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

The TikTok War

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 386 posts

Re: The TikTok War

#291

Post by dvt »

Spivak wrote: post #277
dvt wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't understand hate speech. This is "no true Scotsman" in its full glory, but I'll bite. Even if we agree that "Gender Critical" was hateful, in no way would the sub be "hate speech" as it would need to (by your own definition) target specific people with the intent to hurt them (which was explicitly against the sub's rules).

I really don't think you get the kind of content that got GC in trouble. The subreddit followed the "name and shame" formula (that's way too common on Reddit) of posting "cringe" pictures/articles/screengrabs of trans men and women and then then insulting, shaming, misgendering, and otherwise making fun of them. GC wasn't some Socratic circle discussing the intricate nuances of sex and gender and happened to hold the…

> It was a group of bullies who had it out for trans men and women.

I can concede this point without really hurting my argument. Bullies are no fun, and they're mean, and they're hurtful and (usually) wrong. We must still cross the Rubicon, however, until we get to (even your own definition) of "hate speech."

Re: The TikTok War

#292

Post by [deleted] »

netcan wrote: post #208
xapata wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mark Zuckerberg had to appear before Congress in 2018 Exactly. Whereas with TikTok the government is pushing the propaganda.

This is the sort of thing I meant in my original comment. " The chinese government use tiktok for propaganda " is an effective call to action. Once you form an opinion on tiktok, the FB equivalents will start to to stand out. The CCP use tiktok for propaganda. Lobbying firms & individual candidates use FB for campaign. In terms of transparency, manipulativeness, political impact, morals and such... not that different…

[deleted]

Re: The TikTok War

#293

Post by blackrock »

--yawn--

Another dude advocating for the suppression of a foreign government. Been there, done that, seen it all, happened before, will happen again.

To think that a little app that promotes a bunch of videos of kids acting silly, is a national security threat, is ridiculous.

All you need for counter-evidence, is to look at Twitter, Facebook, and all the American news media sites and outlets. They routinely and actively brainwash the population, with the same repeated bombardment of information, even though they claim to be independent reporting agencies.

In fact, all the American news agencies, are increasing the aggressiveness of the rhetoric, and appear to be drumming up the mood for war against China.

You, as Americans, should be very disturbed by this. Because, if the United States engages into a war with China, then it is you, and your children, that will face the brunt of the violence of war. The American elites, and their children, will be safely kept away from any of that violence; and they will be benefiting financially from it all, while you and your children die in the Pacific Ocean.

If you want to ban TikTok, then just ban them. Just say, that you don't want any Chinese media presence on American airwaves. Simple as that. Begin your own censoring of the internet.

Don't bother with making some far-fetched reasoning that some fictitious enemy is out to get you. This is, in fact, what scares Americans the most - the creation of some fictitious bogeyman.

Re: The TikTok War

#294

Post by detaro »

dvt wrote: post #264
newacct583 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reddit recently banned a ton of subreddits that are simply critical of the idea that men can literally become women This is a deeply misleading way of understanding this controversy. You can be "simply critical" of the way we define gender or of reddit's policies without being an asshole. "Inclusive" behavior consists, essentially, of just not being an asshole. If someone tells you they're a woman and you don't agr…

> share a bunch of memes making fun of them Making fun of people is crossing the line? This seems like a dangerous slippery slope to say the least. Suppose I make an entire career out of making fun of (say) Irish people. Jokes and stereotypes like "they drink a lot" and "they get into bar fights" and "they're dumb potato farmers" are my bread and butter. Most people would probably agree that this kind of speech shoul…

There is a difference in the standing of the groups. Nowadays, even anti-Irish prejudice is probably not that common anymore in the anglosphere, and anti-Irish violence or laws are even less of a problem. That doesn't mean that there isn't an ugly history around that, and doesn't make all jokes ok, but it is a difference from groups where the topic is more sensitive.

And given the prevalence of e.g. anti-trans sentiments, it's also more likely that "memes making fun of them" actually has a side-note of "memes suggesting they are mentally ill", "memes suggesting violence against them is ok", ..., which is not justified against any group.

Re: The TikTok War

#295

Post by Spivak »

YarickR2 wrote: post #280
Spivak wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit banned a bunch of hate subreddits. Full stop. I don't care what you think about trans men and women but this is not a case of people being overly sensitive. "Gender Critical" is the spiritual equivalent of "Race Realists" and their subreddits were nothing other than a safe space for them to express their overt hate. This was not a place "simply" for people with an opinion. You don't understand hate speech. Mis…

Well, you're making great progress understanding another people thoughts /s Your answer is filled with so much more hate than the one you're replying to

No. It isn't. What you're doing is called tone policing and it works by (intentionally or not) confusing an angry and impassioned tone with hate and used to distract from the actual content of what I said.

Hate is a brutally civil thing.

Re: The TikTok War

#296

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

coliveira wrote: post #231

Because of the dominantly racist view prevailing in the US: if it is a Chinese company, it must somehow be bad, anti-democracy. If it comes from an American company, then it must be democratic and good (even when it does harm).

Racism may play a part, but it has way more to do with a legitimate concern: the Chinese government's eagerness to exercise control over our cultural output. If it were Russia, the response would be the same.

If the Chinese government wants to censor media in their own country, fine. Obviously I don't support it on a personal level, but they can run their country how they see fit. But when a foreign entity tries to steer our artistic output, alter our films (e.g. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), or just remove some of our silly videos on a social video platform, it's absolutely reprehensible.

Re: The TikTok War

#297

Post by dvt »

newacct583 wrote: post #290
dvt wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You picked Irish men (note your stereotypes: all male) You're obviously not arguing in good faith, as I am quite careful with my words and specifically mentioned people . But I do agree that thick skin is a requirement of a free and open society (this is where I'd usually cite J.S. Mill's On Liberty ). Finally, I just want to add that your conclusion is off-base: anti-Irish sentiment (known as Hibernophobia) has a…

> anti-Irish sentiment (known as Hibernophobia) has a long and storied history. OK, then let's ban the mean Irish jokes too.

Q.E.D.

Re: The TikTok War

#298

Post by moron4hire »

netcan wrote: post #208
xapata wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mark Zuckerberg had to appear before Congress in 2018 Exactly. Whereas with TikTok the government is pushing the propaganda.

This is the sort of thing I meant in my original comment. " The chinese government use tiktok for propaganda " is an effective call to action. Once you form an opinion on tiktok, the FB equivalents will start to to stand out. The CCP use tiktok for propaganda. Lobbying firms & individual candidates use FB for campaign. In terms of transparency, manipulativeness, political impact, morals and such... not that different…

I spent a lot of time writing a reply and eventually deleted it. It's not clear from your original post to which I replied that you're being descriptive, not prescriptive, that by pushing the issue of dragging out TikTok's propaganda machine that it opens the door to dragging out Facebook.

It's really hard to tell that you meant, "the public perception of Facebook is..." (that it's not in the business of influencing politics).

Re: The TikTok War

#299

Post by trcollinson »

thebooktocome wrote: post #272
seebetter wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true about YT wormholes pushing viewers into far right content. And yes people are being banned for innocuous misgendering. And for saying only biological women are women. It’s not hate speech to say that. Declaring things as true don’t make them true. Let’s try reasoning from first principles and acknowledging that principles actually exist. Amorphous relativism is a destructive force in society.

What's the first principle that says "only women have cervixes"? It's medically false and objectively wrong. Now who is peddling in "amorphous relativism"?

I don't love fighting over these sorts of things, especially on Hacker News. So I am not trying to fight at all. But I am genuinely and honestly asking, where do I find research to say that not "only women have cervices"?

After Googling for a few minutes I have found quite a bit of research on how cervical health of a female sexual partner can affect the male partner. I have found how male sexual partner health related to HPV can effect the female cervix. I have found information on how trans-men need to continue to have their cervix tested for medical issues. I haven't found any information on if chromosomal issues can cause cervices to be present in men.

Or is your point that trans-men have cervices and so not "only women have cervices"? If that is the argument you are making, that is fine. Though then I am not sure what you are arguing. But I will just accept your opinion if that is what it is.

Re: The TikTok War

#300

Post by dvt »

detaro wrote: post #294
dvt wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> share a bunch of memes making fun of them Making fun of people is crossing the line? This seems like a dangerous slippery slope to say the least. Suppose I make an entire career out of making fun of (say) Irish people. Jokes and stereotypes like "they drink a lot" and "they get into bar fights" and "they're dumb potato farmers" are my bread and butter. Most people would probably agree that this kind of speech shoul…

There is a difference in the standing of the groups. Nowadays , even anti-Irish prejudice is probably not that common anymore in the anglosphere, and anti-Irish violence or laws are even less of a problem. That doesn't mean that there isn't an ugly history around that, and doesn't make all jokes ok, but it is a difference from groups where the topic is more sensitive. And given the prevalence of e.g. anti-trans senti…

This is a bad argument for a few reasons, but I'll cover my main gripe: the sorites wormhole.

Is making fun of white straight men OK? Ok good. What about white women? What about white gay women? Black republican gay men? Mexican scientologists? What group takes precedence? Your race? Your religion? Your sexual orientation? Your eye color? Your hair color? It's probably OK to make fun of Christians in the US, but it's not OK to make fun of them in China, right? They're still being persecuted over there, so that makes it not OK. What about content that's shared all over the internet? What about a persecuted Chinese Christian that reads /r/atheism?

Your "group standing" theory is clearly not tractable, as you are now stuck in an N-dimensional sorites paradox[1].

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/

Post reply on HN