• respectmahauthoritybrah@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    I might be killed, but seeing the comments i feel like lemmy is getting too into the zone of umm like judging the action based on the person instead of judging the action/statement itself, yeah the US gov is a piece of shit, and also they probably don’t have the peoples best interest in mind, but the act of banning tiktok, according to me, is a right move, i can see nd myself have felt the humongous mental impact it has on teens (like me) basically killing their attention span, and making them feel like they need to pick up their phone, heck kids cant read 10pages from their physics book, infact reading a page only thoroughly is a tough task for most of them, and i m not talking abt a few select cases, i can see this in 95% of kids (this is anecdotal tho), ever since i stopped using reels/tiktoks/shorts, i can feel my mind improving

    Also the whole slew of misinformation and propaganda tiktok is, is another issue

    Again I agree with ppl that the US doesn’t hv the ppls best interest, but i do feel this might help atleast some ppl break their addiction, so many I know are aware they r addicted but can’t stop, banning the app altogether might help

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I don’t use tiktok because I don’t want to get addicted personally, and I know a few people who borderline are.

      That’s not the point though, not the real one anyway. Even if this ban was going through with good intentions, it doesn’t actually solve anything. Everyone will just find a new PRISM-compatable app to get addicted to. The government’s “action/statement itself” is precisely the problem. If they passed a law that forbid certain addicting behaviors, and TikTok ran afoul of that law, then I’d likely be in support, because it bans those behaviors in general. But that’s not what’s happening here, instead the government is targeting the individual company, so it’s pretty clear to me that the cited privacy and addiction concerns are only an excuse. Don’t take this combatively, I just think this is important, but I think that ironically you’re the one who needs to separate the action from the actors. I think you’re underestimating how dangerous a precedence this sets.

      • respectmahauthoritybrah@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Hmm i get ur argument, but still i do believe that banning that app will still have some net positive impact, i understand that this doesn’t really fix the problem by its root, maybe i m biased, but i just want the people around me to get a chance to get off that app, thats why banning it, while i agree with not with so good intentions, still might give some sort of positive impact on people who cant concentrate on anything for more than a minute, i just don’t jive well with the mentality here that the ban in nd of itself is wrong, i understand tho that the US has its own interests and doesn’t give many fcks abt ppl

    • WhoLooksHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Sure, I don’t think any disagrees that there’s side effects that aren’t good for anyone, never mind teens.

      But there’s nothing that you’ve written that’s specific to Tik Tok. It’s not substantially worse than American alternatives. Facebook has known for years the negative effect, study after study has come out. What legislation was passed to protect that?

      So why target Tik Tok specifically?