The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I wanted to get in on this before this gets split down political lines.


It's a tough call.  I certainly understand why banning it could be beneficial but at the same time you don't want the government interfering in private business willy-nilly.

I don't particularly care about the data security portion of things.  Plenty of things put your data at risk and that's a personal choice.

I do think that a case could be made that it's a national security issue.  I don't like the idea of a foreign government (especially a potential adversary) controlling the content while also not allowing their own population to see that content.  They could definitely start to promote harmful misinformation or seeding whatever kind of radicalism that could do long-term damage.

I think the best case here is for TikTok to be controlled by an American company....essentially be forced to sell.

I don't think it's a political issue as both sides have had concerns. Rumors online has it that Meta is in everyone's pocket to get rid of them but who knows for sure? I love the app but agree with reports it's dumbing down our gray matter as we spend mindless hours just watching nothing.

^ I see a lot of "you wanna ban TikTok but you don't care about [whatever]" so I imagine it's only a matter of time before it's split down political lines.



This is totally a hypothetical and there's no evidence that's it's happening, but it's totally possible that China could start pushing extremist stuff...any kind.  It could be hoax stuff or promote strikes to hurt our economy or subtle violence or whatever else.  And if they're giving us that product while simultaneously blocking it from their own population, that's a potential threat.  They can show their own kids math videos and show ours the Tide Pod challenge with the specific intent to cause damage.  That's just a blatant example, but I think that it would be even more nefarious if it was a slow trickle of Anti-American sentiment over decades.

I hate to outright ban something that people like, but these are special circumstances.  I also wish that Meta wouldn't be the one to purchase them, since they already eat up so much of the American social media landscape.

China already limits what and how much time their kids can use Tik Tok so it's kind of already happening. I agree with you about Meta. With Elon buried at Twitter I'm not sure who else would be good for it. 

From my understanding, China can't access TikTok at all.  They have their own TikTok with their own content.  They cannot see the info that we have in our version.  If everyone had access to it, I'd be much less freaked out by it.

I don't use it but don't care if people do. I also don't care if it gets banned.

I don't understand how TikTok even became a thing. I mean, you have Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube for people to post their stupidity and retardedness for everyone to see. How is this app any different?

I don't use it, but have seen many shared posts from TikTok. Shit man, that stupid annoying female voice that narrates those videos makes me want to slit my wrists and set myself on fire.

I'm getting to the point where I "don't understand" new social media technologies.  It's not that I literally don't understand them, but I don't really see what they're for or how they differentiate.

So, with TikTok, I have it on my phone and I occasionally get sent a clip from someone, but I never go browse it on my own.  Everything seems too brief and the pace of watching things is hectic.  It's like trying to watch TV while someone is changing the channels and browsing.

TikTok is actually very different from Facebook and pretty much all the other social media platforms (with the exception of "copies" like YouTube Shorts). Both in terms of the content and in terms of how the app works from a user (consumer) perspective, as well as the network topology.

Basically, TikTok is short videos in portrait mode.

Videos can be made in whatever way the creator wants. There's no requirement for using "that stupid annoying female voice" - you can do whatever you want. It's just that the default tools to make these short clips can result in some fairly cookie-cutter approaches.

The main *video* difference from something like is the aspect ratio and duration. TikTok has expanded the maximum length a few times and is now at 10 minutes (I think), but the original limit of 60 seconds still dominates the platform, helped by the algorithm actively prioritizing shorter videos in addition to some relatively aggressive file size limits forcing longer videos to use a lower bitrate. The standard aspect ratio is 9:16 (portrait mode).

As a user (consumer), TikTok is a *completely* different beast. While Facebook and YouTube will recommend new posts/videos, that's not the main way people engage with those sites/apps. Imagine if YouTube showed you a different, random (algorithmically selected) video every time you swiped. In a way, it's like Tinder for videos. Swipe to the next video quickly, and the algorithm assumes you didn't like it, while if you engage (watch longer, read comments, like, etc) it assumes you like it. Based on how you interact with videos, TikTok's algorithm will keep serving you new, pseudo-random videos.

There are other differences as well, e.g. in terms of monetization, but basically it's just swiping quickly to new short video clips in portrait mode.

I don't really like the idea of banning it so far as disallowing people to see the content that want to.  But if we were to do anything, it would be to force a sale and not to allow the company to operate in America.

I'm weird about censoring stuff and I don't want that done outright.  It's a fine line.  I think the best solution is to make them sell in order to operate and make money within the borders.

The best solution would, IMHO, be to implement proper privacy safeguards for everyone and create transparency around algorithms used to populate feeds (and rule on court cases, evaluate job applications / loand / mortgages / etc). Hiding behind an algorithm makes it possible to violate discrimination laws and manipulate public opinion. At the very least, courts need to be able to audit these things if suspicions arise.

This sounds pretty reasonable.  I agree with the sentiment.

It's a weird balancing act.

In related news, Florida has banned social media for those under 16 without parental permission.  And for those until 14 even with parental permission.

Again, I'm kinda torn.  I ultimately think the dangers of outright government bans are probably too much a risk in the other direction, but I do appreciate an attempt at a solution.  I haven't looked at the bill yet, and I think it's largely unenforceable, but I wonder what legally constitutes social media.  I consider youtube to be social media.  Are we not going to allow kids to use youtube?

Ladies and gentlemen, the "Free State of Florida."

You want to send your kid to public school without being vaccinated against deadly infectious diseases?  We respect your solemn rights as a parent.
You want to allow your 13-year-old to use TikTok or Facebook?  The state must intervene to protect your child's safety.

I realize that from a governance standpoint, it's ideologically inconsistent.  "Parental rights" except ....not like that.

But, these social media platforms are a problem for youth.  I'm experiencing it now.  They're a problem for adults, too, honestly.  We need to get a hold on that.  I'm not sure how much of that is through outright restriction, but it's something we need to tackle.

As if this will stop any kid who passed second grade math.  Any 9 year old who wants a facebook account will figure out what year they need to enter to get one granted.  Or for that matter just select a different state when registering.  .  

While what you're saying is true, it does give parents an extra tool.  Kids can break the law and their parents consent, but a lot of them won't.

I don't even think it's the right thing to do necessarily, but I do understand it.

1 - i don't think banning tiktok is in any way constitutional, and runs afoul of the 1st amendment
2 - the hypocrisy in florida is astounding, the "freedom" state banning books and websites

When you ask Florida Republicans "Which is more dangerous to children: using Facebook or catching measles?", their answer is loud and clear.

No books have been banned. You can purchase any book you that want including all of the ones on any banned list circulated by hysterical liberals. Each school district is responsible for ensuring all the materials in their schools adhere to state education standards but nobody is stopping you from reading whatever you want.

I'm ok with the social media restrictions only because everyone knows it's bad for you and worse when you're a child. Hell, most adults get carried away with free speech online and can't handle it and we expect kids to be able to? Are they going to require proof of age or something? I haven't read or seen much about this.

My initial guess is that this is just sort of a "lip service" type bill and it will require you to put in a State and an age at signup and people will just lie about it and create the profile anyway.
A level up from that would be to require some sort of age identification with a credit card or something, like they do with Texas and porn sites.

It might also be used to harass and condemn people after the fact -- like your kid does something and then everyone latches onto that they had a social media account illegally.

Florida's state government has banned these books in schools, which is the point.

This kind of equivocating on "the books aren't technically banned if you can still buy them" doesn't fool anyone.  By this logic, there hasn't been a vaccine "mandate" anywhere in America... only if you want to use certain public resources, which no one is forcing you to do!

In Florida, a parent has the right to choose not to give their child a vaccine for a deadly infectious disease, but does NOT have the right to allow their child to use social media.  Do you agree with this?

I'm surprised you and Hoodie don't see the problem here.  It doesn't matter if you can easily evade the law; by criminalizing the act, it just enables persecution.

To take the comparison further: women who live in Texas can secretly drive to New Mexico for an abortion, but that doesn't diminish the Texas anti-abortion law (SB8) that allows any random person to sue any woman they "suspect" of having an abortion.

^I do see that problem there.  That's why I brought it up.

The idea that the law will sit idle and you can persecute after the fact is a bad thing.

We don't allow minors to do a lot of things with age restrictions attached such as drinking, smoking, driving and entering into legal contracts. I don't use anything more social media than this site but wouldn't the terms and conditions on these platforms be considered contracts? If a minor cannot enter into contracts doesn't that preclude them from being able to use the platforms? Just something that popped into my head.

You also can't watch the typical Ron Jeremy movies in school. Are you against all standards or just ones that don't fit you personally?

Yes. Kids can't purchase tobacco products, buy beer or guns because of the harm it would do to them. Social media is just a different kind of harm that pretty much everyone agrees is bad for them. We are supposedly against bullying but every ad and most posts are meant to tell them they aren't good enough as they are. Makes no sense.  

That's an interesting point. Is agreeing to rules a contract? While I guess we have our opinions here legally I could see that being an issue.

A book about a kid with two moms is not equivalent to pornography.
Neither is a book that discusses slavery.

Measles causes harm to children; so do polio, mumps, and COVID.  Yet you support the right of parents to put their children at risk by not vaccinating them.
So why are you "pro-freedom" in the case of vaccines but "pro-safety" in the case of social media?

Let's keep in mind that the left isn't out here shouting every day about how "Pro Freedom" or "Pro Free Speech" they are; "Free State of Florida" is a moniker that y'all made up, not us.  Yet now you're in the position of having to justify not only the hundreds of books that have been banned in Florida schools, but the state government telling parents that they aren't allowed to decide for themselves whether their child can handle using Facebook.

I see the merit in regulating social media -- both from overseas interest and for kids.

However, I really just don't trust the messenger, in this case.  Ron Desantis has been one of these agitator type leaders.  Frankly, he's an asshole to me on a regular basis and I'm one of his constituents, so when it's time to meet in the middle when we agree that something is an issue, I just don't take the guy at face value.  I said of Rick Scott, another politician I greatly dislike, "say what you will, but that man can manage a hurricane".  He and I were opposite on policy, but he wasn't sticking it to me and blaming me for all of the State's woes.

The one good thing I've seen Desantis do is veto a GOP led bill that would screw solar power growth in the State.  Good on him, though it was a low bar -- I'm sure he took some shit from some rich people who lost out on the grift.

Outside of that, though, he spent his time as governor with stuntwork style legislation, equating everything to wokeness.  So, I don't know what that says about me, but I'm very hesitant to trust his leadership, because up to this point, I don't feel that he's been governing in good faith.

I just read this article thought of you. It's a Progressive who is backing DeSantis on this law.


Opinion: I can’t believe Ron DeSantis is right about this, but he is

CNN- As a progressive, I never thought I’d write this sentence: A law just signed by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is brilliant — and should be a model for the nation.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/03/opinions/florida-social-media-law-desantis-is-right-alaimo-wellness/index.html

It's generally more effective to read the article you're citing and summarize the point being made, as the "Even the liberal [x] agrees with us" argument deployed frequently by Republicans (even when referring to people like Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, or Matt Taibbi as "liberal" when they have ditched the left long ago) has lost all gravity.  It's just not a persuasive argument to point at some "liberal" that agrees with you.

That said: the author in question has written a book on the dangers of social media (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/738356/over-the-influence-by-kara-alaimo/), so it's not surprising that she's in favor of banning it for kids.  Fair-minded people can have a reasonable discussion about censorship and where it is necessary for the greater safety of our society.

But that's not what the "Free State of Florida" is supposed to be about.  The "Free State of Florida" is supposed to put freedom ahead of the government dictating to you and your family what is and isn't safe.  So while I would have no particular issue with a social media ban for kids in a state that cares about the safety of kids, in a state where the surgeon general is giving the thumbs up to unvaccinated kids being sent to school during a measles outbreak (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/floridas-surgeon-general-shows-the-danger-of-politicizing-of-medicine/), I don't want to hear about the dangers of Instagram.  Florida Republicans are banning social media for kids as a political stunt, because those are the only kind of policies MAGA Republicans are interested in: political stunts.

I don't know, Spider.  I do think that social media intake as a culture is a problem.  But it's also definitely a thing for kids and it's something that I'm working through in my own family.  I see merit in it being a real issue.

That said, Desantis is uniquely unfit to lead on this issue, specifically because of what you're saying.  There is a freedom vs security conversation to be had, so let's have it.  But I just reject him as the messenger because he was such an insufferable, unreasonable asshole with the last time we were supposed to have that conversation.  So, of course this whole thing reeks of hypocrisy, as you've pointed out.

That's why it's important to have leadership that governs for everyone, even those who may not agree with them on an issue.  Desantis didn't do that, so it's hard for me to take him at face value and, thus, I do not.

I agree.

Let’s not pretend like the GOPs concern has anything to do with the actual kids.  The number one problem with social media is the fact that is how the youth organize protests in support of gun control, reproductive freedom, climate protection, etc.
 

^^ Ding-ding-ding... We have a winner!

You guys seriously crack me up. I almost never see your outlandish responses coming. hahaha

Again, Spider, I understand the hypocrisy and that makes it hard for me to get on board, but this statement is a little bit like saying "why don't we take care of our veterans before we aid other countries".  It just rings like a hollow way to not address an issue.