American social media platforms creating an environment where propaganda and misinformation flourish and refusing to take action against it has the same net effect as TikTok altering internal algorithm.

Targeted intent vs general apathy is a massive difference.

I like ownership and working class. That’s the real distinction seperateing us. People who work for money, and people who own things for money. Even 6 figure doctors and lawyers are working class.

That could be. It sounds plausible. Do you have any studies?

I don’t think you really need AI for that.
You can manually curate a list of phrases, and create a score for how often/many appear in a given story.

After writing my comment, I thought of mass shooters tweaking their tactic, and going to different kinds of locations. Like certain board rooms.

While I mostly agree, 800% interest really is way beyond anything those others are doing, and more than worthy of being slapped for.

What intelligence agency?
NCRI is a social media research group.

Lots of people think the US social media platforms do that. But none of the scientific studies have been able to show it.
The US companies are all purely driven by engagement, to maximize profit. The most effective source of that engagement, changes from person to person. But it’s most commonly what you might call “Rage Bait”.

Twiter’s recent bend toward the right, is primarily self selection of it’s users. As the left… left… the platform, the pool of available content shifted right; Causing even more to leave. Unless you have some paper I haven’t seen.

And Facebook selling data, is entirely different and unrelated. Nobody (no lawmakers) care about that.

It’ll fade. Unless…

It happens every three months or so. With escalating difficulty. All they way to being found dead alone in their office. Then slow down to every 18 to 36 months. That’s when they’d be scared enough to actually change corporate policies.

Yah. Whatever happens, TikTok will NOT be leaving the US market.

Not quite. TikTok has been shown to tweak their algorithm against criticism of China. That’s the real reason for the concern. Their ability and willingness to purposefully manipulate people.

Management changes don’t necessarily mean product changes. TikTok is killing it. No reason to risk screwing it up.

As much as people think the US social media companies manipulate their algorithms for political purposes, nobody has demonstrated it. They’re only geared to maximize engagement, and profit.

Again. Not a TikTok ban. A ByteDance ban.
If BytDance sells, TikTok stays.

Truly free markets suck. The inevitably become dominated by a small number of monopolies, who fuck over everyone else as hard as possible every day …

It’s not a semantic argument at all. It may be nuanced for some, but it is a vital, material difference.

First. You can’t know if it will substantially change under new management. That’s speculation

They aren’t banning ByteDance do to it being competition with domestic platforms. If that were the case the ban would be for TikTok directly. One example for it being a material difference.

Second. Yes. The fact that they are at least partly beyond our justice and regulatory system, is part of the reason for the ban. But it’s only a real concern because…

Third. They can and have already been shown to subtly manipulate the algorithm to artificially elevate China’s image.

It’s got absolutely nothing to do with China collecting data on Americans. As you said that’s laughable on the face of it.

Again. Not a TikTok ban law. A ByteDance ban law.
ByteDance could sell their stake, and TikTok would be just fine in the US.

Someone else gave a link, that basically described they really only need act as a witness to vows, then sign the form. They don’t even need to say anything. Since that’s all that’s required, I can’t see any reasonable cause for her to refuse in this case.

But the ceremony doesn’t even matter. Any speach at any event you disagree with, it should be your right to decline.

Agreed. As I originally stated if it was as simple as signing a bit of paperwork (which in this case seems to be all that required) there’s no excuse.

It was clearly designed to be a practical scam, bilking the ignorant, who can’t afford the up front cost of a new computer.

Messing up isn’t the phrasing I’d use.

Agreed. But the performance of a ceremony shouldn’t be needed at all by the state.

And in this case it almost isn’t. She could have simply been a silent witness to vows, and signed the form.