[andrewla]

Are you implying that this was a deliberate attempt by an agent to create tourettes-like tics? Are you also asserting that this hypothetical boogieman can do similar attacks on demand because of their understanding of social contagion [1]?

The idea of social networking (or other broadcast or widely disseminated media) being able to influence beliefs or behavior is kind of inarguable. In specific cases there might be causal confusion - whether the media was effective because of existing trends or piggybacked on other phenomena vs. creating the effect directly. But this is a far cry from claiming that it can be deliberately weaponized, or that it is more effective for this purpose than other means of information dissemination.

[1] Social contagion, a phenomenon that long predates the internet

[drawkward]

I am simply providing evidence for the claim

>Social networking platforms are among the most effective tools for mass influence

[andrewla]

To be a tool it has to be able to be directed towards an end.

Hurricanes are effective for coastal property destruction, but they can't be used as a tool

[drawkward]

I have a hammer on my shelf that I have not used yet; is it therefore not a tool?

[andrewla]

The shallow response here is that use is important. The hammer on your shelf is an effective tool for hammering in nails.

Is the hammer on your shelf an effective tool for influencing public opinion? It can be used for that -- you can smash statues of people you find objectionable and maybe have a greater effect on public opinion than you could by trying to tear down statues with your bare hands (although the nature of the public opinion change is not really that predictable). But it is not a tool for that because it cannot be directed to the general purpose of influencing public opinion. You cannot convince people that assisted suicide should be acceptable or that we shouldn't keep cats as pets or that we should not go to war to defend Taiwan using the hammer.

Similarly, TikTok.

[drawkward]

I'd call your reasoning shallow, but there isn't any. You state a bunch of stuff about a hammer and conclude "therefore TikTok cannot influence public opinion." It is manifestly obvious that many advertisers pay TikTok huge sums of money to literally influence not merely public opinion (of their products) but to incite action (buying those products).

Tiktok has incited action on its own behalf:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-cal...

https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/press-releas...

Your claims are ridiculous and your arguments are nonexistent.