| Author |
|
Wilson Mui
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4526
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 3:11pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
The app is a big time-waster for most people and could
potentially be used by China to harm the US, especially
with disinformation, so I have no problem banning it. I
would like to see more regulations on social media in
general.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132334
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 4:15pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
TikTok should be banned only if it disagrees with me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Gibney
Byrne Robotics Member.
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1076
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 5:50pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
Never used TikTok and I don’t use other things like it. However, I don’t think
it should be banned. I don’t see a fundamental difference between it and
YouTube or even Facebook or Instagram. Are they going to ban those too?
Once you start where do you stop? As far as I can tell, the big difference is
that this is owned by China; that seems like a racist thing to base a ban on.
I understand there are security concerns with the application, but truthfully,
there are security concerns with all of these. Just as spreading
misinformation happens on all platforms.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15816
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 6:03pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Yeah, pretty much what Paul Gibney wrote. I don't use TikTok at all, but the company has made overtures (i.e. Project Texas to the tune of $1.5bn) to try and satisfy the supposed security concerns, including implementing independent governance, third-party code inspection, and creating a whole new service just for the US that would run on Oracle's cloud servers. Not enough, apparently. Unless, of course, TikTok is sold to a US company, in which case everything would immediately be hunky dory.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7627
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
@ the end of the day, all these things take far too much of your personal
data. Singling one out is wrong - all need to be brought into line with
regards to the harvesting & especially the selling of data.
We also now have shops that have massive discounts provided you use
their loyalty cards. Which they use to collate personal data & openly voice
that they will sell that data to make income.
No loyalty card, you can pay up to double on the things they have in offer.
But I don’t think there is any going back on any of this, they are too
powerful, people like to use the services, & their settings reset periodically
so it doesn’t even matter if you turn monitoring off - it will turn on again.
My ‘they aren’t even trying to hide that they listen in, despite my denying
access to my microphone’ moment came when I had a conversation about
an air show that takes place in Fairford. A couple of minutes later I opened
Facebook & lo & behold, there was an advert for the air show in Fairford. I
have specifically denied access to my microphone by Facebook. Clearly
they have ignored that.
Yet everyone is screaming about TikTok.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 6:54pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
The security concerns are not "supposed" to me, so I would say yes, and that should've been yes a few years ago. Our western legal slowness is getting to be a terrible weakness.
I think there needs to be some regulation on the internet as it is publicly accessible, a shared community space, similar to what had been applied to other shared spaces, and broadcasting before it. I would also say specifically that Craig's List ought to have been banned long ago as it has been a major portal for scams and crime including underage prostitution.
I don't think anybody should be accessing or communicating with their political representatives, or branches of government, through a private for-profit intermediary. Seeing our elected officials making official announcements on Twitter, Facebook or similar, and under whatever brand name, may seem benign to most but there is a subtle downside to it, and a not so subtle one if the politician begins making announcements unilaterally without consultations, behaving as a performance for their followers, or even gets gang trolled by who knows who via these platforms including threats. Separation of state and social media could be as basic a principle as separation of church and state!
Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 25 April 2024 at 7:04pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1652
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 7:40pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
To clarify: you’re asking if something which encourages millions of people
to virtually congregate, dance about aimlessly, while at the same time
spreading misinformation, undermining governments and amassing its
makers a fortune should be banned?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Richard Stevens
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1929
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 8:51pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Wait, Fox News promotes dancing about aimlessly now? They must be in the pocket of big hip replacement.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 9:42pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Of course if the way things have been working out suits you perfectly re: little or no regulation (protections), then do nothing and continue up until it becomes a problem for you. A so far so good philosophy? 'They came for someone else and it wasn't me so I did nothing', etc. etc. But there may not be anybody to do something by the time it reaches you in terms of direct effects.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1652
|
| Posted: 25 April 2024 at 11:23pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
As long as there are enough good guys with guns guided by Jesus' love, then you have nothing to fear from Tik Tok.
Being serious for a moment, funny how it takes Tik Tok, a Chinese owned company, to alarm US Republicans re the dangers of misinformation spread by popular platforms/outlets - not FOX News, the NRA, Infowars and the evangelicals, and at least one US President in recent times.
The message from these brave, intelligent bastions of US freedom to Tik Tok is clear: "go sell crazy someplace else China, we're all stocked up here!"
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3010
|
| Posted: 26 April 2024 at 3:33am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
On one hand, free speech. On the other, social media's demonstrated unconscious influence over individuals' behavior.
Decades ago politicians made hay about subliminal advertising, but they never actually did anything about it. Now that technology exists that can successfully manipulate social attitudes and even votes, it needs to regulated.
I don't know what the balance is, and I know the government is maybe the mathematically last entity that can be trusted to find such a balance. But The First Amendment is not a suicide pact. There has to be a way that protects even the most noxious speech while blunting the ability of bad actors to weaponize advertising algorithms to subliminally shift election outcomes and enable fraud.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Jim Burdo
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2020
Location: United States
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: 26 April 2024 at 6:55am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
It's not misinformation, it's a semi-hostile foreign government collecting massive amounts of data on American citizens. The concern goes across party lines. Trump has come out against a ban.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |