Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#41

Post by williamdclt »

boscillator wrote: post #21
ketzu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on their faq: https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?category=web_accou... > You shouldn't see mature or complex themes, such as: > • Profanity > • Sexually suggestive content > • Realistic violence or threatening imagery > • Firearms or weapons in an environment that isn't appropriate > • Illegal or controlled substances/drugs > • Explicit references to mature or complex themes that may reflect personal exp…

I wonder what counts as a complex theme? Surely that is a euphemism for something, but I can't figure out what it would be and certainly don't trust TikTok to do a good job of deciding what is too complex for the youth's minds.

I'd guess not-suggestive sexuality-related content, such as sex-ed. Possibly political stuff too?

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#42

Post by phendrenad2 »

pmdr wrote: post #35
phendrenad2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open internet isn't safe for adults, either. There is some serious misinformation out there, and it's high time we restrict the internet to only high-IQ people. (/sarc)

I like to think there's a difference between being fed misinformation & braindrot day in, day out and having to look for them yourself.

Is YouTube or Twitch really better? I don't think people are going to go "Oh well, TikTok is gone now, guess I'll finally go read through my backlog of academic papers on quantum theory"

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#43

Post by ryandrake »

izzydata wrote: post #10
jjice wrote: post #8

It blows my mind that parents let their children use these platforms with these safety features. I just found out yesterday that my cousin lets their 5ish year old have a TikTok account, but they have to allow or deny anyone who follows. How absurd is that. It doesn't block anything about what they view (I assume they relied on this safety feature), and there's no way that vetting who can follow (family and friends)…

5 years old is crazy, but by the time they are 15-16 it becomes difficult to restrict them from things their peers all do. There needs to be a wider push from all parents or more of a consensus from society that these platforms are dangerous.

You're not going to achieve coordinated, collective action by placing the burden of acting on the individual. It never works.

If collective action has to happen to solve some problem, it needs to either 1. be so strongly incentivized such that it's the only sensible thing for individuals to do, or 2. be mandated top-down and enforced.

You can't just shout "My solution relies on everyone independently doing X!" It never works.

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#44

Post by ryandrake »

ketzu wrote: post #5
tolugenius wrote: post #2

> Liu also said Texas had established that TikTok's "Restricted Mode" did not work as advertised and exposed minors to content the company said would be filtered out. I don't use tiktok, can someone explain what the restrict mode was advertised as vs does? If it's like any social media limiter it's perhaps a softer thing (time limit) than a hard thing (ie, designed to put the onus on the user).

Based on their faq: https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?category=web_accou... > You shouldn't see mature or complex themes, such as: > • Profanity > • Sexually suggestive content > • Realistic violence or threatening imagery > • Firearms or weapons in an environment that isn't appropriate > • Illegal or controlled substances/drugs > • Explicit references to mature or complex themes that may reflect personal exp…

Whenever I see a list like this, I wonder to myself: "Who gets to decide the list?" Why are we letting companies just decide on their own what's appropriate for "minors?"

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#45

Post by [deleted] »

mcmcmc wrote: post #22
ketzu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on their faq: https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?category=web_accou... > You shouldn't see mature or complex themes, such as: > • Profanity > • Sexually suggestive content > • Realistic violence or threatening imagery > • Firearms or weapons in an environment that isn't appropriate > • Illegal or controlled substances/drugs > • Explicit references to mature or complex themes that may reflect personal exp…

Curious what they consider an “appropriate environment” for firearms and weapons

[deleted]

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#46

Post by codedokode »

ryandrake wrote: post #44
ketzu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on their faq: https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?category=web_accou... > You shouldn't see mature or complex themes, such as: > • Profanity > • Sexually suggestive content > • Realistic violence or threatening imagery > • Firearms or weapons in an environment that isn't appropriate > • Illegal or controlled substances/drugs > • Explicit references to mature or complex themes that may reflect personal exp…

Whenever I see a list like this, I wonder to myself: "Who gets to decide the list?" Why are we letting companies just decide on their own what's appropriate for "minors?"

Because 99% of adult people have other things to do than manually build content filters.

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#47

Post by boomboomsubban »

mcmcmc wrote: post #22
ketzu wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on their faq: https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?category=web_accou... > You shouldn't see mature or complex themes, such as: > • Profanity > • Sexually suggestive content > • Realistic violence or threatening imagery > • Firearms or weapons in an environment that isn't appropriate > • Illegal or controlled substances/drugs > • Explicit references to mature or complex themes that may reflect personal exp…

Curious what they consider an “appropriate environment” for firearms and weapons

There are multiple Olympic events that use firearms and weapons. Or history tiktok is a thing.

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#48

Post by codedokode »

> TikTok in August agreed to settle three U.S. lawsuits brought by young people who accuse social media companies of designing their platforms to be addictive and harming their mental health.

I am so happy I do not live in US where an idiot harms themself and non-idiot has to pay them.

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#49

Post by thinkingtoilet »

jjice wrote: post #8

It blows my mind that parents let their children use these platforms with these safety features. I just found out yesterday that my cousin lets their 5ish year old have a TikTok account, but they have to allow or deny anyone who follows. How absurd is that. It doesn't block anything about what they view (I assume they relied on this safety feature), and there's no way that vetting who can follow (family and friends)…

It's two things. When you step outside the HN bubble, very few people have any idea of the dangers and history of these apps. Also, life is objectively harder for parents these days. Often times, both parents are working, and they're working longer hours and getting paid less than previous generations so a lot of parents just dump their kids in front of screens. I'm not saying that's good. It's objectively bad, but that's the reality.

Re: Texas judge rules TikTok misled users on child safety feature

#50

Post by intrasight »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #24
intrasight wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not mutually exclusive. I'll take #1 and #2 combined, thank you very much. #3 is the purview of the advertisers and CC companies.

How long do you think you'll have #1 and #2 before someone in government realizes they can dox people they don't like?

Government and taxes are the price we pay for having a civilization. If you don't trust your government institutions to do good by you, then you could go live on a deserted island somewhere and see how that works out for you.
Post reply on HN