> That's quite a leap from what I said, not to mention a personal attack.
Isn't this what you just said? This is you:
> TikTok's algorithm has introduced me to my (now) favorite neurodivergent and LGBTQ+ content makers. Some of them have hundreds of thousands of followers, some a few hundred.
> All the people I interact with there get me. I've never felt this anywhere else.
From [0] 'Viewers or listeners come to consider media personalities as friends, despite having no or limited interactions with them.' [0]
Do they know you personally as if they are your close friends? If not, they will just see you essentially as a fan in a para-social relationship on a platform like TikTok. That is not a personal attack, that is the definition of what you are describing.
> Comment [0] doesn't make any factual claims about TikTok (please, go and read it).
So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'
10 years ago, another social network had the same accolade.
My friend, I am not here to dispel your misconceptions, but I'll just note that you find HN a worthwhile community to participate in due to level of discourse here, then the same "para-social addict" label is applicable to you by your logic.
You can't 'follow' anyone on this site and anyone can simply have a random discussion here with anybody. The logic you tried to apply here doesn't work and isn't the same thing unlike what is going on in 'TikTok'.
As for my question(s) you are yet to answer, I'll make the first one more clearer for you:
>> Do they (the people you are following on TikTok) know you personally as if they are your close friends?
>> So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'?
I don't have any skin in this game, but I think it's very sad to see that the conclusion being drawn from this discussion is that it's unprovoked hostility. I see disagreements and different values.
I hope both parties in this discussion can disconnect the message from the person.
Having discussions with people we disagree with about topics we see differently is in my honest opinion the way we get out of the "us vs them" tendency to think.
Right but how was that 'unprovoked hostility'? How was disagreeing with someone with a reason being 'hostile'? For the claims, I just used what they already admitted?
All I wanted was evidence for their claims and that was it. Instead I got anecdotes, false equivalences in their arguments which is not substantiative.
I also just asked a simple question, they couldn't even answer it. For the second question they did not provide any counter evidence to my question. All my questions were left ignored.
> I really don't have to do that, but maybe if you see this enough times, you will get to learn something.
You tried to argue with a false equivalence earlier and then continue to ignore a basic question about the definition of having a 'para-social relationship' with the people you follow on TikTok which you have just described all by yourself in that long post [0] which everyone can see for themselves.
Before you try to ignore the question again, isn't what you have just described here [0] a 'para-social relationship' and fits the definition described here? [1][2]
> Hostility was saying that people "like me" are addicts to parasocial relationships.
So these creators know you personally then and don't treat you like a follower, or a fan then?, and somehow you are not 'addicted' to TikTok then?
On top of that you haven't given an answer to these questions:
>> So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'?
> So I humbly ask you to cease.
So far you have given zero evidence in all of your own comments and you are actively ignoring my questions right here. Substantiate your comments by answering these questions with evidence and sources, as I'll just continue to assume.
>I think it's very sad to see that the conclusion being drawn from this discussion is that it's unprovoked hostility.
I think it's sad that unprovoked hostility isn't recognized.
>I hope both parties in this discussion can disconnect the message from the person
The message rvz makes is about a person, namely, me. They said: "users like the parent comment are once again the prime product addicted under a para-social relationship with other addicted influencers".
That message makes a claim about me, and this is not acceptable.
>Having discussions with people we disagree with about topics we see differently is in my honest opinion the way we get out of the "us vs them" tendency to think.
You don't get to have opinions or disagreements on what goes on inside other people.
Someone calling me an addict to parasocial relationships is not an opinion we should be agreeing or disagreeing about. Unless specifically asked, by me, you don't get to opine on that.
> The message rvz makes is about a person, namely, me. They said: "users like the parent comment are once again the prime product addicted under a para-social relationship with other addicted influencers".
> That message makes a claim about me, and this is not acceptable.
Some of the commenters here already have also suggested that TikTok is even more addictive than the other social networks; perhaps designed to be this way. How is it 'unacceptable' to suggest that users like yourself and influencers are also addicted as well since TikTok's recommendation algorithm is getting something right on its users over the rest of the other social networks?
So you are not addicted to TikTok then? (Despite you actively creating content on the platform and admitting it has '...made me life better already' and saying '...TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.' and describing to have a parasocial interaction with creators with hundreds of thousands of other followers)
> Someone calling me an addict to parasocial relationships is not an opinion we should be agreeing or disagreeing about. Unless specifically asked, by me, you don't get to opine on that.
Well you put what you do on TikTok for other people right here to comment and you yourself admitted what is described by definition as a parasocial interaction. If that doesn't fit the definition, I don't know what does.
Nope. I already pointed out your flawed logic earlier and as for the 'claims', you already admitted it right here though? Your comment [0] completely fits the definition of a para-social relationship! [1][2]
You won't answer my first question because you know that you are engaging in a para-social relationship with the people you are following on TikTok. Not even remotely a 'personal attack' a simple 'fact' that you already admitted earlier.
Given that you continue to avoid the first question, I can assume that the creators you follow don't know you and to them, you are simply a 'fan' or 'follower' of them in a para-social relationship as described in. [1]
Now for my other questions that you still haven't answered:
>> So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'?
Isn't this what you just said? This is you:
> TikTok's algorithm has introduced me to my (now) favorite neurodivergent and LGBTQ+ content makers. Some of them have hundreds of thousands of followers, some a few hundred.
> All the people I interact with there get me. I've never felt this anywhere else.
From [0] 'Viewers or listeners come to consider media personalities as friends, despite having no or limited interactions with them.' [0]
Do they know you personally as if they are your close friends? If not, they will just see you essentially as a fan in a para-social relationship on a platform like TikTok. That is not a personal attack, that is the definition of what you are describing.
> Comment [0] doesn't make any factual claims about TikTok (please, go and read it).
So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'
10 years ago, another social network had the same accolade.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction