Look, you still aren't addressing the issues I'm raising.
>> What are we doing now to prevent a grim future?
> Simple - not use it.
You are not using it already. Didn't stop TikTok from getting to the #1 spot. Saying "it's bad, don't use it" works about as well as abstinence-only sex-ed.
>I think the point there is that until a new biz model comes up for social media there is always an incentive to abuse privacy (Facebook/IG) or be abused for surveillance by a gov't.
OK? We aren't talking about that.
What I am saying is that people don't use a social network because of its business model and privacy stance. You might, and you are not representative (again, #1 app!).
If a non-evil, different-business-model social network springs up, it would need to have the good sides of TikTok for users to switch. Otherwise it will fail.
Do you understand that if you want TikTok to fail, you need to understand why people are flocking to it in droves? Queer/disabled/neurodivergent people in particular?
>It's entertainment.
If you only see TikTok as entertainment at this point, after I went to more than extensive detail about the value it brings beyond that, I perceive it as staying willfully ignorant by choice.
>There are more suitable alternatives (reading books, watching movies, etc.)
Suitable for whom? Again, you can only speak for yourself here. My point is that there are no suitable alternatives for large groups of people, particularly neurodivergent/disabled people and folks with mental health issues.
I have written a lot specifically to convey the point that both the value they get on TikTok (beyond entertainment) and the barriers they face elsewhere are not well understood here, and spent quite some time writing about both.
If you could do me a favor and re-read the entire thread before arguing further, I'd feel like my efforts to explain both the value and the barriers were not in vain.
>that have far less evil externalities.
FYI, shifting the burden of responsibility for the externalites onto the shoulders of consumers has not worked once. We have seen this with environmental damage, transportation, smoking, and so on. (If you want to argue about that, let's do it in a different thread, and please look up some examples before trying to reason about what "should" and "should not" work).
>> What are we doing now to prevent a grim future? > Simple - not use it.
You are not using it already. Didn't stop TikTok from getting to the #1 spot. Saying "it's bad, don't use it" works about as well as abstinence-only sex-ed.
>I think the point there is that until a new biz model comes up for social media there is always an incentive to abuse privacy (Facebook/IG) or be abused for surveillance by a gov't.
OK? We aren't talking about that.
What I am saying is that people don't use a social network because of its business model and privacy stance. You might, and you are not representative (again, #1 app!).
If a non-evil, different-business-model social network springs up, it would need to have the good sides of TikTok for users to switch. Otherwise it will fail.
Do you understand that if you want TikTok to fail, you need to understand why people are flocking to it in droves? Queer/disabled/neurodivergent people in particular?
>It's entertainment.
If you only see TikTok as entertainment at this point, after I went to more than extensive detail about the value it brings beyond that, I perceive it as staying willfully ignorant by choice.
>There are more suitable alternatives (reading books, watching movies, etc.)
Suitable for whom? Again, you can only speak for yourself here. My point is that there are no suitable alternatives for large groups of people, particularly neurodivergent/disabled people and folks with mental health issues.
I have written a lot specifically to convey the point that both the value they get on TikTok (beyond entertainment) and the barriers they face elsewhere are not well understood here, and spent quite some time writing about both.
If you could do me a favor and re-read the entire thread before arguing further, I'd feel like my efforts to explain both the value and the barriers were not in vain.
>that have far less evil externalities.
FYI, shifting the burden of responsibility for the externalites onto the shoulders of consumers has not worked once. We have seen this with environmental damage, transportation, smoking, and so on. (If you want to argue about that, let's do it in a different thread, and please look up some examples before trying to reason about what "should" and "should not" work).