But the free market is free, guys! Look at this freedom!
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
166 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37804 readers
233 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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 ...
Yeah. That's.. what I said. It's a two-in-one--I recognise that regulation is necessary, yet people seem to oppose it.
Until it benefits them (or, leopards).
There's some equivocation going on there: On the one hand we have a theoretical model, due to Adam Smith, that says if you have perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information then you get very very nice results and that's called the free market. Then you have peddlers of institutionalised market failure saying that any regulation that would make people's choices more rational, or give them more information, is making the market unfree.
In short: While classical liberals and specifically ordoliberals are saying "there shall and must be regulation, so that the real-world market comes closer to approximating Smith's free market", neoliberals say "there shall be no regulation because Adam Smith doesn't like monopolies but we do so let's poison the conversation by calling inherently unfree markets free".
It helps to think before you type.
The free market is free if and when you play by the same -democratic- rules. Look at Romania, just to name an actual example. Tiktok is much worse than Facebook and (most) others, and being worse is not an easy task here.
Tik Tok is not much worse than Facebook. The only reason is because Facebook cooperates with the US agencies, while they don't get the information from Tik Tok. US does not like that citizen data is going to China instead being able to collect it themselves. From privacy standpoint of the end user, it does not matter who has the data; lost privacy is lost privacy.
I think Tiktok is much worse. It's about a foreign country whose government is pursuing a dictatorial policy trying to interfere in foreign elections (again, look at Romania, for example).
The argument of FB collaborating with the US gov is true I guess, but isn't valid here. China is doing the same, the Chinese government is banning the Western version of Tiktok, too, let alone all other non-Chinese apps. So the 'free market'-argument doesn't make any sense here, it'd be even hypocritical.
Because another countries takes away freedom and eliminates the free market, makes it a non argument if the US does the same? The US is doing the same what China does.
Because another countries takes away freedom and eliminates the free market, makes it a non argument if the US does the same? The US is doing the same what China does.
If so, why then haven't you long been criticizing China the same way you do now the US? Where are these posts?
(Just to say that: The US, China, EU, and all the others can ban Tiktok, Twitter, FB, and all the centralized data collectors. I wouldn't miss any of them, and I think it would be better for the world. But the hypocrisy here in this thread is very telling.)
So you are saying I am hypocrisy, because you could not find posts in my history criticizing China? And that makes my critique about the US less true or acceptable? I no longer believe in good faith of your discussion here and will end discussing with you. You have the last word if you want.
When the dictionary points to bad faith arguments, your name comes up.
I agree with you that "free market" standpoints aren't very good places to criticize this decision from – except to point out the hypocrisy of the right-wing, which I do think the original comment was trying to do – but it has to be said that nobody is obligated to criticize both China and the U.S. equally in order to not be a hypocrite.
One simple example of why would be that most if not all users here have absolutely no say at all as to what China does. There aren't a lot of Chinese citizenry here. But there are a lot of Americans. It so follows that it makes sense to criticize the U.S. more, because many people on Beehaw can actually do something about it, especially in aggregate.
It doesn't help to criticize China much either, anyway. China's bad, yes; we know. Even among honest-to-god capital-C Communist circles, China is controversial. Posts about it tend to do three things: 1) Create a sort of misery/anger circle-jerk, 2) arbitrarily and unnecessarily signal to others that you aren't a tankie, when nobody should really need to clarify that in most scenarios, and 3) further U.S. propaganda interests by taking people's time and attention away from issues they're more likely to be able to do something about.
I'm obviously not in favor of forgetting what China's done, either, but there's a happy middle-ground I think a lot of Western-centric sites sail right past, and I don't think any of it is helpful.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeah China sure is scary. Centralized social media owned by American billionaires on the other hand can totally be trusted never to interfere in elections.
Why not include legacy media? Same problem.
The irony of this post is over 9000
load more comments
(1 replies)
Except all the social media are doing the exact same thing. This is pointless political posturing
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.
Which is no different from any of the US social media companies tweaking their algorithms against criticism of all number of political things.
Twitter blatantly forced right wing radical propaganda down their entire user bases through a for months. Facebook was selling user data to foreign influence groups to assist with political message targeting. They're all the same.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Dude, the US based social media platforms are no better than TikTok. Its all rotten to the core. X is a great example of this.
Big corporations cannot survive in a real free market. For that very reason real free markets do not exist. So the 'legitimate businesses' which do not do things as well as others do can survive.
As horrible as it sounds, no regulation is what makes a free market. But there is no free market because when there is talk of free market, it just means extreme regulation to stifle small, extremely small business. These businesses run by people who work with their own hands are what give the large ones a run for their money. They're the real obstacle to large entities which do things in not the best way (so almost all of them). What people are left with are legitimate small businesses allowed under regulation after everything has been restricted already… and with the methods these follow, they're no harm to the big entities. The common human be damned, they're forced to choose from the least bad option for anything.
'Free market' in politics is a joke, an intentional joke. It wouldn't be a little bit surprising if the ones who advocate for free markets most have a laugh, outside of public view, at people who actually believe their points.
To be fair… real free market would see the crashing of many industries as things go back to being a bit more practical. A slow process which takes even luxury to be affordable—but the meaning of luxury changes. Things inessential for survival would then be deemed luxury and such things, good things which are also very accessible, would be fairly common around. The main flaw with that, however, is the purpose of luxury. Luxury is hardly used to refer to things merely inessential for survival, they're considered mere vehicles of showing your status and power (even though a relatively simple trick would be to not pay no heed to them). They are objects to enable one's pride, 'pride comes before the fall' be damned to them. One can have solace in the thought that the fall really does come, though.
Note: I do not support deregulation, it just means to allow big corporations to fuck around at the cost of other humans. But then, I do not really support anything.
"Free markets" is a complete farce. The only free markets are in places where no government exists like Somalia. In a true free market, anyone could take over a business by sheer force since no laws would be there to protect them.
That's not what the term means. It is a historical term with a precise meaning, and that meaning is not synonymous with "unregulated".
load more comments
(1 replies)
While the justification for this is primarily based on TikTok being a privacy and data security risk due to it being owned by a Chinese State Organ/Corporation... which is hilarious bullshit because the US does exactly the same thing with all the net data that goes through US corporate social media...
Brainrot is a real thing.
Shortform video platforms are addictive the same way cigarretes or heroin is, extended use ruins your cognitive ability, ruins your attention span, increases depression and anxiety, and fhe format promotes an absurdly fake, narcissistic culture, scams, and mis or disinformation.
Algorithmic profiling is definitely not unique to TikTok, but it is used by the app, and this often pigeonholes the user into content/advertisements that often becomes more and more extreme, manipulative and exploitative of the user.
Though this is being done mostly for stupid reasons, and it isn't stoping US Corpo brainrot inducing social media platforms, I'll take what I can get.
I'm with you. Tiktok is about as "healthy" as vaping. There are other just as bad (if not worse) apps out there, and the reasoning is stupid and has some first amendment concerns. But I won't die on the protecting Tiktok hill.
Again. Not a TikTok ban. A ByteDance ban.
If BytDance sells, TikTok stays.
Yeah that's all it really says. Media made it into a ban, but it's just that China has major influence over it and the us doesn't want that, so they need to sell it or spin it off to an American company. Or they can shut it down, but no one is just going to set that much money on fire and walk away. The modern world I guess.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Honestly? Good.
I don't really see this as a free speech issue. TikTok isn't being banned because of the kind of speech that's on there, it's being banned because it's a predatory app created as a means of soft power by a hostile foreign nation. Does that mean we should also shut down Twitter? Yeah. Probably.
This isn't some newspaper with dissenting opinions, is a foreign intelligence operation that simultaneously interferes with the normal operation of our democracy, puts our citizens in danger, massively inflates narcissism, and collects our user data to hand to a country that literally is actively spying on us.
Frankly, I'd be okay with tossing any similar social media with obfuscated engagement algorithms anyway. Make YouTube and Facebook bring all that shit above board while we're at it. All this is is corporate regulation, and I fully support it. Fuck TikTok.
I hate TikTok but I hate even more that the ban seems to have been successful this time because of Israel. Lots of people (Romney, etc) have said that TikTok must be banned because it's the reason why young people don't support Israel's genocide.
I don't like CCP propaganda being fed to Americans, but let's be real, CCP propaganda about Israel is way more honest than domestic American propaganda.
While I'm on the subject, Facebook, Google, etc, are pretty near equally as evil.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ban Twitter too, if you ban Tik Tok. Don't do half ass job if you are taking away users choice.
They don't have a problem with what is being done, just who are the ones doing it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
...and nothing of value was lost
My friends and family are trying to find ways to get around it like vpning and changing region lock app stores to china or something to access it.
You can take the people away from brainrot but can't take the brainrot from the people.
changing region lock app stores to china
This wouldn't work, given that TikTok isn't allowed in China. This cyberweapon is only meant to be used against foreigners. Either way, don't help them and instead actively dissuade them from trying to keep their addiction alive.
While technically correct, they do have it in China itself, it's a modified version called Douyin. It is more restricted, censored and tightly controlled.
I agree that it is a cyberweapon, but don't think that it's only used against foreigners, they use it just as much to observe and influence their own population.
Finally, I would like to point out that to a lesser extent this is also the case for a lot of USA owned social media and tech companies. Edward Snowden's revelations for example indicate this. While the extent of government control and influence is much larger in China, I wouldn't underestimate the influences of Meta, Google and Microsoft for example.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is nyot goob.
Ya tiktok bad, but this is about ensuring america has a monopoly over local social media. If this really were about safety, Facebook would also be fucked
@sleepybisexual @tardigrada It's also about the rich people of the world stopping anything the non-rich use to organize.
Ya. Sure tiktok was still run by rich fucks but other platforms are just as bad. Used to be an extreme anti tiktok person but this isn't about tiktok. Its about capitalism
Is there a workaround for the people who are in the US when and if this happens?
I can imagine sideloading(?) but how about the less tech-savvy people?
Don't use tiktok
Maybe. But its a bit pointless if only a subset of the user base goes through the effort.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How does this functionally work?
the primary source of this is annoyingly hard to track down for legislation that passed Congress and was signed by the President.
it turns out that's because it was part of H.R.815 - "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes."
if you want to read the actual text of the law, this PDF starting on page 61.
the gist is that it's illegal to:
Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
everyone calls this a "ban on TikTok" and it kinda annoys the shit out of me, because as far as I can tell, the website tiktok.com is probably still going to be available in the US.
what this law actually does is require Google and Apple to remove TikTok from their app stores, for US-based users. and makes them subject to a fine of $5000 per user if they don't comply.
I'm generally in favor of more regulation of tech companies...but this is a really fucking stupid way to do it.
They won't be able to continue running their business in the US, so likely they won't be able to continue working with US cloud providers. But there's nothing stopping them from hosting it somewhere else and allowing US users to still connect, but all the commerce options are going to be useless at that point.
view more: next ›