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

Technology

60564 readers
5676 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
[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 18 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

why not have better data protection laws instead

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 5 hours ago

Because that would have hurt their donors

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours 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.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 hours 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?

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

As an Indian, welcome to the party.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 38 points 1 day 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 20 hours 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 16 hours 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 15 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 hours 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.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 96 points 1 day 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.

[–] PrinzKasper@feddit.org 4 points 3 hours 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"

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 16 points 16 hours 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.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] WatDabney@fedia.io 98 points 1 day 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.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours 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 3 points 6 hours 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.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day 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 23 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] dnick@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago

I still consider us in something like the teenage years as a society, just discovery something big like the Internet and social media and we're going to handle it poorly until we learn to handle it responsibly.

Heads or tails whether we make it to adulthood before the powers that be manage to wrangle things in their favor first. Signs point in a bad direction, but there's no saying that the tools that worked on society before won't break when the next thing comes along. Maybe ai will take a form that liberates, or hits the powerful far more negatively than it hits the masses.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago

Governments can place qualifiers based on hostile behaviours but then still selectively enforce said restrictions on the platforms they want to target.

Such as with tiktok they specially worded the laws so that it only affected tiktok and not the others.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 8 points 1 day 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 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

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

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 8 points 1 day ago

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

[–] wolfylow@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day 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 12 points 1 day 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)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day 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 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] DolphinMath@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 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.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Very likely, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't achieve 80% of that on the web. Targeted surveillance, as they've been caught doing to critics before would not work as well.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

With that data collection, their algorithm for targeted marketing is on a completely different level. I completely believe they're profitable.

Not only do you have knowledge into people who are likely buyers, you can put them into a buying mood right before showing them the ad so they're primed for it. Then on top of THAT, you don't have to design, film or edit the ad - you just pay an influencer to do it for you. It makes it faster, easier and cheaper to AstroTurf brand awareness than ever before.

Relatedly, the only people I know ordering things from Shien or Temu are on TikTok.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

The platform isn't creating revenue, the traffic and data collection do however create lots and lots of revenue so it really just depends on how you want to parse out their financial situation.

[–] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 17 hours 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.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day 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.

[–] Syntha@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago

Calling it now, it's not gonna happen. And I'll be back in this threat when dust settles

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Don't need to. The government can seize the brand and US infrastructure.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Lol that would be an absolute mess. And they'd end up having to redo everything from the ground up because Bytedance isn't gonna hand over encryption keys and would probably wipe everything important if they knew that was coming

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Lol that would be an absolute mess.

Mister "I'm gonna be a dictator for a day" and getting elected on that platform making a mess? No way!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day 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)
[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day 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)
load more comments
view more: next ›