News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage for shutdown. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f... by awongh on Friday January 17, 2025 @12:11PM (#42740530)
It can still be both- in the sense that once a precedent is set using the these additional ideological and geopolitical motivations as momentum, maybe there will be an appetite for further algorithm regulations.

As a tech person who already understood the system, it's refreshing that I now often see the comment "I need to change my algorithm"- meaning, I can shape the parameters of what X/Twitter / Instagram/ YouTube / TikTok shows me in my feed.

I think there's growing meta-awareness (that I see as comments within these platforms) that there is "healthy" content and that the apps themselves manipulate their user's behavior patterns.

Hopefully there's momentum building that people perceive this as a public health issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f... by wahnfrieden on Friday January 17, 2025 @12:16PM (#42740617)
These bans done for political purposes (ie see ADL/AIPAC's "We have a big TikTok problem" leaked audio, and members of our own congress stating that this is what motivates the regulations) won't lead to greater freedoms over algorithms. It is the opposite direction - more state control over which algorithms its citizens are allowed to see

The mental health angle of support for the bans is the way the change gets accepted by the public, not a motivating goal or direction for the next regulations

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f... by awongh on Friday January 17, 2025 @12:26PM (#42740750)
Yea, it might be naive to think the government will act in the interest of the consumer (although it has happened before)- but at least maybe it'll continue the conversation of users themselves....

THis situation is another data point and is a net good for society (whether or not the ban sticks).

Discussion around (for example) the technical implementation of content moderation being inherently political (i.e., Meta and Twitter) will be good for everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f... by JumpCrisscross on Friday January 17, 2025 @12:27PM (#42740783)
> bans done for political purposes

You want a political body to make decisions apolitically?

> mental health angle of support

This was de minimis. The support was start to finish from national security angles. There was some cherry-on-top AIPAC and protectionist talk. But the votes were got because TikTok kept lying about serious stuff [1] while Russia reminded the world of the cost of appeasement.

[1] https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/services/files/76E769A8-3ED...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f... by wahnfrieden on Friday January 17, 2025 @12:36PM (#42740925)
I know the state didn't do it or say they did it for mental health purposes, I'm responding to the reasons given here for supporting these regulations

BTW you're the one who cast doubt on me for suggesting UnitedHealth is incentivized to raise prices to get around profit caps, which turned out to be exactly the case despite your sense-making of the rules in place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716428

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f... by JumpCrisscross on Friday January 17, 2025 @01:01PM (#42741260)
> you're the one who cast doubt on me for suggesting UnitedHealth is incentivized to raise prices to get around profit caps, which turned out to be exactly the case despite your sense-making of the rules in place

Sorry, could you link to my comment?

[ Parent | on HN ]