Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the plenty-to-say dept
This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Google blocking news sites in California because of bad link tax laws, and specifically in reply to a commenter who suggested the link tax would just be “Google giving back” money. In first place, it’s an anonymous reply:
What. Any money google earns through ads on their own products is purely from value of googles services. The links the the news sites do not contain the news itself. That’s like saying the yellow pages is pizza. And Chinese food. And Mexican.
In case this is not blindly obvious: that’s bat shit crazy.
The news sites have their content. And google is only making it easy for people to get to it. If the news sites can’t make any money off it: That’s like Restaurants blaming the yellow pages for them going out of business.
And in second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone making a different version of the point:
Irrelevant. To charge for links is to undercut the basic functionality of the Internet for the sake of profit. Google, Twitter, Facebook, or any other interactive web service or website should have no obligation to pay for the right to link to a newspaper’s website.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment on that post, this time from another anonymous commenter making a very simple and important point:
Taxes disincentivize the taxed behavior. If you tax links, you’re disincentivizing linking. This is not rocket surgery.
Next, it’s still another anonymous commenter, this time on our post about the possibility of a TikTok ban, in reply to a commenter trying to shift the burden of proof and demand a “debunking” of fears about TikTok:
You can’t “debunk a concern”. People will have a moral panic over whatever they like in service of any number of agendas.
The actual problem, though, is that’s all you have: Concern, and claims. Bring evidence of privacy issues unique to TikTok, and/or influence issues caused by TikTok (while not ignoring the First Amendment). Then others can support or debunk your evidence with additional evidence. That’s how this works. Make a testable claim, then test it, then show your work and the evidence produced by testing. It is no one else’s job to counter things that don’t exist, but lucky you, articles like the one above are already doing just that.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is NotTheMomma with a comment about other child safety laws that would block sites:
Come on now, Mike, this will work, look at how prohibition went? Most of these people pushing for this were alive then.
In second place, it’s bonk with another comment about TikTok panic, and people comparing it to fentanyl:
I heard from a friend’s friend that they had a brother that was so addicted to social media he died. It took the paramedics ten minutes to dislodge the smartphone he had snorted, but he had already perished at that point.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got two more anonymous comments. The first is another response to “TikTok as fentanyl”:
Projection?
… I’m starting to think that the folks in charge are just projecting their own insecurities brought on by years of just believing whatever entity was waving money in their face.
Finally, it’s a comment about the rise of “chemtrail” legislation:
WHEREAS, it is documented, among those within the pseudoscience of bullshitery, that the Earth is flat, and that the Earth is at the center of the universe.
WHEREAS, the constant Pi is commonly referred to as an irrational number, it will from now on be known as 3.
We have the best science, no one has better science than we do. Did you land on the moon? No? Hahaha
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
It seems to me that the best way to expose the link tax for what it is (a money grab), is to educate the legislators that a news site (in fact, any site) can use a robots.txt file to deny entry by any/some/all-but other sites on the entire web.
Then, when a news site is asked “Why don’t you use a robots.txt file to keep Google from linking to you?”, the answer will be telling. It’ll either be a) “We didn’t know about that (or some variation, such as it’s too hard, or it doesn’t work, etc.)”; or b) “But we want social media sites to link to us!”.
Given that second answer, it’s now apparent that someone did some excruciatingly bad parenting when raising their child during the phase where they should’ve been teaching said child that one must pay for the things that one wants. In no reality of which I’ve ever heard does one get to be paid for what one wants…. apparently except in Murdoch’s Bizzaro World.
Under normal economic theory, an exchange is defined as something of value goes from each party to the other party, not both things of value go to only one party. Never mind the business of fucking up of the internet, this is even worse than “New Math”. Given half a chance, this “New Economics” will tear down and/or reverse everything we’ve built as as civilization for the past several millennia.
Anybody who says otherwise is accepting bribes to legislate for link taxes, period.
Re:
They’re not interested in learning more and many of them already know better. They want to be educated in how to win more elections and get more campaign donations. Elected officials who care to know what they’re legislating about would already have educated themselves or sought out expert advice.
Re:
So you’re saying I shouldn’t be paid for employment if it’s a job I actually enjoy and want to do? 😰
Re:
Its been explained. At length. They don’t want to listen, because its performative virtue signalling, not serious legislative action.
Dear newsroom
Please supply list of locations you advert, besides YOUR OWN channel.
I find it strange you dont advert your services on OTHER channels.
As we are doing this as a service, and only run Adverts on OUR personal site, AS you run adverts ON YOUR personal site.
We will as you the price of adverts on your site, as we would Think it improper to Over charge you for Service we are giving you free, at this time, that will SOON expire.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No, I didn’t. I responded specifically to a claim Mike made. To quote:
I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it.
If he’s claiming he explained why it would not fix the concern, the burden is on him for something he claimed to have explained, irregardless of a different claim being made. The only reason a burden is on him, is because he made a claim.
That’s not shifting the burden of proof, that’s Mike making a claim he didn’t back up. The people with concerns still have a burden of proof for their concerns. Those are two different claims, each with their own burden of proof.
You don’t get to complain about shifting the burden of proof if you start making your own claims about having explained why it wouldn’t fix anything. That’s on you, for making that claim in the first place.
Hope this clears that up.
Re:
Mate, just take the L and move on already.
You’ve already been caught out whining that we haven’t been angry at Facebook enough for fighting link taxes.
You’ve lost the moral high ground a long time ago. Get over it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Why, exactly? It’s not an L. I’m happy to take the L when I’m wrong. I’m not going to “take the L” when that means taking a bad faith rewording of something I didn’t actually say. And the massive giveaway that it’s not an L is the fact that you’ve spent exactly 0 effort even pretending to address the actual topic.
Even if I was wrong on that (I wasn’t, which is why you didn’t have a rebuttal to it), that’s a complete non sequitur to a completely different topic. Case in point.
If I lost the moral high ground, you wouldn’t be resorting to ad hominems on completely different topics. If you’re not even going to attempt to address the actual argument, you should take your own advice, and take the L.
Re: Re: Re:
just shut up and take the L troll
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Telling me to take an L with no argument, is giving me the W. Thanks!
As a side note, someone disagreeing with you isn’t a troll, just because it makes you mad that you can’t rebut their argument. That’s not what trolling means.
Re: Re: Re:3
and your too stupid as you have been proven wrong several times while your deflecting just like you just did when you replied
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, I haven’t. Prove it. Simply declaring I’ve been proven wrong doesn’t make me wrong.
It’s not deflecting when I gave an argument that is perfectly on topic, that they haven’t responded to. The deflecting started with “take the L”, with zero actual argument given. Nice projection, though.
If you want to address that argument, feel free to. You won’t, though.
Re: Re: Re:5
you just lied again
Re: Re: Re:3
Strawman.
Its your pathological lying that makes you a troll.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, it’s not. They’re calling me a troll, after I’ve given a coherent argument, with no argument of their own (and not even an attempt), and just insults.
Where’s the lie? Prove it.
Re: Re: Re:5
bruh what are you that oblivious?
Re: Re: Re:
You spent the entire thread whining that we weren’t angry at Facebook enough despite being presented with evidence that Techdirt has whined and bitched and moaned about Facebook for years, ever since Facebook was a thing. The only contribution you made to the whole debacle, in summary, was a stammering admission of “yes, link taxes are bad, Facebook fighting them is good, but Facebook is bad bad bad! Also no I won’t pay journalists more and will continue to say all of you are the problem!”
You can either take the L or take the flag. Or both. The last option would be immensely funnier.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, I didn’t. I called out TD for not being hard on FB on this particular issue, not in general. I explicitly referenced that it had been hard on FB otherwise. To directly quote my original post:
You don’t have to stan for Facebook to dislike/fight link taxes, and people on Techdirt wouldn’t (and don’t) apply this level of credulity to anything else Facebook does/says. And for good reason.
That specifically calls out people on Techdirt wouldn’t (and don’t) apply this level of credulity to anything else Facebook does/says, which is explicitly referencing the fact that TD is tough on Facebook in general. Further down, I also explicitly said (in response to this same accusation):
They don’t, normally. On this particular issue, yes they do, as they’re doing now. And the reason it bugs me is because I know they wouldn’t in any other situation, the only reason it happens in this case is because people don’t like link taxes.
Which is wrong, how?
You also left out 2 other parts of my original argument (which is funny, because you remembered the “payment comment” that I made it in, which is that news is having a funding issue.), which is that social media partially cannabalizes normal news media when news content gets posted there (something people keep insisting on ignoring, and pretending that link taxes are solely about links, when they’re explicitly not). And on top of that, news media does not currently seem to have a sustainable business model (with some exceptions).
I also did not say that. Here’s the link, since you seem to have forgotten. To quote, verbatim:
I do financially support news organizations elsewhere with things like subscriptions, picking up a newspaper at other times, etc. I like to think that makes up for it.
So, why are you lying about what I actually said?
I’ll take both, as soon as you can find some quotes backing up what you’re claiming I said. Which I didn’t, and I brought receipts to prove it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, I didn’t. I called out TD for not being hard on FB on this particular issue, not in general. I explicitly referenced that it had been hard on FB otherwise. To directly quote my original post:
You don’t have to stan for Facebook to dislike/fight link taxes, and people on Techdirt wouldn’t (and don’t) apply this level of credulity to anything else Facebook does/says. And for good reason.
That specifically calls out people on Techdirt wouldn’t (and don’t) apply this level of credulity to anything else Facebook does/says, which is explicitly referencing the fact that TD is tough on Facebook in general. Further down, I also explicitly said (in response to this same accusation):
They don’t, normally. On this particular issue, yes they do, as they’re doing now. And the reason it bugs me is because I know they wouldn’t in any other situation, the only reason it happens in this case is because people don’t like link taxes.
Which is wrong, how?
You also left out 2 other parts of my original argument (which is funny, because you remembered the “payment comment” that I made it in, which is that news is having a funding issue.), which is that social media partially cannabalizes normal news media when news content gets posted there (something people keep insisting on ignoring, and pretending that link taxes are solely about links, when they’re explicitly not). And on top of that, news media does not currently seem to have a sustainable business model (with some exceptions).
I also did not say that. Here’s the link, since you seem to have forgotten. To quote, verbatim:
I do financially support news organizations elsewhere with things like subscriptions, picking up a newspaper at other times, etc. I like to think that makes up for it.
So, why are you lying about what I actually said?
I’ll take both, as soon as you can find some quotes backing up what you’re claiming I said. Which I didn’t, and I brought receipts.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I rebutted your non-argument shilling for link taxes a few times, but trust you to ignore that.
Point to the ad hom made by AC, disingenuous, mandacious link tax shill.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
They didn’t talk about my “shilling for link taxes”, nice swap. They said You’ve already been caught out whining that we haven’t been angry at Facebook enough for fighting link taxes. They were talking about not being angry at Facebook enough, not link taxes in general. I’ve explicitly made the argument that even if you dislike link taxes, you should still be ‘angry’ at Facebook (well, moreso distrustful than angry, but whatever close enough).
That said, you’re an AC. If you point to what you think was a rebuttal, happy to point out why I disagree that it was a rebuttal.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Second definition:
marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
To quote:
You’ve already been caught out whining that we haven’t been angry at Facebook enough for fighting link taxes.
That has nothing to do with the position about TikTok I’m maintaining in that comment, and is directed at the person. It’s literally textbook ad hom to get people mad about a previous (completely different) argument.
Again, lets say hypothetically I was completely wrong on link taxes. Does that mean I’m wrong about Tiktok? No. They’re not related arguments.
Another way you can tell it’s ad hom. If my name wasn’t on the comments, does it address the argument? Nope. If I was an AC you’d have no clue. Ad hom.
Re: Re: Re:3
And despite other posters bending over backwards to prove that they were still angry at Facebook, all you did was turn up your nose and say it wasn’t enough.
You literally spent the entire comment section pissing and moaning that our attitude wasn’t sufficiently anti-Facebook to pass your Karenesque standards. You explicitly made the argument, and now you’re unhappy that people pointed out how dumb it was, especially on a platform that has, for years, made no secret about how Facebook isn’t trustworthy. What the fuck more do you want? Do you want Techdirt to start paying for ads saying that Zuckerberg is a big meanie doodoohead who fights link taxes?
If you’re a kindergartener who takes a shit in the middle of a college lecture hall, you’re getting kicked out. At that point no one’s going to give a fuck that you’re the kindergartener who knows the secret to pissing crude oil. Maybe you should have not started out being a thorough douchenozzle about not spitting in Facebook’s direction hard enough.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
There is a difference over being distrustful over Facebook in general, and this specific issue. I was very clear I wasn’t advocating for the former (and explicitly acknowledged people were already doing that. And that was part of why I was annoyed), but the latter. You keep conflating them, they’re not the same thing, and I explained quite clearly why they’re not the same thing.
It’s perfectly reasonable to call people out on inconsistency. If someone was very pro 1st amendment, and wanted to ban Tiktok, you absolutely would (and should) call them out for that. Just because they’re good on 1st amendment issues in general wouldn’t mean their stance on Tiktok was fine. Same deal.
I already said, explicitly what I wanted. For people to be distrustful of Facebook over this specific issue, and not pretend that they’re bargaining in good faith, simply because they dislike link taxes. Disliking link taxes isn’t a reason to pretend to trust Facebook on the issue. (Or alternatively, give an actual argument for why we should trust Facebook on the issue).
I’m not saying you need to run ads or any of that nonsense, that’s pure strawman.
You do realize that you’re explicitly arguing that ad hom is correct, right? And you’re doing it after lying about what I actually said to justify it, mind you. With zero acknowledgement about that lying.
Was I pretty abrasive with that comment? Sure, absolutely, could’ve been nicer about it (and have been, in past comments). Was it out of line with the culture on the site, or justifying the response? Not even close. You complain about taking a shit in a lecture hall, meanwhile most of the replies are happy to use far more abrasive language than I did. You can’t complain about allegedly taking a shit while you’re swimming in a lecture hall full of shit. That’s just a transparent excuse to continue to ad hom.
That said, I’ve had plenty of normal conversations on the site (both before/during/after that post). There’s only a certain subset of people who can’t handle a conversation, and it only comes out when it’s an unpopular opinion. When I post something people agree with, not a peep. And you can see that in other ways as well, because people responded the exact same way to previous posts that were far nicer (and before that post, so you can’t blame it on reputation).
People are ad homming because they don’t like the argument, and that’s it. Stop trying to justify it, there is no excuse for it.
Re: Re: Re:5
forgot name- Arianity
Re: Re: Re:5
You acknowledged it only after it was repeated to you multiple times, during which you continuously insisted that you were right and refused to acknowledge it, as if this one instance of being less super harsh on Facebook meant that all previous criticism of Facebook counted for nothing.
Yes, you were annoyed, exactly because you thought our attitude wasn’t up to your standards. You think this is reasonable. Everyone else has explained to you why it’s not.
Yet you won’t allow us to ask you why you won’t pay more for your newspaper subscription despite constantly bitching about how journalism is underpaid.
Why the fuck is this so hard for you? If Mark Zuckerberg made a post about how breathing oxygen is good for you, are you going to start holding your breath?
I’ve read that thread multiple times trying to sift through your garbage about why our anger at Facebook still wasn’t enough to appease you. You wiggle and bob and weave so much you’d put Trump to shame, really.
Because analogies are lost on you I’m going to spell it out for you.
If you act like a dumb fuck and decide that’s your best impression to make going forward, and get angry at people pointing out that you’re acting like a dumb fuck, nobody is going to give a shit if you present a universal cure for cancer afterwards. And it’s not just Techdirt; most if not all of society works that way. You can continue to turn up your nose and clutch your pearls and it’s not going to change.
Re: Re: Re:3
I (not ‘they’) didn’t claim I rebutted any link tax shilling you engaged in on this page, but was actually referring to where you had done so on various other articles on this site. This makes the swap yours, disingenuous, mendacious link tax shill.
Re:
And those concerns are already addressed.
It’s called THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Those are two different things, which is why Mike said:
I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it.
We’re not talking about the unconstitutional half, but the second half of that statement.
Re: Re: Re:
Look, you disingenious fucking Murdoch simp…
The First Fucking Amendment already says CHINA CAN RUN THEIR FUCKING PSYOPS.
The only legal answer is to inform everyone that China is conducting Psyops, point the psyops out and educate everyone on how to be critical thinkers, with ZERO STRINGS ATTACHED.
Not pass Bills of Attainder. Or worse, bribe politicians to pass shitty laws, like what Murdoch did in Australia.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m not being disingenuous, you’re just screeching about a different argument
Which is why I didn’t disagree with Mike on that point, but a different one. So why are you bringing up a different point? Again, two different things, as I’ve explicitly pointed out already.
Re: Re: Re:3
strawman
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
What’s the strawman?
Re: Re: Re:3
If it’s about the damn data, China can simply BUY IT. Or run their own spy rings to collect the data. They already have their fucking Confucius Institutes and whatever cells they have to monitor expatriates.
If it’s about the people wanting to believe in the lies, 1A. If the 74 million insurrectionists want to be willing Russian assets, no one can stop them as long as they’re not trying to violemtly overthrow the goverment AGAIN. America has fucking Republicans taking money from Putin and you’re “concerned” over, what? The enemy is already at your fucking door. Which was opened by ONE PARTY.
Propaganda? For fuck’s sake, Voice of America does the same thing as Epoch Times, Russia Today, Xinhua, etc. It’d be deeply hypocritical of the US to raise “but muh propaganda” when it does the exact same thing.
Did I address everything?
Re: Re: Re:4
speaking facts
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, you’re missing one. Mike’s original claim was I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it.
So, there’s at least 3 things in there, right? There’s the constitutionality (that’s the 1st amendment part). Then with the concerns, there’s data concerns, and how effective the propaganda is concerns. Those are two different concerns, it’s not just data concerns.
I’m talking about the latter part: would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it. . And I’m not talking about the data part (he’s right on that, as I said) of those concerns, but the effectiveness of propaganda part.
(He talks about this in the original article:In the US, we’re supposed to believe in freedom of speech…You counter it by showing how freedom can resist such efforts at manipulation. These 2 paragraphs are explicitly addressing the effectiveness of propaganda, not the data concerns, and not the 1st amendment)
I don’t disagree with you there. But that’s not the argument Mike made. He talks about how we should trust free speech to triumph over that.
Re: Re: Re:5
dances in strawman
Re: Re: Re:5
You, the fucking Murdoch simp, are concerned about how fucking effective foreign psyops are?
I had hoped you were going to ask on how effective Tiktok is on its target market, but it turns out…
YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT YHE MOST EFFECTIVE PRO-RUSSIAN PSYOP: RUPERT MURDOCH’S NEWS CORP.
My fucking idiot in Murdoch, YOU FUCKING DEFEND MURDOCH. YOU FUCKING KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE THOSE PSYOPS ARE.
It’s called “Jan 6 happened.”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Stephen T Stone him, bro! I believe in you!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yes, I am. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? And so was Mike, which is why it was explicitly a topic that the article covered. Just because you don’t care about it does not mean that wasn’t what we were talking about.
No, I don’t. You’re just assuming that because you’re mad about a completely different topic. I’ve explicitly said Murdoch is a piece of shit, multiple times.
Where did I refuse to do that? I didn’t. I agree with you on that. Stop assuming shit.
Just because I’m worried about foreign influence doesn’t mean I’m not also worried about domestic influence. And Murdoch is top of that list. You can be both.
Yes, those are bad (and effective).
Re: Re: Re:7
Well, forgive me for assuming you’re a Murdoch simp, because you still choose to disbelieve why the fucking link tax was concieved in the first place.
You may think you are against the link tax, but you also seem to think news networks “have a fundamental place”, ie, you want Facebook, Google, and this very site to pay the news networks for use of their “reporting”. Which, by extension, ALSO includes News Corp and their non-educational subsidaries.
That is, you are Implicitly pushing for a link tax.
You have been told exactly why Facebook wants to divest itself from that nonsense. One can praise Facebook for doing the right thing AND still be sufficiently skeptical of why Facebook did it.
We ARE on fucking Techdirt.
Firstly, there’s no evidence of Tiktok being used to promote disinfo, regardless of country. Russian-funded content farms have put some pro-Russian messages in their fakeass videos that go on the platform, yes. Chinese factories have been using the platform to promote their products, yes.
The former gets debunked and the latter becomes hilarious memes.
This isn’t Facebook and Twitter bending over backwards to pacify the Republicans.
And secondly, read the whole chunk about your belief in link taxes as to why I find your “concern” over disinfo complete fucking bullshit.
Then start taking a fucking stand instead of pretending to do so because you can’t defend your non-existent positions.
If you keep refusing to take a stand and only do so because you can’t find a counterargument, then forgive me for assuming the worst about you.
Re: Re: Re:8
You’re forgiven, but… you could just not make that assumption? Even if I am being a complete idiot on link taxes, that doesn’t mean it’s because I like Murdoch. There’s just no reason to make that leap, especially when I’ve very explicitly been shitting on Murdoch, and recognizing he’s a problem.
I understand why people like Murdoch want to twist link taxes for personal benefit. Dude is a parasite. That doesn’t mean there aren’t also people trying to use link taxes for other reasons (even if those people are misguided). Trying to pretending it’s just Murdoch is strawmanning those people’s views. Murdoch is not the only person to conceive of link taxes (and as far as I can tell, not even the first. Mike cites a 2018 article for Murdoch’s creation of it, but link taxes existed earlier than that in places like Germany)
There are other ways to solve the problem besides a link tax, such as just a general fund for journalism. A solution that TD itself has covered.
Recognizing there is a problem with journalism does not mean supporting link taxes, and it especially doesn’t mean supporting Murdoch. You can both recognize that journalism as a whole has funding problems, and at the same time recognize that there are parts of media like News Corp that would be better off dead. The fact that Newscorp is media, and you wouldn’t be able to exclude them under the 1st amendment is itself a huge problem with any potential solution. But that doesn’t mean the underlying problem with other parts of journalism just disappears. They’re both problems.
One can, yes. The problem is I haven’t seen a single post express skepticism of why Facebook did it. If they did, I would be happy with that, and wouldn’t have posted what I did. I’ve seen the opposite- people claiming it was done purely for good faith economic reasons. That’s the opposite of skepticism.
I acknowledged that in my previous posts.
I did take a stance. As I’ve stated quite clearly multiple times now, I don’t think Mike
explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it.
That’s what he claimed to do. In particular, I don’t think he explained the why it would not do anything to fix the concerns around influence. He gave some reasons why he thought it might not, but you can’t frame that as if it were factual, like it is with the data being able to be bought elsewhere (which is just objectively true, and he was right on that).
I’ve already defended it. You say I can’t defend it, and yet, basically none of these comments are actually addressing that actual stance. Seems it is pretty defensible after all.
Re:
Trolls make claims of “influence” without evidence.
Mike points out those clams have no evidence.
Arianity demands Mike show evidence of no evidence aka shifting the burden of proof.
Re:
Irrespective or regardless, not a word that means regarding. Just make up your mind and pick one already.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
That’s not the Mike claim I’m talking about. The one I’m talking about is (and quoted directly in my initial comment):
I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it
Mike is claiming that the fix won’t address it, here. He’s not talking about lack of evidence, here.
(And for the record, I would actually agree we don’t have evidence of influence)
No, Arianity asks Mike show why it would not do anything to fix the concern over influence. Something he claims to have explained, in that quote.
Re:
troll moment
Re:
You should have read the article he linked to in which he explained why he thought it wouldn’t do anything. You made comments in the comment section for that article after all. So the burden is on you to reread the article and explain why you don’t think Mike explained why or why you disagree with Mike’s explanations. Just saying he didn’t isn’t useful. I just reread it and he does provide an explanation of his reasoning for the claim.
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/14/once-more-with-feeling-banning-tiktok-is-unconstitutional-wont-do-shit-to-deal-with-any-actual-threats/
Re:
Which is exactly like saying that no matter what anyone does, it won’t fix people’s (unfounded) concerns that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they protect against, an assertion for which no evidence is required because that can be seen in anti-vaxxers’ closing their ears to every argument. As others have said, you’re disingenuous. What they don’t realize is that you’re also mendacious.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
There’s a very big difference between “people’s unfounded concerns are going to continue no matter what because it’s xenophobic performance theatre” vs “your proposed fix doesn’t actually fix what you’re claiming it would”. That seems like a very, very strange way to word that (and I think that’s fair to say, given you’re the first person to raise that interpretation), if he meant the former, but if so, perhaps I misunderstood. It seems very clearly the latter, to me. Especially given that the explanation for the data side of it is literally “it won’t fix it because you can just buy it elsewhere”. That’s not an argument that people are closing their ears, it’s that China can just literally do the same thing elsewhere.
And that doesn’t really seem to match up with the explanation he gave in the original article. His argument there was that free speech would trump propaganda. To quote:
In the US, we’re supposed to believe in freedom of speech, even if that freedom of speech comes in the form of “foreign communist propaganda.” If we survived that same foreign communist propaganda for decades in other forms, it seems like we can survive it coming from an app designed to highlight short videos of dance moves.
Again, we can pass data protection laws if we’re afraid of how the data is going to be used, because China doesn’t need TikTok to get that data. And we can counter Chinese propaganda. But part of doing so has to be not hiding it and acting like it’s so powerful that Americans are powerless against it. You counter it by showing how freedom can resist such efforts at manipulation.
That’s not an argument that they’re closing their ears and will move the goalposts. That’s an argument that free speech will trump propaganda. It comes up in other areas as well:
Meanwhile, there’s little to no evidence that China is “manipulating” sentiment with TikTok, and there’s even less evidence that it would be effective if they were trying to do so.
Not everyone worried about TikTok is closing their ears to every argument, though? A lot of them absolutely are, sure. A huge proportion of this is just xenophobia. But applying it to all of them is just a strawman.
There are people worried about TikTok, who recognize that China will continue to propagandize elsewhere, and don’t expect a TikTok ban to magically solve that.
If it helps, I’ll clearly state my point of view: TikTok worries me, and I think that it’s reach/algorithmic changes are fairly unique to types of propaganda we’ve seen in the past. There aren’t many comparable tools in terms of reach/algorithm shaping it- at the same time, we have little to no evidence of whether it’s effective or not. However, banning TikTok would not solve all Chinese propaganda (and it would do nothing on the data side). It’s just one of many tools. I also think banning Tiktok is probably against the 1st amendment, depending on how absolutist you are on it.
Re: Re: Re:
My fucking idiot in Murdoch…
Russia has more fucking success running shitty content farms and trying to insert pro-Russian messages in their fakeass content farm videos (which go on Tiktok AND YOUTUBE) than China trying to use Tiktok to… influence the next generation of voters? And the fakeass videos get DEBUNKED AND EXPOSED.
Meanwhile…
You continue to ignore Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp: The most successful propaganda spewer of all time.
Or the fact that China would rather use more direct means of pressuring, intimidating and harassing people and COMPANIES. Such as taking notes from the CIA Playbook and straight out funding a politician’s rise to power (in the Phillipines), playing all sides in a civil war (in Myanmar), using their fucking navy to bully an entire region (in the SOuth China Sea), the usual geopolitical standbys of blackmail and threats (for Singapore)…
Mind you, Southeast Asia has a TON of people using Facebook and the like and if China wanted to use propaganda to influence THIS REGION, I’d know by now instead of hearing about the fucking Republicans and their fucking antivaxxer nonsense, for one.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, I don’t. It just wasn’t a part of this discussion. That doesn’t mean it’s ignored. I’m well aware of how bad Murdoch is.
I’m not ignoring that either. As I mentioned in other posts explicitly, I’m aware China has other means. That doesn’t mean this one isn’t also one they would use
Re: Re: Re:
And you accuse others of ‘swaps’. Are all your arguments so overloaded with fallacies?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I did read the article. And I understand why he thinks that- but where I disagree is him presenting it as a fact in the follow up, rather than just something he thinks. In the original article, he’s clear it’s just something he thinks/an argument he’s making, which is why I didn’t complain in the original article. That linked article, is totally fine (I think it’s wrong, but I can see where he’s coming from, and it’s appropriately caveated).
I did explain that, in my original comment on the follow up article https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/19/the-us-banning-tiktok-would-play-right-into-chinas-hands-and-destroy-decades-of-us-work-on-promoting-an-open-internet/#comments (it’s actually the comment the ‘insightful’ one responded to). I didn’t repeat it here, but perhaps I should’ve. That felt like it would be annoying/spammy, especially since I know people are already going to be wanting to argue.
But to reiterate- Mike’s argument for the influence being ineffective is:
In the US, we’re supposed to believe in freedom of speech, even if that freedom of speech comes in the form of “foreign communist propaganda.” If we survived that same foreign communist propaganda for decades in other forms, it seems like we can survive it coming from an app designed to highlight short videos of dance moves.
Again, we can pass data protection laws if we’re afraid of how the data is going to be used, because China doesn’t need TikTok to get that data. And we can counter Chinese propaganda. But part of doing so has to be not hiding it and acting like it’s so powerful that Americans are powerless against it. You counter it by showing how freedom can resist such efforts at manipulation.
Essentially, he’s saying that freedom of speech will beat out propaganda, and therefore it will be ineffective. And I respect that he thinks that. But he doesn’t really offer any proof that it’s true other than past propaganda, so I don’t think it’s fair for him to present it that way in the follow up article. It’s pure opinion.
If instead of I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it., he had said “I’ve already explained why I think the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it.”, I’d have no issue with it. The former sounds like it’s declaring a fact. And it’s especially egregious, because he did explain that it wouldn’t solve the data collection issue, and the constitutional issues. That’s not just an opinion, he’s just objectively correct on those.
Maybe I’m being too harsh on the wording? But that feels like it’s slipping in more certainty than is deserved.
Re:
imagine going ac
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Forgot to fill in my name, but that’s me (Arianity). Can’t edit it =/
Re:
Because there’s no such thing as precedent, amirite?
Re:
Yes. Yes, you are.
Re: Re:
Fair enough.
Re:
I suggest…
https://www.techdirt.com/tag/china/
READING THIS FUCKING TAG.
https://www.techdirt.com/tag/russia/
AND THIS FUCKING TAG.
And you can’t use the psychology excuse.
Re:
Too little, too late.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Precedent is better than nothing, but it isn’t proof, especially if the situation is significantly different than the past. It can be fairly weak evidence, or fairly strong evidence, depending on how comparable the situations are.
For example, Ohio voted for the eventual president every year between 1964-2016. Does that mean it would in 2020? There was precedent. No, it does not, and it did not.
Precedent exists, and it’s worth looking at. But it’s also fairly limited. If you want to make the argument about precedent, you first have to argue why TikTok is similar enough to past attempts. It is not at all obvious that it is.
Re:
My fucking idiot in Murdoch…
I will do you one better. And flat out say that China has what they think are more effective, proven means of getting what they want.
Let’s start with the CIA Playbook. They funded Duterte in the Philippines and I will NOT be surprised if they handed out money to wannabe politicians in other regions.
The civil war in Myanmar? China’s funding everyone involved in that one.
They still have that entire army of keyboard warriors. You know, the ones that keep fucking spamming discussion threads with pro-China FUD? FUCKING VALIS being their representative here?
And there’s also blackmail, that’s an important one. Oh, and their navy.
Their propaganda efforts pale in comparison to these methods, which not only WORK but have been proven to GET WHAT THEY WANT. And China is all about WHAT WORKS.
Re:
Explain all the court cases that were decided while using it, then, disingenuous, mendacious link tax shill.