American social media platforms creating an environment where propaganda and misinformation flourish and refusing to take action against it has the same net effect as TikTok altering internal algorithm.
Targeted intent vs general apathy is a massive difference.
I like ownership and working class. That's the real distinction seperateing us. People who work for money, and people who own things for money. Even 6 figure doctors and lawyers are working class.
That could be. It sounds plausible. Do you have any studies?
I don't think you really need AI for that.
You can manually curate a list of phrases, and create a score for how often/many appear in a given story.
After writing my comment, I thought of mass shooters tweaking their tactic, and going to different kinds of locations. Like certain board rooms.
While I mostly agree, 800% interest really is way beyond anything those others are doing, and more than worthy of being slapped for.
What intelligence agency?
NCRI is a social media research group.
Lots of people think the US social media platforms do that. But none of the scientific studies have been able to show it.
The US companies are all purely driven by engagement, to maximize profit. The most effective source of that engagement, changes from person to person. But it's most commonly what you might call "Rage Bait".
Twiter's recent bend toward the right, is primarily self selection of it's users. As the left... left... the platform, the pool of available content shifted right; Causing even more to leave. Unless you have some paper I haven't seen.
And Facebook selling data, is entirely different and unrelated. Nobody (no lawmakers) care about that.
It'll fade. Unless...
It happens every three months or so. With escalating difficulty. All they way to being found dead alone in their office. Then slow down to every 18 to 36 months. That's when they'd be scared enough to actually change corporate policies.
Yah. Whatever happens, TikTok will NOT be leaving the US market.
Not quite. TikTok has been shown to tweak their algorithm against criticism of China. That's the real reason for the concern. Their ability and willingness to purposefully manipulate people.
my opinion of [that half of] the movie is completely valid.
Management changes don't necessarily mean product changes. TikTok is killing it. No reason to risk screwing it up.
As much as people think the US social media companies manipulate their algorithms for political purposes, nobody has demonstrated it. They're only geared to maximize engagement, and profit.
Again. Not a TikTok ban. A ByteDance ban.
If BytDance sells, TikTok stays.
Truly free markets suck. The inevitably become dominated by a small number of monopolies, who fuck over everyone else as hard as possible every day ...
If you don't know how it ends, your opinion is necessarily incomplete. You can only speak to the portion you've seen. There's no real way around it.
It's not a semantic argument at all. It may be nuanced for some, but it is a vital, material difference.
First. You can't know if it will substantially change under new management. That's speculation
They aren't banning ByteDance do to it being competition with domestic platforms. If that were the case the ban would be for TikTok directly. One example for it being a material difference.
Second. Yes. The fact that they are at least partly beyond our justice and regulatory system, is part of the reason for the ban. But it's only a real concern because...
Third. They can and have already been shown to subtly manipulate the algorithm to artificially elevate China's image.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with China collecting data on Americans. As you said that's laughable on the face of it.
Again. Not a TikTok ban law. A ByteDance ban law.
ByteDance could sell their stake, and TikTok would be just fine in the US.
Never happened.
If I start a movie, I've already organized things so I have nothing else to do. So why not finish it?
Besides, if you haven't finished a movie, you can't claim to have a valid opinion of it.
To my mind, Ban has always meant permanent. "You're banned from this place! You'll never be allowed in again!"
While I've always thought of Suspend as being temporary. "You're being suspended from school for 1 week, over fighting."
Ban:
- to prohibit especially by legal means
- bar entry
- to debar temporarily especially from a privilege, office, or function
- a: to cause to stop temporarily b: to set aside or make temporarily inoperative
- to defer to a later time on specified conditions
- to hold in an undetermined or undecided state awaiting further information
When I hear someone mention they were banned my reaction is: "Holy shit! WTF did you do to earn that!" Then I find out it was only for a day or three: "Oh... That's not a Ban! That's minor. Go touch grass. You'll be fine."
I've been banned from subreddits and communities a few times. At least once I never even noticed because it was so short.
How is it a Ban if I didn't even notice?
Why did Ban in online forums and games, come to mean temporary?
Is it simply an example of the intensification of language? To make something mundane, seem more severe than it is?
Does it bother anyone else? Or am I alone here?
I'm genuinely curious about peoples thoughts on this.
It made sense for a while. But the branding change was 16 months ago. The URI change was 3 months ago. Everybody knows now what X is. Yet for some reason, I still see in news stories today: "... on X — formerly known as Twitter — and said ..." I really don't think that's needed anymore. But I'm always one to want changes as fast and painless as possible.
So what do you think would be an appropriate amount of time to keep reminding everyone that Twitter is now X? Months? Years? How many?
Lawsuit: SpaceX took over "pristine" land CAH bought to stop Trump border wall.
Kagi AI summery: Cards Against Humanity (CAH) is suing SpaceX for allegedly taking over a plot of land on the US/Mexico border that CAH purchased in 2017 to prevent the construction of Trump's border wall. CAH claims it maintained the land but SpaceX later moved construction equipment and materials onto the property without permission. The lawsuit seeks up to $15 million in damages to restore the land and cover losses, and also requests punitive damages. CAH says SpaceX never asked for permission to use the property and never apologized for the damage. The lawsuit includes before and after photos purporting to show SpaceX's use of the land.
And CAH's website all about it
Google search is in the news.
Kagi AI Summary: The document discusses the recent court ruling that Google's search business is a monopoly. It explains Google's search architecture, including the search index, search engine, and advertising business, and how this has created a powerful self-reinforcing cycle. While Google has innovated and provided valuable services, the document argues the ad-based model has led to misaligned incentives and harm to users through biased and low-quality search results. To address this, the document proposes treating Google's search index as an essential facility, allowing fair access and enabling more diverse search experiences and business models. This could foster innovation, competition, and better outcomes for consumers without attacking Google's core business.
