• CaptKoala@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    TikTok is the primary source of brain-rot in 2024, please, somebody, change my mind.

      • CaptKoala@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Thankfully, I’m not forced to interact with any of those, it’s not a problem here. Here in Australia, TikTok is everywhere, and I feel at times as if I’m the only one here that hasn’t touched it, that doesn’t stop my friends from ignoring the fact I’ve asked them countless times not to send tiktoks to me.

        One of said friends is a nurse, one of the smartest people I know. She told me how to do CPR based on what she’d seen in a TikTok, as someone that’s done the CPR training, and actually performed it, I was really upset that her knowledge had been overwritten in a very short time of her TikTok addiction. I’m finding such cases are becoming more and more common kately and it’s terrifying.

  • LucidNightmare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Reading through these comments… yikes guys. I use TikTok sometimes, and love the content it provides that YouTube does not provide. Seeing the straight up hate for the app, mixed with the misunderstanding of what the app CAN be if you actually use it, is chilling to say the least. If they were banning ALL social media apps, and their companies, I’d be all for this. As it is, I can not see why you would all be cheering so hard for TikTok to be sold to some American asshole, just for it to start getting enshittified, and then STILL sell your data to Russia, China, and anyone else who wants a slice. The fact you are all hating on TikTok so much, but not questioning our own American social media companies, and wanting them to be banned too, is frightening.

    I’ve seen a few comments saying it is spyware. On iOS at least, there is an icon that pops up to let you know when an app is using your camera or microphone. Not only that, but when you start an app for the first time, it has to request to you the user if you want to allow it access to these things. I said no, of course, because when I first started using it, I fucking hated TikTok. Turns out, when you use it for like a week, it starts to get REALLY good at delivering content you want to see.

    Anyway, it doesn’t matter, as I’m sure plenty of you will disagree, complain, and then go on using your American owned social medias, that are still hoovering up and selling your data.

    The only differences being that China wasn’t making a cent out of me, nor do any of these equally shitty American social medias. Oh well, I guess we just really love our own little national narratives.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Even though i dont think banning tiktok is a good idea purely because of the concept, those boards are funny. “Tiktok changed my life for the better”

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      They’re also all printed, and with the same font. I’m assuming it’s a stock photo, but if that’s from a real protest I don’t trust those protestors.who the hell gets a protest sign printed?

        • SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          literally paid shills

          No *one outside of some influencers were paid lmao. People contacted Congress but they weren’t paid, and a quick Google search brought up zero result of people being paid *outside of the influencers. So I’d love to see where you’re sourcing this from.

          Edit: Correction - about 30 influencers were paid to visit events for Tik Tok. I’ll rescind saying that literally no one was paid: that’s point is wrong. My main point was that average users weren’t paid to call into Congress. And the vast majority that called in or have talked out against the ban did so of their own volition rather than being paid as implied by OP’s comment

    • McDropout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      A lot of people started their businesses on Tiktok. The Tiktok algorithm is actually way better than that of Instagram to reach your target niche. A lot content creators and marketing exes do realize this.

      I don’t understand the mentality of users, of course of obviously older generation here, that realize Tiktok did in fact change a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just an app for dancing.

      Let’s not forget the Tiktok Shop section.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I probably shouldnt be celebrating this but I am. I fucking despise Tiktok with a passion, I hate its users, its creators, I hate the short form content trend it started and its algorithm based content delivery systems that every other app copied but worse, I hate the sexualisation of minors and peddling that content to pedos, I hate the clout chasing in general, I hate tiktok trends and “challenged”. and I hate the general brainrot it has caused.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      What are you celebrating, exactly? TikTok isn’t going away, it’s just going to be sold to American investors.

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Some bills don’t have teeth. It sounds like this one does. What do you think would happen if ByteDance doesn’t comply?

          • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            It would be ineffectually banned in the US and Bytedance would continue to rake in money worldwide from not-the-US?

            The US population represents ~4% of the world.

            • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              You’re saying people in the US would keep using it if it were banned in the US but still available in the rest of the world? How? It wouldn’t be available on app stores, and the website would be blocked by American DNS servers. Most TikTok users aren’t tech savvy enough to get around bans.

              • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                Lol, I don’t agree with what the parent poster said, but your interpretation is way off!

                No, he’s saying that if ByteDance loses the American market, it won’t matter much (it does, in my opinion.)

                • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Lol, I don’t agree with what the parent poster said, but your interpretation is way off!

                  Which part? How do you see things differently?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I hate its users, its creators, I hate the short form content trend it started and its algorithm based content delivery systems that every other app copied but worse

      I mean… eh? TikTok is hardly the first platform to embrace short-form video. I think the dislike for the app is overblown.

      The style is reflective of the medium. No point in making big budget audio/visual multi-hour immersive experiences for a cell phone screen with some headphones. The media has to be short because its for an audience that’s stealing time in the middle of a commute or during a break at school or the office. The continuous-feed style is something we just managed to achieve with high speed mobile internet (TikTok would have been impossible on a dial-up device).

      Its a young medium. People are still learning what works and what doesn’t. And its as prone to getting enshittified as every other venue, thanks to the endless need for higher profits.

      But as someone who grew up watching Albino Blacksheep and YTMND meme-tier content and owns a DVD of Super Bowl Commercials, I gotta say that we’ve had a lot worse.

      I hate the general brainrot it has caused

      People say this shit about every medium. And there’s definitely awful pieces of individual content.

      But a lot of it just comes down to the hyper-sensationalist marketing. And its common to every conceivable media, from Comic Book style front page of print to the “Bwooooong!” they put in every new movie trailer.

      If TikToks suck, its largely because they’re aping the worst aspects of all the other established media forms.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The media has to be short because its for an audience that’s stealing time in the middle of a commute or during a break at school or the offic

        Except most people you speak to will tell you they spend hours in bed scrolling. Short form took off because it drives higher engagement.

        And its as prone to getting enshittified as every other venue, thanks to the endless need for higher profits.

        Except its never not been shitty. I wa son it back when it was musical.ly it has much of the same problems.

        Albino Blacksheep and YTMND meme-tier content

        Which are far more creative than doing whatever the current trend is, or a thirst trap or click bait.

        People say this shit about every medium. And there’s definitely awful pieces of individual content.

        But with tiktok you can feel it. I hate short form but still end up scrolling mindlessly through YT shorts or IG reels. And it really does measurably affect your attention span. And it’s so noticeable that the user base openly acknowledges the brain rot.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          most people you speak to will tell you they spend hours in bed scrolling

          This seems like an exaggeration on a number of fronts. But even if you can find folks doing this, what’s the counterfactual? Would these same people be out hitting the gym or gardening or curing cancer? Or would they just be watching TV or reading a book, instead?

          Short form took off because it drives higher engagement.

          There are folks binging seasons worth of Netflix who would argue otherwise.

          Which are far more creative than doing whatever the current trend is

          They’re absolutely not. Go back through the dredges of the '00s-era content mill and you’ll find plenty of low-effort crap. Hell, YTMND was the pinacle of low effort crap. It was shit you could crank out in ten minutes with MS Paint and a collection of mp3 snippets.

          And it’s so noticeable that the user base openly acknowledges the brain rot.

          You’d have heard from folks reading tabloid news or watching reality TV decades ago.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Would these same people be out hitting the gym or gardening or curing cancer? Or would they just be watching TV or reading a book, instead?

            I mean ive personally just zoned out scrolling short form and missed my chance to go to the gym before. obviously might not be the case for everyone but is certainly plausible.

            There are folks binging seasons worth of Netflix who would argue otherwise.

            That doesnt disprove what I said at all.

            They’re absolutely not. Go back through the dredges of the '00s-era content mill and you’ll find plenty of low-effort crap.

            Creativity != effort and even then most tiktok stuff is as low effort as it gets.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I mean ive personally just zoned out scrolling short form and missed my chance to go to the gym before.

              I’ve seen people scrolling in between reps at the gym. But, again, would this not have been a problem if you’d been blogging instead of TikToking? Or Netflix binging?

              That doesnt disprove what I said at all.

              Multi-hour tv series are not short form.

              Creativity != effort

              A picture of a celebrity attached to a quote from a movie played on a loop is neither.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’ve seen people scrolling in between reps at the gym. But, again, would this not have been a problem if you’d been blogging instead of TikToking? Or Netflix binging?

                The point is short form content enables that behaviour more than other things. Its taken off specifically because its addicting and makes you think “its only a short/reel/tiktok just one more… okay one more…etc” that you dont get with hour long netflix episodes.

                Multi-hour tv series are not short form.

                No one is arguing otherwise and long form content just existing doesnt disprove that short form drives higher engagement. Its like saying “Taylor swift songs are the most popular” and replying “but ACDC exists?” That doesnt disprove the original statement.

                A picture of a celebrity attached to a quote from a movie played on a loop is neither.

                ok

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  The point is short form content enables that behaviour more than other things. Its taken off specifically because its addicting and makes you think “its only a short/reel/tiktok just one more… okay one more…etc” that you dont get with hour long netflix episodes.

                  I simply haven’t seen anything to support this claim.

                  No one is arguing otherwise and long form content just existing doesnt disprove that short form drives higher engagement

                  You haven’t established anything to disprove. You’ve just asserted it with some personal anecdote about missing a gym appointment.

                  Its like saying “Taylor swift songs are the most popular” and replying “but ACDC exists?”

                  It’s like saying Taylor Swift isn’t inside the top 10 of the Billboard Top 100 so why do you keep insisting that her overwhelming popularity is corrupting America’s fragile young egos?

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    If social media apps exist to slurp up as much user info as possible, and they do, then it makes sense to be concerned about the government that they’re subject to.

    • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why is it okay for domestic companies to collect the same data and sell it to China, then?

      This shouldn’t just affect foreign companies if it’s about data collection. It should have been an actual privacy bill. US citizens’ privacy will be no better after this.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s not ok.

        But the fact is that China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia are adversaries of the United States, and the US government is justified in its concern.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      They’d be right to do so.

      The way this got passed was criminally sleazy. And there’s no reason for a foreign company to hand over its IP to some Wall Street thugs.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    What are the odds this stands up in court? It seems like an easy legal victory for TikTok.

    • zaphod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      On what basis? The legal power of the US government to break up or otherwise force divestment of corporate assets is the basis upon which antitrust law is built. The only way this law could be overturned is it’s found unconstitutional, and if that happens, you can say goodbye to the FTC.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Lmao. Then bring an anti-trust case? That power is specifically in reference to that and requires the government to prove it’s case in court. Not just make a declaration.

        • zaphod@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You’re missing my point.

          In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that’s the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it’s the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.

          That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I’m wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn’t apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I’m not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there’s OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).

          To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I’m saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it’s not an obvious slam dunk.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.

            And the Anti-Trust laws were written that way because that’s the Due Process the Constitution demands. The executive cannot just declare something punitive. That has been the standard for over 200 years.

            Also, if there aren’t rights for foreigners in the US then there aren’t rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.

            • zaphod@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.

              In what way does that invalidate it as an example?

              The executive cannot just declare something punitive.

              CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.

              Also, if there aren’t rights for foreigners in the US then there aren’t rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.

              Bytedance isn’t inside your borders and the constitution doesn’t protect extra-nationals. There’s a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.

                (CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.

                So again. Not personal use. Also, refunding an investment is entirely different than shutting down a business.

                And LMAO. If Bytedance wasn’t inside the borders then this wouldn’t matter. Saying they aren’t inside the borders is possibly the most hilarious bad faith thing I’ve seen in this entire debacle.

                • zaphod@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.

                  I’m sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:

                  CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user’s location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.

                  Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn’t count as “critical infrastructure”?

                  (BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).

                  (CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.

                  So again. Not personal use.

                  LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:

                  To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.

                  So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.

                  Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.

                  But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.

                  The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.

                  Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It’s incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don’t trade on any US stock exchanges).

                  TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).

                  The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn’t occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it’s that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        If she’s investing at the same time you’re getting the information, she missed the best time to buy. She might have hedged her bets and bought early

        • Gork@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Fun fact: Congresspeople can legally inside trade, but the rest of us cannot.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of bribery lobbying.

            According to the STOCK Act of 2012, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

            What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

  • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This comment section is astounding.

    If you think it’s good that congress passed a ban of a social media platform tied to a bill funding two foreign wars you’re either a fed or delusional.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Seriously. The real solution is comprehensive privacy protection and consumer information export controls for all companies operating within the US.

      This whole thing is just going to give an American company the capability to use Tik Tok to spy on people and control information, which is barely better.

      And then they’ll likely sell the data to China anyway. Data brokers exist and make a fuck ton of money on us.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      All three of these pieces of legislation are what a Real True American would support. If you refuse to endorse these bills, we’re going to have to note it on your social credit score.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m convinced that US lawmakers believe that the pro-gaza sentiment is coming from TikTok. The timing, the mechanism. They see themselves as no longer able to control the narrative and are blaming ‘non-US’ social media.

  • McDropout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    A lot of people on Lemmy are just… old.

    This thread made me realize this.

    If this bill passes and any of you criticizes China/Russia for banning Facebook/Instagram/Twitter etc… under the name of “lack of freedom of speech”. I will be laughing. A lot.