Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How to Mobilize the Youth Vote

How to Mobilize the Youth Vote
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 04:40 PM
 
Step one: ban TikTok
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 04:52 PM
 
Few things are more irritating to me than curmudgeons complaining about social media, but I won't touch TikTok. I already browse Reddit in a third party app so I don't have to deal with the horrific notifications, suggestions, recommendations, sponsored posts, and ads that get jammed in the first party app by default. Take all of that and add in whatever the Chinese government wants you to see and believe and you have TikTok.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 05:04 PM
 
Are they really going to ban tiktok for everyone, or just govt employees?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 05:06 PM
 
@Laminar

I ultimately agree with you. I hate social media, and I hate my phone making noise at me, so that’s a double strike against TikTok.

I’m also not a fan of the CCP.

That said… he who fights monsters, something, something.

Likewise, even if I can sympathize with grinding TikTok under my boot, this seems like it’s casting a much wider net, and I don’t like that.



Full disclosure: despite my dislike of TikTok, I’m about to lean into it very hard for business purposes.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Are they really going to ban tiktok for everyone, or just govt employees?
There’s a lot of sensationalism surrounding this story, so I don’t know for sure, but I get the idea is to full-on ban it, with the intent to get them to form an US company to run US operations.

Trump tried this, a bit more gently I might add, but it fell through.


Added sensationalism: this will allow the government to stuff them with Three Letter Agents.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 05:29 PM
 
ProTip: do not trust anyone who says “the law does this” or “the law does not do this”.

What laws actually do in this country is determined by the judiciary, not the legislature, not internet randos.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 08:08 PM
 
The difficulty I have with the discussion is how light everything is on facts. In my opinion Congress, which should have access to privileged information, should have some evidence to back up these assertions. We are democracies and we should act on the basis of evidence. It also weakens our case against China, which is the ultimate problem.

Moreover, I think the problem of selective amplification is one that TikTok shares with Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and all other social networks with algorithmic recommendation engines/time lines. Congress really needs to understand how these work, why they are problematic and what should be done about them. TikTok should then be treated in that framework. Unfortunately, given how many Republicans in Congress believe social networks are selectively censoring them, something which isn’t supported by evidence, or only selectively believe in “free speech” without understanding what the hell that even means, I don’t even think Congress understands what is wrong here. Influence operations are subtle, and working out what constitutes putting a finger on a scale here and how that is different from e. g. Fox News or MSNBC airing clearly partisan content is important if you seriously want to regulate tech.

Just to be clear, yes, I do assume that the Chinese state has access to the data, but how that works matters. One open secret is that many states have placed spies in social media companies so that they have access to the data. Clearly, the Chinese state has way more options when dealing with a Chinese company, but I stress that evidence of that would be necessary. That way, we could not just pressure a Chinese company, but also the Chinese state who is ultimately to blame. (The Chinese state is powerful enough to disappear even China’s most powerful billionaires, so this is not just a matter of the company agreeing with the stance of the state, it could get personal fast for company leadership.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 08:27 PM
 
All the government cures I can think of for selective amplification are worse than the disease.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All the government cures I can think of for selective amplification are worse than the disease.
That seems like a reflexive reaction on your end. I think there is plenty of room to selectively improve the situation. Here are a few ideas:

- Pass privacy bills.
- Pass even stricter privacy laws for minors.
- Force social media companies to allow access to researchers so that the impact can be studied impartially. (Of course, user privacy needs to be respected.)
- Force transparency when it comes to (at least certain aspects of) the algorithms.
- Pass liability laws in case companies knowingly continue doing things that are harmful to certain groups (e. g. minors*).

This is just a small selection. Apart from the optimization for engagement problem that most (if not all) platforms have, I think we first need to protect people, allow for independent study and increase transparency. Society and experts first need to understand better what is going on before acting.

So if e. g. the Chinese state accesses data of people living in the US, this would be a violation of privacy laws if those existed in the US.


* Facebook knows (in that it has commissioned internal scientific studies) that showed the harm of e. g. Instagram to girls and young women.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 09:58 PM
 
I don’t see how rearranging privacy laws address selective amplification. They can still selectively decide what to amplify without knowing to whom they’re amplifying.

The transparency might help, but that’s its own can of worms. Forcing code audits on private companies sounds sketchy.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don’t see how rearranging privacy laws address selective amplification. They can still selectively decide what to amplify without knowing to whom they’re amplifying.
The main issues with TikTok (and other social media companies) are two-fold: (1) privacy violations (e. g. because the Chinese state can access the information of American users) and (2) influencing the opinion of people by tweaking the recommendation engine. Privacy laws should address (1).

Right now American users of these platforms have little to no privacy rights. So it is not obvious to me that e. g. TikTok violates any laws. Still, I think people ought to have the expectation that no state actor access their information without due process.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The transparency might help, but that’s its own can of worms.
The implementation is important, yes. But that's very different from a blanket statement “All government cures are worse than the disease.”
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Forcing code audits on private companies sounds sketchy.
If Microsoft can't do it, then why can't Facebook or all the others? Plus, it isn't as if Microsoft had to open source Windows. There are plenty of ways to let scientists study social media platforms using internal data without violating the privacy of users or exposing IP from the companies. Think HIPAA.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2023, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Privacy laws should address (1).
“All the government cures I can think of for selective amplification are worse than the disease.” [emphasis added]

My statement was about (2).

The accusation my statement about (2) is reflexive (which it very well might be, BTW) is not demonstrated by addressing (1).

As for the example of the Microsoft public audit, that was for an encryption algorithm. The need for a public audit of an encryption algorithm is obvious and distinct from the need to do it with an amplification algorithm, no?

Voluntary public audits of encryption algorithms have a firm precedent. The why is obvious. AFAIK, this is not the case with amplification algorithms.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2023, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for the example of the Microsoft public audit, that was for an encryption algorithm. The need for a public audit of an encryption algorithm is obvious and distinct from the need to do it with an amplification algorithm, no?
Yes, the two are distinct, but I think both is in the public interest. My point was that there was precedent. Furthermore, code audits are not the only way I had in mind. I don't think Facebook's study on female teen behavior involved a code audit. The point is that independent people/groups should be able to investigate whether and what impacts social networks and their policies have. Plain statistics should be enough.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Voluntary public audits of encryption algorithms have a firm precedent. The why is obvious. AFAIK, this is not the case with amplification algorithms.
I don't think the code audit was voluntary in the end. I don't remember the details that led to it, but I am certain that if Microsoft did this “voluntarily”, it was because the EU told them “or else.”
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2023, 03:12 PM
 
So basically US politicians want to ban Tik Tok but have no problem with Google and Facebook surreptitiously hoovering up more US citizen data than the CIA and NSA combined. Gotcha.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 31, 2023 at 01:29 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2023, 03:29 PM
 
I feel differently about American companies doing this to Americans versus foreign companies doing it to Americans.

Also, is surreptitious the correct term if everyone knows they’re doing it?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2023, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
So basically US politicians want to ban Tik Tok but have no problem with Google and Facebook surreptitiously hoovering up more US citizen data than the CIA and FBI combined. Gotcha.
I would also add that the NSA likely has the same level of access to these platforms than the Chinese government, and to get all selectively worked up because the Chinese are doing it, too, is IMHO a big fail. What governments should aim for is protect the privacy of its citizens, and that includes undue intrusions by our own governments.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel differently about American companies doing this to Americans versus foreign companies doing it to Americans.

Also, is surreptitious the correct term if everyone knows they’re doing it?
First of, all these platforms are global, and I think it is a bit arrogant to simply consider the privacy of people subject to US laws. For most, there is only a difference in degree, but not a difference in principle if the Chinese “communist” party is tapping into our data or it is the American government. I’m opposed to both (especially en masse and without due process).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2023, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, the two are distinct, but I think both is in the public interest.
Any code audit is going to be a fishing expedition for things which are broken.

What makes encryption software broken is a vulnerability. It’s really straightforward. One can perform an action on the software and it either reduces the efficacy of the encryption, or it doesn’t. In other words, whether there is a vulnerability or not really isn’t a matter of opinion.

What makes selective amplification broken? Selective amplification algorithms are inherently based on an opinion. Therefore, what constitutes broken selective amplification is also a matter of opinion.

A selective amplification audit will only be as good as the opinions of what constitutes broken. These opinions should be made by people with explicit political agendas and a well earned reputation for not knowing the first thing about technology? Hard pass from me.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2023, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
First of, all these platforms are global, and I think it is a bit arrogant to simply consider the privacy of people subject to US laws. For most, there is only a difference in degree, but not a difference in principle if the Chinese “communist” party is tapping into our data or it is the American government. I’m opposed to both (especially en masse and without due process).
I said I don’t mind American companies doing it. Companies are fairly distinct from the government in this country.

Not so much with China, tho.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2023, 09:36 PM
 
China doesn't care what 98% of us do all day on tiktok. We are watching people dance or make fun of bad cooking videos.

but I could see them being very interested in those of us who work for important companies or the govt, where they go, who they follow...
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2023, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
China doesn't care what 98% of us do all day on tiktok. We are watching people dance or make fun of bad cooking videos.
Maybe that's what you do, but the people around me using TikTok are nearly 100% politics all day and it's...not healthy. Just like other foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push false narratives during election cycles, having complete control over a social media network is invaluable to a state looking to sway public opinion.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2023, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
First of, all these platforms are global, and I think it is a bit arrogant to simply consider the privacy of people subject to US laws.
Arrogant would be sticking my nose into how other countries deal with American companies abusing their privacy. How other countries wish to address these abuses is their business, not mine. Should other countries desire to enact better safeguards against American privacy abuses, more power to them.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2023, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel differently about American companies doing this to Americans versus foreign companies doing it to Americans.
Ok. But from a consumer perspective the impact is the same. Oreo was spot on by stating that the solution is to pass online privacy legislation that all companies … foreign and domestic … must adhere to. This is going out of Tik Tok seems hypocritical at best and flat out xenophobic at worst.

Originally Posted by subego
Also, is surreptitious the correct term if everyone knows they’re doing it?
I think you are giving the average user far too much credit. Sure more tech oriented people like those of us here are aware of the massive amounts of user data being collected and sold by apps, smart TV’s, web browsing, social media, etc. But the average user has no clue and tends to be very alarmed when it’s explained to them how and the extent to which it’s done.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2023, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I would also add that the NSA likely has the same level of access to these platforms than the Chinese government, and to get all selectively worked up because the Chinese are doing it, too, is IMHO a big fail. What governments should aim for is protect the privacy of its citizens, and that includes undue intrusions by our own governments.
Actually I meant to say NSA instead of FBI! Brain was thinking one thing and fingers typed something else. I updated my post.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2023, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Ok. But from a consumer perspective the impact is the same. Oreo was spot on by stating that the solution is to pass online privacy legislation that all companies … foreign and domestic … must adhere to. This is going out of Tik Tok seems hypocritical at best and flat out xenophobic at worst.
I’m not against the idea of privacy protections.

I shared my opinion the government solution to selective amplification was worse than the problem. I did not say this is the case with privacy.

My objection to the offered government privacy protections were they had little or no relevance to the subject of my (quoted) statement, which was selective amplification, not privacy.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 31, 2023 at 07:09 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2023, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I said I don’t mind American companies doing it. Companies are fairly distinct from the government in this country.
Yes, but since the Snowden revelations we know the American government is doing it, too.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Arrogant would be sticking my nose into how other countries deal with American companies abusing their privacy. How other countries wish to address these abuses is their business, not mine. Should other countries desire to enact better safeguards against American privacy abuses, more power to them.
No, I think it is arrogant and misguided to purely think domestically or as a country-vs.-country issue. In my mind, things like rights to privacy and not being surreptitiously influenced by other governments are values that I hope I share with people from other countries. I'm not arguing from the perspective of one country vs. another.

Furthermore, I'd like to find a framework how we should discuss not just TikTok but all other companies. Lex TikTok would be bad, we should have a better approach to all social media. I think the point you focus on is fair, but
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not against the idea of privacy protections.

I shared my opinion the government solution to selective amplification was worse than the problem. I did not say this is the case with privacy.
What government solution? I only gave several proposals, and most suggestions involved entities other than the government (e. g. independent researchers). Moreover, there already is a government solution, e. g. in the form Section 230, which treats e. g. Facebook differently from Fox News and MSNBC, and shields tech companies from much of the responsibilities other media companies have.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Ok. But from a consumer perspective the impact is the same. Oreo was spot on by stating that the solution is to pass online privacy legislation that all companies … foreign and domestic … must adhere to. This is going out of Tik Tok seems hypocritical at best and flat out xenophobic at worst.
Yup. We should not think about how to deal with Tik Tok, but how to deal with social media companies in general and then derive our actions from that. I completely agree that the dollop or xenophobia that is mixed in with legitimate concerns, which in my mind turns it into a toxic sludge. What is even worse, Congress has presented no evidence. In a free society where we base our decisions on best available evidence, this is important.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2023, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
things like rights to privacy
Again, I see government intrusion into my privacy as distinct from corporate intrusion into my privacy in exchange for their free platform. If I can’t abide by the terms of the contract, I shouldn’t enter the contract. If I don’t want a free platform using the data I’m voluntarily providing it, I shouldn’t use the platform.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2023, 04:57 PM
 
Relevant to the discussion. Elon publicly released (a somewhat sanitized version of) Twitter’s amplification algorithm, though I hear it had been already leaked awhile back.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/31/tw...algorithm/amp/
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2023, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Maybe that's what you do, but the people around me using TikTok are nearly 100% politics all day and it's...not healthy. Just like other foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push false narratives during election cycles, having complete control over a social media network is invaluable to a state looking to sway public opinion.
Even when you are more neutral about it and don't think about deliberate influence campaigns. As far as I understand, a few things have been scientifically established:
  • Posts that stoke fear, hate and rile people up travel much more quickly and faster than posts that engender love, empathy and togetherness.
  • False news travels much, much faster and is distributed more widely than news correcting it.
  • Personalization is a two-edged sword: if someone with a browser history full of anti-vaxxer website and I put in the same search terms, e. g. “Moderna Covid vaccination side effects”, we get vastly different results.
  • Most (all?) recommendation algorithms optimize for engagement rather than customer satisfaction or accuracy.

I'd also say that in many respects, these priorities make products worse. It isn't accidental that e. g. Netflix doesn't put your last viewed shows directly on top with a huge play button so that you can continue from where you have left off. It wants you to “discover” new shows. Ditto for Youtube's recommendations which, once refreshed, are lost to the digital ether. No prominent link to your last viewed (and perhaps not-yet-completed) video either.

And it is a hugely double-edged sword. More than once it happened to me at work (= doing science) that my Google search was dominated by content I already knew about or my content. So Google stopped giving me useful results. (The first time I realized this, I felt completely stupid, I thought “wow, my research must have tremendous impact to be 4 of the top 5 search results on this topic that I know really well )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2023, 02:28 PM
 
Wisconsin flip of their judiciary credit given to the youth vote:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/04/11678...asiewicz-kelly
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2023, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Wisconsin flip of their judiciary credit given to the youth vote:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/04/11678...asiewicz-kelly
Reap what you sow. Some conservative law makers now feel how much they have painted themselves into a corner. E. g. they get criticized for not jumping on the next bandwagon, allowing bans on contraceptives (which means reversing another SCOTUS precedent as hinted by Justice Thomas, our friend from the other thread). I can logically follow (but disagree with) people who are against abortions. I cannot when it comes to contraceptives.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2023, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I can logically follow (but disagree with) people who are against abortions. I cannot when it comes to contraceptives.
From what I understand, the argument evangelicals make is that chemical contraceptives are abortifacients, in that they prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted. The argument is laid-out here. The link is to an anti-abortion site, in case you’d rather not give them clicks.

I suspect any legislation to ban contraceptives would have a far harder path to becoming law, simply because of how many women (especially suburban women) use contraception, including those who use it to regulate their menstrual cycles. It would hit pretty close to home, as I’m certain many of legislators’ own spouses and daughters use contraceptives.

That said, GOP legislators have shown they pretty-much don’t give a shit about women’s needs/rights, so I expect such legislation to eventually see the light of day.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2023, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
From what I understand, the argument evangelicals make is that chemical contraceptives are abortifacients, in that they prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted. The argument is laid-out here. The link is to an anti-abortion site, in case you’d rather not give them clicks.
As far as I can tell, the goal is to ban all contraceptives, though, isn't it? That includes condoms and female condoms where the egg is never fertilized (if the condom does its job).
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
That said, GOP legislators have shown they pretty-much don’t give a shit about women’s needs/rights, so I expect such legislation to eventually see the light of day.
I hope they remember the bloody nose they got after the reversal of Roe. I'm fairly certain there is a substantial number of people who want quite a few restrictions on abortions or an outright ban, but also want contraceptives to remain legal (e. g. to avoid unwanted pregnancies, which reduces the number of abortions).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,