This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Maybe it’s a relatively small issue, but I have been immensely disappointed in the Trump II admin’s handling of the TikTok ban (which is to say, stonewalling it seemingly at all costs).
For one, the bill has remarkably plain text which they are openly violating. I’m open to hearing examples if people here think I’m wrong about this, but I think this is qualitatively different from most of the “Imperial Presidency” actions taken by Bush and Obama (and Trump I, and Biden). To my knowledge those situations generally relied on Congress abdicating its authority to the President or to the executive branch. For example all of the 21st century’s military escapades and undeclared wars, often described as being in defiance of Congressional authority, are actually operating with explicit approval in the form of the post-9/11 AUMF. Congress could repeal it at any time and reclaim its war-making authority, it simply chooses not to. Much the same for all the myriad powers now granted to federal agencies. In this case the executive is quite nakedly saying “this law has been passed, but we don’t like it, so we won’t enforce it.” This is not a power the branch is supposed to have.
Second is the way in which this came about. Trump had campaigned as a China hawk and, iirc, publicly supported the bill until an 11th-hour turnaround which was conveniently timed after an influx of campaign funds tied to Chinese business interests. This is, at best, not a good look.
And finally I just disagree with the substance. TikTok should be banned in the US, or at least sold to US owners. All the innate problems with algorithmic social media feeds, which are frankly bad enough on their own, are massively amplified when the company which owns and operates the algorithm is beholden to an explicitly hostile foreign power. There’s already pretty incontrovertible evidence that TikTok is tuned to mildly promote divisive content and to mildly suppress content critical of China (e.g. higher rates of Palestinian-related content but lower rates of Uyghur-related content versus similar social media apps, among others). The algorithm could trivially be tuned further in the event that Chinese-US relations deteriorate further, or just if the company’s state handlers want to. I don’t see a reason why we should need to accept that risk.
Is there evidence that this is not because US-based social media actively suppresses pro-Palestinian content? As for the Uyghur content, that topic has always been minuscule (and felt thoroughly astroturfed during its moment in the limelight) so who knows what is going on there. Maybe the approximately two people still making Uyghur content avoid TikTok because it is Chinese all by themselves.
Admittedly I don’t think anyone has done that study, but honestly I find it very hard to believe. Certainly if they are they’re doing a pretty terrible job: pro-Palestine content dominates pro-Israel content on all US social media, as far as I know.
Anyway, I was doing some quick searching and I believe this is the original study I was remembering: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-The-CCPs-Digital-Charm-Offensive.pdf
I think there was at least one other study done as well, but I couldn’t find it in my cursory Google search. I have an admittedly somewhat vague memory of more graphs comparing the different social media sites in terms of non-China-related political content as well that I didn’t see in this particular Rutgers study, which is entirely China-focused. I also recall reading about this topic in both the mainstream news (likely NYT but I don’t remember) and a fairly detailed substack post, possibly by Jonathan Haidt? If you want I can try harder to find it again later (I’m procrastinating at work at the moment by writing this post so my time is limited) or you can look for yourself. In my opinion the study is convincing in its main point that the TikTok algorithm emphasizes pro-Chinese and de-emphasizes anti-Chinese political content. It is not a blunt promotion/suppression, just a light-touch thumb-on-the-scale approach, but I think it shows willingness to interfere in Chinese-owned US-facing media even in the relatively peaceable geopolitical environment of today.
Honestly, though, the concern of whether the CCP is currently manipulating the algorithm is, in my view, very much secondary to the plain fact that they are capable of mandating such manipulation through their leverage over the company. I don’t think that some sort of naive free market principles (which, as far as I can see, are really the only counterargument to the ban/forced sale) justify exposing our media environment to that kind of risk.
More options
Context Copy link
Given the contents of Twitter, it seems clear that if US social media is suppressing Palestinian content they’re doing it poorly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link