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

Technology

60942 readers
3836 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 other!
  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
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dnick 1 points 3 days ago

Right, but things rarely happen 'for the good of humanity', they just happen, and like mass production or the newspaper or even writing and language itself, it appears, we make use of it, we stumble and eventually we figure out where it really fits into the world. It will always be taken advantage of by those with the means to do so, but my point is that there is a period where we truly don't know how to approach it as a society and there is a learning curve and we are in that adolescent or teenage year type curve for the Internet, and probably toddler stage for ai, and we will learn, but we're not there yet.

Further, whether we learn enough quickly enough, or whether those with enough power and foresight will truly steal that opportunity from society remains to be seen. It may seem like it will be obvious right now, while we're in the thick of things, but only history will tell if it's an obvious eventuality or whether it is comical that they think they are smart enough to actually control it. Maybe it contains the seeds of their own undoing.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 6 days ago (1 children)

why not have better data protection laws instead

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 days ago

Because that would have hurt their donors

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days 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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago

As an Indian, welcome to the party.

[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 week ago (8 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.

[–] Jyek 19 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days 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"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

@[email protected] is it still a fork? It thought it started that way to get something done quickly, but thay they moved to a proprietary platform. I could be wrong, but do have any info on instances blocking Truth Social? Are the instances that don't block Truth Social?

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

do have any info on instances blocking Truth Social? Are the instances that don’t block Truth Social?

Almost nobody blocks Truth Social. Everyone seems more preoccupied with blocking Threads over actual far right content.

[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week 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 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I don't consider society in such ways because what we are seeing now is not a natural state of being. The global population is under educated, and that is by design. No one is taught how to think critically when it matters and then they are thrown into a world of non sense. Made worse by modern communication tools because people don't know how to process information and communicate.

It is not about learning to handle new tech responsibly. If we focused on educating our population social media wouldn't be so damaging.

AI already exists and is being used as a tool to further extract what is left by the people claiming it will be a good thing for the masses. It is not being made in a way to benefit everyone, and it is being built by people who want money and power. No average person will have a better life because AI is running more things, but a select few will be ever richer.

Exactly like what happened when mass production became a thing.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I'm really surprised they're not pushing the web version, which can operate in a way not covered by this ban.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (7 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 2 points 6 days ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›