And the weapon is ideas? If a society has to shield itself from ideas to prevent revolt, then perhaps that society has bigger problems. Patching the hole as a united bipartisan front, when the ONLY things that receives united bipartisan support is corporate interests, kinda gives their hand away. They’re doing this as a desperation move to prevent societal erosion and more importantly, loss of power in media. I think it’s too late.
Seems like an upheaval, electorally or otherwise, is at hand and this is a desperation move. I don’t expect the patching to prevent the rain, but who knows.
But tiktok the company is? And there are certainly also people on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and even Lemmy rallying to support Palestine. And that’s what you tried to avoid with your “argument” in the first place, that many us companies are far worse in spreading misinformation. How does your one very specific point prove anything? And why focus on this one at all? Meanwhile fox news especially has been rallying against all kinds of minorities since forever in the US. You have very weak arguments here, maybe you just want to have tiktok banned? But then just say so outright.
If I’m reading that right, that could also say that Instagram is suppressing anti-israel content? It’s just saying that in comparison to Instagram tiktok is showing more x, y, z. But Instagram is absolutely not a neutral point to measure from.
For starters there’s different demographics on each one, but I’m sure you could adjust for that, maybe the study did. But I don’t think you can adjust for the impact the US government has on Meta. I don’t believe for an instant that some US agency isn’t manipulating algorithms or requiring certain tweaks to steer discourse just like they did with US news outlets.
Hm… I agree that Instagram is not a neutral source. I also agree that there are going to be some biases imposed by the user base.
I don’t believe the US government plays a major role in Meta’s content moderation behavior. Meta if anything has shown a reluctance towards any political or news content in recent years. That’s not to say the US government doesn’t have influence but their influence is (from what I’ve seen) oriented around fighting disinformation and threats of violence … not cherry-picking the discussion of subject matter. I think there would’ve been a pretty significant leak out of Meta by now if there really was a strong political bias or government influence in content moderation.
I don’t think any of these lines particularly fall along political lines within the US either. There are people on the left and right taking different sides on virtually all of the topics with statistical divergence; many of them are unusually bipartisan within the US.
Oh please. The anti-TikTok hysteria has been going on much longer than the Israeli invasion of Gaza, and the narrative has largely been about national security concerns, particularly as they relate to election misinformation.
Agree or not with the anti-China rhetoric about TikTok, but at least argue about the facts and not inane conspiracy theories.
Thanks AIPAC, for protecting Americans from foreign misinformation campaigns.
They outlawed Fox News?
Don’t pretend this is about disinformation.
Fox News is disinformation peddler numero uno.
This is about the seizure of media outlets that don’t parrot pro-capitalist propaganda.
But it’s too late, the majority of each generation millennial and later is anti-capitalist. The critique media will simply change form.
No, only boomers watch Fox News, young people watch TikTok making it a way more potent weapon.
And the weapon is ideas? If a society has to shield itself from ideas to prevent revolt, then perhaps that society has bigger problems. Patching the hole as a united bipartisan front, when the ONLY things that receives united bipartisan support is corporate interests, kinda gives their hand away. They’re doing this as a desperation move to prevent societal erosion and more importantly, loss of power in media. I think it’s too late.
Seems like an upheaval, electorally or otherwise, is at hand and this is a desperation move. I don’t expect the patching to prevent the rain, but who knows.
My interpretation, open to being wrong.
Fox News isn’t rallying people to support Palestine.
But tiktok the company is? And there are certainly also people on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and even Lemmy rallying to support Palestine. And that’s what you tried to avoid with your “argument” in the first place, that many us companies are far worse in spreading misinformation. How does your one very specific point prove anything? And why focus on this one at all? Meanwhile fox news especially has been rallying against all kinds of minorities since forever in the US. You have very weak arguments here, maybe you just want to have tiktok banned? But then just say so outright.
Yes, among other things they’re also explicitly suppressing pro-Isreal content https://lemmy.world/post/14643617
If I’m reading that right, that could also say that Instagram is suppressing anti-israel content? It’s just saying that in comparison to Instagram tiktok is showing more x, y, z. But Instagram is absolutely not a neutral point to measure from.
For starters there’s different demographics on each one, but I’m sure you could adjust for that, maybe the study did. But I don’t think you can adjust for the impact the US government has on Meta. I don’t believe for an instant that some US agency isn’t manipulating algorithms or requiring certain tweaks to steer discourse just like they did with US news outlets.
So, I took another look at the report, they did do this sort of statistical bias correction. See “U.S. Politics” page 8 https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf
Hm… I agree that Instagram is not a neutral source. I also agree that there are going to be some biases imposed by the user base.
I don’t believe the US government plays a major role in Meta’s content moderation behavior. Meta if anything has shown a reluctance towards any political or news content in recent years. That’s not to say the US government doesn’t have influence but their influence is (from what I’ve seen) oriented around fighting disinformation and threats of violence … not cherry-picking the discussion of subject matter. I think there would’ve been a pretty significant leak out of Meta by now if there really was a strong political bias or government influence in content moderation.
I don’t think any of these lines particularly fall along political lines within the US either. There are people on the left and right taking different sides on virtually all of the topics with statistical divergence; many of them are unusually bipartisan within the US.
No misinformation is needed for that.
So they banned facebook and twitter too? 'Cause…
https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us-voters-before-2016-election/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/03/06/pro-trump-twitter-bot-campaign-already-spreading-propaganda-about-gop-rivals-report-says/?sh=c3f5e6bfe701
No, Facebook and Twitter are still useful for the status quo.
Ah, I missed the sarcasm in the original comment. Carry in
Oh please. The anti-TikTok hysteria has been going on much longer than the Israeli invasion of Gaza, and the narrative has largely been about national security concerns, particularly as they relate to election misinformation.
Agree or not with the anti-China rhetoric about TikTok, but at least argue about the facts and not inane conspiracy theories.