The Social Media Thread

Really, I get that people are bad at thinking long-term in general (We wouldn’t have so many of the problems we have now if people were good at it), but would young people seriously be so short-sighted that they’d flock to and vote for a guy who wants to remove practically ALL of their freedoms (And also wanted to ban Tik-Tok previously) just because the other candidate ”took away” their Tik-Tok?

… Nah. There’s a limit to Social Media Before Reason, right?

Edited by MagmaTeaMerry on Apr 26th 2024 at 10:31:53 AM

Eh, there's still half a year before the election. Plenty of time for the Next Big Thing in social media to rise and people to forget about Tik Tok. This is extremely minor, all things considered.

Speaking of social media and politics, Aaron Sorkin is writing a “quasi sequel” to The Social Network due to his belief that Facebook caused the January 6 insurrection. Source is the Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/aaron-sorkin-social-network-sequel-january-6-1235011415/

What do we think of this?

...but would young people seriously be so short-sighted that they’d flock to and vote for a guy who wants to remove practically ALL of their freedoms (And also wanted to ban Tik-Tok previously) just because the other candidate ”took away” their Tik-Tok?

I'm suggesting they wouldn't vote at all.

Youtube Shorts are Youtube attempting to force people's eyes onto easily monetized content, so from time to time they've been added onto people's reccs (they're still in the searches as of this writing but they can be disabled from your recommendations for 30 days). It's the usual low-grade enshittification, but they seem to have realized that this attempt at stealing TikTok's lunch is going nowhere because people don't go on Youtube for shorts. (Someone ought to teach in marketing class that when users are looking for ways to turn a feature off en masse, that usually means that it's time to stop promoting that feature.)

Trends suggest that, no, they wouldn’t just not vote.

“Pew’s research found that a majority of people already get their news from Facebook and Instagram compared to Tik Tok. But ultimately, there's no evidence of a concern that a Tik Tok ban will negatively affect young-voter turnout in September.”

‘There are more young people eligible to vote [and] more young people who are registering to vote,’ Getachew (CEO of Do Something.Org) said. ‘We saw record-level youth turnout in a midterm election in 2022. If we follow these trends, what we’re going to see is that young people this year (combining Gen Z and millennials) will be poised to make up 49% of eligible voters.’

Edited by fredhot16 on Apr 26th 2024 at 3:00:58 AM

@Resi I disagree and agree. I agree that since there's a 9-month deadline, any sort of ban is most probably going to happen after the 2024 election-if not years later, with all the legal challenges that it would get tied up, dragging the issue out. The impact's not likely to be immediate.

But I can't agree with it being a minor thing that people will just forget when the Next Big Thing comes up. I think it does have strong importance in many people's lives and I'm going to use your post as a springboard to post 7-points-or-less summaries about articles that can show what other aspects of life Tik Tok affects beyond the usual sterotypes. Thank you for that opprotunity!

"TikTok may be banned in the US. Here’s what happened when India did it"

• In June 2020, New Dehli had banned the app, citing privacy concerns and that Chinese apps pose a threat to India's sovereignty and security. This was after a military clash along the Indo-Sino that killed 20 Indian soldiers and 4 Chinese soldiers.
• At the time, there were 200 million Tik Tok users, with the company employing thousands of Indians. The ban provided a multi-billion dollar opportunity to snatch up a big market: Within months, Google and Instagram rolled out You Tube Shorts and Reels respectively. "And they ended up capturing most of the market that Tik Tok had vacated."

• In India, Tik Tok content was hyperlocal, making it quite unique by opening a window into the lives of small-town India, "with videos coming from tier 2 and 3 cities that showed people doing tricks while laying down bricks, for example."

• "But for the most part, content creators and users in the four years since the ban have moved on to other platforms." Winnie Sangma, for example, misses posting videos on Tik Tok and earning a bit of money but has managed to move to Instagram in a relatively painless process. "I have built up followers on Instagram too, and I am making money from it, but the experience isn’t like how it used to be on Tik Tok.” 

Banning TikTok Hurts Higher Education/ If professors in 16 US states can’t use the platform at work, they won’t be able to research this communication pillar—or teach their students about it.

• Over the winter of 2022, writes, Jessica Maddox, an assistant professor of digital media technology at the University of Alabama,16 states banned Tik Tok in work contexts ("specifically on any device one has been provided by their employer") and, in the case of South Dakota and Georgia, governing bodies of higher education ordered compliance with their governor's orders on all college and university devices, with other states even going so far as to ban it's use when connected to campus Wi-fi.

• The basis for these actions is the fear of the Chinese government compelling Byte Dance to hand over U.S Tik Tok data or manipulate the already highly-tailored algorithm to push divisive content but Maddox argues that the panic is overblown. "While some data concerns exist—though none more extreme than those over any US-based social media platforms—policies and discourse around Tik Tok in politics amount to a modern-day Red Scare." The politicians that wish to point fingers at China for a lack of date security seem to be keeping their guard up against the wolf on the outside as they let the fox on the inside eat the chickens, as they keep allowing Big Tech lobbyists to quash any meaningful attempts at federal social media regulation. 

• "And when it comes to educating good media citizens in college classrooms, these Tik Tok bans will do more harm than good." Social media research and teaching have become staples in academia and higher education curriculums as, from an educational standpoint, how are media and communications professors supposed to educate students to be more savvy content creators/consumers if a pillar of the modern media landscape is excluded. Not only do brands, companies, and novel forms of storytelling all rely on Tik Tok, it also makes parts of the world more accessible, as students can see the things they are learning about in real time. Citizens in states that implement their bans would be left disadvantaged in a fast-paced media world, along with media and communications students in those states being at a disadvantage in applying for jobs, "showcasing communicative and technical mastery, and brand and storytelling skills" in competition to their peers from other states.

• There's also the professors, who have a need to continue research and the deepening of their field of study: not only are social media scholars "quite literally" cannot do what they've been hired for as experts but attempting to just use their mobile data leaves them forced to rely on video streaming via mobile data, which can be quite expensive for the professors, being forced to foot the bill and regularly be on campus to show they are in fact working. Another complicating factor is even trying to cite Tik Tok videos in research papers as using such links in citational software provided by the university (End Note and Zotero, for example) wouldn't be allowed.

• "But why couldn't they just not study or use Tik Tok", I, the poster, rhetorically asks. Here's the answer, provided by Maddox- it would put them at a massive disadvantage when it's studied around the world and in many fields ("at the time of writing, a Google Scholar search of “Tik Tok” yields over 103,000 results"). If this is beginning to sound like a logistical nightmare as well as completely unenforceable, well, that's because it is."Teaching is informed by research, and if professors aren’t able to research the most updated practices and trends, the quality of education given to their students will suffer", another series of hurdles social media researchers must jump over, making the already challenging road to tenure and promotion even more confusing, tedious, and frustrating, while also remaining unlikely that these bans will be considered as extenuating factors for these scholars's career advancement opportunities.

• Maddox concludes with an interesting point: "Between this and the cost to the classroom, the quality of higher education in these states will suffer. And as many of these same states are ones that have implemented harsh legislative attacks on higher education, it’s hard to wonder if that’s also not part of the point."

Potential TikTok ban affects more than just content creators, experts warn

• A reporter has spoken to local social media users and leaders who have shared how the ban could change the way we use and view platforms. The first quote is from the Ceo of Tik Tok, saying "Tik Tok gives everyday Americans a powerful way to be seen and heard. And that's why so many people have made Tik Tok part of their daily lives.".  

• Karen Freeberg, a University of Louisville professor, notes that the latest push has been more rapid and decisive versus the uncertainty of "well, is it bad or is it not, are we going to be keeping our data here, are we not".

• Kinsey Green, a junior at the University of Tennessee, explains how she makes a lot of informational videos such as tips for incoming college students or "lifestyle content kind of day in the life things". A ban would be disappointing but Tik Tok isn't her only source of income. 

• Matthew Pittman, one of Kinsey's professors, explains that it affects more than just content creators: "It has surpassed Instagram. And I think there's about between $8-15 billion of ad revenue", which would make Google and Meta lick their lips at trying to take advantage of.

TikTok creators warn of economic impact if app sees ban, call it a vital space for the marginalized

• Content creators say a ban would hurt countless people and businesses that rely on Tik Tok for a significant portion of their income and that it has become an "unrivaled platform for dialogue and community". Take, for example, the likes of Alex Pearlman who gave up on his dreams of a standup comedy career almost a decade ago, pivoting to a customer service job then, after suddenly being buoyed up by his jokes and commentary about pop culture and politics on Tik Tok to a 2.5 million followership, quitting his 9-5 and booking his first nationwide tour-as well as providing for his family and spending the first 3 months of his newborn son's life at home. "In reality," Pearlman says, "Tik Tok has been the driver of American social media for the last four years. Something will step into that place if Tik Tok vanishes tomorrow. Whether or not that will be better or worse, Congress has no way of knowing."

• The push to remove the app from Chinese authority follows concerns about user data insecurity, potential suppression of content that the Chinese government wouldn't like, and the possibility that the platform could boost pro-Beijing propaganda but to date (March 15, 2024), the government hasn't provided any evidence showing Tik Tok shared U.S user data with Chinese authorities.

• Tik Tok launched in 2016 and skyrocketed in popularity, growing faster than Instagram, You Tube, or Facebook, probably helped by the pandemic showing huge growth in digital marketing as people were stuck at home consuming and creating content at unprecedented levels. One example is Jensen Savannah, who had begun making Tik Toks of her travels around the Carolinas during the pandemic and being a full-time influencer has allowed her to triple her income since leaving her sales job. "'Social media Influencer’ is almost to be looked at as the new print and the new form of radio and TV advertising," she said. "It’s going to bring your dollar much farther than it is in traditional marketing."

• Some creators describe it as a "digital equalizer of sorts", providing a platform for people of color and other marginalized groups to get opportunities and exposure. From one Joshua Dairen, a Black content creator from Alabama who makes videos about his state's ghost stories, urban legends, and history: "I’ve always had Twitter, I’ve had Facebook, I’ve had Instagram. But Tik Tok was the first one where, if you want to find somebody who looks like yourself and represents you in any type of way, you can find it." He grew up loving researching everything paranormal but didn't see a lot of Black representation in the field but exposure on Tik Tok has led to jobs writing freelance pieces and contributing to documentaries about the paranormal and unsolved mysteries, while also giving him the flexibility and confidence to open his own coffee shop, where he gets visits from fans of his work at least once a day.

• Others say the app is both a financial and social safety net. Christ Bautista, a food truck owner in Los Angeles, started using Tik Tok during the pandemic to connect with members of the LGBTQ+ community and show support for those who might be having a hard time-as he had, growing up in a conservative Christian community outside LA, not coming out until his late 20s, and struggling with his mental health as a young person, even considering suicide. He wanted to create a space that he could have used as a teenager, one showing that someone like him could go to that dark place and come out the other side as a well-adjusted and confident person. "I just find the corners of Tik Tok that I find myself in to be so wildly important and profound". Tik Tok has also helped with financial support from projects tied to the app that came at the right time, allowing him to keep his business afloat through the pandemic and the Hollywood strikes last year.

• Now, that's not to say there aren't legitimate concerns about Tik Tok that could be addressed. There have been concerns about the addictive nature of the app, especially for young audiences whose minds are still developing-as Marcus Bridgewater, a former private school teacher and administrator who owns his own business and posts Tik Tok gardening videos, put it, he wants Congress to be focused on those issues and not whether the app is Chinese or American owned. "Social media is a powerful tool. And powerful tools are just that: They are capable of helping us transcend ourselves, but in their transcendence, they’re also capable of completely severing us from those we love.”

• The article concludes with a quote from Pearlman about how he has long feared about politicians coming after Tik Tok: "The part that’s disturbing to me is, I feel like for a lot of Americans, Tik Tok and social media in general is a release valve-it’s kind of become a default complaint box. So to many people, it feels like they’re trying to ban the complaint box instead of dealing with the complaint."

Edited by fredhot16 on Apr 27th 2024 at 10:30:26 AM

It looks like the Great Firewall of China.

Edited by minseok42 on Apr 27th 2024 at 10:52:38 AM

For some reason, Mastodon gGmbH's nonprofit status was withdrawn. To plug the gap, supporters have formed a 501(c)(3) charity in the USA. Eugen Rochko says that Mastodon will still be developed in the EU.

Alright, take two on this "summarization" thing (it's a work in progress to convey the full bredth of information while still trying to summarize and I am a pretty big wind-bag), with just three articles and a different topic: maybe government regulation of social media isn't a bad idea after all-especially because I don't think we can do worse then the current state.

Why is Elon Musk feuding with Australia and Brazil over free speech?

• Good question, Al-Jazeera. In case you haven't heard or idly scrolled down the News app on your I Phone recently, the "mercurial billionaire" has sparred with government and public figures around the world over what is acceptable to post online and has now decided to pick fights with both Brazil and Australia's governments over their attempts to curtail content deemed harmful such as hate speech, misinformation, and violent material.
• Why Brazil? That's part of a larger issue with the Brazilian government running a five-year investigation into right-wing "digital militias" associated with former President Jair Bolsonaro (you know, the guy who tried to throw his much lamer version of January 6th, said that the weak should die off, and that the Covid vaccine would turn people into literal lizards and crocodiles). As part of this investigation, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes banned 150 accounts belonging to such "militias" and of course, SOMEBODY had to jump into this reef in April, calling the bans "aggressive censorship", saying that Moraes should resign or be impeached, and that Twitter would lift "all restrictions" on those accounts, contradicting the platform's claims that it had complied with the orders. "In response, de Moraes launched an investigation into Musk for obstruction of justice".
• Why Australia? The "stoush" (never saw this word before) with the eSafety Commissioner centers on a knife attack in April against a Orthodox Assyrian bishop and a priest. After the attack, a global takedown notice of videos recording the event was sent to Twitter and Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, arguing that "internet users can easily avail of virtual private networks (VP Ns) to circumvent domestic geo-blocking". While Meta complied with the order, Twitter has only geo-blocked the videos in Australia and refused even an emergency injunction to remove the videos, accusing Australia of attempting to impose censorship worldwide, leading to a court hearing in May 10 "with the platform facing fines of about $500,000 for each day of noncompliance."
• Oh, yeah, and there's more fights to come as Al-Jazeera reports: "In January, he pledged to fund legal challenges to Ireland’s pending hate speech legislation", the country's first dedicated piece of legislation to combat hate speech, as reported by the BBC.
• For both, Musk has accused government officials of stifling free speech but critics say he's "emboldening extremists and cherry-picking cases" as he's complied with takedown notices elsewhere. Ever since taking over in 2022, he's been dramatically scaling back moderation and reinstating numerous banned accounts such as the Discoverer of the Tallahassee Trail and Alex "Defender of Frog Heterosexuality" Jones but the self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" has also complied with takedown orders of content critical of the heads of the Turkish and Indian governments, Edrogan and Modi (which Twitter had previously resisted under it's old board). In fact, it's been noted that, previously, Twitter's full compliance rate hovered around 50% but now it is over 80%.
• This has led some critics to say that Musk's free speech only applies to figures he personally agrees with such as Bolsonaro and Argentina’s new President Javier Milei and the article itself notes that while the U.S is known for its unusually permissive laws and attitudes towards free speech, other countries have taken a more proactive approach to clamping down on misinformation and hateful content.

US committee releases sealed Brazil court orders to Musk’s X, shedding light on account suspensions

• Following up on that Al-Jazeera article, AP News reports that the Republican-controlled U.S House Judiciary Committee had released "confidential Brazilian court orders" on April 18, a 541-page product of committee subpoenas directed at Twitter and which had been prohibited from becoming public by X by de Moraes.
• Musk's spat has been cheered on by supporters of Bolsonaro, who allege they are being targeted by political persecution by de Moraes's investigations, and have found common cause with their ideological allies in the U.S. While De Moraes' critics claim this to be an abuse of power and that he shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally ban social media accounts, including those of democratically elected leaders, most legal experts point that his tactics, while brash, are "legally sound", " justified by extraordinary circumstances of democracy imperiled", and have been either upheld by his fellow justices or gone unchallenged.
• That is not to say that the orders do not merit debate, as a professor of civil rights at the State University of Rio de Janeiro notes that the affected users weren't informed of why they had been suspended and if the action was from the platform or the court, with the orders to Twitter rarely providing justification either (though the Supreme Court has said that the company and those suspended can gain access to those justifications by requesting decisions from the court.)
• The same professor is on record for believing that the release was aimed less at Brazil than at Joe Biden-and the report itself cites Brazil "as a stark warning to Americans about the threats posed by government censorship here at home". David Nemer, a Brazil native and University of Virginia professor who studies social media, is also quoted in support of this conclusion by saying, "The reason why the far-right needs him (Musk) is because they need a platform, they need a place to promote themselves. And Elon Musk needs far-right politicians because they will keep his platform protected from regulations".
• The article concludes with noting that the report's release seemed to stir up Bolosonaro and his supporters, with Bolosarno himself finishing a speech at a public event by calling for a round of applause for Musk soon after the court orders were released-"His audience eagerly complied".

(Jeez, if there wasn't a bigger sign of being on the wrong side of history, it's being applauded by the supporters of a man who claimed that the Covid vaccine would turn you into literal lizards...)

(Oh, and he's no longer eligible to run for President after his attempted coup, so said the Brazilian Supreme Court.)

(Hey, Brazil. Could we, um...borrow your supreme court for a little bit? We'll return it soon, we just need them to do just one and fix a horrible mistake that our Supreme Court didn't have the guts to avoid.)

Supreme Court rejects Elon Musk's challenge to SEC agreement to vet his social media posts

• Today, the Supreme Court rejected Musk's attempt to challenge the terms of an agreement he made with the Securities and Exchange Commission that required a lawyer to review some of his social media posts-particularly, those related to Tesla. 
• This "Twitter Sitter" provision came about in 2018 after Musk posted about securing the funding to take Tesla private, shocking the market, initially sending Tesla's shares surging-and incurring the ire of the SEC, who said that those statements were "materially false and misleading" in violation of securities law. However, Musk agreed to settle a civil securities action by the SEC and the "Twitter Sitter" provision was part of that argument
• Now, Musk tried to get the provision repealed, arguing that it's unconstitutional and that he was effectively coerced into agreeing, with his lawyers accusing the SEC of waging an "ongoing campaign" against Musk. 
• The SEC's counter-argument: you waived the right to bring your argument by choosing to settle so tough luck, which both the lower courts and the Supreme Court agreed with.

Edited by fredhot16 on Apr 29th 2024 at 10:34:40 AM

Geez, how much clearer can it get that Musk only cares about the ”right to free speech” when it comes to people who suck up to him, even if (or, especially if, it seems like) those people are literal fucking dictators/dictator wannabes?

… Wait a minute… Did Bolsonaro actually say that the COVID vaccine would literally turn people into lizards? Like, for real?

Edited by MagmaTeaMerry on Apr 29th 2024 at 8:29:22 PM

NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer.

…

You know, it’s at times like these where I wonder if people like Bolsonaro actually believe the bullshit they’re spewing or if they just toss out the most asinine Insane Troll Logic they can think of for shits and giggles because they know that their followers will never, ever question it. Neither option seems impossible these days.

I fucking hate this timeline.

Edited by MagmaTeaMerry on Apr 29th 2024 at 11:26:21 AM

As hard as it may be to understand, there are people who simply don't care what is or isn't true.

So if Musk/Twitter(although I don't see a world where the Twitter CEO goes against what Musk wamts) refuses to comply with the latest order from Australia, combined with last year's ongoing matter over Twitter not providing details of what they were doing to prevent child exploitation on the site, then Twitter is looking at fines of over $1 million a day.

I doubt Twitter is going to comply between Musk's stubbornness as owner and Twitter's lack of staffing, so it's just a question of if the Australian government does go for the higher end of fines and if they're able to go to court in America to force compliance.

Edited by Shaoken on Apr 29th 2024 at 8:55:49 PM

I want Twitter to refuse and get fined into the goddamn bedrock for it.

Maybe, just maybe, it'll set enough precedent for other governments to stop letting themselves get bullied by big corporations.

The problem is that if Twitter refuses, australia doesnt really have a means of collecting on its debt to them.

It's a US company, hosted in the US.

It's just as easy for them to go "I am not paying"

It's not like they really collect proffit from the consumer in such a way that the goverment could lean either.

That's how social media companies get away with this shit, rules with no avenues of enforcement might as well not be rules.

Edited by Imca on Apr 30th 2024 at 11:34:38 PM

Yeah the only true enforcement mechanism would be to instruct IS Ps in the country to block the site until the fines are paid.

Musk is stubborn and petty enough to throw a tantrum and cut off Brazil or Australia from Twitter, really.

Australia could sue in US court.

Nope, not that easy. Australia can take Twitter to an American court to force compliance. There is no obligation that the U.S court has to agree with the Australian decision, but there is a legal mechanism in place for foreign entities to enforce decisions in foreign courts in America provided they go through the appropriate American courts.

Edited by Shaoken on Apr 30th 2024 at 8:37:35 PM

The main issue Australia might face is the First Amendment, which depends on how the court in question interprets it - they might well decide that Elon Musk's free speech rights mean that he's allowed to censor anti-dictatorship speech while allowing speech forbidden in Australia.

That is a hurdle, although the U.S courts have already ruled that Musk legally cannot post what he wants about Tesla without a SEC munder vetting the tweets so the courts hqve already defined limits of the first amendment as far as Musk and Twitter is concerned. It's just a case of what a particular judge in a particular court decides. Court could rule that by operating in Australia and not abandoning it when the fines came in he's committed to Twitter being bound by the judgements of Australian courts.

The fact that this is a real trope is both depressing and yet hardly surprising at all....

Considering the context of why Musk is being fined, I don't think free speech absolutism is a hill anyone should try (or want) to die on here.