TikTok is exploding worldwide and already claims 1.5B users. We may yet find ourselves pining for the benevolent dictatorship of Zuck if its successor is controlled by the Chinese state...

Which would be just another one of his own character failures if, due to not taking criticism seriously, he let that happen.

I don't think much of the criticism directed at Facebook has been about them not putting in enough effort to expand their market share. Am I wrong?

Comment I was replying to mentioned that we'd be swapping Lord Zuck for the CCP as our unaccountable overlords, was replying to that.

"Fake news" and outrage based headlines have existed long before Instagram was a thing.

I'd imagine the switch will be temporary at best. It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP.

> It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP.

just like the radio power players of the 20century?

if we're talking about talk-radio then that's somewhat similar. But I'd imagine some of the pioneers of insta-celeb today will translate into gatekeepers of tomorrow.

I have to assume that the "invasiveness" of paparazzi is greatly overstated - a game that some tabloid stars and celebrities are willingly signing up for, in exchange for free publicity of sorts. Because if that weren't the case, you'd see people being sued for harassment, invasion of privacy etc. all over the place, and that just doesn't seem to happen.

Laws in most countries allow for "public interest", more or less precisely defined, so even people who want to opt-out of the game are typically unable to do so. Even the UK royal family, who do often sue, are not always able to stop the paparazzi. The UK phone-hacking story resulted in a massive trial but didn't really stop anyone from hammering the likes of Emma Watson.

It does happen a lot however it's usually from celebrities who can afford to have a separation of a personal and private life. ie people who's career might be in the public eye but they're career isn't solely based on the fact they're famous (eg sports personalities, actors, musicians, businessmen of household brands).

Where as celebrities who's day job is being a celebrity (eg appearing on "reality" or celebrity game shows) need the publicity because their fame is their product. So for all but the most extreme cases, suing paparazzi would be a bit of a footgun move considering they're often dependant on that free advertising to remain in the public conciousness.

Really you know what "monstering " is some celebs think the tabs will hack your pc and upload CP.

And the tabloids killed Diana, an they're going after Her son and Meghan at the moment

Free speech and public interest laws prevent those lawsuits. Paparazzi do know where enforced legal line is exactly.