Global digital rights advocates are watching to see if Congress acts, worried that other countries could follow suit with app bans of their own.

Global digital rights advocates are watching to see if Congress acts, worried that other countries could follow suit with app bans of their own.

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    7 months ago

    Whatboutism 101, great tutorial. That really proves that TikTok isn’t censoring content, thanks

    • bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      41·
      7 months ago

      If whataboutism is reframing the question in a different light that includes what we were talking about and not simply deflecting with a what-about, then I guess I did a textbook whataboutism. I guess I did the classic whataboutism bit where I said tiktok wasn’t censoring, even though I swear I said they were, and instead I said what why do we give social media the power to censor shit like that I was saying tiktok wasn’t censoring and whatabout other social media. 🙄

      Whataboutism is when you don’t defend your point or argue against the original point and just change topic. Ex: “Oh you are saying that tiktok is censoring anti-ccp thought? What about facebook and twitter doing shit like banning XYZ political commentators???”

      What I said is a bit more complicated than that, so I’ll boil down my points into something a bit more simple manner

      • Yeah, tiktok is censoring content
      • I don’t like the article’s framing that places instagram as the safe, non-censoring control
      • I think media is framing this in such a way that the main reason that tiktok is a problem is because it has a lot of dissent on it and it is foreign-owned, and therefore their flavor of censorship is worse
      • instead of forcing tiktok to be sold to an american company, why don’t we address the root cause of the problem, which is the amount of control social media companies have.

      Look man, you can’t claim someone is doing a fallacious argument tactic when they aren’t doing it. If someone argued something, fucking respond to it or don’t, it genuinely doesn’t matter. But if you are gonna just be a cunty smuglord instead, you’re a dick and I wish you the worst.

      Now, i’m gonna disregard your shit-slinging and go back to taking your comments in good faith. I have a serious question for you. You seem to have a problem with my points, but what about it do you disagree with? I’m literally agreeing with you in a few places and just calling the framing flawed. If you’re gonna respond to that, don’t take me out of context.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        7 months ago

        Yes, it is textbook whataboutism. Are Israel’s actions okay because other people commit murder? I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance

        • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.worldEnglish
          41·
          7 months ago

          I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance

          Smfh, so then you didn’t read what they said, since they specifically said:

          I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem.

          And given that Whataboutism is a tactic to discredit the severity of an accusation by pointing to similar or worse behaviors by others, this not only isn’t “textbook Whataboutism”, it’s not Whataboutism at all. Their point was that the scope of the issue exceeds TikTok, and as such, attempts to solve the issue by focusing on TikTok are either misguided or of suspect intent.

          In no way did they try to make the point that what TikTok does is okay, nor did they claim that TikTok wasn’t censoring content. I’d accuse you of trying to strawman their argument, but you just flat made up a different argument and pretended that was theirs instead.

          They are saying the forest is on fire, and you are accusing them of Whataboutism because they aren’t focusing on your favorite tree.