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

EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 350 posts

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#321

Post by willis936 »

mmooss wrote: post #271
willis936 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge the notion that they're equal. Social media at least provides vox while traditional media is completely one-way. How much is astroturfing and illusion can be debated forever, but any positive value is greater than zero. Traditional media acts as programming first. Journalistic integrity and trust in institutions has been sold off for shareholder value.

> How much is astroturfing and illusion can be debated forever, but any positive value is greater than zero. That's an easy way to toss aside a very damaging attack on the public and freedom, with power unlike anything humanity has seen. I'm not sure what "any positive value is greater than zero" means, other than a mathematical tautology, but I certainly don't accept that social media is a net positive. > Journalist…

>I'm not sure what "any positive value is greater than zero" means

It means that traditional media is a one way information valve and social media is not. Built into the information medium is the inability to know what people think. It's at most a reflection of what a small number of people think.

>Part of the cause is you

Incorrect. I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot be part of the problem of trust being eroded away. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of those guiding discourse.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#322

Post by grumple »

uludag wrote: post #246
grumple wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US social media companies contributing to widespread social unrest that ultimately led nowhere[0] or created more oppressive Islamic regimes and sectarian violence - well, this seems like an argument against TikTok, not for it. Despite any personal romanticism towards violent revolution you may have, that is not something that societies actually want against democracies. Even against authoritarian regimes, society of…

I totally agree that the Arab spring ended in near complete failure, and is not an ideal in and of itself, and violent revolution is in no way desirable for societies like the US. Maybe I should have connected the analogy fully: Suppose that there was an issue that most citizens would normally feel very strongly about, but which benefits the state: war immediately comes to mind. There should be protests and (non-viol…

Romanticizing anti-war movements is reasonable, in my opinion.

But TikTok was used heavily for the past year and half to glorify terrorist violence and spread misinformation. Well... it's been used to spread misinformation for longer. But all my TikTok addicted friends are happily justifying murder of Jews, applauding the assassination of an insurance CEO, and spreading other crazy bullshit. It really is disruptive to these people - they aren't smart enough to distill truth from the barrage of bullshit, and they are easily manipulated.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#323

Post by programjames »

bdangubic wrote: post #293
programjames wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anonymity is important for some kind of coordination problems (e.g. against an authoritarian government). A better solution is to have a nominal fee, maybe $10/yr to be platformed, that way it's expensive to bot.

this is solid but if I am China what is $400,000,000 to spend on 40,000,000 bots that now we think are real people…

That's about as much as United States Presidents spend on their campaigns, so it's actually quite a lot. Especially if it gets noticed and shut down.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#324

Post by programjames »

llamaimperative wrote: post #299
programjames wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anonymity is important for some kind of coordination problems (e.g. against an authoritarian government). A better solution is to have a nominal fee, maybe $10/yr to be platformed, that way it's expensive to bot.

Yeah I think anonymity is important to have available . But I wish not every single social media platform was trivial to bot. (GP and I disagree on whether every platform should require it)

Well, the issue with coordination is you need everyone already there to coordinate. If people are only using the network for illegitimate uses, then it will get shut down (think 4chan, Silk Road). Really, it's in the authoritarian government's best interest (not the people's) to make multiple platforms. Most people will choose the free one, so it's 10–100x cheaper to either bot the pay-for-anonymity platform or shut it down when they notice it formenting unrest.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#325

Post by Nasrudith »

swed420 wrote: post #249
idle_zealot wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. > Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. For a brief period we had some social media platforms that made gestures in the direction of free com…

> It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. Exactly. It seems the only way to sidestep this growing problem is to create a profit free platform, and view it almost as a utility but is openly owned and controlled by "the people." The vTaiwan and g0v ("gov zero") projects are relevant starter examples for a newer type of distribu…

That reminds me of the surprising and perverse effects witnessed during the Roman Empire's downward spiral.

One of the reforms was going from citizen soldiers who must provide their own gear to government provided weaponry and armor. Despite on its face being more egalitarian this resulted instead in consolidation of personal power and lead to more stratification. Quartermasters became kingmakers, just like how coups were lead by quartermasters in the Napoleonic era as they controlled food and provided payment.

There must always be an owner and don't trust "the people" to be anything more than a populist's device to assign legitimacy to their supporters and other dissenters.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#326

Post by Nasrudith »

llamaimperative wrote: post #23
hx8 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame that this is true for many platforms. Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. The more people watch content the more it's shown to other people. Anyone's voice could be amplified in a way that was limited to broadcast networking and printing presses in the past. A million small conversations can occur in such a way that they create a chorus of discussion about public intere…

This is part of why I think there should exist a popular real-name-only network. It'd go far to prevent these types of attacks on the megaphone.

Why do people insist upon sacrificing anominity and thinking they will get anything in return for it? I could forgive it in the 00s but it is inexcusable in the 20s. Real name policies just causes people to double down more. It has not been a pancaea.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#327

Post by llamaimperative »

Nasrudith wrote: post #326
llamaimperative wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part of why I think there should exist a popular real-name-only network. It'd go far to prevent these types of attacks on the megaphone.

Why do people insist upon sacrificing anominity and thinking they will get anything in return for it? I could forgive it in the 00s but it is inexcusable in the 20s. Real name policies just causes people to double down more. It has not been a pancaea.

Maybe re-read the comment. No one is insisting on anything. I’m wishing for more optionality.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#328

Post by EasyMark »

llamaimperative wrote: post #318
EasyMark wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

signal in belief that freedom of speech has limits, and it doesn't extend to a foreign adversary hoping to decimate the USA has been my conclusion from the 9-0 decision of SCOTUS

Oh brilliant. So all we need to curtail someone's speech is assert they are "a foreign adversary hoping to decimate the USA?" That clarifies things! What about the speech of "the enemy from within" who is "more dangerous than China, Russia, and all these other countries"? (And to be clear: I think TikTok is awful and should be banned, but I want much, much clearer arguments than this as to why it is able to be banned…

THen you should go read the SCOTUS final decision, it's pretty succinct for a law document.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#329

Post by mmooss »

willis936 wrote: post #321
mmooss wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much is astroturfing and illusion can be debated forever, but any positive value is greater than zero. That's an easy way to toss aside a very damaging attack on the public and freedom, with power unlike anything humanity has seen. I'm not sure what "any positive value is greater than zero" means, other than a mathematical tautology, but I certainly don't accept that social media is a net positive. > Journalist…

>I'm not sure what "any positive value is greater than zero" means It means that traditional media is a one way information valve and social media is not. Built into the information medium is the inability to know what people think. It's at most a reflection of what a small number of people think. >Part of the cause is you Incorrect. I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot…

> I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot be part of the problem of trust being eroded away. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of those guiding discourse.

We are part of society. The outcomes are our responsibility and within our power - why do you think so many spend so much to manipulate public opinion? Even just posting here will spread narratives and influence others.

Re: EFF statement on U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold TikTok ban

#330

Post by mmooss »

petesergeant wrote: post #320
mmooss wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you give examples Here are comments from many leading journalists at the Washington Post, many of whom have left. For example recently: Jennifer Rubin resigned: "The Washington Post's billionaire owner and enlisted management" "betrayed their audiences' loyalty and sabotaged journalism's sacred mission - defending, protecting and advancing democracy. ... They have undercut the values central to ... all journali…

> but American democracy - that your ancestors bled and sacrificed to build You understand that not everyone here is American, right? > playing with picayune arguments Am I? Could you give an example? The rest seems to be rehashing the editorial cartoon, the endorsement debacle, and some internal newspaper politics.

You asked for examples, and people have provided plenty of them - substantial ones about the ownership acting to support Trump. Do you really care about this issue or are you trying to defend Bezos?
Post reply on HN