this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
33 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

1568 readers
316 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.

Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

[email protected]
[email protected]

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX
33
The TikTok Ban Paradox: How Platform Restrictions Create What They Aim to Prevent (www.techpolicy.press)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/technology
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Bans and blanket restrictions on social media, like the impending US TikTok ban or Australia’s recent age restrictions, are often presented as decisive solutions to complex problems. These measures promise to safeguard national security, protect user data, or shield vulnerable users from harm. Yet, they rarely achieve their intended goals. Instead, they create a paradox: rather than mitigating risks, such restrictions make platforms and user practices less governable. Users circumvent controls, oversight is fragmented, and transparency gives way to opacity—all while opportunities for meaningful governance are lost.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You have to show your hand at some point

You're right. That's how it works and what makes it effective.

You have a pool of 100M end users and you can whittle that down to 5M potential suspects [...]

It's far worse than that. It starts slow. But once they got several distinct factors, those multiply and it goes down fast. Think for example location tracking. There might be 5,000 people around. Or passing a cellphone tower along the highway roughly at a similar time. Then you take a single second measurement, when they head back home. And you got them. It's very unlikely that two or more people pass that point twice at the same time. (Exceptions apply.) Or browser fingerprinting. There are websites where you can check your browser fingerprint. They've always told me mine is unique amongst hundreds of millions of internet users. They only need half a dozen or a dozen or so different factors to narrow it down to one exact person (or device). It's not always like this. But more often than not.

Far easier to [...] running honeypot websites [...]

Yeah, I guess they're not stupid. There are a lot of simple and effective things available. I'd pick the low hanging fruits, too. That's a sound choice.

you do still occasionally see the knock-on effects downstream

Sure. I'm not an expert on this. I have to look up most things you said. But US foreign policy sure had it's positive and negative consequences. For a lot of countries, in the middle east and all around the world.

These systems work hand-in-glove [...]

I'm pretty sure that's not always conspiracy or intended. But yes, a lot of that is consequential. Or symbiotic. And for example the politicians and big tech companies aren't entirely separate from each other. There is a lot of lobbying and money involved that also gets things going in some direction someone likes. I think it's important to point out that we have counterexamples. Like regulations that limit the companies. Sometimes they get fined. They can lose in court and be forced to do things. So not all is lost. But other times politics doesn't limit their greed. Or make them pay taxes. It's a mix.