[andybak]

I dipped into TikTok out of morbid curiosity but found it quickly cottoned on to things I like.

On the whole I now get a mix of interesting factual content that aligns well with my taste - and a frictionless UI that I prefer to most of the alternatives.

Admittedly a fair chunk of the content is ripped from YouTube but it's a great discovery mechanism and you can later subscribe to the source.

Genuine question - have you tried it or are you going on reputation?

[baubino]

Not who you asked but one reason I dislike this kind of highly curated media is that it obscures the possibility of being exposed to something completely different. I used to enjoy meandering through the library stacks and coming across some cool book that I never would have found otherwise. Highly curated media is the opposite of that experience; it makes this kind of happenstance virtually impossible.

[andybak]

But it does do the thing you just described (at least to some degree)?

I suppose it rests on what is meant by "completely different" but I've been relatively satisfied by the variety.

[baubino]

By “completely different” I mean something that I haven’t encountered before. Something completely outside of and unrelated to my current interests. The old internet allowed for this kind of random discovery. The problem with curated content is that if you do manage to find something new and different, the algorithm will then start serving you related things. There’s no way to truly “wander the stacks” as it will keep showing similar and related content.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

Not the person you're asking, but someone who couldve said the same thing as that person.

No, I haven't tried and I won't. Yes, I'm sure it has things that interest me. So what? The point is it's another one of these time sinks that profit off your need for entertainment. Ill entertaint myself, thank you.

[burnerburnson]

You're underselling the problem which is that they profit off your addiction. Time you could be spending creating art, exercising, or learning a useful skill is instead spent watching an endless stream of junk videos hand-picked for you by the Chinese government.

[andybak]

Addiction? I use it for around 30 minutes a day. And sometimes you need to kick back and passively graze content.

You know - after all that exercise, skill learning and art creating...

[bdjsiqoocwk]

Yes, addiction, that's exactly what I had in mind. YouTube, Tok Tok etc, train your brain for craving satisfaction in short bursts and move on to something else. Even the "smart intellectual geeky" content is consumed for 20 minutes, you get satisfied, and then move on with your day/media consumption, and never make the effort to deepen your understanding.

I stopped using that word on HN because whenever I suggest that "screens are addictive" I get down voted (and it's not as much that it bothers me to lose imaginary points, it's that then it gets hidden and people don't get to see it, at which point I'm just yelling into the vacuum).

[andybak]

> I'll entertain myself, thank you.

So you don't watch any media? TV? Documentaries? I'm not clear what distinction you're making between "good" media and "bad" media. I've never been geek shamed on watching Tom Scott before.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

I watch things that I search for based on questions that I ask myself. I don't watch things based on some platform, publisher, media personality, etc, going "look at this aren't you curious?"

[andybak]

Well I'm pleased for you that all your media consumption is deliberate and planned. You're a real outlier.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

If you feel that whatever you're doing is insufficient, you depend only on yourself to change. If not, then I guess we're both happy with ourselves :-)

[quickslowdown]

Aside from being a time sink, the thing I'm most surprised to see on this site is that more users aren't incredibly wary of where the app is coming from. We all understand dubious data siphoning, yet so many people here are happy to put TikTok on their phone, connect to their wifi, and let it do its hoovering.

[ryandrake]

Everyone's consumer goods are made in China, so why would they care that their social media site is made there? We get our phones, computers, peripherals, cameras, the entire stack of hardware from there, why would end users draw the line at software? End users know, but unfortunately don't care about telemetry.

If TikTok actually declines or dies, it's not going to be because of where the software is made.

[quickslowdown]

That's really not the point I'm making at all. You're talking about hardware, which is a whole other conversation about quality. I'm talking about software, data collection, "listening," etc.

We all live with some uncomfortable amount of dissonance on who's collecting our data. I personally take great issue with just opening the door to my life to China by installing TikTok. I don't have other social media (not interested in a semantics debate about what constitutes social media, my purpose in saying this is that I try to avoid data-hoovers in general), but I'm not perfect at avoiding unwanted data collection. I just don't see a need to make it so easy.

[shrimp_emoji]

The physical objects manufactured in China aren't at risk of subliminally or overtly manipulating your media consumption for propaganda purposes though.

A social media algorithm is a much scarier thing than an inert object, and one controlled by a totalitarian enemy government even moreso.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

You can't tell the difference between information and some sneakers? Concerning.

[andybak]

I'm fully aware and I make an informed, conscious decision. If the PLA wants to know how many videos on astrophysics and urban planning I watch then I'm fine with that.

[quickslowdown]

This is such a tired retort to the point I'm trying to make. It's not about the quality of the data they're collecting, or how interesting it is. It's the vast quantities they collect, in total, I take issue with. I don't care if you agree, leave the app installed, double down and grant it all the permissions it asks for, whatever. The high-level version of this is that I'm just not ok with the amount of data being collected, and the party that's collecting it, regardless of what that data actually is.

Your argument is the same as "I have nothing to hide, who cares if the government tracks my face everywhere I go and listens to everything I do?" Bad argument, focused too narrowly on personal experience.

[andybak]

> This is such a tired retort to the point I'm trying to make.

Is "tired" here a less polite way to say "you're not the first person to say this and I disagree"? I'm trying to understand whether I need to feel insulted here or not.

> I don't care if you agree

Well you kinda do or else you wouldn't have come back four days later to post this.

> I'm just not ok with the amount of data being collected, and the party that's collecting it, regardless of what that data actually is.

Which strikes me as a fiercely absolutist policy - possibly to the point of being irrational. I actual presume you do care about the amount and type of data collection or else you'd be raging at - I dunno - the national park service tracking aggregate visitor counts. So I'm going to presume that this is a rhetorical flourish, rather than a statement I'm meant to take literally.

The trouble with rhetorical flourishes it that it leaves me in the dark about what you actually do mean and it's therefore hard to respond.

> Your argument is the same as "I have nothing to hide, who cares if the government tracks my face everywhere I go and listens to everything I do?"

No. My argument is remarkably different to that.

[quickslowdown]

No, it's a polite way of saying "this is a low effort, poorly thought out way of hand waving valid concerns," which I would now extend to this comment. Your point isn't remarkably different, or even different in any substantive way.