TikTok users can't upload anti-ICE videos. The company blames tech issues
(cnn.com)1490 points by kotaKat 5 days ago
1490 points by kotaKat 5 days ago
As a fellow Eastern European of similar age, I suddenly feel quite nostalgic.
I really wonder how my life would be different if someone told be that the US, which for me was as close to a paradise as it gets, will go down the same road in the future - I think it would shatter quite a lot of my dreams of a better life.
US is nowhere near as bad as it was on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, but it's on a fast track to it for sure.
As someone who's lived in a SEA military dictatorship and has been through the same shenanigans - including protestors who've given their lives - I think the best way to honor their memory would be to heed those lessons in the spirit of prevention. Once we say "well, now we can compare this to Eastern Europe/the (former) third world", it's far too late.
> I really wonder how my life would be different if someone told be that the US, which for me was as close to a paradise as it gets, will go down the same road in the future - I think it would shatter quite a lot of my dreams of a better life.
That reminds me of one of the things that stuck with me from The Man in the High Castle (the book). The main story is an alternate timeline where the Nazis/Japanese won WWII and conquered America. Then there's an alternate-timeline-within-the-alternate-timeline where America/Britain won WWII, but it's not our timeline (and it's hinted there that the liberal US was eventually defeated by a British Empire gone full authoritarian). Everything passes away. The good guys sometimes win, but eventually they lose too.
That alternate alternate timeline sounds like what leads to V for Vendetta.
Heh, I was watching the series two days ago. That reminds me that I have to buy both Ubik and The Man in the High Castle, preferabily cheap but commented (with footnotes) ones in Spanish. PKD it's very tedious to readin English for non natives. And sometimes in Spanish too.
Ubik is a mindbender inside a mindbender. Try to read it consistently. If you put it down for a couple of days you will be lost and rereading the last page will not help much.
There's a similar feeling story in a later League of Extraordinary Gentlemen book* where it's a history of England in that universe. The part that really stuck with me was the description of the government from 1984 as just another strange period in history. Eventually, Big Brother just falls and the next government takes over. Compared with how the system in 1984 feels hopeless and eternal it gives me a strange kind of hope.
* The Black Dossier
maybe it's not too late to find out that US was always like this and the fairy tale our parents listened on CIA's RadioFreeEurope was just - a fairy tale for gullible grown-ups ;)
I'm contemplating it, but I'm not that old yet !
Of course there was always a bit, sometimes a lot, of propaganda everywhere. But at least it was (mostly) for the right causes and ideals. Right now, US is being governed by what I see as the worst possible people, with 0 morals.
I do love this song and I find it resonates to read the lyrics as though revolutions are censored by media (which is true). Though I found an interview with Gil Scott-Heron about the meaning of the lyrics and I find it more interesting; The revolution will not be televised because the revolution starts in your mind, at the dinner table, or reading books in the library. It won't be captured on TV because the revolution occurs when you question your own beliefs and understand something bigger.
One of the joys of poetry is that it can contain multiple hard-to-describe facets of the same concept.
* The revolution won't be televised because they won't show it to you.
* The revolution won't be televised because it's not a passive, external experience that you just consume.
* The revolution won't be televised because it starts inside yourself.
There's a recording from the 80s where he makes the same point in the middle of reciting the poem. It's a really good version.
"A lot of times people see battles and skirmishes on TV and they say 'Ah-ha! The revolution is being televised!' Nah. The results of the revolution are being televised. The first revolution is when you change your mind, about how you look at things, and see that there might be another way to look at it that you have not been shown. What you see later on is the results of that, but the revolution, that change that takes place, will not be televised."
That's from the good old days where truth mattered. Like how many action movies are about "getting the truth out" where that act in itself brings consequences, cut, happy ending?
Compare with now: revolution may be televised, but its spread not amplified and its authenticity denied. And if you have sufficient tribalism, it will not make a dent.
Fresh NFTs! Get your fresh NFTs! We've got revolution, civil war, fascism, communism, all for the low low price of just ten thousand bitcoin!
CNN Turk famously aired a documentary on penguins during the Gezi Park protests [1] that happened in 2013.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/turkey...
Something similar happened in the 1988 President Election in Mexico which is widely considered to have been stolen. There was a very memeable phrase, “se cayó el sistema” which was used to describe how the computing system to count votes was glitching out or failing.
Most of which had, in fact, no basis in truth. So no that’s nothing like the Mexican election.
> This was an interesting life lesson.
They thought they were free.
As always, it depends. More often than not, the opposite is true, hence the existence of Occam's razor.
> More often than not, the opposite is true,
Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter in the slightest if some times the excuse is actually true. The intuition is good to have at all times, as Intel's founder Andy Grove used to say - "Only the paranoid survive".
> hence the existence of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you're probably thinking of Hanlon's razor which is a dumb idea 99% of the time, regardless of what actually produced it - stupidity or malice.
I find more and more that those who wave around Hanlon’s razor are doing so to keep something from being looked upon too closely. As if to say, “look any closer and you’ll be cut”.
Be it flying monkeys, boot lickers, or the abuser themselves. It’s a thought terminating cliche that's designed to stop to critical thinking and minimize the act and reduce the response, making it seem though it were a forgivable mistake instead of a deliberate action.
Because as you said: regardless of malice or stupidity, the harm is real.
There is no way to know if you are applying Occam's razor correctly because we always have invisible cultural assumptions that are hard to escape.
Relevant story: my mother grew up in the Soviet Block where they taught her about American Segregation in elementary school. She said she and all her friends immediately dismissed it as made-up propaganda
In that case she was wrong. But I think the intuition is the correct "rule of thumb" to take. By your application of Occam's razor, you would end up believing most propaganda the Soviet education system pushed as long as it offered a simpler explanation. I don't think that's a good intuition to have either.
They used to not even bother to hide behind technical difficulties, so this is an improvement: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/tiktok-pledges-to-do-more-t...
Yeah I can't fathom what sort of technical issues would produce this result. I'd love to read a detailed article about it. Your move ByteDance or whatever org owns you now. The only thing that would make sense to me is a partial outage of some sort, but that would not be permanent and very rare for Tik Tok.
As an aside, if you check in on r/tiktok every time something major like this is happening with Tik Tok you can see how users feel about it. I've seen different waves of users flat out deleting their Tik Tok accounts in protest.
"Technical" difficulties, indeed... https://xcancel.com/DillyHussain88/status/201571258730906466...
You don't understand.
Its different: _they_ were doing it. The Bad Guys. Now _we_, the Good Guys, are doing it. Therefore, the thing itself is no longer Bad - it is Good.
The comment above was ironic. I have to specify because supposedly intelligent people really think that way: https://x.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
Taking away people's guns is unamerican, unless you're taking them away from someone I consider to be unamerican, like an immigrant or a liberal; in that case, it's for the good of America that we take away their guns, and the people who wrote the constitution never intended for it to apply to all people the way it says, but only white people and non-white people those white people find to be convenient allies for the time being.
California made open carry illegal when the Black Panthers started doing legal street marches with big guns strapped to their backs. It seems one of the best ways to make the right wing do something you want is to expose them to their own policies.
In Florida, a surgeon refused to administer anesthetic to Republicans under the law intended to made it legal to deny abortions, since it said it was legal for any medical professional to deny any healthcare on religious or moral grounds. Not really — unfortunately that was a hoax screenshot, photoshopped. But it would make them repeal that law post–haste.
Unfortunately this doesn't work with the modern right wing. Admitting you are wrong is a mortal sin, instead you invent reasons why it's not okay when someone else does it. As an example, just about every statement the administration has made regarding the murders ICE keeps committing.
Uno reverse doesn't work here.
In extreme cases: "I’m not licking the boot. It’s my boot. I voted for it. I’m the one stomping…" [0]
People imagine that they are part of the in-group, and not the out-group that gets the boot for exercising basic rights that the in-group gets. And perhaps they are, if they have enough money and power. But ultimately most of these people know that they are not in power but that as long as they see the boot stomping on others, and they can imagine a boundary that keeps them in the in-group (skin color, political ideology, gender, etc.), they approve as long as that group boundary is clear.
Now, when that boundary begins to blur, and people understand that the person getting the boot could be themselves, then attitudes start to change.
[0] https://bsky.app/profile/joshuaeakle.com/post/3mdfsnpy57k26
What you're describing here (ironically) is unironically the basis for Western political thought.
What I'm referring to here is idealism [1]. Whether it's European colonial powers or the US, the basis for foreign intervention is, quite simply, that we are the Good Guys. Why? Because we're the Good Guys. Even slavery was justified in Christianity by converting the heathen and saving their immortal souls, a fundamentally idealistic argument.
What's the alternative? Materialism [2], the premise of which is that there is not anything metaphysical that defines "goodness". Rather, you are the product of your material circumstances. There is a constant feedback loop if you affecting your material surroundsina and those surroundings affect you.
This has been proven wrong again and again. My grandparents were subsistence farmers. They had much less material wealth than any working class American and the vast majority of unhoused Americans. Yet, I can assure you that back then they were much more satisfied with life than the vast majority of working class and unhoused americans today. Second point, no amount of material wealth can compensate for severe mental illness. When people have severe mental illness, medical interventions must be performed against their diminished "free will." For those of you of American descent ask your parents or grand parents how their grand parents lived. I am certain you will be shocked at their extreme poverty and general hopefulness. Conclusion: once basic needs are met, the perception of "material" is more important than the material.
It's one thing to analyze the world with this lens, which is perfectly fine, as long as it's part of a bigger analysis. But materialist views have never stopped the boot. Materialist political ideology has produced some of the finest jack boots history has seen.
i personally find presenting a black and white "it's either one way or the other" perspective to be problematic.
yes, materialism and cause and effect etc. etc. agreed on that. it is a thing. interestingly though, as people sit static and just work on becoming more aware of that feedback loop you mentioned it can lead to people trying to not be so much of an arsehole -- through refraining from doing a thing -- because they can see their part in causing things to happen in the world. and that's not just limited to immediate surroundings. i know that i affect everything with every action i do (or do not do).
idealism becomes useful at that point. it can provide people with a set of loose guidelines on how to "not be an arsehole" aka how to not affect everything in a way that's going to cause problems.
the problems come when people do idealism without being aware of that materialistic feedback loop. they're usually doing it out of rule based dogma based on tribalism. sometimes it's "we're better than you are" or sometimes it's "outsiders are not welcome".
caveat: this is all just my personal experience, but i think it would scale if enough people became aware that their actions matter and have profound consequences, so try to not be an arsehole to anyone today
> What you're describing here (ironically) is unironically the basis for Western political thought.
It's not just "western" political thought if such a thing even exists. It's political thought.
For example, Japan's stated goal in ww2 was to liberate asia from european invaders. They portrayed themselves as the good guys. The liberators. That's true for every empire and war in history, "western" or "eastern" or "northern" or "southern". It was always the self-proclaimed "good guys" fighting self-proclaimed "good guys". The winner gets to keep the "good guy" handle while the loser gets assigned the "bad guy" handle.
Had japan won ww2, that's how history would have taught ww2. Instead, japan lost and the US won and hence we get to claim to be the good guys while japan does not.
>I have to specify because supposedly intelligent people really think that way
It is the right way to think (with caveats).
Basically, no matter which way you put it, people need some form of government (or more abstractly a state that has authority over people with those people having reduced set of freedoms compared to anarchy). Human nature doesn't bode well with long term planning. For example, with unrestricted capitalism, you have a price on human labor hours that doesn't account for the value of human life - i.e as long as someone can do the job, it doesn't matter what their health is at the end of the job as long as they are replaceable, as this is the most optimal in terms of labor spending. So you need people to collectively form an entity with power of enforcement that is agreed upon by everyone, so that the entity can step in and take action.
Therefore, the goal shouldn't be to restrict the entities power. Doing so is essentially very selfish, which is on par with any libertarian/conservative mindset - as history shows, everyone on the right wing who was crying about censorship on social media for social/political issues has no problem when their side censors it, and broadly oversteps in their alloted power, ignoring the law.
The goal should be to determine whether or not the restricted access makes sense given the current status of the country, and the most importantly, ensuring that the state follows the code of law before anything else. I.e on a very broad sense, instead of arguing who is right and who is wrong, argue what is the metric by which you can get the answer, and then codify it as law.
In a lot of cases, censorship makes sense. And as with any rule, there is going to be some cases where its applied and the outcome is worse than if it wasn't applied. That should be acceptable. In the end, friction in the process still means that things are moving forward, but it also prevents much worse effects if things start moving backwards. Removing that friction means you can go backwards very quickly, like US has done.
Wow. I thought this was going to be one of those false comparisons, you know, like when someone says censoring conspiracy theories is the same thing as censoring science. But no — it's mass surveillance on both sides. He says mass surveillance is good when the US does it and bad when China does it. Wtf
Wouldn't it be awesome if that X post was satire? Wishful thinking ...
You can also reverse it.
(Western) Internet was mostly censorship free, unlike places like Iran, China and the like. Things were removed only if outright illegan, and then just because of a court order.
Then about ten years ago things changed.
ISIS videos about the Syrian revolution removed from Youtube because they were radicalizing people.
Conspiracy theories about COVID purged because they were dangerous.
Posts against Woke ideals down-ranked, purged or the people posting themselves canceled.
"Be careful, once the tables turn, it will be your turn" some people said.
Guess what, the tables turned, and the result is ugly.
> Then about ten years ago things changed.
No, they didn't.
We had McCarthy in the 50s. We had Focus on the Family and the Catholic League getting shows canceled. The Simpsons had a public feud with George Bush Sr.
Cancel culture long predates the internet. Hell, it predates humans; plenty of other species kick antisocial members out of group gatherings.
Lets remember that tech bros have been explicitly funding the oppression
25 Million donation to MAGA from Brockman alone! I suspect he is a single issue donor (AI infra above all)
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/o...
Its insane how immoral people can be - anyone can see Trump is a conman
These "single issue donors" are the most morally corrupt. I can understand someone who genuinely believes in the cause, even if that cause is disgusting. But this guy...this guy knows that the things happening are wrong, and he doesn't care as long as he gets what he wants from this administration.
These people should be made social pariahs.
Do you condone all actions made by all people claiming to be part of your party? We're all told that we must pick the "lesser evil", and if you truly believe that one particular issue is more important than the rest, is it not your moral obligation to pursue that?
Interesting reaction to that story, I'm fascinated: why do you think it's fake?
(my guess: Soviet-style repression differences b/t USSR and satellites; reads as fake to you because non-USSR was more lax, i.e. you'll be fine speaking honestly in private, just not in public)
When I was 11, on 17th Nov 1989, in Czechoslovakia, my father was watching the evening news on our (black and white) TV, as usual.
There was a protest and the state media was reporting on it. When the reporter said, "our camera broke down and we can only show black and white pictures", my father IMMEDIATELY jumped up and angrily said, "that's bs, you don't want to show how they [the protesting students] got beaten up [by the police]!"
This was an interesting life lesson. So yeah, sure, technical difficulties..