To be fair: some Democrats too. But at least we have Democrats who fight media control like Sanders.
To be fair: some Democrats too. But at least we have Democrats who fight media control like Sanders.
Deleted: For some reason I can't get the image to upload correctly and it won't show.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Would you say you are more or less informed than the people who read those sources rather than watching what the algorithm says will be most easily monetized for short form video?
I get it. There is too much news and its too expensive to consume all the news you actually need, but I think we can agree that getting the scraps from tik tok is not a long term solution.
I'm not going to agree with your original assertion that TikTok is not a news platform, and I notice you've switched from "it isn't" to "it isn't ideal". I know I might eat downvotes the same way I am in all of this thread, but I care more about the excellent examples I've provided that prove it is than opinion. I care more about the fact that people ARE using TikTok as a news source to find out about world events and news. I care that organizations like the ACLU are condemning the TikTok ban as closing off avenues of free speech even if it appears some of the folks voting here don't agree.
Well I believe the ACLU is wrong if they are asserting the Chinese government is a beacon of free speech.
They still banning all mentions of the Uyghur genocide and the decimation of the Tibetan Buddhist faith? If so, your own sources are censoring themselves for clicks.
Dude, that's an aggressively worded strawman that makes serious assumptions with no evidence. The ACLU is not arguing China is a beacon of free speech nor are they advocating for Uyghur genocide or Tibetan suppression, which the rest of your argument proceeds from. Quite the opposite in fact, which is something I can prove. They are saying free speech is being meaningfully facilitated by TikTok, even if it's a Chinese company. Honestly, just person-to-person, that was pretty bad and if you care I really think you should change at least that last post. Maybe you don't, that's fine...I don't always care about internet opinions either.
If you want, you can read an article about debunking some reasons and suggesting others here, including how there's no evidence to date that TikTok is artificially skewed pro-Palestine/progressive as opposed to other platforms (by China or otherwise), or how data privacy concerns are not either unique to TikTok by a long shot or solved by this bill. "The US government’s desire to ban TikTok instead of taking industry-wide action is a good indication that its campaign isn’t really about national security or data protection,” Marx points out, “but something much deeper: namely the preservation of American economic and geopolitical hegemony."
I didn't say they were advocating for those things. I said those things are the reason they are wrong.
I don't believe China should have the power to shape US News, and if negative reporting of China isn't allowed on the primary source for many Americans, that is shaping American reality.
Well I believe the ACLU is wrong if they are asserting the Chinese government is a beacon of free speech.
I can read what you've said. I'm not enraged by you, I'm not going to devolve into insults, but we clearly have different ethics when it comes to changing based on proof. I've proven that TikTok is a news source and it hasn't affected your opinion or made you change your posts. You've gone from "it isn't news" to "it's not an ideal news platform" to "it's unethical news" and I'm tiring of chasing moving goalposts. Journalists such as the one I linked have found no evidence that TikTok is skewing results period, much less because China says so. You believe what you will, as is your right.
Have those journalists attempted to discuss human rights violations against the Uyghurs or Tibetans?
Those topics used to be a very big deal for leftists. They aren't anymore. It should worry us all that our empathy is being redirected based on who owns what platforms we use. Which... You are here on Lemmy instead of reddit, so you already to an extent agree, just not in the case of one specific state controlled corporation.
#uyghur on TikTok. The very first video at the top is about how we promised after the Holocaust it would never happen again and now it's happening Uyghurs. There are videos about "save Uyghurs" and so on. You don't seem evil or stupid or any other insult, but please consider looking.
Edit: Found a great video on TikTok from an account with 1.5 million followers about testing censorship by China regarding all their dirty laundry including Uyghurs, also among the top results. It's been up for many weeks now.
I am glad the ban ended, but no, I won't be returning to tik tok until they publish the code.
It's not about your participation. I never use TikTok. It's about the fact that you make assertions that I then disprove with specific evidence within minutes of looking. Yet you still seem to believe everything you did at the start of the conversation when you began with "Except tik tok isn’t a news source. It’s a short form video app." and then went through multiple changes of argument. That's why I said you and I have different approaches to changing our minds based on evidence, because as near as I can tell that's true. You haven't changed any of your posts for instance - the one about not being news is still unaltered in spite of proof to the contrary.
What do you mean I haven't changes my stance?
You informed me that they now allow discussion of the Uyghur genocide and I thanked you for that information.
I also essentially stated that while it may be a source for many, it doesn't give the depth of knowledge that those journalists' actual work gives, and that you are bound to an algorithm telling you what is important.
They should publish the code so you can verify your trust in them.