When I was 11, on 17th Nov 1989, in Czechoslovakia, my father was watching the evening news on our (black and white) TV, as usual.
There was a protest and the state media was reporting on it. When the reporter said, "our camera broke down and we can only show black and white pictures", my father IMMEDIATELY jumped up and angrily said, "that's bs, you don't want to show how they [the protesting students] got beaten up [by the police]!"
This was an interesting life lesson. So yeah, sure, technical difficulties..
It isn't so much as the rest of the world having easy access. It is what the Chinese want the rest of the world to see. If you are in a South American country using a residential IP in new incognito session, doom scroll, after the initial disturbing content, you will start to notice videos of the United States government physically attacking people born in the country of the residential IP address.
The TikTok algorithm in South America. Content about Tiananmen Square and Tibet gets filtered out. Content about the United States government rolling through protesters in armored vehicles, killing people in Venezuela with bombs, and threatening Greenland, straight to top of feed.
The most brutally honest propaganda is always the most effective propaganda.
Sounds like you're in agreement with the parent - outside the US, people see content that reflects poorly on the US, and which is blocked for US citizens
Which used to be seen as "Ew, China has their own version? Crazy censorship" but after some time it seems like the US is aiming for the very same thing. Classy.
> Which used to be seen as "Ew, China has their own version? Crazy censorship"
It used to be marketed as that by "China evil" people. Western politicians have always seen this as an arms race. They claim infinite brutal censorship and suppression in China in order to claim that not having it here is a strategic disadvantage. Meanwhile, China's "social credit" is just like a US credit score, which in most countries is an illegal thing to do.
This is completely bipartisan, both US parties take turns shitting on their two greatest enemies: the Bill of Rights and (almost completely defeated at this point) antitrust law. Those are painted as China's advantages: that they don't have to respect anyone's rights and that their government directly runs companies. 1) Neither of those things are true, and 2) they just ignore that China manufactures things and invests in infrastructure (which US politicians as individuals have no idea how to do because they are lawyers and marketers), and pretend that everything can be reduced to gamified finance and propaganda tricks.
It's the "missile gap" again. The US pretended and marketed that Russia had an enormous amount of nuclear weapons in order to fool us into allowing US politicians to dedicate the economy to producing an enormous amount of nuclear weapons.
The result, the child of the Oracle guy owns half the media, and uses it for explicitly political purposes that align with the administration (whichever it may be.)
Case-in-point of why we shouldn't have approached China like we did over the last few decades. It normalized totalitarianism in some segments of Western society.
I lived in China as an American a while back and had a similar take. Their ability to grow successfully and manage their populace definitely presented a new model to a lot of countries.
I guess rest of the world should take notes and adjust the approach to China and those segments of Westerd society where totalitarianism got normalized.
If a large outside power is intent on screwing with your populace I think the only way to really stop it is with diplomacy or a crackdown on free speech.
Authoritarianism has been starting to become normalized because China and Russia are increasingly able to mess with our society in the same way our leaders always messed with theirs.
True, true, so true. Actually when a large outside power is screwing with your populace you gotta crackdown on the whole constitution. Yep, that's the only solution i think, sign of the times, I guess!
> Case-in-point of why we shouldn't have approached China like we did over the last few decades. It normalized totalitarianism in some segments of Western society.
> Finally, and most controversially, I suspect the same “if not America, then China” logic applies to political ordering as well. The United States under Trumpian conditions has allowed populism to come to power, bringing chaos and authoritarian behavior in its train. Recoil from that by all means — but recognize that it happened through democratic mechanisms, under freewheeling political conditions.
> Meanwhile, the modes through which Europe and Canada have sought to suppress populism involve harsh restrictions on speech, elite collusion and other expression of managerial illiberalism. And what is China’s dictatorship if not managerial illiberalism in full flower? When European elites talk about China as a potentially more stable partner than the whipsawing United States, when they talk admiringly about its environmental goals and technocratic capacity, they aren’t defending a liberal alternative to Trumpian populism. They are letting the magnet of Chinese power draw them away from their own democratic traditions.
China is not publicly espousing conquering Canada and Greenland (Europe). Who would you choose, the people threatening to invade you, or the other guys?!?!
I mean, they say it’s not censorship when it’s not the government doing it even when the government has embeds with “suggestions” ala facebook, twitter and reddit somewhere around 2020…
TikTok is different in China, but the rest of the world isn’t getting a completely free TikTok.
TikTok is known for tipping the scales on political keywords everywhere. In the past they haven’t outright censored because that’s too obvious, but uploading videos on the wrong side (according to TikTok, of course) of a political topic will result in very few views.
I wouldn’t be surprised if as part of the transition they’re struggling with the previous methods of simply burying topics, so the obvious ban was their intermediate step.
The comments claiming this is specific to the US are simply wrong. TikTok has always done this everywhere.
A bunch of people around the world used 小红书 for months when they were worried about a twitter ban.
They got the same version of the app that people in China got. I haven't seen any formal studies but my impression, at the time, was that Chinese people were far better informed about the US than Americans were about China.
Well, yes, China doesn't have open media for its citizens. Chinese people will on average be less well informed about China, even accounting for the extent of Americans who choose trashy propaganda channels.
(reminded of ex-tech influencer Naomi Wu, who basically went dark with a post along the lines of "the police have told me to stop posting")
Out of curiosity. What do those videos mean to an average Chinese person?
What are the opinions of illegal immigration over there? How do they police it? (If at all).
Does this look like normal government activity? Or are they appalled at the lack of “freedoms” in America?
I am truly naive on their culture or politics around this and how they would use it to show the US as boogeymen government and how their government is better. Is it a grass isn’t always greener type thing for them or is it a way to actually think we’re evil and should be stopped.
Don't forget that the regular operation of Chinese policing is already much less free than what Americans are used to, plus the restrictions on internal freedom of migration (Hukou, less onerous than it used to be, plus the two SAR of Macao and HK). Mandatory state-issued ID, linked to your phone and bank account and so on.
As well as racial profiling. There's not that much immigration to China in the first place, legal or otherwise.
> Do you think anti-ICE videos are being blocked in China?
Of course not, but other stuff is.
Interestingly, my understanding is government pressure forces Douyin to be more "positive" and "encouraging" than Tiktok (i.e. outrage is an easy way drive engagement with obvious negative externalities, and that path is blocked).
probably not, in fact, the CCP likes to promote content that shows the "US in disarray", while simultaneously censoring and suppressing any content that is critical of the CCP or that exposes its bad actions
The TikTok ban is the hammer, antitrust is the anvil.
Without antitrust regulation, TikTok would have been sold to Meta, and that would be it. We'd have an even worse monopoly (which is not a good thing), but at least we wouldn't have this. With such regulations present, the US government both forced a sale and disallowed a sale to anybody who they didn't like, basically forcing TikTok to choose a government-approved partner. What did that partner do to become government approved? We'll never know.
Antitrust in the US (and GDPR in Europe) give regulators wide latitude over who to prosecute and for what. This makes it much easier to do under-the-table deals to achieve objectives that you can't or don't want to achieve by regulation, like restricting free speech.
Subjecting companies to such regulation was ok when it was about transporting cattle or selling bricks, but giving governments the ability to regulate companies that have a wide impact on speech, even if the regulations don't seem to have anything to do with speech, is just asking for trouble.
I think you might have forgotten recent moves from Meta about removal of moderation, relaxing rules on hate speech, settling lawsuits with Trump and similar moves that imply they wouldn't really fight hard against what this administration wants.
I wonder where all the TikTok videos are about all the tanks and hotel shoot outs in Beijing over the last week or so are… where various party factions fought it out over control of the central committee and you have the disappearance of various generals in the PLA.
To be fair, I don’t think it’s as much collapsing as it’s having an internal party power struggle where the more authoritarian faction seems to have violently quelled a rebellion by one or two other factions.
What do you mean "you wonder where they are"? Do you even use tiktok to be able to see them? Because if you search about that on there you can find videos
Forcing the sale of TikTok predates the current war in Gaza by a good bit. It's obviously a complex thing that encompassed a bunch of different people with different motivations. And considering there is pro-Palestinian videos all over American social media, I don't think it is kind of absurd to think this was the motivation.
It started out with the "China bad" narrative, but it only got bipartisan support and momentum when US people started seeing Palestinian videos on TikTok.
If it’s true for TikTok it will likely be true for all other forms of popular social media (twitter, instagram, etc) too, so a ban wouldn’t have made a big difference probably.
It's about preventing China from brainwashing the American people with an opaque algorithm that is designed to prop up Chinese interests and sow division amongst the American people.
And it's obviously working. We now have a sizeable minority of American citizens who believe the government has no right to deport convicted criminals who are in the country illegally.
> believe the government has no right to deport convicted criminals who are in the country illegally.
You mean execute American citizens in broad daylight in the middle of the street? Because that's what they are doing. Or tell me, what crimes did the 5 year old they kidnapped commit?
For most, the deportation of criminals isn’t the issue. It’s the process and methodology being employed people are disagreeing with. It’s creating unconstitutional situations and chaos/death in the streets.
People like you overwhelmingly misunderstand the position of others and in making incorrect assessments create more noise to divide the nation further. You try it is “criminal” to lump together the cartel death squad and MS13 street gang type people together into the same cohort as people who simply came here illegally and have lived here peacefully even contributing to our society and economy positively.
Americans have racistly insinuated that asians brainwash our sweet young people since the Korean War when we killed 20% of North Korea. POWs were treated somewhat humanely and educated by Korean communists, many of them denounced the United States for criminality. This led to a CIA program to try to replicate "brainwashing" including eventually the MKULTRA program.
This kind of history resonates today as you can see people continue to make these kinds of accusations because we are the good guys and revealing derogatory information about our society is basically treason.
Rights don't actually exist. That's a made-up idea to avoid the very real concept of human needs and putting liberation into that context.
The issue is you can't easily justify oppressing people if you have a finite checklist of needs. You clearly can if you use a nebulous debatable term like "rights".
> that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to
The information is everywhere. Visit any news site, open any general social media feed, turn on any TV. We’re discussing it right now in the front page of HN!
Everyone in the US has easy access to the same information. Acting like only the rest of the world has easy access to this information is ridiculous.
Everyone has easy access right now. Everyone had easier access before the TikTok deal. That's the wrong direction for a free country and it's particularly alarming because the deal was forced by the government.
I’m saying it’s silly hyperbole to make the leap to implying that only people in other countries have easy access to information.
These absurd claims always turn into a game of motte and bailey when they’re called out, with retreats to safer claims. I’m talking about the original claim, that “people in other countries” have easy access to this information which we, in the US, see everywhere all the time right now (except TikTok apparently).
I think you’re greatly overestimating the number of people who only use one social media platform and never check any other news source at all.
TikTok users are also known for being experts at evading filters and censors. Remember the rising popularity of “unalived” when talk of suicide was filtered out on the platform?
I’m not saying this ICE censorship is good, because it’s not! I’m saying it’s ridiculous to claim that only people in other countries have easy access to information.
I hope not because it’s bad and that’s really all that matters in this conversation. And nitpicking whether or not there are other avenues for information is completely besides the point. I don’t even really understand what point you’re trying to make. If you think this is bad, then say it’s bad and we shouldn’t be ok with it. Saying “I’m not saying it’s good” then muddying the waters reads like you’re trying to defend the action.
This entire comment thread was me responding to someone claiming that people “in other countries” have easy access to information.
Given the downvotes and angry responses I think a lot of people misinterpreted it as something else. I should learn to avoid comment sections about politics.
TikTok is hugely influential, and the younger people they're trying to influence don't read newspapers and don't hang out on X or Instagram (both of which also censor certain political content).
The question isn't whether they've been successful in hiding information. It's whether their goal is to hide information (or I would say, to control the narrative), which it clearly is.
This is why the administration has gone out of its way to try to get Kimmel and Colbert off the air, why it has commandeered CBS and tried to kill 60 minutes pieces critical of the administration, why it violated the law in order to keep TikTok (already fervently pro-Trump) up and running, and why allies of the administration have been put in charge of TikTok after the transition. It's why Bezos is slowly strangling the Washington Post, why Patrick Soon-Shiong is doing the same to the LA Times, and why the administration is putting their thumb on the scale for Paramount, rather than Netflix, to buy Warner Brothers Discovery (which owns CNN). It's why Musk bought Twitter. It's why they blatantly lie in their press conferences and statements to the media about how the ICE killings happened.
If you walked into a Turning-Point USA meeting in a high school, do you think the kids attending that meeting could accurately tell you what ICE has been doing? I don't.
Allow me to offer some words of wisdom. If you help building weapons to be used against $currently_designated_bad_people, you can rest assured that given enough time, those weapons will be used against you. I am watching all this with a mild sense of bemusement.
A NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie suggested (in jest) that the next Democrat administration send armed IRS agents to gated communities in Florida, to "investigate tax fraud".
But this is exactly why all citizens should be concerned about the infringement of rights happening in Minnesota. If it is allowed without prosecution, you are next.
Zero disagreement. Rules of engagement should be clear to everyone. How can you possibly play the game if the rules keep changing based on political expediency. And we all know.. that that kind of a game is rigged from the start.
That said, I was thinking more about people all of us building tools that got us into the situation we are in now.
People rarely recognize that force can be turned on them until it happens. If one side uses force and the other refuses to, you cannot expect the first to grasp that force is always a two way street, because for them it is not real until they feel it.
This actually happened under the Obama admin, he was using the IRS to target conservatives and conservative groups. In Linchpins of Liberty v. United States they ended up getting paid back millions and were issued a formal apology. https://grokipedia.com/page/linchpins_of_liberty_v_united_st...
"Why would anyone be opposed to deporting criminals" is verbatim what I've read from conservative commenters.
That isn't the issue being discussed. This is illustrating that armed, masked goons as a political weapon is a pandora's box that will get turned against everyone, regardless of status. Some people just don't care about the violence in Minnesota because it isn't happening to them.
Obama managed to deport more illegal immigrants than Trump. The difference is the local cities and states were working with ICE, rather than weaponising it to try and get a Democrat president.
You forget that Obama wasn’t an idiot and did everything above board. Sanctuary cities existed back then, federal agents still enforced immigration rules just without Gestapo-like sh*t stirring. Trump wanted to provoke Minneapolis with aggressive highly visible tactics, and he got what he wanted.
The violence in Minnesota--that is, law enforcement killing people who are not obeying them--is nothing new. Happens in every state every day.
ICE deporting people isn't new, either.
What's new is the folks trying to stop federal agents from doing their jobs, getting into heated conflicts, thinking ICE has no authority because they heard that somewhere, etc.
In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
We’re not sure what your point is. “Things of a similar nature have happened in the past” is not a particularly strong argument.
> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
This is naked bootlicking. You only support it because you view it as “your team” or “your tribe” and do not feel threatened by it. Tables turn in time. Maybe you are not old or wise or well-read enough to recognize that.
Normalizing state-sanctioned extra-judicial murder along with a message of compliance? Maybe go find videos of where compliance got people killed because the fact is the slave catchers enjoy brutality and murder.
> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
This is one of the worst takes I have ever seen, to the point that you must just be trolling.
Disobeying law enforcement is not a death sentence. It is often not even illegal. Just because LEO shouts "I am giving you a lawful order" does not in fact make it a lawful order. And this certainly is not happening in most other countries.
The desire to be part of the Trump Tribe has made people forget what actually made America great.
There's nothing wrong with catching tax cheats as long as due process is followed and the person's rights are not infringed. However, selective enforcement can be used as a weapon - never investigate people "on your side" and always investigate "enemies" even if there's no evidence of fraud. Another way to weaponise enforcement is to have a law that is almost never prosecuted and rarely followed (e.g. only using bare hands to eat chicken in Gainesville, Georgia), so then a law enforcement officer can threaten to prosecute for it unless the victim complies.
I feel like you can both want illegal aliens to get deported, but not approve of how ICE is executing protesters in the street, entering homes without warrants, and kidnapping people in unmarked vans.
Similarly, you can think it would be good to catch tax fraud, but think that it should be handled without executing folks.
If you genuinely believe that the Good incident was self-defense and doesn't even warrant a trial, you aren't capable the critical thinking necessary to participate in a lawful society. You are parrot of authority without autonomy.
I didn't say it doesn't warrant a trial. And I do think we should be able to press a trial against LEO even if, for instance, the state prosecutor doesn't want to go ahead with it.
But I follow this kind of stuff pretty closely. It's a better shoot than almost any I've seen. He's trained to do exactly what he did. He's already been stuck and dragged by a vehicle, so he's well aware it's a weapon, and he has good reason to fear it. She's disobeying lawful commands. She's accelerating towards the agent.
If you want to dismiss all that, cool. I'm just talking about how the law actually works, not how it makes you feel.
No, they went after tax cheats and it wound up that there were a lot more people cheating taxes hiding behind conservative-sounding fronts than there were hiding behind liberal-sounding fronts.
> Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.
How tedious. I don't disagree, fundamentally, with your message, but this internet smart guy thing people do where they use things like $variables to signal that they are above everything and anyone who things X is bad or good just isn't smart enough to see things in the abstract really sucks. And I am very glad you are mildly bemused by people getting shot in the streets, the deterioration of democratic norms that might spiral into more violence and actual, real life, people getting fucked up. Very cool of you.
On occasion, it is worthwhile to take a step back and recognize that what is happening is not new or novel. Likewise, it is useful to recognize a pattern when it presents itself. It is extra useful ( and helpful ) that this is brought to the attention of other people who may still be going through the steps of processing of what seems to be happening.
If it helps, I appreciate going meta after me, but there is not much to dissect here. I stand by my bemused. You may think it is some soft of grand struggle and kudos for you for finding something to believe in, but don't project onto others.
And you think they won't be used against me if I don't help build them?
Seems unlikely.
If the implication is that the tools won't exist if I don't build them, that's beyond a pipe dream. We'll never get a globe of 8 billion people to agree unanimously on anything. Let alone agreeing not to build something that gives them power over their adversaries.
I will offer a benign example. A new team member was given a task to generate a dashboard that, as per spec, in great detail lists every action of a given employee within a system that generates some data for consumption by those employees.
As simple as the project was, the employee had the presence of mind to ask his seniors some thoughtful questions of what makes sense, what is too intrusive, what is acceptable. He felt uncomfortable and that was with something that corps build on a daily basis.
Now.. not everyone wakes up thinking they are building database intended to enslave humanity as a whole, but I would like to think that one person simply questioning it can make a difference.
The $currently_designated_bad_people however are criminal illegal aliens. Sometimes we have to create mechanisms to go after pedophiles and rapists, and we just have to trust the system well enough to assume these tools won't be used to go after good people. I mean the bar for ICE is so outrageously high it's hard to see a world where it's lowered far enough to go after someone like me.
Anecdotal: uploading a video of original songs with political/protest lyrics will have random background noises added to the audio track, making the songs audio seem amateurish.
Anecdotal to myself. I shamefully sometimes use TikTok, I particularly like recipe clips and even I noticed something in the last week, most noticeably around this weekend where the algorithm for recommendations changed. It’s like they completely wiped my preferences. I try not to watch anything political so I cannot say much about censorship of content but something was noticeable in the last week.
It’s amazes how confident people will describe your lived experiences and say you are wrong. No this was entirely different and coincided in time with the complaints of censorship.
From my read you said something different from what OP said. They voiced that there was a wiping of preference that was noticeable, where you said "it does this all the time." Sure both can describe the same thing, but they don't have to be. Why double down instead of accepting that this time it might be different?
"I said you were right" is not doubling down, and looks like an accurate description of the conversation to me. OP got hostile for no good reason. If it's different, they can talk about how it's different instead of going on the attack against someone that listened and tried to provide information.
Because this exact conspiracy has been going on since the elections for 2020. And it's well known and documented. Are you essentially asking me why I wouldn't encouFrage a conspiracy theory based on the anecdote of someone who says they hardly use the platform they are suggesting is forcing propaganda/censorship on them?
There are polarizing events getting more coverage right now, by far, than anything else in the USA, and HN user infecto is subscribing to the idea that the algorithm isn't going to try to check if these important ongoing events interest them.
It's very unlikely that "this time might be different"; the far more likely answer is that this is run-of-the-mill algorithm exploration injection.
Infecto replied me I said "you are wrong". I didn't. My original comment was assuring, in good faith, made to let them know that TikTok changing theit FYP feed is normal. They hadn't yet mentioned they already knew about algo resets and that they were leaning in to the conspiracies. Their reply to me was not in good faith, and did not respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what I originally commented.
I no longer use TikTok, but I was pretty hooked for a while, and I felt those “waves” every now and then.
It was pretty noticeable because each time I started getting extreme right political content from my country, and I neither consume anything local nor right wing content.
Yes I have and this reset was very different than anything I have experienced. I would like a specific recipe and then they the feed would show me someone else’s attempt of that recipe. I haves used the app for years off and on.
I will save this for the future, when people complain about Chinese open models and tell me: But this Chinese LLM doesn't respond to question about Tianmen square.
They consider free people sharing information with each other against the consent and interests of MEGAPEDOELLISON Cabal in power a "technical glitch" that they're trying hard to "patch" by slaughtering the First Amendment.
How is TikTok able to screen this en masse? Are they going after tags? Political issues aside, I am really interested in the technical background in this.
The only thing I could come up with, assuming this isn’t a technical glitch, is that TikTok already had the infra to silence anything they want on the platform and as soon as the keys were handed over they turned that filter up to 100%
Nuts that the whole company is in on it. Missing such a huge story is something that rank and file engineers would notice. But nobody is saying anything.
The Blind community is one of the most toxic communities out there. It made me sick even before the tech industry had its mask off moment 1+ year ago. Since then they’ve only amped up the racism and hate. I wouldn’t expect to find any serious discussion there.
It looks like some are moving over to upscroll, anyone know anything about upscroll? what other apps are you using?
I remember when everyone migrated from MySpace to Facebook and I assumed everyone was going to just keep moving over to the next big thing every few years but that actually didn't happen. Facebook became an institution.
I checked out the website, and it looks more like Instagram than TikTok. We've had a few TikTok-like apps, and it didn't work out. Even the people behind Vine couldn't make their own Byte app take off:
TikTok showed that the platform lives and dies by the algorithm and ease of use. I'm not even a huge fan of TikTok's recommendations these days with too much slop slipping through the cracks. And their comment moderation is some of the worst.
If another platform ever gets popular enough, I'm sure the same people will find another way to neutralize it.
I would agree with you, but its pretty disturbing that the general public doesn't have a good outlet, especially to discuss unconstitutional ICE actions. It’s unfortunately very convenient that at a time when the pros outweigh the cons (open discussion vs. addiction) that some might stay offline. I would encourage you to overlook the mental poison and continue to support open communication. That's more important right now.
It feels like federated networks with open-sourced feed algorithms are the best path forward.
If AI removes any technical limitations, and automates content management, what's stopping a content creator from owning what they create and distributing it themselves?
Beyond federated systems, P2P systems seem to have a strong advantage here in identifying bad actors.
Ranking posts/comments by the exponential of inverse IPAddress-post-frequency would solve bad actors posting behind VPNs/proxies like evil bot farms / state actors and marketers.
Real users have their own IP address, and IP addresses are expensive like $20-50 a month which would make mocking traffic an extremely expensive proposition.
Mocking 1% of reddit's 120M daily active user would cost 58M a month.
The magic lies in the two-sided coin of promotion vs. spam filtering.
The web started off as a pretty peer to peer system, but almost immediately people built directories and link farms as means to find things. You can make a system as distributed as you want, but that only works for content which people know to find. Which is great for piracy, as e.g. movies and TV shows are advertised everywhere else and can be found by title.
For social media, the recommendation engine is a critical part of the appeal to users.
Why do so many tech people push this "federation is a panacea" idea despite all evidence to the contrary? I don't get it.
First, the obvious: if federation was clearly superior, it would've won. No medium since email has been federated and even that's dominated by a handful of players. Running your own email server is... nontrivial.
Second, users don't care abou tthis. Like at all.
Third, supposedly tech-savvy people don't seem willing or able to merely scratch the surface of what that looks like and how it would work.
Fourth, there's a lot of infrastructure you need such as moderation and safety that would need to be replicated for each federated provider.
Lastly, zero consideration is given to the problems this actually creates. Look at POTS. We have spam and providers that are bad actors and effectively launder spam calls and texts. You need some way to manage that.
It’s crazy to think that Instagram Reels, owned by Meta, is preferable to TikTok now. At least Reels now is at least competitive in terms of content - unlike two years ago when people were worried about TikTok being banned and Reels was not a good alternative.
Meta and Google (including Youtube) kowtow to the administration in what speech they promote and suppress in the exact way the administration (both parties) says China might theoretically do in the future.
it's obvious that tiktok is doing this intentionally, pretending it's a technical issue, so that people can blame the US government for forcing the sale of tiktok
They are in transition, so for the moment I believe them to have technical problems, because it also matches my experience. Yesterday I encountered problems with several videos, which are working today. And not all of them were political.
Going by the comments, people on TikTok seem very fast in seeing conspiracies, when many problems can be simply explained with normal problems or human failings. And it's good to be critical and aware of dangers, but I fear if they are so easy to call out problems, it will wear of fast, and people will start to ignore real problems again, like they used to be.
I am also skeptical (despite having 0 faith in the new owners). However, I am a bit confused: why would new ownership alone cause technical issues? It seems like they set new requirements that required new software. Even if the reqs are content-agnostic, I am curious what they are and how they differ from the previous tiktok.
The presumption of good faith has been justifiably obliterated when it comes to Topics Such As These with our right-wing extremist political and media leadership.
Especially with extremists, you should have a solid foundation of argumentation, because they will not ignore even little fails and weaponize everything against you if necessary.
It's not about the extremists, it's about everyone else. Extremists usually have to convince people to give them power, to follow their BS. And by experience, even extremists sometimes can change their mind.
It's unnecessary: extremists usually aren't seeking to change their mind, and they'd sooner fabricate evidence of a fail than acknowledge The Perfect Argument That Totally Changed My Mind
The point is that people are more aware of problems happening with that topic, but ignore whether it also happens with other topics. So at the moment it's a very skewed view.
Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
Europe found that out the hard way, America is still in the early stages of realizing it.
Anecdotally my feed dramatically shifted. My politics are very leftwing, and prior to the transfer virtually every video was discourse on ICE. Following the transfer, I get content that is all over the place. At one point, I got 8-9 tiktoks in a row of obviously bot-created rightwing text.
At least on the surface level, I could believe this is just a full algorithm reset and they are having problems with it. But even after other algorithm resets that I believe I've experienced, Tiktok figured it out extremely quickly. If this continues, I will believe in the heavyhanded censorship theory.
As a former employee in TikTok US Data Services, the division that was stated working to separate the US TikTok service and infrastructure, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the algorithm reset theory, because the reset this time is qualitatively unlike the others.
Since 2020, when the first Trump administration attempted to ban TikTok, work has been ongoing to separate out the TikTok US business in all aspects from the parent company Bytedance. Setting up dedicated infrastructure for US users was already accomplished by 2023 for the most part, and this included the restriction that US user data couldn’t be used to train or otherwise influence non-US user operations.
However, there were a few major caveats. First, all the actual videos, at least if they’re public, were considered to be Bytedance data, even those created by US users (although the actual user intent signals - likes, watch behavior, and the like, were considered to be US user data). This allowed them to be used to train the main Bytedance-owned algorithm. Second, the Bytedance-trained algorithm continued to form the basis of the algorithm to serve US users. At least when I was there, US user data was used to tune the algorithm for US users, but the algorithm was not necessarily trained from scratch only on US user data in practice.
One of Bytedance’s main conditions for the TikTok US sale has always been that they own the algorithm (both the code and the models) and would not transfer it to the US, so this was definitely a foreseeable issue. With the chaos of the TikTok Us divestment between the Biden and Trump administrations, though, I suspect that it was hard to hire and retain ML engineers that could build a proper replacement for the algorithm in time for the divestment, let alone build one that matches the behavior of the previous algorithm.
If the algorithm is separated between US and non-US as strictly as the TikTok US Data Services mission always aimed for, then TikTok for US users is in many respects a new service entirely that shares the same UI and features. I also don’t know how US users get trained on non-US content, or if they’re even exposed, nor if any other countries use the US algorithm. So this change in content may last at least into the medium term, if not permanently. The question will be if you start seeing more left-wing anti-ICE content in the coming weeks or months.
Honestly I'm surprised people don't jump ship more often with social media platforms. With TikTok this is kind of new news, but there have been related problems with it that have been pretty obvious for some time.
The same with X and, before that, Facebook.
TikTok has never worked for me though so maybe there's no real equivalent alternative. Maybe time to make one if not?
To me it says something about the public, but I'm not sure what. I'm tempted to attribute it to indifference or complacency but I'm aware of network effects and the reality of alternatives.
Sometimes I feel like education and theory about security practices needs to extend beyond micro-level phenomena like passwords, to things like administrative conflicts of interest and strength in decentralization and competition. Private monopolies and quasi-monopolies aren't just economically bad, they're bad for privacy and security, and make the public vulnerable through lack of choice. In important ways it doesn't matter if it's the government or a private company; whenever power concentrates it is easier to align and abuse.
Are you really surprised? I find the interest entirely unrelatable, but I'm not surprised. They tune these platforms for addiction. I mean, I don't even use them but I still immediately recognize their branding video-end sounds just from random exposure here or there. (I hate it)
It's kind of amazing that all the companies act in lockstep. Apple, Google, TikTok remove anti-ICE stuff, rightly or wrongly (I'll go with 'wrongly' because of freedom of speech/freedom of app choice, among other things)
>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.[0]
I suspect these are some of those that have been banned from TikTok, and there's probably heightened moderation around this content at the moment since people are sharing AI-generated propaganda and riling others into violent confrontation with ICE.
Well… how do you reconcile that probably-truth with the Twitter Files? What do you call it when they private company censors at the demand of the government?
It did before the internet. See Marsh v. Alabama where publicly accessible ( private sidewalk) on private property was ruled the people there still could exercise 1A rights and could not be trespassed for doing so even if the owners forbid it.
How does freedom of speech allow you to walk somewhere you have been forbidden from walking? Does that mean you can just go into any building you want and use your 1A rights to not be arrested?
You can read the case. Basically it was a privately owned public space that they could have been otherwise trespassed from, but not for the reason of their speech. Since the reason for the trespass was their speech, it was prohibited. They were not otherwise "forbidden" from walking there were it not they expressed something that was disapproved of.
A weak analogy (I know analogy are never allowed here because "they're not the same") is that you can fire someone at will. Unless it turns out you fired them because they are black (yes I know being black is much different than expressing an opinion). It didn't mean you can't fire them at will, just that you couldn't for that specific protected reason.
My mother was born just after WWII—died a few years ago. As sad as I have been (still am) when I watch the world fall apart around me I am thankful that she at least lived through perhaps the best stretch American history—does not have to see the shit I am seeing daily (she was the type that would have been unconsolably anxious about it).
I feel badly, so far, for my daughters born roughly in the period around September 11, 2001. Still, I'm hopeful they might yet see even a brighter future than I had growing up in the 70's…
Based on this comment, I think we are around the same age. I'm 55 and have two kids born in the early 2000's.
I was born in Canada in 1970 to loving and extraordinarily supportive parents and moved to the US in the mid 90's. I can't imagine a better time or place to have been born. I have kids around the same age as yours and their lives are so much more difficult even though they are smarter and harder working than I ever was.
I am the first generation after the fall of Salazar's dictorship, so naturally I belong to those that had the opportunity to grow in freedom while hearing the stories from everyone that suffered from it, the dead and crippled from colonial wars, many sent as punishment for their political views and so on.
Never I though that I would still see the return to such politics in my lifetime, even in Europe it is getting harder to push back on them.
Meta note: it would be awesome to collate a list of 'better ways to view populate sites'. For example, I only learned recently that replacing www with old in a reddit url takes you to a less cluttered version of the site. And I only recently bookmarked a couple of 'archiving' sites (important for reading content that's paywalled). TIL your cnn 'lite' technique.
I predict a future showdown over Section 230 because "algorithms" are used to cheat on the safe harbor protections. Let me explain.
The general principle of Section 230 is that a platform provider isn't generally liable for user generated content. This was a key piece of legislation that enabled forums, Reddit and ultimately social media. The platform provider does have responsibilities like moderating illegal content and responding to legal takedowns, etc.
Alternatively if you produce and publish your own content you are legally liable. You can be sued for defamation, etc in a way that you can't if you simply host user generated content (unless you fail to adequately moderate).
REcommendation algorithms (including news feeds) effectively allow a platform provider to select what content gets distributed and what doesn't. All algorithms express biases and goals of humans who create those algorithms. It's not a black box. It is a reflection of the company's goals.
So if you wanted to produce content that's, for example, only flattering to the administration even if you outright lie, you can be sued. But what if your users produce any content you want but you only distribute content that is favorable to the administration? At the same time, you suppress anti-administration content and content creators. It's the same end result but the latter has Section 230 protections. And it really shouldn't.
This isn't hypothetical. The Biden administration revived the dead Trump 1 Tiktok ban to suppress anti-Israel content [1][2][3].
What I find most funny about all this is that the American administration--both parties--are doing the exact thing they accuse China is possibly doing in the future.
On Twitter, there's a bunch of reports that TikTok suddenly prevents people from sending the word "Epstein" in DMs [1].
I had expected an Orbanisation (aka, what happened to the media sphere in Hungary after Orban took over and his cronies bought up almost all media) of Tiktok, but not that fast, it's like less than a week after the deal [2].
Scary shit if you ask me, and it's made scarier by the fact that Tiktok has already been changing the way our youth speaks due to evading censorship (e.g. "graped" instead of "raped", "unalived" instead of kill/murder/execute/suicide).
Meanwhile you can report a bot who's posted 20+ comments under a video to advertise illegal drugs and all of the reports and subsequent appeals will consistently come back as "No violation found".
This has been happening for 10+ years on e.g. YouTube, you can't say certain words in the video or mention them in the title or you get demonetized. Nothing to do with China.
Does "kill" have some type of salient political valence that I'm not aware of?
This seems like a fairly blunt attempt at quality-of-life improvement for the general platform vibes, no? Put some friction on the (legitimate) nutjobs who just want to say "Kill X, kill Y" all the time and are so insane they can't figure out euphemisms?
On WeChat lots of things are censored, almost keyword based. E.g. a building collapses, you want to talk about it to your friends, your message can't be sent because it'll be deemed to be trying to cause social unrest..
Duoyin (Chinese version of TikTok) would definitely not be different..
On WeChat and Douyin (chinese tiktok), good luck mentioning things like:
the cultural revolution
famine
the great leap forward
Taiwanese independence
Hong Kong self governance
democracy
human rights
Falun Gong
Uyghur people
free speech
KMT party
Chiang Kai-shek
and that's just off the top of my head. there are likely hundreds of others.
But did this apply to the US version of TikTok? We now have imposed censorship in the US app, that as far as I'm aware did not exist at all when it was owned by China.
But this blatant move shows "We're no different to the Chinese ruling party now"... If it's a slow descent, people might accept the madness (imagine if a bombshell report showed Biden had links to Epstein, sexually assaulted 20+ women, and was moaning about the Nobel Peace Prize to the prime minister of Norway)...
Somehow I'm optimistic that this means the Trump Regime is on its last legs. But well, what's the quote about underestimating the stupidity of the American public?
I had expected a longer "cooldown" time so that people don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the forced TikTok sale was to suppress discussion of the Epstein files.
The Epstein situation is .. weird. On the one hand, it's a massive nexus of corruption and abuse. On the other hand, it's just .. evidence. Nobody cares about evidence, they've already decided they want to protect the Trump administration no matter what. Rather like ICE shooting legal gun owner US civilians.
But the thing is people aren’t having “their say”. Social media companies are amplifying voices and viewpoints. They are not acting as “common carriers” letting quality sift to the top. It is curated and crafted.
“Letting quality sift to the top” implies that there is a way for this to happen without curation.
Pure user vote driven things like Reddit are a failure (echo chambers, emotional appeals, bot rings, etc). So I’m curious what you think would let that happen?
I am not sure why this was flagged but I don’t think it’s wrong. I am not sure if it’s a uniquely American thing but the internet has caused an unfortunate case of brigading for almost anything. I like to think I sit fairly middle in a lot of American topics I lean left on some items, taxes, healthcare, free school lunches and right on others but I remember how easy it was a number of years ago to be labeled a racist. You really cannot have an opinion about much these days without someone labeling you something unfavorably. It’s unfortunate.
I don’t think it’s ironic and my point was not the act of labeling itself but more of how America has become a brigading culture. Free speech should be protected, even for things that we know are wrong but we have this decay of the internet and culture where you are either with someone or against them.
I am not objecting to people expressing disagreement or labeling as an abstract exercise of free speech. I am pointing to a pattern that has become common online where disagreement quickly turns into coordinated pile-ons, identity assignment, and social signaling rather than substantive engagement with the argument itself.
Free speech protects the right to do that, but it does not mean the behavior is healthy or productive. When discourse collapses into binary alignment where nuance is treated as hostility, it discourages honest participation and pushes people toward silence or extremes.
So yes, others are exercising free speech. My concern is about the cultural outcome of how that speech is increasingly used, not whether it is permitted.
Increasingly society in America is either you are with us or not and at least for me my view of the world is more nuanced and day to day.
> I am pointing to a pattern that has become common online where disagreement quickly turns into coordinated pile-ons, identity assignment, and social signaling rather than substantive engagement with the argument itself.
It's easy to fall prey to the fallacy that disagreement with you means the disagreers are failing to engage substantively to the topic, and are simply "social signaling".
It's easy to dismiss many people disagreeing with you as a "coordinated pile on".
In my experience, thess accusations are usually a result of the "piled on"'s failure to understand and consider the others' perspective, and their unwillingness to change their mind.
Not to say that they must understand and consider others' perspectives, or that they must be willing to change their mind either! But engaging with a society means facing social pressure to conform with social norms. There's always not engaging with society in any meaningful way, as an option.
I agree those are real failure modes, and I am not denying they happen. People absolutely misread disagreement as bad faith, or assume coordination where there is none, especially when emotions are involved.
Where I differ is that I do not think this is only an individual perception problem. There are structural incentives online that reward signaling, amplification, and rapid norm enforcement over slower, substantive engagement. That does not require explicit coordination to function like a pile on, and it does not require bad intent from participants.
Social pressure and norm enforcement are inevitable in any society, as you note. My concern is about degree and speed. When the dominant response to a nonconforming view is immediate identity assignment or moral framing rather than argument, the space for persuasion narrows quickly. At that point, engagement becomes less about exchanging ideas and more about sorting people.
Opting out is always an option, but that feels like conceding that meaningful public discourse online is no longer worth defending. I am not convinced that is a good outcome either.
I think it’s all part of the same culture of brigading. My comment was more an extension of thought to the parents that America has gone down a hole where dialogue no longer exists.
I am going to vouch for this comment because this is a great example of what I was describing. People jump to whatever conclusion they want and you are either with them or without. It’s sad what has come to be in society.
People jump to the conclusion because a lot of the time they've had this exact argument already, and they know how it tends to end.
Proclaiming oneself a centrist might seem like a noble, moderate position. But in 2026, with the Overton window basically being shifted outside the frame?
What argument are we having? I see someone struggling to hold their own words steady, and you claiming that I am proclaiming something when I only mentioned it because of this exact problem. I do not really think of myself as left or right within the current American political system. I do not follow either political party, and my opinions often zig zag across existing party lines. If anything, maybe “centrist” is the wrong or overly loaded word. I do not follow any particular political movement in America.
The point still stands brigading is a massive problem in America.
I'm not having an argument. I was just trying to explain that "I'm not left or right" sounds like "I am perfectly fine with how things are right now" to the people who think the current state of things is an absolute disaster.
Maybe it’s not obvious but you compared the thread to an argument. I see no argument. Just a boneheaded reply from someone which was a great example of exactly what I was describing.
Your follow up is pretty on point too, somehow we go from the topic of brigading to maybe me being ok with the current state of things. This is a really great example of the problem I was describing. Thank you.
I think that over the years, bad faith actors in the world of geopolitics have taken advantage of this in a very nefarious way in order to sow chaos, bad-faith/purposefully-inaccurate "talking points" and capture the hearts and minds of the ignorant, the stupid, and the willfully delusional masses who are desperate to cling to a conspiracy if it fits their worldview which is in turn reinforced by said bad actors.
Is it a potentially unconstitutional slippery slope? yes, absolutely.
Is it something we need to tackle as adults and citizens? yes, absolutely.
Should the desires of SV tech bro billionaires have any input in those discussions? no, absolutely not.
To me, the media is/are nothing more than drug sellers at this point. They have their weapon "of truth" sold to the very people you listed above. I do my absolute best to not consume any media because I know it is twisted and often wrong (eg. AI generated content). The best I can do is simply not participate in their war. Reddit, TikTok, X, etc are definitely supplying heavy drugs to anyone who wants to be hooked.
At some point, we definitely need a cooling-off period where people from both sides refrain from inciting anger from the masses.
Yeah except when it comes to what this was really about, in which case "all sides" happily go along with it. As it turns out censorship to protect our precious zionist ethnostate is something everybody agrees with.
the right wing furor about deplatforming and media bias was always just a bad faith rhetorical tactic. When Musk bought Twitter, it became clear that there was no conspiratorial algorithmic suppression -- in fact, the code showed that the only thumb on the scales was to promote Musk's own account. The right wing owned essentially all the media before, and within the last few years they also own Twitter, Facebook, The Washington Post, TikTok, Paramount, CBS, and are trying to grab CNN.
There isn't an all-sides argument here; there's one side in almost total control of the entire discourse, whining about being victims, and promotingly increasingly insane viewpoints.
Not to mention, the largest media distributors / syndicates were parroting increasingly right-wing talking points instead of staying neutral or simply presenting the facts and letting the viewer come to their own conclusions.
there is no left-wing media machine that even comes within a billion light years of the strength of the right-wing machine. Effectively, the entire spectrum is owned by hard-right billionaires.
Media has fallen victim to the need for continuous profits (because they have been targeted over and over by bad faith right wing actors) and the journalistic integrity of the 4th estate has effectively been weaponized by the people who need to be named and shamed.
When I was 11, on 17th Nov 1989, in Czechoslovakia, my father was watching the evening news on our (black and white) TV, as usual.
There was a protest and the state media was reporting on it. When the reporter said, "our camera broke down and we can only show black and white pictures", my father IMMEDIATELY jumped up and angrily said, "that's bs, you don't want to show how they [the protesting students] got beaten up [by the police]!"
This was an interesting life lesson. So yeah, sure, technical difficulties..
The forced US hosted tik-tok sale is all about hiding information from the US public that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to.
It isn't so much as the rest of the world having easy access. It is what the Chinese want the rest of the world to see. If you are in a South American country using a residential IP in new incognito session, doom scroll, after the initial disturbing content, you will start to notice videos of the United States government physically attacking people born in the country of the residential IP address.
The TikTok algorithm in South America. Content about Tiananmen Square and Tibet gets filtered out. Content about the United States government rolling through protesters in armored vehicles, killing people in Venezuela with bombs, and threatening Greenland, straight to top of feed.
The most brutally honest propaganda is always the most effective propaganda.
TikTok US it no longer controlled by the Chinese.
Sounds like you're in agreement with the parent - outside the US, people see content that reflects poorly on the US, and which is blocked for US citizens
> the rest of the world have easy access to.
Except for China, where TikTok is nothing like the TikTok for the rest of the world
Which used to be seen as "Ew, China has their own version? Crazy censorship" but after some time it seems like the US is aiming for the very same thing. Classy.
> Which used to be seen as "Ew, China has their own version? Crazy censorship"
It used to be marketed as that by "China evil" people. Western politicians have always seen this as an arms race. They claim infinite brutal censorship and suppression in China in order to claim that not having it here is a strategic disadvantage. Meanwhile, China's "social credit" is just like a US credit score, which in most countries is an illegal thing to do.
This is completely bipartisan, both US parties take turns shitting on their two greatest enemies: the Bill of Rights and (almost completely defeated at this point) antitrust law. Those are painted as China's advantages: that they don't have to respect anyone's rights and that their government directly runs companies. 1) Neither of those things are true, and 2) they just ignore that China manufactures things and invests in infrastructure (which US politicians as individuals have no idea how to do because they are lawyers and marketers), and pretend that everything can be reduced to gamified finance and propaganda tricks.
It's the "missile gap" again. The US pretended and marketed that Russia had an enormous amount of nuclear weapons in order to fool us into allowing US politicians to dedicate the economy to producing an enormous amount of nuclear weapons.
The result, the child of the Oracle guy owns half the media, and uses it for explicitly political purposes that align with the administration (whichever it may be.)
It’s more sinister than simple censorship.
The point is brainwashing.
How do you know that conclusion is not the product of brainwashing? MKULTRA is just what we know about with certainty.
Case-in-point of why we shouldn't have approached China like we did over the last few decades. It normalized totalitarianism in some segments of Western society.
America: does the usual American thing Americanly
Commentators: What are we, some kind of Asians?
I lived in China as an American a while back and had a similar take. Their ability to grow successfully and manage their populace definitely presented a new model to a lot of countries.
Oceania gets tech tips from Eastasia.
Oceania has always gotten tech tips from Eastasia.
I guess rest of the world should take notes and adjust the approach to China and those segments of Westerd society where totalitarianism got normalized.
If a large outside power is intent on screwing with your populace I think the only way to really stop it is with diplomacy or a crackdown on free speech.
Authoritarianism has been starting to become normalized because China and Russia are increasingly able to mess with our society in the same way our leaders always messed with theirs.
True, true, so true. Actually when a large outside power is screwing with your populace you gotta crackdown on the whole constitution. Yep, that's the only solution i think, sign of the times, I guess!
> Case-in-point of why we shouldn't have approached China like we did over the last few decades. It normalized totalitarianism in some segments of Western society.
An interesting thought I read a couple days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/opinion/trump-carney-chin...:
> Finally, and most controversially, I suspect the same “if not America, then China” logic applies to political ordering as well. The United States under Trumpian conditions has allowed populism to come to power, bringing chaos and authoritarian behavior in its train. Recoil from that by all means — but recognize that it happened through democratic mechanisms, under freewheeling political conditions.
> Meanwhile, the modes through which Europe and Canada have sought to suppress populism involve harsh restrictions on speech, elite collusion and other expression of managerial illiberalism. And what is China’s dictatorship if not managerial illiberalism in full flower? When European elites talk about China as a potentially more stable partner than the whipsawing United States, when they talk admiringly about its environmental goals and technocratic capacity, they aren’t defending a liberal alternative to Trumpian populism. They are letting the magnet of Chinese power draw them away from their own democratic traditions.
China is not publicly espousing conquering Canada and Greenland (Europe). Who would you choose, the people threatening to invade you, or the other guys?!?!
China is threatening invade other places, which are of more value to them.
I mean, they say it’s not censorship when it’s not the government doing it even when the government has embeds with “suggestions” ala facebook, twitter and reddit somewhere around 2020…
TikTok is different in China, but the rest of the world isn’t getting a completely free TikTok.
TikTok is known for tipping the scales on political keywords everywhere. In the past they haven’t outright censored because that’s too obvious, but uploading videos on the wrong side (according to TikTok, of course) of a political topic will result in very few views.
I wouldn’t be surprised if as part of the transition they’re struggling with the previous methods of simply burying topics, so the obvious ban was their intermediate step.
The comments claiming this is specific to the US are simply wrong. TikTok has always done this everywhere.
A bunch of people around the world used 小红书 for months when they were worried about a twitter ban.
They got the same version of the app that people in China got. I haven't seen any formal studies but my impression, at the time, was that Chinese people were far better informed about the US than Americans were about China.
Well, yes, China doesn't have open media for its citizens. Chinese people will on average be less well informed about China, even accounting for the extent of Americans who choose trashy propaganda channels.
(reminded of ex-tech influencer Naomi Wu, who basically went dark with a post along the lines of "the police have told me to stop posting")
You're saying Chinese people are less informed than Americans about China?
Well you could say that every educated country is far better informed about the US than vice versa.
Which is basically what the US also wants.
except with a different brand of fascism.
People in China know. Believe me they know.
At least the Chinese are not pretending to be a free democracy.
Do you think anti-ICE videos are being blocked in China?
Out of curiosity. What do those videos mean to an average Chinese person?
What are the opinions of illegal immigration over there? How do they police it? (If at all).
Does this look like normal government activity? Or are they appalled at the lack of “freedoms” in America?
I am truly naive on their culture or politics around this and how they would use it to show the US as boogeymen government and how their government is better. Is it a grass isn’t always greener type thing for them or is it a way to actually think we’re evil and should be stopped.
Don't forget that the regular operation of Chinese policing is already much less free than what Americans are used to, plus the restrictions on internal freedom of migration (Hukou, less onerous than it used to be, plus the two SAR of Macao and HK). Mandatory state-issued ID, linked to your phone and bank account and so on.
As well as racial profiling. There's not that much immigration to China in the first place, legal or otherwise.
> Do you think anti-ICE videos are being blocked in China?
Of course not, but other stuff is.
Interestingly, my understanding is government pressure forces Douyin to be more "positive" and "encouraging" than Tiktok (i.e. outrage is an easy way drive engagement with obvious negative externalities, and that path is blocked).
Then the GP statement is still correct.
"The forced US hosted tik-tok sale is all about hiding information from the US public that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to."
probably not, in fact, the CCP likes to promote content that shows the "US in disarray", while simultaneously censoring and suppressing any content that is critical of the CCP or that exposes its bad actions
This information is all over American social media... Even the article references that Megan Stalter posted her videos on Instagram.
The TikTok ban is the hammer, antitrust is the anvil.
Without antitrust regulation, TikTok would have been sold to Meta, and that would be it. We'd have an even worse monopoly (which is not a good thing), but at least we wouldn't have this. With such regulations present, the US government both forced a sale and disallowed a sale to anybody who they didn't like, basically forcing TikTok to choose a government-approved partner. What did that partner do to become government approved? We'll never know.
Antitrust in the US (and GDPR in Europe) give regulators wide latitude over who to prosecute and for what. This makes it much easier to do under-the-table deals to achieve objectives that you can't or don't want to achieve by regulation, like restricting free speech.
Subjecting companies to such regulation was ok when it was about transporting cattle or selling bricks, but giving governments the ability to regulate companies that have a wide impact on speech, even if the regulations don't seem to have anything to do with speech, is just asking for trouble.
> but at least we wouldn't have this
I think you might have forgotten recent moves from Meta about removal of moderation, relaxing rules on hate speech, settling lawsuits with Trump and similar moves that imply they wouldn't really fight hard against what this administration wants.
Of course, because TikTok is the only way people in the US can access information.
I wonder where all the TikTok videos are about all the tanks and hotel shoot outs in Beijing over the last week or so are… where various party factions fought it out over control of the central committee and you have the disappearance of various generals in the PLA.
Care to elaborate?
I was able to find this pretty quickly:
Zhang Youxia Arrested After Failed Coup; Gunfight Allegedly Occurred at Jingxi Hotel in Western Beijing (https://www.peoplenewstoday.com/news/en/2026/01/25/1130776.h...)
Most Americans are unaware of how China is collapsing. All news is censored.
You must have heard about it from somewhere? Some reliable third party intermediary that is neither US nor China?
I haven’t heard anything about this but the claim appears to be mostly true - https://spectator.com/article/has-xi-jinping-fought-off-anot...
The spectator is allegedly a reliable media source, I am not personally familiar.
It is not. It's a contrarian newspaper, gives some interesting folks a platform, but mostly cranks.
Is https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-spectator-usa/ Wrong here?
(I really don’t know, but it does seem that this info at least is coming from multiple places?)
To be fair, I don’t think it’s as much collapsing as it’s having an internal party power struggle where the more authoritarian faction seems to have violently quelled a rebellion by one or two other factions.
What do you mean "you wonder where they are"? Do you even use tiktok to be able to see them? Because if you search about that on there you can find videos
Not really. It was about preventing CCP control of information.
The CCP angle is the PR version. From last year: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato...
Note that there have been multiple instances over the past two years of high level ex/current officials repeating the same general point.
> The forced US hosted tik-tok sale is all about hiding information from the US public that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to.
No, at least during the Biden administration when the law was passed, it wasn't.
This shit is a lot more complicated that a hot take based on today's news.
It was even during Biden. The idea was to stop pro Palestine videos. Anti ice videos are in the same realm
Forcing the sale of TikTok predates the current war in Gaza by a good bit. It's obviously a complex thing that encompassed a bunch of different people with different motivations. And considering there is pro-Palestinian videos all over American social media, I don't think it is kind of absurd to think this was the motivation.
It started out with the "China bad" narrative, but it only got bipartisan support and momentum when US people started seeing Palestinian videos on TikTok.
tiktok always censored, it's just now it censors anti-Trump content instead of anti-CCP content [1]
both are bad, I liked when tiktok was supposed to be just "banned". it's always been a tool for repressive governments
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-28/tiktok-huawei-surveil...
If it’s true for TikTok it will likely be true for all other forms of popular social media (twitter, instagram, etc) too, so a ban wouldn’t have made a big difference probably.
It's about preventing China from brainwashing the American people with an opaque algorithm that is designed to prop up Chinese interests and sow division amongst the American people.
And it's obviously working. We now have a sizeable minority of American citizens who believe the government has no right to deport convicted criminals who are in the country illegally.
> believe the government has no right to deport convicted criminals who are in the country illegally.
You mean execute American citizens in broad daylight in the middle of the street? Because that's what they are doing. Or tell me, what crimes did the 5 year old they kidnapped commit?
For most, the deportation of criminals isn’t the issue. It’s the process and methodology being employed people are disagreeing with. It’s creating unconstitutional situations and chaos/death in the streets.
People like you overwhelmingly misunderstand the position of others and in making incorrect assessments create more noise to divide the nation further. You try it is “criminal” to lump together the cartel death squad and MS13 street gang type people together into the same cohort as people who simply came here illegally and have lived here peacefully even contributing to our society and economy positively.
How is uploading video of Ice related operations brain washing?
Americans have racistly insinuated that asians brainwash our sweet young people since the Korean War when we killed 20% of North Korea. POWs were treated somewhat humanely and educated by Korean communists, many of them denounced the United States for criminality. This led to a CIA program to try to replicate "brainwashing" including eventually the MKULTRA program.
This kind of history resonates today as you can see people continue to make these kinds of accusations because we are the good guys and revealing derogatory information about our society is basically treason.
Rights don't actually exist. That's a made-up idea to avoid the very real concept of human needs and putting liberation into that context.
The issue is you can't easily justify oppressing people if you have a finite checklist of needs. You clearly can if you use a nebulous debatable term like "rights".
> that most people in the rest of the world have easy access to
The information is everywhere. Visit any news site, open any general social media feed, turn on any TV. We’re discussing it right now in the front page of HN!
Everyone in the US has easy access to the same information. Acting like only the rest of the world has easy access to this information is ridiculous.
Everyone has easy access right now. Everyone had easier access before the TikTok deal. That's the wrong direction for a free country and it's particularly alarming because the deal was forced by the government.
Censorship doesn’t become okay when it’s easy to work around it.
I’m not condoning censorship. It’s bad.
I’m saying it’s silly hyperbole to make the leap to implying that only people in other countries have easy access to information.
These absurd claims always turn into a game of motte and bailey when they’re called out, with retreats to safer claims. I’m talking about the original claim, that “people in other countries” have easy access to this information which we, in the US, see everywhere all the time right now (except TikTok apparently).
_you_ have access to it, for an increasingly large number of people TikTok is their only source of news. Same as Fox News or CNN, one news source.
Censorship of TikTok is inevitable given the owners, and it will inevitably lead to a new news bubble.
I think you’re greatly overestimating the number of people who only use one social media platform and never check any other news source at all.
TikTok users are also known for being experts at evading filters and censors. Remember the rising popularity of “unalived” when talk of suicide was filtered out on the platform?
I’m not saying this ICE censorship is good, because it’s not! I’m saying it’s ridiculous to claim that only people in other countries have easy access to information.
> I’m not saying this ICE censorship is good
I hope not because it’s bad and that’s really all that matters in this conversation. And nitpicking whether or not there are other avenues for information is completely besides the point. I don’t even really understand what point you’re trying to make. If you think this is bad, then say it’s bad and we shouldn’t be ok with it. Saying “I’m not saying it’s good” then muddying the waters reads like you’re trying to defend the action.
> And nitpicking whether or not there are other avenues for information is completely besides the point
That was literally the argument I was responding to and talking about.
I am not getting that from your previous comment but I’ll just assume I’m misreading it.
This entire comment thread was me responding to someone claiming that people “in other countries” have easy access to information.
Given the downvotes and angry responses I think a lot of people misinterpreted it as something else. I should learn to avoid comment sections about politics.
> I think you’re greatly overestimating the number of people who only use one social media platform and never check any other news source at all.
When it comes to the _younger generation_, I don't think it's an over-estimation; they don't read news sites at all.
I was responding to a claim about people who use only one social media platform.
> hiding information from the US public
It is literally on the front page of news papers....
Also, you can see it on Instagram, X, etc.
Even a cursory search on TikTok reveals anti-ICE content...
TikTok is hugely influential, and the younger people they're trying to influence don't read newspapers and don't hang out on X or Instagram (both of which also censor certain political content).
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240737627/meta-limit-politic...
https://www.reddit.com/r/OptimistsUnite/comments/1i9zf5u/rco...
https://arxiv.org/html/2508.13375v1
I am willing to bet that the vast majority of young people are very much aware of what ICE has been doing. Do you believe otherwise?
I didn’t realize that TikTok retroactively wiped every young person’s brains of the content they watched over the past months as well!
The question isn't whether they've been successful in hiding information. It's whether their goal is to hide information (or I would say, to control the narrative), which it clearly is.
This is why the administration has gone out of its way to try to get Kimmel and Colbert off the air, why it has commandeered CBS and tried to kill 60 minutes pieces critical of the administration, why it violated the law in order to keep TikTok (already fervently pro-Trump) up and running, and why allies of the administration have been put in charge of TikTok after the transition. It's why Bezos is slowly strangling the Washington Post, why Patrick Soon-Shiong is doing the same to the LA Times, and why the administration is putting their thumb on the scale for Paramount, rather than Netflix, to buy Warner Brothers Discovery (which owns CNN). It's why Musk bought Twitter. It's why they blatantly lie in their press conferences and statements to the media about how the ICE killings happened.
If you walked into a Turning-Point USA meeting in a high school, do you think the kids attending that meeting could accurately tell you what ICE has been doing? I don't.
Allow me to offer some words of wisdom. If you help building weapons to be used against $currently_designated_bad_people, you can rest assured that given enough time, those weapons will be used against you. I am watching all this with a mild sense of bemusement.
A NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie suggested (in jest) that the next Democrat administration send armed IRS agents to gated communities in Florida, to "investigate tax fraud".
But this is exactly why all citizens should be concerned about the infringement of rights happening in Minnesota. If it is allowed without prosecution, you are next.
Zero disagreement. Rules of engagement should be clear to everyone. How can you possibly play the game if the rules keep changing based on political expediency. And we all know.. that that kind of a game is rigged from the start.
That said, I was thinking more about people all of us building tools that got us into the situation we are in now.
People rarely recognize that force can be turned on them until it happens. If one side uses force and the other refuses to, you cannot expect the first to grasp that force is always a two way street, because for them it is not real until they feel it.
His brilliant columns is the only reason I would ever consider a NYT subscription.
This actually happened under the Obama admin, he was using the IRS to target conservatives and conservative groups. In Linchpins of Liberty v. United States they ended up getting paid back millions and were issued a formal apology. https://grokipedia.com/page/linchpins_of_liberty_v_united_st...
Did you just link to grokipedia?
Why would anyone be opposed to the IRS catching tax cheats? This seems like such a bone-headed take.
In any case it’s also historically illiterate, the IRS has long been used as a political weapon, infamously against “Tea Party” activists.
"Why would anyone be opposed to deporting criminals" is verbatim what I've read from conservative commenters.
That isn't the issue being discussed. This is illustrating that armed, masked goons as a political weapon is a pandora's box that will get turned against everyone, regardless of status. Some people just don't care about the violence in Minnesota because it isn't happening to them.
Obama managed to deport more illegal immigrants than Trump. The difference is the local cities and states were working with ICE, rather than weaponising it to try and get a Democrat president.
Obama even gave Tom Homan a medal for his work.
You forget that Obama wasn’t an idiot and did everything above board. Sanctuary cities existed back then, federal agents still enforced immigration rules just without Gestapo-like sh*t stirring. Trump wanted to provoke Minneapolis with aggressive highly visible tactics, and he got what he wanted.
The violence in Minnesota--that is, law enforcement killing people who are not obeying them--is nothing new. Happens in every state every day.
ICE deporting people isn't new, either.
What's new is the folks trying to stop federal agents from doing their jobs, getting into heated conflicts, thinking ICE has no authority because they heard that somewhere, etc.
In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
We’re not sure what your point is. “Things of a similar nature have happened in the past” is not a particularly strong argument.
> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
This is naked bootlicking. You only support it because you view it as “your team” or “your tribe” and do not feel threatened by it. Tables turn in time. Maybe you are not old or wise or well-read enough to recognize that.
Normalizing state-sanctioned extra-judicial murder along with a message of compliance? Maybe go find videos of where compliance got people killed because the fact is the slave catchers enjoy brutality and murder.
I'm not normalizing it, it's already normalized. We have accepted this kind of policing forever.
Nothing in Minnesota has changed the game, except masks maybe, since they're being doxxed.
> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
This is one of the worst takes I have ever seen, to the point that you must just be trolling.
Disobeying law enforcement is not a death sentence. It is often not even illegal. Just because LEO shouts "I am giving you a lawful order" does not in fact make it a lawful order. And this certainly is not happening in most other countries.
The desire to be part of the Trump Tribe has made people forget what actually made America great.
If it's not a lawful order, you fight that in court. It's almost a free pass to get out of whatever you did.
But what she was given was a lawful order. That's the one I'm talking about.
I'm not a trump voter.
Enslavement, genocide, domination, and extraction made it great. For those who forgot.
What we're watching is the collapse of such an unsustainable approach.
> Why would anyone be opposed to the IRS catching tax cheats? This seems like such a bone-headed take.
And ICE says they only go after illegals.
There's nothing wrong with catching tax cheats as long as due process is followed and the person's rights are not infringed. However, selective enforcement can be used as a weapon - never investigate people "on your side" and always investigate "enemies" even if there's no evidence of fraud. Another way to weaponise enforcement is to have a law that is almost never prosecuted and rarely followed (e.g. only using bare hands to eat chicken in Gainesville, Georgia), so then a law enforcement officer can threaten to prosecute for it unless the victim complies.
I feel like you can both want illegal aliens to get deported, but not approve of how ICE is executing protesters in the street, entering homes without warrants, and kidnapping people in unmarked vans.
Similarly, you can think it would be good to catch tax fraud, but think that it should be handled without executing folks.
I don't approve of executions, but I haven't seen that happen.
The Pretti shooting sucks, but it was a clusterfuck, not an execution. The Good incident was a good shoot.
If you genuinely believe that the Good incident was self-defense and doesn't even warrant a trial, you aren't capable the critical thinking necessary to participate in a lawful society. You are parrot of authority without autonomy.
I didn't say it doesn't warrant a trial. And I do think we should be able to press a trial against LEO even if, for instance, the state prosecutor doesn't want to go ahead with it.
But I follow this kind of stuff pretty closely. It's a better shoot than almost any I've seen. He's trained to do exactly what he did. He's already been stuck and dragged by a vehicle, so he's well aware it's a weapon, and he has good reason to fear it. She's disobeying lawful commands. She's accelerating towards the agent.
If you want to dismiss all that, cool. I'm just talking about how the law actually works, not how it makes you feel.
You aren't seeing them because you aren't looking for them. And you're making excuses for the ones you see. Go find them. Do searches.
Sorry, just rattle off a couple names of ICE executions, and I'll go do research on them.
No, they went after tax cheats and it wound up that there were a lot more people cheating taxes hiding behind conservative-sounding fronts than there were hiding behind liberal-sounding fronts.
This was spun as "targeting conservatives".
> infamously against “Tea Party” activists
that claim was disproved by the way
but, it is famously how the feds managed to get Al Capone
Speaking of historically illiterate...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
> Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.
Not massively different to Obama weaponising the IRS against the Tea Party.
How tedious. I don't disagree, fundamentally, with your message, but this internet smart guy thing people do where they use things like $variables to signal that they are above everything and anyone who things X is bad or good just isn't smart enough to see things in the abstract really sucks. And I am very glad you are mildly bemused by people getting shot in the streets, the deterioration of democratic norms that might spiral into more violence and actual, real life, people getting fucked up. Very cool of you.
On occasion, it is worthwhile to take a step back and recognize that what is happening is not new or novel. Likewise, it is useful to recognize a pattern when it presents itself. It is extra useful ( and helpful ) that this is brought to the attention of other people who may still be going through the steps of processing of what seems to be happening.
If it helps, I appreciate going meta after me, but there is not much to dissect here. I stand by my bemused. You may think it is some soft of grand struggle and kudos for you for finding something to believe in, but don't project onto others.
And you think they won't be used against me if I don't help build them?
Seems unlikely.
If the implication is that the tools won't exist if I don't build them, that's beyond a pipe dream. We'll never get a globe of 8 billion people to agree unanimously on anything. Let alone agreeing not to build something that gives them power over their adversaries.
I will offer a benign example. A new team member was given a task to generate a dashboard that, as per spec, in great detail lists every action of a given employee within a system that generates some data for consumption by those employees.
As simple as the project was, the employee had the presence of mind to ask his seniors some thoughtful questions of what makes sense, what is too intrusive, what is acceptable. He felt uncomfortable and that was with something that corps build on a daily basis.
Now.. not everyone wakes up thinking they are building database intended to enslave humanity as a whole, but I would like to think that one person simply questioning it can make a difference.
The $currently_designated_bad_people however are criminal illegal aliens. Sometimes we have to create mechanisms to go after pedophiles and rapists, and we just have to trust the system well enough to assume these tools won't be used to go after good people. I mean the bar for ICE is so outrageously high it's hard to see a world where it's lowered far enough to go after someone like me.
Sure, but I was under impression those mechanism already exists. The question, as it were, comes to enforcement.
Anecdotal: uploading a video of original songs with political/protest lyrics will have random background noises added to the audio track, making the songs audio seem amateurish.
Edit: here’s a link to an example https://bsky.app/profile/seaniebyrne.bsky.social/post/3mby7j...
>This author has chosen to make their posts visible only to people who are signed in.
Welp, guess I didn't want to learn about that anyway
Sorry. Thats fixed now.
The audio is really strange, have people tested it with similar sounding videos without ungoodthink?
can you relax the restrictions on your link or share a direct link to the video, i dont have a bluesky account
Yes. Sorry I’d no idea/forgotten it worked that way. Thank you for pointing it out. I’ve updated my settings.
Anecdotal to myself. I shamefully sometimes use TikTok, I particularly like recipe clips and even I noticed something in the last week, most noticeably around this weekend where the algorithm for recommendations changed. It’s like they completely wiped my preferences. I try not to watch anything political so I cannot say much about censorship of content but something was noticeable in the last week.
It does this all the time. I think it is called "exploration injection". It increases engagement by trying to prevent boredom.
It’s amazes how confident people will describe your lived experiences and say you are wrong. No this was entirely different and coincided in time with the complaints of censorship.
I said you were right. You might need to go touch grass man.
[Edit]: I shouldn't have made the "touch grass" comment. Sorry.
From my read you said something different from what OP said. They voiced that there was a wiping of preference that was noticeable, where you said "it does this all the time." Sure both can describe the same thing, but they don't have to be. Why double down instead of accepting that this time it might be different?
"I said you were right" is not doubling down, and looks like an accurate description of the conversation to me. OP got hostile for no good reason. If it's different, they can talk about how it's different instead of going on the attack against someone that listened and tried to provide information.
Thanks. Though I do admit that my swipe back at them about "touching grass" was out of line.
Because this exact conspiracy has been going on since the elections for 2020. And it's well known and documented. Are you essentially asking me why I wouldn't encouFrage a conspiracy theory based on the anecdote of someone who says they hardly use the platform they are suggesting is forcing propaganda/censorship on them?
There are polarizing events getting more coverage right now, by far, than anything else in the USA, and HN user infecto is subscribing to the idea that the algorithm isn't going to try to check if these important ongoing events interest them.
It's very unlikely that "this time might be different"; the far more likely answer is that this is run-of-the-mill algorithm exploration injection.
Infecto replied me I said "you are wrong". I didn't. My original comment was assuring, in good faith, made to let them know that TikTok changing theit FYP feed is normal. They hadn't yet mentioned they already knew about algo resets and that they were leaning in to the conspiracies. Their reply to me was not in good faith, and did not respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what I originally commented.
Have you been using it for long?
I no longer use TikTok, but I was pretty hooked for a while, and I felt those “waves” every now and then.
It was pretty noticeable because each time I started getting extreme right political content from my country, and I neither consume anything local nor right wing content.
Yes I have and this reset was very different than anything I have experienced. I would like a specific recipe and then they the feed would show me someone else’s attempt of that recipe. I haves used the app for years off and on.
I will save this for the future, when people complain about Chinese open models and tell me: But this Chinese LLM doesn't respond to question about Tianmen square.
Is it a technical glitch that prevents the uploads? Or is it a technical glitch that let's people know that that content is being censored
They have to block upload bluntly as they are still figuring out the algorithm how to shadow ban them.
They consider free people sharing information with each other against the consent and interests of MEGAPEDOELLISON Cabal in power a "technical glitch" that they're trying hard to "patch" by slaughtering the First Amendment.
How is TikTok able to screen this en masse? Are they going after tags? Political issues aside, I am really interested in the technical background in this.
The only thing I could come up with, assuming this isn’t a technical glitch, is that TikTok already had the infra to silence anything they want on the platform and as soon as the keys were handed over they turned that filter up to 100%
So, US has their own Tiananmen Square. How the turntables.
Nuts that the whole company is in on it. Missing such a huge story is something that rank and file engineers would notice. But nobody is saying anything.
Perhaps on the tiktok Blind?
The Blind community is one of the most toxic communities out there. It made me sick even before the tech industry had its mask off moment 1+ year ago. Since then they’ve only amped up the racism and hate. I wouldn’t expect to find any serious discussion there.
I used to think that most engineers had strong ethics, but It seems thats not the case.
I wonder if it is widespread knowledge internally or if just the select few know.
You need remarkably few engineers in the loop to actually pull a thing like this off (if it is/was true).
It looks like some are moving over to upscroll, anyone know anything about upscroll? what other apps are you using?
I remember when everyone migrated from MySpace to Facebook and I assumed everyone was going to just keep moving over to the next big thing every few years but that actually didn't happen. Facebook became an institution.
I checked out the website, and it looks more like Instagram than TikTok. We've had a few TikTok-like apps, and it didn't work out. Even the people behind Vine couldn't make their own Byte app take off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddles_(app)
TikTok showed that the platform lives and dies by the algorithm and ease of use. I'm not even a huge fan of TikTok's recommendations these days with too much slop slipping through the cracks. And their comment moderation is some of the worst.
If another platform ever gets popular enough, I'm sure the same people will find another way to neutralize it.
Yeah, I read about this thing called network effects on blue sky.
Nothing. These apps are mental poison. They're designed to be addictive. Healthy adults don't use TikTok or any equivalent.
I would agree with you, but its pretty disturbing that the general public doesn't have a good outlet, especially to discuss unconstitutional ICE actions. It’s unfortunately very convenient that at a time when the pros outweigh the cons (open discussion vs. addiction) that some might stay offline. I would encourage you to overlook the mental poison and continue to support open communication. That's more important right now.
Thanks for the heads up ... we're really entering some shitty internet times
It feels like federated networks with open-sourced feed algorithms are the best path forward.
If AI removes any technical limitations, and automates content management, what's stopping a content creator from owning what they create and distributing it themselves?
How can centralization continue to survive?
Beyond federated systems, P2P systems seem to have a strong advantage here in identifying bad actors.
Ranking posts/comments by the exponential of inverse IPAddress-post-frequency would solve bad actors posting behind VPNs/proxies like evil bot farms / state actors and marketers.
Real users have their own IP address, and IP addresses are expensive like $20-50 a month which would make mocking traffic an extremely expensive proposition.
Mocking 1% of reddit's 120M daily active user would cost 58M a month.
The magic lies in the two-sided coin of promotion vs. spam filtering.
The web started off as a pretty peer to peer system, but almost immediately people built directories and link farms as means to find things. You can make a system as distributed as you want, but that only works for content which people know to find. Which is great for piracy, as e.g. movies and TV shows are advertised everywhere else and can be found by title.
For social media, the recommendation engine is a critical part of the appeal to users.
Why do so many tech people push this "federation is a panacea" idea despite all evidence to the contrary? I don't get it.
First, the obvious: if federation was clearly superior, it would've won. No medium since email has been federated and even that's dominated by a handful of players. Running your own email server is... nontrivial.
Second, users don't care abou tthis. Like at all.
Third, supposedly tech-savvy people don't seem willing or able to merely scratch the surface of what that looks like and how it would work.
Fourth, there's a lot of infrastructure you need such as moderation and safety that would need to be replicated for each federated provider.
Lastly, zero consideration is given to the problems this actually creates. Look at POTS. We have spam and providers that are bad actors and effectively launder spam calls and texts. You need some way to manage that.
Do you actually believe anything you just wrote?
If TikTok falls TikTokers will just use another centralized app.
Content creators don't have peertube instances for a reason.
It’s crazy to think that Instagram Reels, owned by Meta, is preferable to TikTok now. At least Reels now is at least competitive in terms of content - unlike two years ago when people were worried about TikTok being banned and Reels was not a good alternative.
Isn't Reels content more right-wing, while TikTok has lots of both left-leaning and right-leaning content.
TikTok historically has, but if this is truly the new owners trying to block content then that can change rapidly.
Reels skews older in the user-base, which skews the average to the right.
Definitely not censorship
/sarcasm
So it went from being a social manipulation tool of one county to another and ownership changed hands.
Is Instagram better at this? Since their racist content is so unfiltered nowadays, surely they would allow this at least?
Heh, no [1][2][3][4].
Meta and Google (including Youtube) kowtow to the administration in what speech they promote and suppress in the exact way the administration (both parties) says China might theoretically do in the future.
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...
[2]: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/metas-israel-policy-chief...
[3]: https://www.972mag.com/social-media-ukraine-palestinians-met...
[4]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
it's obvious that tiktok is doing this intentionally, pretending it's a technical issue, so that people can blame the US government for forcing the sale of tiktok
it's just retaliation
and obviously, trump will play into this
Or the right wing ideologues who now allegedly control (components of) TikTok are as dumb and ideological as they appear.
Note: They also are having "technical difficulties" transmitting DMs with the string "epstein" in them.
Dupe of another post that was mysteriously flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46777652
Glowing endorsement for the Oracle investment
They are in transition, so for the moment I believe them to have technical problems, because it also matches my experience. Yesterday I encountered problems with several videos, which are working today. And not all of them were political.
Going by the comments, people on TikTok seem very fast in seeing conspiracies, when many problems can be simply explained with normal problems or human failings. And it's good to be critical and aware of dangers, but I fear if they are so easy to call out problems, it will wear of fast, and people will start to ignore real problems again, like they used to be.
I am also skeptical (despite having 0 faith in the new owners). However, I am a bit confused: why would new ownership alone cause technical issues? It seems like they set new requirements that required new software. Even if the reqs are content-agnostic, I am curious what they are and how they differ from the previous tiktok.
The presumption of good faith has been justifiably obliterated when it comes to Topics Such As These with our right-wing extremist political and media leadership.
Especially with extremists, you should have a solid foundation of argumentation, because they will not ignore even little fails and weaponize everything against you if necessary.
Especially with extremists, a solid foundation of argumentation will do you no good because the facts are beside the point.
It's not about the extremists, it's about everyone else. Extremists usually have to convince people to give them power, to follow their BS. And by experience, even extremists sometimes can change their mind.
It's unnecessary: extremists usually aren't seeking to change their mind, and they'd sooner fabricate evidence of a fail than acknowledge The Perfect Argument That Totally Changed My Mind
Just technical problems in their “banned topic” identification models. No need to be concerned.
The point is that people are more aware of problems happening with that topic, but ignore whether it also happens with other topics. So at the moment it's a very skewed view.
Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
Europe found that out the hard way, America is still in the early stages of realizing it.
Anecdotally my feed dramatically shifted. My politics are very leftwing, and prior to the transfer virtually every video was discourse on ICE. Following the transfer, I get content that is all over the place. At one point, I got 8-9 tiktoks in a row of obviously bot-created rightwing text.
At least on the surface level, I could believe this is just a full algorithm reset and they are having problems with it. But even after other algorithm resets that I believe I've experienced, Tiktok figured it out extremely quickly. If this continues, I will believe in the heavyhanded censorship theory.
As a former employee in TikTok US Data Services, the division that was stated working to separate the US TikTok service and infrastructure, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the algorithm reset theory, because the reset this time is qualitatively unlike the others.
Since 2020, when the first Trump administration attempted to ban TikTok, work has been ongoing to separate out the TikTok US business in all aspects from the parent company Bytedance. Setting up dedicated infrastructure for US users was already accomplished by 2023 for the most part, and this included the restriction that US user data couldn’t be used to train or otherwise influence non-US user operations.
However, there were a few major caveats. First, all the actual videos, at least if they’re public, were considered to be Bytedance data, even those created by US users (although the actual user intent signals - likes, watch behavior, and the like, were considered to be US user data). This allowed them to be used to train the main Bytedance-owned algorithm. Second, the Bytedance-trained algorithm continued to form the basis of the algorithm to serve US users. At least when I was there, US user data was used to tune the algorithm for US users, but the algorithm was not necessarily trained from scratch only on US user data in practice.
One of Bytedance’s main conditions for the TikTok US sale has always been that they own the algorithm (both the code and the models) and would not transfer it to the US, so this was definitely a foreseeable issue. With the chaos of the TikTok Us divestment between the Biden and Trump administrations, though, I suspect that it was hard to hire and retain ML engineers that could build a proper replacement for the algorithm in time for the divestment, let alone build one that matches the behavior of the previous algorithm.
If the algorithm is separated between US and non-US as strictly as the TikTok US Data Services mission always aimed for, then TikTok for US users is in many respects a new service entirely that shares the same UI and features. I also don’t know how US users get trained on non-US content, or if they’re even exposed, nor if any other countries use the US algorithm. So this change in content may last at least into the medium term, if not permanently. The question will be if you start seeing more left-wing anti-ICE content in the coming weeks or months.
Honestly I'm surprised people don't jump ship more often with social media platforms. With TikTok this is kind of new news, but there have been related problems with it that have been pretty obvious for some time.
The same with X and, before that, Facebook.
TikTok has never worked for me though so maybe there's no real equivalent alternative. Maybe time to make one if not?
To me it says something about the public, but I'm not sure what. I'm tempted to attribute it to indifference or complacency but I'm aware of network effects and the reality of alternatives.
Sometimes I feel like education and theory about security practices needs to extend beyond micro-level phenomena like passwords, to things like administrative conflicts of interest and strength in decentralization and competition. Private monopolies and quasi-monopolies aren't just economically bad, they're bad for privacy and security, and make the public vulnerable through lack of choice. In important ways it doesn't matter if it's the government or a private company; whenever power concentrates it is easier to align and abuse.
Are you really surprised? I find the interest entirely unrelatable, but I'm not surprised. They tune these platforms for addiction. I mean, I don't even use them but I still immediately recognize their branding video-end sounds just from random exposure here or there. (I hate it)
> Honestly I'm surprised people don't jump ship more often with social media platforms.
Most people don’t pick one social media platform and use it for 100% of everything.
They’ll switch between TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, and others during the day.
It’s not hard to see when one of those platforms is missing discussion of current events.
State-owned social media?
How many people are willing to even talk about the Twitter Files here?
The what?
It's kind of amazing that all the companies act in lockstep. Apple, Google, TikTok remove anti-ICE stuff, rightly or wrongly (I'll go with 'wrongly' because of freedom of speech/freedom of app choice, among other things)
They ALL do incredibly corrupt things
Why on earth are grownups using TikTok anyway?
Because it has content that's enjoyable for them and they like to interact with the community. Same reason you're on hackernews.
Surprisingly convenient accident that happened miraculously just a few days after ownership transfer to the US owners.
And HN users can’t upload anti-ICE articles or discuss politics without getting flagged and downvoted.
So I guess HN was just ahead of the curve.
>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.[0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This has not changed in over ten years https://web.archive.org/web/20140702092610/https://news.ycom...
There have been a number of fake AI-generated videos of police confronting ICE officers lately:
https://gothamist.com/news/ai-videos-of-fake-nypdice-clashes...
I suspect these are some of those that have been banned from TikTok, and there's probably heightened moderation around this content at the moment since people are sharing AI-generated propaganda and riling others into violent confrontation with ICE.
TikTok: Notoriously tough on bullshit ragebait
Some guys from the other French thread will tell me that government should legislate social networks.. yeah, sure bud.
freedom of speech my a*
Freedom of speech has literally never prevented a private company from controlling the content on its platform.
Platform allows criticism of a government.
That government forces the platform to be sold to a billionaire ally.
Platform’s new owner immediately bans criticism of said government.
“Not a first amendment issue, it’s a private company”
Well… how do you reconcile that probably-truth with the Twitter Files? What do you call it when they private company censors at the demand of the government?
It did before the internet. See Marsh v. Alabama where publicly accessible ( private sidewalk) on private property was ruled the people there still could exercise 1A rights and could not be trespassed for doing so even if the owners forbid it.
How does freedom of speech allow you to walk somewhere you have been forbidden from walking? Does that mean you can just go into any building you want and use your 1A rights to not be arrested?
You can read the case. Basically it was a privately owned public space that they could have been otherwise trespassed from, but not for the reason of their speech. Since the reason for the trespass was their speech, it was prohibited. They were not otherwise "forbidden" from walking there were it not they expressed something that was disapproved of.
A weak analogy (I know analogy are never allowed here because "they're not the same") is that you can fire someone at will. Unless it turns out you fired them because they are black (yes I know being black is much different than expressing an opinion). It didn't mean you can't fire them at will, just that you couldn't for that specific protected reason.
Not just anti ICE videos - you can’t even mention Epstein
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/tiktok-epstein-trump-cens...
You elected yourself oligarchy. Good luck getting rid of it now.
well… i submitted it as https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/26/tech/tiktok-ice-censorship-g... but i guess HN drops the lite off of it? le sigh, here’s hoping someone can frontpage one of these tiktok censorship stories today…?
Looks like this one made it to the front page.
Interesting times…
My mother was born just after WWII—died a few years ago. As sad as I have been (still am) when I watch the world fall apart around me I am thankful that she at least lived through perhaps the best stretch American history—does not have to see the shit I am seeing daily (she was the type that would have been unconsolably anxious about it).
I feel badly, so far, for my daughters born roughly in the period around September 11, 2001. Still, I'm hopeful they might yet see even a brighter future than I had growing up in the 70's…
> I am thankful that she at least lived through perhaps the best stretch American history—does not have to see the shit I am seeing daily
I think the Vietnam War was much worse than what you are seeing daily...
Based on this comment, I think we are around the same age. I'm 55 and have two kids born in the early 2000's.
I was born in Canada in 1970 to loving and extraordinarily supportive parents and moved to the US in the mid 90's. I can't imagine a better time or place to have been born. I have kids around the same age as yours and their lives are so much more difficult even though they are smarter and harder working than I ever was.
I am the first generation after the fall of Salazar's dictorship, so naturally I belong to those that had the opportunity to grow in freedom while hearing the stories from everyone that suffered from it, the dead and crippled from colonial wars, many sent as punishment for their political views and so on.
Never I though that I would still see the return to such politics in my lifetime, even in Europe it is getting harder to push back on them.
Meta note: it would be awesome to collate a list of 'better ways to view populate sites'. For example, I only learned recently that replacing www with old in a reddit url takes you to a less cluttered version of the site. And I only recently bookmarked a couple of 'archiving' sites (important for reading content that's paywalled). TIL your cnn 'lite' technique.
Yeah, rock the 'old'. New reddit is TikTok Jr.
I predict a future showdown over Section 230 because "algorithms" are used to cheat on the safe harbor protections. Let me explain.
The general principle of Section 230 is that a platform provider isn't generally liable for user generated content. This was a key piece of legislation that enabled forums, Reddit and ultimately social media. The platform provider does have responsibilities like moderating illegal content and responding to legal takedowns, etc.
Alternatively if you produce and publish your own content you are legally liable. You can be sued for defamation, etc in a way that you can't if you simply host user generated content (unless you fail to adequately moderate).
REcommendation algorithms (including news feeds) effectively allow a platform provider to select what content gets distributed and what doesn't. All algorithms express biases and goals of humans who create those algorithms. It's not a black box. It is a reflection of the company's goals.
So if you wanted to produce content that's, for example, only flattering to the administration even if you outright lie, you can be sued. But what if your users produce any content you want but you only distribute content that is favorable to the administration? At the same time, you suppress anti-administration content and content creators. It's the same end result but the latter has Section 230 protections. And it really shouldn't.
This isn't hypothetical. The Biden administration revived the dead Trump 1 Tiktok ban to suppress anti-Israel content [1][2][3].
What I find most funny about all this is that the American administration--both parties--are doing the exact thing they accuse China is possibly doing in the future.
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/tiktok-faces-renew...
[2]: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2024/03/18/yes-its-a-ban-...
[3]: https://x.com/snarwani/status/1725138601996853424
On Twitter, there's a bunch of reports that TikTok suddenly prevents people from sending the word "Epstein" in DMs [1].
I had expected an Orbanisation (aka, what happened to the media sphere in Hungary after Orban took over and his cronies bought up almost all media) of Tiktok, but not that fast, it's like less than a week after the deal [2].
Scary shit if you ask me, and it's made scarier by the fact that Tiktok has already been changing the way our youth speaks due to evading censorship (e.g. "graped" instead of "raped", "unalived" instead of kill/murder/execute/suicide).
[1] https://x.com/krassenstein/status/2015911471507530219
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/23/heres-whats-you-should-kno...
> but not that fast
Why not? All the tech was already put in place by China. All that the U.S. had to do was change the filtered words.
What words were China filtering? I've never seen reports of censorship like this on TikTok before Ellison bought it.
Enough of them to give rise to the term "algospeak" which means using words like "unalive" in place of "kill" to avoid automated censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algospeak
Meanwhile you can report a bot who's posted 20+ comments under a video to advertise illegal drugs and all of the reports and subsequent appeals will consistently come back as "No violation found".
This has been happening for 10+ years on e.g. YouTube, you can't say certain words in the video or mention them in the title or you get demonetized. Nothing to do with China.
Does "kill" have some type of salient political valence that I'm not aware of?
This seems like a fairly blunt attempt at quality-of-life improvement for the general platform vibes, no? Put some friction on the (legitimate) nutjobs who just want to say "Kill X, kill Y" all the time and are so insane they can't figure out euphemisms?
On WeChat lots of things are censored, almost keyword based. E.g. a building collapses, you want to talk about it to your friends, your message can't be sent because it'll be deemed to be trying to cause social unrest..
Duoyin (Chinese version of TikTok) would definitely not be different..
On WeChat and Douyin (chinese tiktok), good luck mentioning things like:
the cultural revolution famine the great leap forward Taiwanese independence Hong Kong self governance democracy human rights Falun Gong Uyghur people free speech KMT party Chiang Kai-shek
and that's just off the top of my head. there are likely hundreds of others.
But did this apply to the US version of TikTok? We now have imposed censorship in the US app, that as far as I'm aware did not exist at all when it was owned by China.
But this blatant move shows "We're no different to the Chinese ruling party now"... If it's a slow descent, people might accept the madness (imagine if a bombshell report showed Biden had links to Epstein, sexually assaulted 20+ women, and was moaning about the Nobel Peace Prize to the prime minister of Norway)...
Somehow I'm optimistic that this means the Trump Regime is on its last legs. But well, what's the quote about underestimating the stupidity of the American public?
I had expected a longer "cooldown" time so that people don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the forced TikTok sale was to suppress discussion of the Epstein files.
No, the forced bipartisan support TikTok sale was to suppress discussion of Palestine.
The Epstein situation is .. weird. On the one hand, it's a massive nexus of corruption and abuse. On the other hand, it's just .. evidence. Nobody cares about evidence, they've already decided they want to protect the Trump administration no matter what. Rather like ICE shooting legal gun owner US civilians.
Also: https://www.the-independent.com/tech/tiktok-epstein-trump-ce...
I hope for the good of mankind, all sides of politics unite against deplatforming and oppressing opposing viewpoints.
It's sad that certain topics (anti-ICE, Epstein) neutered on a social media platform, but this went on for years when the politics were reversed.
Let everyone have their say, I say.
But the thing is people aren’t having “their say”. Social media companies are amplifying voices and viewpoints. They are not acting as “common carriers” letting quality sift to the top. It is curated and crafted.
Now they're thumbing down the scale for censorship.
“Letting quality sift to the top” implies that there is a way for this to happen without curation.
Pure user vote driven things like Reddit are a failure (echo chambers, emotional appeals, bot rings, etc). So I’m curious what you think would let that happen?
Even HN is heavily moderated to maintain topics.
I am not sure why this was flagged but I don’t think it’s wrong. I am not sure if it’s a uniquely American thing but the internet has caused an unfortunate case of brigading for almost anything. I like to think I sit fairly middle in a lot of American topics I lean left on some items, taxes, healthcare, free school lunches and right on others but I remember how easy it was a number of years ago to be labeled a racist. You really cannot have an opinion about much these days without someone labeling you something unfavorably. It’s unfortunate.
Ironically, "labelling" someone else is an act of free speech as much as anything else.
I don’t think it’s ironic and my point was not the act of labeling itself but more of how America has become a brigading culture. Free speech should be protected, even for things that we know are wrong but we have this decay of the internet and culture where you are either with someone or against them.
But that's my point: what you call "brigading" is other people using their free speech in a way you don't like.
I think we are talking past each other a bit.
I am not objecting to people expressing disagreement or labeling as an abstract exercise of free speech. I am pointing to a pattern that has become common online where disagreement quickly turns into coordinated pile-ons, identity assignment, and social signaling rather than substantive engagement with the argument itself.
Free speech protects the right to do that, but it does not mean the behavior is healthy or productive. When discourse collapses into binary alignment where nuance is treated as hostility, it discourages honest participation and pushes people toward silence or extremes.
So yes, others are exercising free speech. My concern is about the cultural outcome of how that speech is increasingly used, not whether it is permitted.
Increasingly society in America is either you are with us or not and at least for me my view of the world is more nuanced and day to day.
> I am pointing to a pattern that has become common online where disagreement quickly turns into coordinated pile-ons, identity assignment, and social signaling rather than substantive engagement with the argument itself.
It's easy to fall prey to the fallacy that disagreement with you means the disagreers are failing to engage substantively to the topic, and are simply "social signaling".
It's easy to dismiss many people disagreeing with you as a "coordinated pile on".
In my experience, thess accusations are usually a result of the "piled on"'s failure to understand and consider the others' perspective, and their unwillingness to change their mind.
Not to say that they must understand and consider others' perspectives, or that they must be willing to change their mind either! But engaging with a society means facing social pressure to conform with social norms. There's always not engaging with society in any meaningful way, as an option.
I agree those are real failure modes, and I am not denying they happen. People absolutely misread disagreement as bad faith, or assume coordination where there is none, especially when emotions are involved.
Where I differ is that I do not think this is only an individual perception problem. There are structural incentives online that reward signaling, amplification, and rapid norm enforcement over slower, substantive engagement. That does not require explicit coordination to function like a pile on, and it does not require bad intent from participants.
Social pressure and norm enforcement are inevitable in any society, as you note. My concern is about degree and speed. When the dominant response to a nonconforming view is immediate identity assignment or moral framing rather than argument, the space for persuasion narrows quickly. At that point, engagement becomes less about exchanging ideas and more about sorting people.
Opting out is always an option, but that feels like conceding that meaningful public discourse online is no longer worth defending. I am not convinced that is a good outcome either.
"Labelling" is different than censorship though, no?
I think it’s all part of the same culture of brigading. My comment was more an extension of thought to the parents that America has gone down a hole where dialogue no longer exists.
> but I remember how easy it was a number of years ago to be labeled a racist
Centrist my ass
I am going to vouch for this comment because this is a great example of what I was describing. People jump to whatever conclusion they want and you are either with them or without. It’s sad what has come to be in society.
People jump to the conclusion because a lot of the time they've had this exact argument already, and they know how it tends to end.
Proclaiming oneself a centrist might seem like a noble, moderate position. But in 2026, with the Overton window basically being shifted outside the frame?
What argument are we having? I see someone struggling to hold their own words steady, and you claiming that I am proclaiming something when I only mentioned it because of this exact problem. I do not really think of myself as left or right within the current American political system. I do not follow either political party, and my opinions often zig zag across existing party lines. If anything, maybe “centrist” is the wrong or overly loaded word. I do not follow any particular political movement in America.
The point still stands brigading is a massive problem in America.
I'm not having an argument. I was just trying to explain that "I'm not left or right" sounds like "I am perfectly fine with how things are right now" to the people who think the current state of things is an absolute disaster.
> they've had this exact argument
Maybe it’s not obvious but you compared the thread to an argument. I see no argument. Just a boneheaded reply from someone which was a great example of exactly what I was describing.
Your follow up is pretty on point too, somehow we go from the topic of brigading to maybe me being ok with the current state of things. This is a really great example of the problem I was describing. Thank you.
I don't know.
I think that over the years, bad faith actors in the world of geopolitics have taken advantage of this in a very nefarious way in order to sow chaos, bad-faith/purposefully-inaccurate "talking points" and capture the hearts and minds of the ignorant, the stupid, and the willfully delusional masses who are desperate to cling to a conspiracy if it fits their worldview which is in turn reinforced by said bad actors.
Is it a potentially unconstitutional slippery slope? yes, absolutely. Is it something we need to tackle as adults and citizens? yes, absolutely. Should the desires of SV tech bro billionaires have any input in those discussions? no, absolutely not.
To me, the media is/are nothing more than drug sellers at this point. They have their weapon "of truth" sold to the very people you listed above. I do my absolute best to not consume any media because I know it is twisted and often wrong (eg. AI generated content). The best I can do is simply not participate in their war. Reddit, TikTok, X, etc are definitely supplying heavy drugs to anyone who wants to be hooked.
At some point, we definitely need a cooling-off period where people from both sides refrain from inciting anger from the masses.
Yeah except when it comes to what this was really about, in which case "all sides" happily go along with it. As it turns out censorship to protect our precious zionist ethnostate is something everybody agrees with.
the right wing furor about deplatforming and media bias was always just a bad faith rhetorical tactic. When Musk bought Twitter, it became clear that there was no conspiratorial algorithmic suppression -- in fact, the code showed that the only thumb on the scales was to promote Musk's own account. The right wing owned essentially all the media before, and within the last few years they also own Twitter, Facebook, The Washington Post, TikTok, Paramount, CBS, and are trying to grab CNN.
There isn't an all-sides argument here; there's one side in almost total control of the entire discourse, whining about being victims, and promotingly increasingly insane viewpoints.
Not to mention, the largest media distributors / syndicates were parroting increasingly right-wing talking points instead of staying neutral or simply presenting the facts and letting the viewer come to their own conclusions.
there is no left-wing media machine that even comes within a billion light years of the strength of the right-wing machine. Effectively, the entire spectrum is owned by hard-right billionaires.
Media has fallen victim to the need for continuous profits (because they have been targeted over and over by bad faith right wing actors) and the journalistic integrity of the 4th estate has effectively been weaponized by the people who need to be named and shamed.