iNow

Obviously since he ignored you several times about it

I wasn’t quibbling. I was correcting an inaccurate claim. We’re in full agreement that the way we use resources matters far more than how many of us exist.

Another potentially interesting path to pursue here is how TikTok also seems to put our brains into a more hypnotic state. I seem to recall studies coming out showing how (maybe?) delta waves and general flow states change in the brain depending on how the algorithm feeds videos to us, and we’re enormously prone to suggestion and influence when in those states… our normal defenses are far less effective. I’ve read it and heard it in enough different places and from enough different sources now that I find it compelling. Meta and Twitter and Fox News et.al obviously try to achieve the same thing, but they’re like preschool flag football players compared to TikTok’s NFL brutes.

Pro tip: One of those words you used twice in your post has fallen out of parlance and tends to be considered unacceptable. Try liberal or woke next time. They’re the latest moniker for the misinformed folks not burdened with an abundance of education.

42 Or a cold shower

Maybe more addictive, but your point is sound. Primary difference I see is where data is hosted and consequently how it gets protected / exploited. This takes nothing away from your crisp question, though. A lot of this is modern day Cold War drum beating.

They don’t. We’re at around 7B people today and forecasted to go to approximately 11B in the next hundred years. Any projections claiming doubling of current numbers are outliers and can safely be taken with a grain of salt. https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Punctuated equilibrium may be a useful concept to consider here.

That’s a mighty short lever. We could immediately remove 100% of US TikTok users today and China would’ve even notice, wouldn’t even flinch. Feels a bit like trying to convince a brown bear not to eat you by offering it a Tic-Tac. Side thought: TikToks sounds like Tic-Tacs. Language is fun.

In fact, Florida, Iowa, Arizona, Texas, and a handful of other GOP led states are operating in lockstep and passing remarkably similar bills on the exact same topics all within 24-72 hours of each other as if being driven by a centralized source of funding and instructions.

That’s definitely part of it, but engineers tune the algorithm toward and away specific things. It’s not purely steered by user choice alone. They can code it so different types of content get weighted more or less for different user demographics (like where you live, what type of device you’re on, your age, etc.). Same basic idea was shared here a few weeks back and there’s data supporting this: I take notice

Two primary risks: Data collection on behaviors of US residents, and this goes beyond just how the app gets used but also includes mining of other private personal details from the phone more broadly (location services, transactions, lots of stuff that should be protected, but isn't in countries like China) The ability to feed us toward certain content and basically free propaganda distribution device. They feed their own teens on TikTok content for science and math and our teens here content on hating each other and butt chugging vodka I'm reluctant to ban due to the number of users making their primary income from this as their business platform, but tend to support localizing data and datacenter activity to US (or nations with better user protection laws like the EU)

Of course. Hard to disagree. Fundamentally, though... the choice needs to happen at a MUCH larger scale... the government, corporations, etc... Individual choices can help, but are in the end TINY drops in a VERY large bucket. Programs and policies must attempt to protect as many people as possible, especially those already struggling, but the fact that we will struggle a bit to achieve these ends or that the struggle won't be fairly distributed is NOT a reason to avoid pushing very hard to achieve this very important goal.

Gloves would likely keep your fingers warmer than a belt, or at least pockets.

It's more than pointing fingers, and it's not bullying when funding is allocated to help. Exactly, yet it has felt a bit like you disagree given your tone and words.

It's not scare mongering if it's true, and yes. Nature is quite often unfair. That doesn't negate the need for change or immediate action like 20 years ago. Nobody disagrees that the impact is not homogenous, but you're presenting a false dichotomy. Everyone must do their part. It's as if we've been dumping poison into our drinking water for decades. We're trying to stop that because the water is making us die, yet you're here arguing that smaller dumpers should be allowed to keep poisoning the water source / the well and only the biggest poison dumpers must stop. Nope... EVERYONE must stop. End program. As unfortunate as it is, both fairness and equity are secondary to the core and urgent need here.

Yeah, but that’s like saying the 2nd floor in my house will cause me to lose weight relative to the 1st floor in my house since warm air rises and I will have less O2 while up there.

Why would I do that? I haven’t already, yet you imply otherwise. Odd, really.

Congratulations. He spoke of Maslow’s hierarchy While yelling at people for being woke Wow. Super impressive

Blacksmiths also went out of business when cars were invented. Film companies when digital photography took hold. Blackberry and Nokia phones after the iPhone. This circumstance is so common it even has a name in the study of economics: Creative Destruction. I’m not saying that the impact to people and families isn’t real nor difficult, only that you may as well be decrying how the wind blows or the rains fall. It happens. It will keep happening. Not everyone can win all of the time, but we ALL lose if we keep ignoring this. No. Not kidding at all, and TBH am not at all clear where specifically you’re suggesting we disagree. Not nearly enough

They aren’t fans of acetone either Nor UV light

The primary debate is that the solution proposed is still too tepid and doesn’t go far enough.