| ▲ | bobthepanda 14 hours ago |
| I mean there are many reasons that people say that TikTok is bad. If you think TikTok is bad because it promotes unhelpful or malicious advice around body standards, that's one thing. (See: bigorexia getting promoted into the DSM) If you think TikTok is bad because it puts children under a lens, that's another thing. If you think TikTok is bad because it exposes contrarian viewpoints that are not available on your television, like, say, something Gaza related, then that's yet another thing. |
|
| ▲ | jakewins 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| My brother, a middle school teacher, was talking about TikTok yesterday. Every 2 years he gets a new batch of 10-year-olds. They all have a “class chat”, and it is used daily for relentless cyber bullying. The current trend TikTok is pushing this month is to push the boundaries of calling black kids the n-word without explicitly saying the word. There is one little black girl in his class. He says every class is the same, horror ideas pushed by edge lords TikTok algos push on the kids. Relentless daily bullying. And unlike bullying on the playground or at the boys and girls club.. there is no realistic way for adults to intercede beyond disconnecting their kid, shutting them out of the social context entirely. |
| |
| ▲ | squigz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As someone who was bullied despite adults interceding, I'm curious why you think it being physical makes it better? Interestingly the exact example you gave is something I can see happening when I was a kid as well as now. Bullies gunna bully. | |
| ▲ | achenet 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | sorry if this is a stupid question, but can your brother setup a class chat that he moderates? I'm working on a simple chat app in Go as a learning project [0], you're welcome to use that, but honestly there are almost certainly better solutions out there, which he can actively moderate. Maybe a WhatsApp group, or something that can be used by a web interface (old forum techs?) Group chats can be nice, I'm part of several acroyoga group chats and they're lovely, probably because adults who practice acroyoga tend to be nicer than middle schoolers. [0] https://codeberg.org/achenet/go-chat |
|
|
| ▲ | econ 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The worse part of tiktok, like much of the web, is that it clips up your attention span into such tiny chunks that the consumer can NEVER feel the joy of thinking or talking. You can never voyage into someone else's mind deep enough to bee truly terrified or blown away, never see how they are fundamentally different from you nor why. All other complaints are a mere distraction by comparison. |
|
| ▲ | sanderjd 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur, but you also correctly guessed that I think TikTok is bad. But I don't relate to any of the reasons you listed. I think TikTok is bad for two reasons: 1. It is controlled by the government of China, and I don't trust them to avoid influencing Americans with propaganda. 2. It is bad in the same ways as all other social media. |
| |
| ▲ | roenxi 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your #1 reason is bobthepanda's #3 reason - exposes contrarian viewpoints. There isn't any reason in the abstract to think that Chinese propaganda is any worse than US propaganda. US propaganda is pretty stupid vis a vis promoting domestic prosperity. What are the Chinese supposed to do here, influence the US to give up their manufacturing edge by outsourcing all the capital formation to Asia? Waste their economic surpluses on endless war? Promote political division by pretending that the president is an agent of a foreign country? The US political process throws up a startling number of own goals. The Chinese aren't savvy enough to outdo the US domestic efforts. | | |
| ▲ | drdec an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > There isn't any reason in the abstract to think that Chinese propaganda is any worse than US propaganda. China is (at best) a frenemy of the US. Allowing a rival to push propaganda onto your children is foolhardy. It has nothing to do with whether Chinese propaganda is worse than US propaganda. | | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is a naive view of propaganda: everyone always says "well, they're not trying to achieve <overtly obvious goal>" therefore there could be no benefit! Propaganda aimed at your enemies isn't about achieving any specific goal, it is about obtaining potential advantage. It's an investment, the same as funding a startup but with much broader success criteria. Your comment here belies the benefit because at its core is the most dangerous assumption: I am too smart to affected by propaganda. | | |
| ▲ | roenxi 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, no. It is good to listen to other people even if you think they don't have your best interests at heart. I can certainly see a security argument for restricting foreign media, but to get upset because literally one media source is owned by foreigners is too much. The vague "obtaining potential advantage" is unreasonable. An advantage at what? China doesn't benefit from the US suffering, much like the US has actually benefited a huge amount from Chinese prosperity. > Your comment here belies the benefit because at its core is the most dangerous assumption: I am too smart to affected by propaganda. Quite the contrary; We're supposed to be affected by what we listen to. But I'm not smart enough to figure out what the Chinese think without going and listening to and reading things written by Chinese people and pushed by people with Chinese perspectives. We're not psychic and the Western media are also unreliable. Listening to diverse news sources is important. Particularly since the truth is often the most effective form of propaganda. | |
| ▲ | achenet 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes, but I think by your logic Hollywood movies are "propaganda"... by making the main characters of a movie American, and giving them positive traits, you're 'obtaining a potential advantage' for every American that travels abroad is associated with positively portrayed fictional characters, or in biopics, historical characters. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Many Hollywood movies are literally US government propaganda, yes. | |
| ▲ | XorNot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US military directly sponsors or promotes Hollywood movies with the benefit of gaining fairly good control of the overall messaging surrounding the military in the film. Zero Dark Thirty is perhaps the most egregious example of this, with the CIA consulting and the film depicting that the information leading to Osama Bin Laden's location was extracted under torture from an inmate (it was not). Many American films are not even casually not propaganda. The way you think about the US military is shaped and influenced by the influence the US military gets from fronting money, consulting and equipment appearances to appear in Hollywood films (with sometimes some weird consequences - for example they refused to back The Avengers because they felt SHIELD undermined the portrayal of the US, but were happy to back The Winter Soldier because in that SHIELD isn't the US DoD and goes down).[1] [1] https://gamerant.com/marvel-military-propaganda-explained/ |
|
|
|
|
