I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos. Nobody is actually advocating for free speech.

I don’t think every app has to be about political issues. Where did that premise come from, just because it has Chinese origins?

It’s ok for there to be an app for kids to make dance videos, and to keep it light and positive.

I mean, unmoderated, anonymous contents might have more penis vids than you want, but it doesn't mean that you have to watch them; a user sponsored moderation / rating would ensure that.

If that wasn't possible, who would use the app except for penis enthusiasts?

Nah I’ve just been hanging around the internet a lot longer than most people.

I can’t take credit for the concept of infinite penises though, that honor goes to my friend Pud:

https://askpud.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/pageviews-and-unique...

I think that would be good, as long as nobody is forced to use it who does not want to use it. Other things also help such as categorization, meta-moderation, etc, but all such things should be ignorable by users who do not want it.

I disagree.

*chans are some of the best places for discussion, especially regarding unpopular topics, as the posters reputation isn't on the line when expressing an opinion, and (I think more importantly) every post is weighted the same - there's no upvotes to tell you what you're supposed to think.

There is a downside of sifting through pornography, but it's not a big issue to not click links you don't like. Minimal moderation on SFW boards also works pretty well.

It is the oldest problem in the book; how do i get free expression, while forcing everyone one else to agree with me?

I agree with the main thrust of your post, but to nitpick, American free speech jurisprudence is not so daft. Where some restrictions are necessary, the principle of “viewpoint neutrality” still works to prohibit censorship. So, where the government allows pro-abortion expression, it must also allow anti-abortion expression. And this applies even where its more general obligation to allow all expression does not hold.

But like it’s fine for Flyertalk.com to be about frequent flier programs, and for Woodweb.com to stick to discussions of router bits and edge banding.

It seems to me that the reason people are applying some kind of double standard to Tik Tok is because it’s Chinese. But like it’s fine to make an app for kids to share only positive light hearted videos and keep it focused on that.

But of course the more interesting question being raised here is if the other model —- the extremely moderated some kinds of “free speech” but not others Facebook model — is in fact better.

That’s not clear at all.

But then, I also think the free world shouldn't do business with the Communist Chinese. So that's just my opinion.

I disagree. There may be some such videos, but if anyone will write anything, then there will also be a lot of other stuff too, including other videos, and also stuff that isn't videos. There might also be worthless messages such as "kljsdljlaregj lkejgl ekjrg", but there will also be some good stuff too.

The closest app TikTok is comparable to is Vine. What kind of critical commentary on politics are you expecting on these apps?

People watch these apps for the memes and hot girls.

Free people from choice and enable passivity, but provide them short social interaction. Less stress, more fun.

Step 2: create tools to enable user control and configuration

Step 3: update your will to require that this work-in-progress be left to someone who will continue your attempt after you die.

Step 3 is an interesting thought experiment for sure though. Can't say I've thought too much about data structures and algorithsm that might survive me.

It’s when a site/company only pretends to be a platform that I take issue with.

TikTok seems easy to defeat if you were to use the law to ban it.