Actually, my beef with the Facebook is exactly the same - one does not control the feed, the feed is being controlled by Facebook.
And is there any accepted scientific evidence, at all, that this would change whether we should be more worried about priming effects in a TikTok video than fake news posts directly shared by friends and family?
> Actually, my beef with the Facebook is exactly the same - one does not control the feed, the feed is being controlled by Facebook.
Our concerns with Facebook aren't related to priming. If your concern is that centralization and control over algorithms can be dangerous (especially in the hands of an authoritarian regime like China), then I agree, but I don't see any particular reason why TikTok should pose a unique danger in that regard. CraigJPerry's original comment you replied to still seems pretty on-point:
> Surely Facebook’s a bigger issue than 60 second videos since any bad actor can target messaging at susceptibile users and no one will know.
> [...] what is the method of using a 60 second video platform to share messaging with a crowd who will immediately scroll past anything heavy (or just plain stop using the app) to get to the next funny video? It seems a ultra low effectiveness medium for controlled messaging.
The main conclusion I have is that TikTok may pose a danger (just like any social media network), but the dangers it poses are not big enough or well-defined enough to justify this kind of intrusion into the free market. Is that something you agree with?
Facebook is also doing priming, by controlling what user sees. Heck, even television and radio back in the day were used for priming, albeit not in such a direct feedback way.
About "intrusion into the free market".
I see "free market" as a neutral or even negative thing. I do not see "intrusion into the free market" as necessarily negative thing.
I see ban of TikTok as somewhat positive thing given my view on situation. I really want to see regulatory actions on Facebook too.
This is not how regulatory policy should work. I'm just going to repeat my first comment:
> It's good that the courts are blocking this in the absence of a specific, credible threat.
My point is that the indirect threat to the security of the US through priming is statistically tenuous, that there's little reproducible evidence even from optimistic researchers that priming works on a significant scale (or at all), and that even if the threat is real it's likely much smaller than the threat posed by this kind of over-regulation and government overreach. My point is that a threat this vague doesn't warrant this kind of discussion in the first place.
The link you posted optimistically describes a very limited, focused effect that is still actively being debated. Is there any accepted scientific evidence, at all, that priming in a 60 second TikTok video would have a larger effect on the average person's politics than seeing friends share fake news on Facebook?