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 -
You not knowing what to make of the point is rather demonstrating why the point applies.
Not talking about China is not changing the subject, it is the point that that China is not actually the subject, but the red herring justification for a party of an established pattern (the partisan-media complex) and an old problem (decrying the effect of media on kids as a justification for controlling media). It is noting that the historical context around the decision is not Chinese changes, but US domestic politics changes, and that the proposed solution (expropriating PRC influence) doesn't imply the implied result (better Social Media quality), particularly in light on the research that exists around the nominal problem (the nature of the effect of media on kids).
A social media algorithm can provide good content or bad, but 'Good but Chinese' is not bad simply because Chinese any more than 'American social media' is automatically 'good' for the nation's youth. TikTok may very well be 'Bad and Chinese', but 'Bad but American' is also still bad, and not automatically preferable for a number of reasons, including the long-established skepticism for granting the government or political parties greater control of the media-economic sphere.
Given that the Biden administration made no compelling argument that swapping 'Chinese' for 'American' would make it 'better' quality in and of itself, and also that the Democratic Party-media complex has a contemporary history of pursuing and asserting standards that are partisan rather than 'American' in nature, up to and including algorithm manipulation...
Well, 'we need the algorithm in the hands of people we can trust' is not a meaningful argument when the people making it are also the people who would be in a position to determine whose hands it ends up in are also not trusted to abuse it themselves. 'Bad but Chinese' may be bad, but 'Bad but my partisan opposition' is not intrinsically better.
For a commonality argument to hold over something like 'Trust me to take over your media alternative, bro,' there needs to be a degree of social trust to give that, and social agreement of what the nature of the problem is being addressed to warrant extending that trust to resolve. None of the key proponents have it, and not understanding that- or why social trust is necessary- is precisely why the argument resorts to 'because Chinese!', and why it fails to move the domestic opposition skeptics.
The point isn't to make the media high-quality, the point is to make it not be controlled by our geopolitical opponent. And the latter is 100% achievable.
By giving it to the partisan opponent*, who has a much more relevant and contemporary history of abusing the algorithm for partisan gains in the American political context.
*Of Donald Trump, whose non-support for the Biden Administration on this matter was the starting point for this thread tangent, and whose non-support is the subject to be contested / discredited.
And thus we return to the first response to Ashlael, which you have not disputed and seem intent on not acknowledging:
Which brings to question the validity of appeals to commonality and common interest.
In the context of this, there is no 'our' being discussed here, because the 'our' is one in which the critical portion that needs to be enabled / supported is hostile to the other part of the 'our' in the same general fashion as it claims as justification for the collective effort.
Which concludes with the ending of the previous post to you-
No. The White House wouldn't run the algorithm. It would just need to be divested to a western acquirer. Didn't read the rest of your post since it started off on such an ignorant and/or dishonest foot.
Yes, the White House will determine who gets to runs the algorithm. The American Executive Branch agencies and regulators will be the ones to determine who is a suitable western acquirer for the American wing of TikTok, a process which will give various approval, veto, and other shaping opportunities on various security and/or anti-monopoly basis.
You didn't seem to read the rest of the other posts either, so your projection is understandable.
You suggested that they'd control it directly, which is false
You still don't seem to have read the rest of the other posts either, so your projection is understandable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link