We have heard about it.... you're just not getting your news from sources that mention it. There are multiple things they allow on American TikTok that they do not allow on Chinese TikTok. They allow these things because they know it helps with social decay in America.
What are you talking about?! Listen to yourself dude, you've completely fallen down a conspiracy rabbit hole. If the US exerted that level of control over private media you would call it a dystopia and a violation of 1A. China also has a policy that limits teenagers to 1hr of online video games a day, surely you wouldn't look at that and jump straight to Activation being a government psyop to stunt education.
TikTok would have to be doing something anything unique in this situation and they aren't. YouTube is the OG radicalization pipeline, Tumblr is more pro-communism than TikTok will ever dream to be, Facebook and IG pioneered doomscrolling before it was cool, and Twitter/Reddit ruined an entire generation of men with the enlightened technoconservatarian nonsense.
I promise you if there is one thing that is absolutely completely certain in America is that we need no help whatsoever in destroying the fabric of our own society and to say otherwise is an affront to American exceptionalism.
Not sure about "corrupting America's youth," but TikTok has been proven to selectively show content to different regions to promote only certain kinds of thought: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30917474
This was enough for me to resolve to never use it. And you're right that other social media isn't much better, though I don't think that was being called into question in the first place.
> Not sure about "corrupting America's youth," but TikTok has been proven to selectively show content to different regions to promote only certain kinds of thought
The example cited there seems a lot like it is to conform to local censorship policies, not to manipulate thought around some centralized objective of TikTok or the CCP.
Its a different thing, whether its better or not is a completely unrelated argument.
> Not to mention, being capable of one means they are capable of the other.
Neither one is a particularly deep capability, anyone with an information service with a personalized feed is capable of both, and if they don't conform to local censorship policies they simply will be banned where that occurs.
I agree with you in principle but there's no difference between that and what's allowed in other American platforms. Degenerate content is everywhere in all platforms.
For tiktok to be special in this regard they would have to allow something different that went way beyond what American platforms allow, and that's thus far not happening.
> For tiktok to be special in this regard they would have to allow something different that went way beyond what American platforms allow
I'm not sure that's true. There's a big difference between "Some amount of degenerate content exists on American platforms which are constantly fighting to identify and remove it" and "Adversarial foreign platform intentionally creates/curates degenerate content to push it to American audiences while keeping it from their own users"
Even if you're talking about content that both platforms fully allow, if one platform targets a group and floods their feeds with certain content with an intent to harm that group that is itself a problem. The fact that it is possible to find harmful content on youtube doesn't make it the same as a platform that intentionally and relentlessly shoves harmful content in your face. I can't say how guilty tiktok is of doing that however.
Name one other nation in the history of the world that has given any consideration at all to the people who's land they took. Indians were stealing land from each other for generations before "colonialism" was a thing. It's just part of human history. Time to move on, they're certainly not getting much societal benefit from government gifted land. It's only served to isolate them more and impoverish their communities. Instead of integrating they continue to live in a past that no longer exists. Either they're Americans or they're not.
I use a powdered drink called 'Calm'. It's got a bit of a berry flavor to it. Start with a small amount though or you'll be shitting your pants. There are a lot of studies showing magnesium levels are far too low in people anyway so it's a good idea to supplement it.
Or you can have a competitive market where you just take your skills to a different employer. You're essentially just describing making the union a middle man to what you could on your own if you have marketable skills.
They're also more likely to get concussions from things like headers. The female body is just not as adept at physical activity as the male one. It's almost like its main focus is on creating babies.
"That’s not to say every last corner of Earth is losing its vegetation. Some recent studies have revealed that parts of the Arctic are “greening” as the chilly landscape warms. And there’s increasing plant growth still happening in other regions of the world, as well."
So, a sensationalist headline. The H20 on Earth doesn't change, it might shift to other areas, like has for billions of years. Climate change or not we've always had shifting biomes, which is why we've got deserts in areas now that were essentially jungles in the past.
Actually, it is quite alarming if the Arctic is turning green. That itself is sensationalist. One of the primary ways our planet cools itself is by reflecting heat back into space. A white arctic is very efficient at reflecting heat. Green is not so good at that.
In terms of shifting biomes -- there used to be alligators that lived in the arctic. We seem determined to make that possible again. Such a world would be drastically different than the one we live in now. Such possibilities are indeed alarming.
It actually does. That is the whole premise behind global warming. CO2 alone would not be able to warm up the planet more than 1C - and that is if we keep burning fuels at max rate with no reduction.
The idea is that the 1C warming will cause the hotter air to support more water vapor, and water vapor is a much more potent gas than CO2, so it will warm the Earth additionally 2-3 or even 4C if we don't stop the CO2 emissions. This is the positive feedback loop. There are other feedback loops - some are negative and work towards decreasing the impact, for example the greening of the planet: if plants have more CO2, they will grow faster, bigger and be more resilient to drought, so they will absorb more CO2 overall.
If the "idea" above wouldn't be true, there would be no global warming crisis.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. You can't post like this no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I agree... in the past they would have gotten harpooned and quickly communicated to others that going near human boats was a bad idea.
I think coming up with some non-lethal way of deterring them might be a good idea. A killer whale taser of some sort. Just sitting there watching it tear your boat to shreds seems like a bad idea.
Not sure with something that big but biologists electrocute smaller fish in rivers/lakes all the time so they can tag them. Mammals are different, but you're not trying to knock it out, only dissuade it from coming closer.
