this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
282 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

60704 readers
4025 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dnick@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago

Right, but things rarely happen 'for the good of humanity', they just happen, and like mass production or the newspaper or even writing and language itself, it appears, we make use of it, we stumble and eventually we figure out where it really fits into the world. It will always be taken advantage of by those with the means to do so, but my point is that there is a period where we truly don't know how to approach it as a society and there is a learning curve and we are in that adolescent or teenage year type curve for the Internet, and probably toddler stage for ai, and we will learn, but we're not there yet.

Further, whether we learn enough quickly enough, or whether those with enough power and foresight will truly steal that opportunity from society remains to be seen. It may seem like it will be obvious right now, while we're in the thick of things, but only history will tell if it's an obvious eventuality or whether it is comical that they think they are smart enough to actually control it. Maybe it contains the seeds of their own undoing.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

why not have better data protection laws instead

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 3 days ago

Because that would have hurt their donors

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 100 points 4 days ago (7 children)

TikTok being banned is good. Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter should be banned as well. Closed, source, manipulative and harmful algorithms should be banned and these apps all use dark patterns in their design.

The fediverse and open social networks where the algorithms are open source and well understood and the user is allowed to choose their own algorithms is the only safe way to use social media.

[–] WatDabney@fedia.io 99 points 4 days ago (2 children)

A government that can ban social media sites is going to base their choices of which ones to ban on their preferences - not yours.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 29 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The EU seems to be handling it fine, the point is not targeting specific sites but targeting user hostile behaviors against citizens

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 25 points 4 days ago (2 children)

That is the thing that fear mongering against the Government always fails to address.

Yes, banning one thing out of ten that all do the same thing is wrong. Yes, we do not want to give the Government the ability to ban specific sites because history.

But banning or regulating algorithms, which are the actual problem, does not stop social media sites from existing. It just stops them from being able to manipulate massive groups of people by hiding/pushing the information the company wants one to see.

Unfortunately, the majority doesn't see algorithmic social media as a bad thing because they really do like echo chambers, and politicians don't ever seem to understand what a "root issue" is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The problem is not the government got to choose - in a functioning democracy, the government would represent the will of the people.

The problem is this democracy is fucked.

[–] WatDabney@fedia.io 4 points 3 days ago

Citizens United was a death sentence for the ideal of the government representing the will of the people.

Trump's election is the final nail in its coffin. He hasn't even taken office yet and he's already brazenly selling influence

And if he and the oligarchs have their way about it, it won't he long before we won't even be able to say things like that. Not because the oligarchy will do something so doomed to failure as trying to censor it themselves, but because sites that don't "choose" to censor whatever they want censored will be banned.

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 days ago

Honestly I think it's a terrible precedent to set. Now the government can just say they don't like XYZ website and are banning it. That wasn't really something they did 10 years ago. Unless of course it was illegal activity. But I don't think this is a net win for the internet. Regardless of what decision has been made, freedoms were removed and citizens' rights were sidestepped for political means. I think it shouldn't be the government's job to protect us from ourselves.

I was totally onboard with banning tiktok on government computers and I was completely on board with the government publicly expressing concerns over the motives of tiktok as a business. That's where I personally believe this should have stopped. Inform the people of the danger and then let them decide what to do with that information.

The problem with that idea though, is that nation-wide, citizens' trust in the government is at an all-time low. So even if the government said tiktok is bad and you shouldn't use it, people already don't trust the government. Maybe they should work on regaining the trust their people had for them 65 years ago before it tries to get people to behave how they think we should.

[–] PrinzKasper@feddit.org 6 points 3 days ago

I disagree, I think this ban sets a bad precedent. What governments should do is pass stricter data protection laws, as well as banning the many addictive design patterns that manipulate people into scrolling for hours and hours. For example infinite scroll. Imagine how much less people would doom scroll if they had to manually click "yes, I want to continue to page 7 of my twitter feed"

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 10 points 4 days ago

Well it's a good thing they banned TikTok because it has "Closed, source, manipulative and harmful algorithms" and not for some other reason

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

If we left it up to our government, that’d probably be what happens

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Trump may even welcome that, considering that Truth Social is just Mastodon.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

isn't it a mastodon fork?

and considering it's probably blocked by like 98% of the fediverse, i don't think he likes it very much

[–] kreynen@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

@cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone is it still a fork? It thought it started that way to get something done quickly, but thay they moved to a proprietary platform. I could be wrong, but do have any info on instances blocking Truth Social? Are the instances that don't block Truth Social?

@return2ozma@lemmy.world @TORFdot0@lemmy.world @woelkchen@lemmy.world

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

do have any info on instances blocking Truth Social? Are the instances that don’t block Truth Social?

Almost nobody blocks Truth Social. Everyone seems more preoccupied with blocking Threads over actual far right content.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 8 points 4 days ago

No no no my friend. You misunderstand USAing. You sweet sweet summer child.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago

This is all theater.

trump is going to "save" tik tok after starting the initial push to ban it (for the wrong reasons) to pretend he did something for you. Worst part is that all of the no/low info voters and non voters will eat it up.

It's the equivalent of a person pushing you into the middle of the street and at the very last second, that same person tells the drivers to all stop. "Wow, I owe you my life!"

And now, this adds two layers:

  1. You think trump and the Supreme Court are colluding? now they get to say, nah uh!!!! Even though again, this is all convoluted.

  2. trump gets to look "stronger" than the "highest court in the land" to help delude the next generation of low info tiktok folks.

P.s. The Chinese "protest" apps are going to mine the FUCK out of these millions of phones in the brief window they have them. Also, when the kids inevitably move back to tiktok, majority of them will leave these other apps installed on their phones, dormant and collecting in the background.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 37 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The only thing I really feel bad for from this is the small town food banks/animal welfare societies/sanctuaries that were able to find alternative sources of incomes through Tiktok via their partner programs and through a wider audience. Apparently Instagram doesn't pay as well, and Youtube shorts are abysmal for discovery.

I used to volunteer at an animal shelter, and my city dropped funding for them in 2023. Tiktok donations helped a lot more than you'd think. Highly encouraged people reading this to drop some food/donations off at your shelter of choice if you have any to spare.

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's interesting, last I had heard TikTok was morally abysmal when it came to paying creators. Unless that changed in the last few months then any Tiktok creator would make more money on YouTube even with a smaller audience.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For normal Tiktok creators, I'm not sure. But from what I remember, our TikTok revenue (combined creator fund payout + donations) outperformed every other source of revenue on a month-to-month basis EXCEPT the large local fundraising drives (which we only had quarterly).

The secret hack to the internet has always been animal content, lol. Animal videos performed very well, especially if you got into the creator fund. Youtube shorts only performed well for us when we had long form content the short could lead into. Before then we had 0 visibility on the YT algo.

Finally, Tiktok has better integration different payment methods through fundraising platforms (GoFundMe, Kickstarter, etc) than Youtube (or any Meta app tbh), or at least from what I understood from our accountants (I never bought anything off of Tiktok).

Again, this is only from my experience, and some other small animal rescues that we worked with. That's why I express sympathy for these organizations. I don't really care what happens to the drop shipping influencers or whatever.

[–] Lyre@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ah, i see. Thats really interesting, thanks for your insight.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

No problem! A lot of commenters on Fedi/Reddit seem like they don't have a lot of experience with Tiktok compared to Meta or Google platforms, so I'm always happy to speak on my experience with it.

[–] wolfylow@lemmy.world 43 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Non-American here. This actually goes a long way in helping me to avoid US-centric news and content for the next 4 years. So, there’s that.

[–] villainy@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

That's an interesting perspective. Please enjoy having our stupid bullshit slightly further away from your face for a while! My only option is sticking my head in this hole in the ground.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 4 days ago

i don't understand why everyone wants to push trump, who already doesn't care for the constitution, to just unilaterally decide not to obey laws passed by congress? like what are we doing?

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm really surprised they're not pushing the web version, which can operate in a way not covered by this ban.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It also can't track the users nearly as well.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

No, but I imagine they can still run profitable ads, and probably more effectively than most websites.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 days ago

Sure, but profit may not be the most important factor for Bytedance here. They say they're more willing to shut down than negotiate divestment.

[–] DolphinMath@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Despite what TikTok might claim, I’m fairly certain they’ve never actually turned a profit. Data collection, and influencing the American was always the point.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Calling it now, the supposed "rumors" of Musk wanting to buy out TikTok are suddenly going to become not-rumors on January 21st.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 8 points 4 days ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

As an Indian, welcome to the party.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

TikTok’s fate in the U.S. now lies in the hands of President-elect Donald Trump, who originally favored a TikTok ban during his first administration

...

Trump began to speak more favorably of TikTok after he met in February with billionaire Republican megadonor Jeff Yass. Yass is a major ByteDance investor who also owns a stake in the owner of Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform.

Stop the ban or we'll burn your own platform to the ground.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Pretty gross being violently ruled by a few fossils in wacky costumes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

The law allowing this happen was already passed, by a democratically* elected government. All the court is saying is that the law isn't unconstitutional. They don't decide what laws are "right" or "wrong", merely that it doesn't (in their opinion) contradict the constitution.

*how democratic it is is debatable, but still... an election did take place that put congress (and the president) in power

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 6 points 4 days ago

I know lots of people are mad, but I just see TikTok as another centralized platform that capitulates to special interests (read: money). I think the ban is a net positive, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if they banned other centralized social media platforms.

It never feels good to have the rug pulled out from under you, but people will find better ways to communicate. Humans are nothing if not creative problem solvers.

load more comments
view more: next ›