarket for it or not,  
3. What would it take to ban it ( how much people, energy and resources would need to be used to be able to ban it )
4. after banning it, will people be able to live without it, without having a mental or physical breakdown? ( or in other words is there a need for something to replace it first or people will be fine without it)
5. Kind of related to the 4th one, do we know all the function(s) ,that that particular good/service has and will we be able to replace those functions or is it necessary in the firstplace to replace those functions?

 Those 5 variables definitely seem very important to me regarding this issue, but of course more could be given. 

Yeah I get that, and I think your point is important and we should be very careful what we want to ban and why (because there could be bad or even worse unintended consequences), but at the end of the day some action is required.

I think banning them when the market is already in place for them would have created and would create worse consequences (than not banning them), but never creating a market for them in the firstplace would have been the best imo.

           I think the action required is public discourse about the problems like we're doing right now, along with better parenting, the infantalization I keep referring to is not just of the children using the app but their parents as well. 

          Banning the app is the government parenting the children, which infantalizes the parents by subconsciously signaling they don't need to think about parenting because the government does it for them.

 

         So in regard to cigarettes and fast food, how do you think society as a whole evolves and develops toward what we want? I think it does it through having problems like cigarettes and fast food, I don't think Tony Robbins or Sadghuru type lectures or books are what do it for the society we're working with.

[Devin]

5 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Devin

   I outright reject your framing of me as some social Nazi infantilizing society, what a disingenuous bad faith framing. If you've read my takes carefully in this thread and the other ones dealing with Tik Tok and social media. I've always stated the relativity of these claims, based on the stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits, states of being, life and lived experiences, other lines of development in various domains of life, and ideologies indoctrinated into your mind from upbringing, and the information ecology  person consumes that's misinformation, disinformation and partial information intakes, and the distortions of the mind.

   If you carefully watched all the videos I've shared, and the links I've shared, they show that Tik Tok is especially dangerous and manipulative in comparison to the other social media websites so far. Even China released their version that's heavily moderated, unlike Tik Tok in the western countries. Taking into account how Tik Tok is formated and designed for, and the slow business takeovers from ByteDance it's concerning..

I don't think you're that, I was only referring to the solution. I apologize.

I think TickTock is often dangerous, I'm not disagreeing with that.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Devin

[Danioover9000]

@Devin  And even before Tik Tok or the earlier version, from ByteDance, ByteDance was observing the Vine concept, taken over by Twitter before launch, and saw the strengths and weaknesses of how they managed Vines, and the lack of monetization Twitter offered that's reasonable before all the celebrities and super stars and highly popular Vine content creators made their ridiculous demands for higher earnings, for 6-10 second videos. They wanted more than a million, not shared amongst them, but each creator getting over a million, FOR A 6-10 SECOND VIDEO!

   However, I won't bash on them too harshly, as ByteDance CEO and employees were a bit liberal than the CCP and want to be the next capitalists like Steve Jobs and so on, pursue maximum profit by designing the most addicting social media app in existence so far. I don't blame their predatory capitalistic practices as they aren't as supportive of the CCP, and their lived experiences and so on. And I'm sure if you know what you're doing, and only use Tik Tok to market your brand, just like the vine creators used Vines to promote their  social media content making elsewhere.

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, Devin said:

along with better parenting, the infantalization I keep referring to is not just of the children using the app but their parents as well. 

Banning the app is the government parenting the children, which infantalizes the parents by subconsciously signaling they don't need to think about parenting because the government does it for them.

I already made my points about why it is necessary in current times for the government to "parent" the parents and their children and why it is necessary sometimes to make certain things much less accessible or even to ban things. If we would live in a different time where all people would be conscious and mentally and physically healthy , the solution and the approach to fix certain problems would be different.

Your solution about giving and putting all responisbility to and on the parents assumes a lot of things that are not necessarily true. 1. it assumes that parents can have total control over their children (I don't think thats necessarily the case with tech, because if you not let your children to engage with certain tech you can make as much damage or even more damage compared to if you let them use it). 2. It assumes that current parents are conscious enough (this is the biggest one ,that I don't believe is true and first you would need to fix the parents before you can talk about parents creating and bringing up conscious children. 3. It assumes that parents are alone are enough to solve and mitigate these problems without any help from the government. 

The ideal solution could be a combination of top down (government helping) and  a bottom up (parents doing conscious parenting), but in practice this  is unlikely and incredibly difficult in the current environment.

 

Totally fixing parenting can't happen without fixing 100 different kind of systemic problems at the same time. These issues are incredibly complex and interconnected, there are no easy solutions, but sometimes banning is the best option.

27 minutes ago, Devin said:

     So in regard to cigarettes and fast food, how do you think society as a whole evolves and develops toward what we want? I think it does it through having problems like cigarettes and fast food, I don't think Tony Robbins or Sadghuru type lectures or books are what do it for the society we're working with.

I won't be able to give you a well thought out solution, because the situation is inredibly complex. There are reasons why we see these problems arising and there are systemic issues that are need to be fixed first, because if they are not, the same kind of problems will arise. Even the banning I talked about is just about treating some of these problems in a symptomatic way (to maybe win more time), because addressing the root issues require unbelievably complex solutions, not just solutions but a set of systemic solutions. 

Saghuru type of lectures are necessary for the overall solution for the systemic problems (they are giving a part solution for the problem called meaning crisis [which is alone an incredibly complex problem which I won't get into depth now], but obviously not sufficient alone. There is no one solution that will solve this problem ,because again as I said this problem arised from other systemic problems and if we don't fix those first the same kind of problems will eventually arise. 

[hoodrow trillson]

I had a Vine account when it was at its peak popularity.  It was amazing tbh, no ads, infinite scrolling and the vines were 6 seconds for the longest time.

It was SUPER addicting I’ll admit though.  Which is why when TikTok came out I refuse to download it.  I’d be on that stupid thing all day and who knows what the content would’ve done to my brain.

Those who had and browsed Vine many years ago will understand this.

[Kksd74628]

I don't know what you all are talking about these banning TikTok things, because obviously it isn't happening nor it should. You should know that if you start to restrict things, because people might get addicted to them you are literally taking responsibility away from people. Again we need to go to meta level where we will see that any of addictions or harmful things wouldn't happen if we consciously grow ourself to appreciate our body and life. Lesson has be to been learnt and by avoiding the class you will just yes not fail in the test, but also miss out the whole class and its valuable information.

ps. without TikTok there would be another one so banning dangers doesn't work, but learning to face them and do the correct decisions.

[Danioover9000]

@Kksd74628

2 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

I don't know what you all are talking about these banning TikTok things, because obviously it isn't happening nor it should. You should know that if you start to restrict things, because people might get addicted to them you are literally taking responsibility away from people. Again we need to go to meta level where we will see that any of addictions or harmful things wouldn't happen if we consciously grow ourself to appreciate our body and life. Lesson has be to been learnt and by avoiding the class you will just yes not fail in the test, but also miss out the whole class and its valuable information.

ps. without TikTok there would be another one so banning dangers doesn't work, but learning to face them and do the correct decisions.

   Dude, Tik Tok is much worse than cocaine or heroine, at least it's obvious now that these hard drugs are dangerous because of the chemical and psychological addiction they create. The government were right to taking strong opposition to cocaine and heroine. Tik Tok is so much worse because the addiction is DESIGNED IN THE APP, and is largely PSYCHOLOGICAL, meaning most won't realize they have a problem, until it's too late. Meanwhile, ByteDance is practicing predatory capitalism and eating up small businesses in the gaming and music sectors, and eating up talents in these fields to market and promote Tik Tok for some fees.

   Maybe you're now identifies as a Tik Toker, or Tik Tok influencer, and I know I sounds harsh, but you're addicted, severely addict, for you to not acknowledge that Tik Tok is overall a net negative for society, politics, government, and the psychological well being and psychological development of stages, cognitive and moral development, ego maturity, personality traits, states of consciousness, life experiences and other lines of development at different areas of life. It's a bitter pill, but Tik Tok distorts reality for most young minds, indoctrinating them with false ideologies and expectations that the owners happily syphon every penny, second and life energy from these young people. I fear more people will have ADD/ADHD, and are unable to think for themselves anymore. There will be karmic retribution for mind rapping these young minds into decline over the years.

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

19 hours ago, zurew said:

I already made my points about why it is necessary in current times for the government to "parent" the parents and their children and why it is necessary sometimes to make certain things much less accessible or even to ban things. If we would live in a different time where all people would be conscious and mentally and physically healthy , the solution and the approach to fix certain problems would be different.

Your solution about giving and putting all responisbility to and on the parents assumes a lot of things that are not necessarily true. 1. it assumes that parents can have total control over their children (I don't think thats necessarily the case with tech, because if you not let your children to engage with certain tech you can make as much damage or even more damage compared to if you let them use it). 2. It assumes that current parents are conscious enough (this is the biggest one ,that I don't believe is true and first you would need to fix the parents before you can talk about parents creating and bringing up conscious children. 3. It assumes that parents are alone are enough to solve and mitigate these problems without any help from the government. 

The ideal solution could be a combination of top down (government helping) and  a bottom up (parents doing conscious parenting), but in practice this  is unlikely and incredibly difficult in the current environment.

 

Totally fixing parenting can't happen without fixing 100 different kind of systemic problems at the same time. These issues are incredibly complex and interconnected, there are no easy solutions, but sometimes banning is the best option.

I won't be able to give you a well thought out solution, because the situation is inredibly complex. There are reasons why we see these problems arising and there are systemic issues that are need to be fixed first, because if they are not, the same kind of problems will arise. Even the banning I talked about is just about treating some of these problems in a symptomatic way (to maybe win more time), because addressing the root issues require unbelievably complex solutions, not just solutions but a set of systemic solutions. 

Saghuru type of lectures are necessary for the overall solution for the systemic problems (they are giving a part solution for the problem called meaning crisis [which is alone an incredibly complex problem which I won't get into depth now], but obviously not sufficient alone. There is no one solution that will solve this problem ,because again as I said this problem arised from other systemic problems and if we don't fix those first the same kind of problems will eventually arise. 

   Yeah, the meaning crisis is what Daniel Schmachtenberger talks about, along with information ecology and technology values in his website. Those are pretty good articles.

[Danioover9000]

@zurew https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwivpeGYo7P9AhUMTsAKHZXZAVgQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fconsilienceproject.org%2F&usg=AOvVaw1ImyY7BeMECTNDN040KHot

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

I don't know what you all are talking about these banning TikTok things, because obviously it isn't happening nor it should.

Whether or not it will happen or not, has nothing to do with us talking about it. No one is that naive here to think that any of our prescriptions will be applied by politicans, and thats not even the goal of this discussion.

3 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

You should know that if you start to restrict things, because people might get addicted to them you are literally taking responsibility away from people.

On its face this point implies that you should never ever ban things even if statistically it could massively reduce harm. You talking about "taking away responsiblity" doesn't make that much sense in this scenario, because by you allowing incredibly addicting things, you are taking away much more agency from people and they will end up in places, where they can't even make a rational or conscious decision anymore, because they are mentally and or physically fucked. 

The idea of taking responsibility is directly coupled with your ability to handle the thing you are taking responsiblity for. If I chip away from your agency, then your ability to take responsbility for your own life and for things will be chipped away too.

Also why would you always value responsiblity over massive harm? No one is suggesting here that any harm (even if it is a small harm) should be immediatelly banned or restricted, but we are talking about drawing the line somewhere.

3 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

Again we need to go to meta level where we will see that any of addictions or harmful things wouldn't happen if we consciously grow ourself to appreciate our body and life.

 People on a mass scale hearing about "you should be more responsible and do this and that" doesn't achieve anything, especially when people are underprivileged and have addictions and have traumas and maybe had a toxic upbringing etcetc. 

The envrironement that one  grew up in, the opportunities that one got when one was a kid, being born healthy, how good parents one have and had, what quality upbringing one had, and a bunch of other factors were and are all contributing to how much responsiblity you can take for your life and how much agency you have over your life right now, and ignoring those aspects would be a big mistake. Knowing that point, we should recognize that the advice of "just take more responsiblity or to just let them learn their lesson" is not that applicaple in all circumstances and in most of the time a useless advice. 

 

3 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

that any of addictions or harmful things wouldn't happen if we consciously grow ourself to appreciate our body and lif

This is begging the question, because  the question at hand is this: how could we create a system where we could consciously outgrow/solve these problems on a global scale. You saying that "we should just consciously outgrow these things" implies that we know how to do it on a mass scale, but we don't.

3 hours ago, Kksd74628 said:

ps. without TikTok there would be another one so banning dangers doesn't work, but learning to face them and do the correct decisions.

This begs the questions again "let them do the correct decision", the idea that people will just learn from their mistakes on their own ,when you literally allow them to get addicted and fucked and by that you are directly contributing to them having less and less capacity to make decisions is naive. An addicted person don't have nowhere near as much ability to make a decision than a non addict has.

Also, we are not talking about a neutral enviroment where you can actually freely choose what you want to do. Some of these techs are literally made to get you addicted and to capture your attention by exploiting your human weaknesses. The company that will end up winning your attention will be the one, that is the most effective at capturing your attention and the idea that all of these things are equally good at capturing attention or to get you hooked in just simply not true.

Also this argument only applies in some cases but not all cases. The idea that you will see other billion dollar companies randomly taking tiktok's place is false, and even if that would be the case, you can create restrictions around it, so they can't be as harmful as they are today.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@hoodrow trillson

8 hours ago, hoodrow trillson said:

I had a Vine account when it was at its peak popularity.  It was amazing tbh, no ads, infinite scrolling and the vines were 6 seconds for the longest time.

It was SUPER addicting I’ll admit though.  Which is why when TikTok came out I refuse to download it.  I’d be on that stupid thing all day and who knows what the content would’ve done to my brain.

Those who had and browsed Vine many years ago will understand this.

   The golden days of Vine, Too bad that Twitter didn't monetize those earlier, could've been a competitor for Tik Tok.

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Whether or not it will happen or not, has nothing to do with us talking about it. No one is that naive here to think that any of our prescriptions will be applied by politicans, and thats not even the goal of this discussion.

On its face this point implies that you should never ever ban things even if statistically it could massively reduce harm. You talking about "taking away responsiblity" doesn't make that much sense in this scenario, because by you allowing incredibly addicting things, you are taking away much more agency from people and they will end up in places, where they can't even make a rational or conscious decision anymore, because they are mentally and or physically fucked. 

Also why would you always value responsiblity over massive harm? No one is suggesting here that any harm (even if it is a small harm) should be immediatelly banned or restricted, but we are talking about drawing the line somewhere.

 People on a mass scale hearing about "you should be more responsible and do this and that" doesn't achieve anything, especially when people are underprivileged and have addictions and have traumas and maybe had a oxic upbringing etcetc. 

The envrironement that one  grew up in, the opportunities that one got when one was a kid, being born healthy, how good parents one have and had, what quality upbringing one had, and a bunch of other factors were and are all contributing to how much responsiblity you can take for your life and how much agency you have over your life right now, and ignoring those aspects would be a big mistake. Knowing that point, we should recognize that the advice of "just take more responsiblity or to just let them learn their lesson" is not that applicaple in all circumstances and in most of the time a useless advice. 

 

This is begging the question, because  the question at hand is this: how could we create a system where we could consciously outgrow/solve these problems on a global scale. You saying that "we should just consciously outgrow these things" implies that we know how to do it on a mass scale, but we don't.

This begs the questions again "let them do the correct decision", the idea that people will just learn from their mistakes on their own ,when you literally allow them to get addicted and fucked and by that you are directly contributing to them having less and less capacity to make decisions is naive. An addicted person don't have nowhere near as much ability to make a decision than a non addict has.

Also this argument only applies in some cases but not all cases. The idea that you will see other billion dollar companies randomly taking tiktok's place is false, and even if that would be the case, you can create restrictions around it, so they can't as harmful as they are today.

 

 

   That's actually an interesting point about those questions, because Tik Tok is now a billion dollar business within roughly a year, and have an amazingly workable formula for their success with Tik Tok. However, with enough research, I think general public would know that Tik Tok is and has long term negative effects on a person's, and a group's, psychological well being and development. But do the Tik Tok employers and company care? Not really, as they all are deep stage orange and blue valued company, only cognitively interested in making money and prioritizing profits over mental or sometimes physical harm, as evident by them allowing some dangerous 'challenges' like swallowing paint and stuff, and are morally underdeveloped as they are okay with allowing children to twerk, until they tweaked the algorithm to spot these and ban outright, but still not a perfect algorithm fix, but they don't care if their business model contributes to increases in neurosis and Narcissism and ADD/ADHD, they don't care if Tik Tok distorts and takes away more enjoyment and well being overall in a person's life, or livelihood.

   At least until there's public outrage or outcry against them, like the lawsuit that happened to them when it's discovered they do have under age teens doing too much sexy stuff.

[Kksd74628]

@Danioover9000

I think you don't realize that those problems and false beliefs are things that have always existed and now due to social media and we as a humanity are connecting more and more to each others. That leads we to acknowledge those problems easier. It works the same as meditation. Many beginners maybe know that when you start meditating you will get more triggered of your thinking and you will be more stressed. Also meditation brings things to your mind so you will see how bad your life actually is and that leads to negative emotions. 

Conclusion

TikTok and meditation both are like magnifying glasses that show garbage that is hidden. The magnifying glass isn't the problem, but the garbage that is found by it.

Hope you see that point and when you get that we can move on to introspect this thing deeper.

[Devin]

This video just conveniently popped up, I'm not really into Alan Watts but to me this is the crux of our differences on this issue. I agree people will suffer from TickTok but aversion from all difficulty or suffering isn't the path I would choose, not that you can actually choose it  anyway. I support getting the word out about the harm, publicly shunning it, but banning will have negative repercussions I think. With public pressure the owners could alter it obviously.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Devin

[Danioover9000]

@Kksd74628

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Danioover9000

I think you don't realize that those problems and false beliefs are things that have always existed and now due to social media and we as a humanity are connecting more and more to each others. That leads we to acknowledge those problems easier. It works the same as meditation. Many beginners maybe know that when you start meditating you will get more triggered of your thinking and you will be more stressed. Also meditation brings things to your mind so you will see how bad your life actually is and that leads to negative emotions. 

Conclusion

TikTok and meditation both are like magnifying glasses that show garbage that is hidden. The magnifying glass isn't the problem, but the garbage that is found by it.

Hope you see that point and when you get that we can move on to introspect this thing deeper.

   I do see the points, it's just that I have to lower myself down, from my alien levels of development, to talk to you and @Juan in a simplified manner.

   No, qualitatively speaking, Tik Tok and meditation are mostly different fundamentally. With meditation, you are actively intent on 'letting go' of thoughts, 'observing' thoughts, 'mindfulness with labelling' or other mindfulness types of meditations, transcendental meditation, and other meditation techniques that are mainstream friendly or hardcore fringe. Most mediation requires the participants to actually be active in them and be both focused and intentional, meanwhile with Tik Tok usage it's mostly designed to encourage passivity and brain rot, makes you think less and develop cognitive retardations, immoral beliefs and inappropriate behaviors that because of curating and higher volume is made normal, higher increases of neurosis and Narcissism due to auto image filters that make you more 'handsome' or more 'beautiful' or have 'lighter skin colour', proliferate immature behaviors and opinions, create and maintain ideological echo chambers and maintain Incels and doomer mentalities, limit life experiences and life exposures like travelling and interacting with people face to face. I also find it asymmetrical to compare mediation, a sub set of spiritual development, to Tik Tok, a subset of technological development gone wrong. Improper comparison, but also disingenuous.

   As much as I am moderate and centrist on some issues, for this specific one I'm lopsided against Tik Tok and supportive of regulations that restrict Tik Tok. I refuse to be a passive culprit that encourages Tik Tok to ruin the youth's brains to the point of hyper ADD/ADHD and foolishness, and I can't remain neutral and agnostic to the obvious harms it has for mental health, so, Tik Tok either must be restricted more, or, banned.

[Kksd74628]

@Danioover9000

It's fun how you found how TikTok and meditation are different. Of course they are completely different, but it seems that you didn't see the connection that I tried to make and I made it for a reason. The point was that TikTok ain't the problem, but some bad content inside + people get addicted to almost anything. I would want you to validate that little point after deepening the conversation. It seems that you almost identify right now as a person defending that view, because you aren't moving from the perspective you are standing on. I can agree that those things that you said are right, but can you agree on that TikTok in itself isn't the problem.