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 -
If it could be demonstrated TikTok poses a threat to national security, not just suspicions but actual evidence of harvesting intelligence info, then I could see the justification for censoring it. But merely for being addicting, no. All social networks gather user information, which is sent to a central server. This is necessary for a social network to function, so I don't see how this can be avoided. Banning a site which is as popular as TikTok introduces externalities , especially for a country as large as the US. People are going to be wondering what happened to it, such censorship may discourage entrepreneurship and VC activity. It sets a precedent that I don't think anyone wants to embark on.
I didn't say anything about harvesting intelligence info. The threat is in controlling the programming of the media that an entire generation sees. It's a vector through which they can influence America.
again, there is no evidence that TikTok as a vector is worse than competing sites. it's mostly people dancing and doing stuff like that.
You said "do you not see the strategic threat?" That can mean many things. I cannot read your mind. working on that.
I ask only that you read my comments. Specifically here's what I included in my first comment (emphasis added): "Do you think it would have been a good idea to let the USSR own enough major US broadcasting networks in the 1980s that they could control the media that an entire generation sees?" I don't know how you go from "control the media that an entire generation sees" to "they're trying to steal our personal data." The connection just doesn't make sense to me.
So is your answer yes, it would be fine for the US to have allowed the USSR to own enough major US broadcasting networks in the 1980s that they could control the media that an entire generation sees, as long as their content so far seemed superficially similar to American-owned broadcasting networks? You allow the geopolitical adversary to insinuate themselves into your nation's information infrastructure until and unless you actually catch them using it to run an info op?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link