[HN Gopher] TikTok and the network effects of creativity
___________________________________________________________________
TikTok and the network effects of creativity
Author : MaximumMadness
Score : 88 points
Date : 2021-02-22 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eugenewei.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eugenewei.com)
| jlykins wrote:
| This comment is a slightly tangential shameless plug, but I just
| want to point out that I loved the structure of this essay. There
| were a lot of great little ideas that I don't think would have
| seen the light of day in a more traditional sort of blog post.
|
| > All the points I wanted to cover seem hyperlinked in a
| sprawling loose tangle. This could easily have been several
| standalone posts. I've been stuck on how to structure it.
|
| > This piece is long, but if you get bored in any one section,
| you can just scroll on the next one; they're separated by
| horizontal rules for easy visual scanning. You can also read them
| out of order. There are lots of cross-references, though, so if
| you skip some of the segments, others may not make complete
| sense. However, it's ultimately not a big deal.
|
| I've long wondered how many essays don't get published because
| the author struggles to generate a "through line." Sometimes
| organizing ideas is harder than coming up with them. This is
| certainly a problem I struggle with.
|
| I've been working on software[1] that encourages you to publish
| ambitious online media even if it's a bit disjointed. Currently,
| only me and my friends and family are using it because it is
| _very_ rough around the edges, but it is good enough that I
| personally use it every single day.
|
| If this sounds interesting to any HN comment readers I'd love to
| give you a beta code or a live demo to hear your thoughts. Send
| me an email at jon@edifice.pub
|
| [1] https://edifice.pub
| OrbitRock wrote:
| What kind of format would it be published in?
|
| This is pretty interesting as it is a problem I struggle with
| too.
|
| Your landing page there reminds me of something else I'm a fan
| of, e.g. Building a Second Brain through notes and web clips as
| discussed here: https://tanners.blog/diy-second-brain/
|
| But these are more focused solely on the background processes
| of organizing information.
|
| I'm curious about how your system would encourage publishing,
| "even if it's a bit disjointed", as that seems kind of the
| logical next step. (And definitely a challenge for me too!)
| jlykins wrote:
| I'm a fan of Building a Second Brain too, and I've taken a
| lot of inspiration from it. In fact, the precise reason I'm
| working on this project is because "organizing information as
| a background process" feels a bit too much like navel gazing
| to me and things are a lot more fun when the process includes
| interacting and sharing with other people.
|
| The particular way I'm attempting to encourage publishing is
| an editor that lets you lay out your stuff as a directed
| graph instead of as a linked list. The reader navigates the
| graph by clicking on hyperlinks that take them in tangential
| directions that may or may not converge with the main thread.
|
| The inspiration for this includes those really good
| conversations you have with your friends where you go
| completely off topic but in an interesting way, and also the
| experience of going down a wikipedia or tvtropes rabbit hole
| that consumes hours of your time.
|
| It's a tough problem because your eyes and ears are only able
| to process information serially, but concept-space is a
| complex multi-dimensional snaggle. How do we bridge that gap?
| The conventional answer is "good writing" but that's really
| tough to do. Eugene Wei didn't feel up to the task with the
| ideas in the OP, for example. I'm hoping that by giving
| people more room to play with how they structure their
| thoughts and ideas "writing skill" will be less of a
| constraint on human communication. I definitely don't think
| I've hit an optimal solution yet but it is a very fun problem
| to work on and talk about!
| nikki93 wrote:
| I think the "each new member can enhance creativity of existing
| members" vibe can exist generally among "scenes", and scenes
| definitely can use technology that directly taps into this.
|
| I like the "scenius" term for this from Brian Eno:
| https://youtu.be/0qATeJcL1XQ (54:15 in that talk)
| tp3 wrote:
| TikTok describes itself as: "The most fun, honest, true and
| honest place on the web you will ever get." That's how TikTok
| feels. The thing about TikTok is that, like with Facebook
| itself, you know every detail right from the beginning. Your
| friends and everyone who you have ever interacted with on
| Facebook are your peers. But TikTok is more powerful than
| Facebook when it comes to the social fabric. TikTok is like a
| community hub with social networks where everyone can be
| themselves. There are no limits when it comes to who can do
| what and how they can interact with each other.
| uniqueid wrote:
| Every video I have seen that managed to escape TikTok's confines
| and infiltrate my consciousness could be inserted into an episode
| of 'America's Funniest home Videos' and leave nobody the wiser.
| Firebrand wrote:
| I don't know why people are underestimating Instagram Reels.
| Instagram may be becoming more of an entertainment app like
| TikTok but it is still a social network. All content creators
| care about is engagement, and having the ability to push your
| short video into your Stories and your follower's main feed
| increases your chances of it being seen instead of relying on an
| algorithm.
| adventured wrote:
| The author is very incorrect.
|
| > By network effects of creativity, I mean that every additional
| user on TikTok makes every other user more creative.
|
| That is false.
|
| TikTok isn't a creativity amplification network, it's a mimic
| network. The extreme majority of humans are mimics, they
| essentially never create or do anything creative or original.
| They are incapable of that (cue the outrage at such a statement,
| even though it's true). They play follow the leader across a
| lifetime. TikTok, like most social networks, represents that
| accurately. What TikTok does not represent, is a burst of
| individual creativity that is widespread.
|
| It's a creativity distribution channel. The 0.01% that are
| originators distribute creativity to the drone mimics and they
| copy and share it.
|
| That's exactly what the dance copying represents for example.
| There is no great creativity explosion going on there, quite the
| opposite. As with YouTube or any other distribution system, an
| exceptionally tiny percentage of people are originators, actually
| creative, the rest mimic and pander and try to scam their way to
| some views by copying or ripping off originators (you see this
| repeating trend represented in everything, eg content farms).
| cambalache wrote:
| Good point. Even here in HN is very common from n-th YC me too
| company, to the "check out my innovative new JS
| framework/library/tool".
| zwieback wrote:
| Quite the elitist view! When I watch a few TikTok videos I
| quickly form an opinion whether something is creative or mere
| copying, I know it when I see it. Just writing the whole thing
| off seems insane, statistically speaking.
| wsinks wrote:
| A few questions for you, because I think you make a good point
| about it being a mimic network (where each person puts a slight
| spin on it).
|
| 1. Have you heard of the belief of "Human Design"? That belief
| / theory / spiritual guide has a similar distribution to what
| you're talking about. I'm just curious if your thinking was
| independent to that or if you've ever heard of it.
| (https://www.jovianarchive.com/Human_Design/Types)
|
| 2. How do you define originality? Is it something where "you
| know it when you see it", or is it something else?
|
| 3. Thinking of probabilities, wouldn't it also make sense that
| the default for people is to be un-original? We only have so
| many elements and so many places, I have to imagine that people
| being 'incapable of [doing anything creative or original]' is
| less a value statement and more just a logical progression of
| probability.
|
| 4. I've also come to a feeling that a person doing something
| that they've seen before, but do not see right at that very
| minute, is 'non-internet brain thinking'. We didn't have visual
| records so prevalent until just recently in humanity's
| lifetime. Repetition of behavior (lately sometimes called
| 'holding space for X') is a useful function for social
| networks, giving validity to someone's creativity.
|
| Again, not trying to invalidate anything you're saying (and I
| noted your 'cue the outrage' comment, hence why I'm over
| specifying this too)
|
| Super interesting take on the article, I've been wondering
| similar things for a while.
| wilde wrote:
| TikTok is powered by "yes, and", which is a perfectly fine form
| of creativity.
| willio58 wrote:
| This reads to me like one of those 90's articles over-
| simplifying and underestimating the internet. Not that what
| you're saying is completely wrong, and trust me I'm not saying
| TikTok == the Internet, but the belittling tone is off-putting.
| adventured wrote:
| I'd have to put a lot of effort into walking around the
| inevitable tone that is given off by calling the majority of
| people mimics. I know how that would have to come across. I
| don't think it's worth taking that long of a stroll to reach
| that outcome, the people that are going to disagree and
| instantly downvote due to outrage are never going to agree
| with the mimic premise no matter what I say or how I tone it.
|
| I don't view the premise as bad at all, or negative. It makes
| sense, it's a very reasonable biological system of
| replicating/copying what works and passing it along; it's
| very energy efficient for a species, and historically we've
| had to conserve energy, our evolution would strongly favor a
| mimic what works system. As a concept it also doesn't elevate
| us above other biological systems that operate on this
| planet, we're not that special; whereas to pretend that
| everyone can be da Vinci is to falsify what humans are, to
| pretend every person is a creativity giant in waiting if only
| they got the right encouragement. It's just more of everyone
| gets a trophy culture in action.
| starfallg wrote:
| As a corollary to that, genuine creativity requires a lot more
| time and effort to appreciate than a 60 second vertical video.
|
| Most of social media is just shallow attention grabbing time
| sinks. IOW, attention hacks.
| adventured wrote:
| I generally agree with that. It's one of the things people
| loved about TikTok, they got to feel like they were doing
| something creative or original, producing creative content,
| without having to invest years into learning how to actually
| dance. Copy some basic arm motions and movements, repeat it a
| lot until you memorize it, then record it and publish it. It
| requires very little thought, and the young crowd that is
| mostly doing it has a huge surplus of physical energy to put
| into copying & playing back mentally empty physical movement.
| knolax wrote:
| > The extreme majority of humans are mimics, they essentially
| never create or do anything creative or original. They are
| incapable of that (cue the outrage at such a statement, even
| though it's true).
|
| Of course people are going to be outraged over the statement.
| You're playing a semantic game where you came up with your own
| definition of creativity that excludes what most people do, and
| then not actually defining it or justifying it. If you used a
| more common definition of creative you'd have no argument to
| make.
|
| Novelty isn't the only thing that makes something creative, a
| string of randomly generated numbers is always novel but
| wouldn't be considered creative. Creativity requires novelty
| conveyed through recognizable patterns, which means some amount
| of mimicry has to be involved.
| psyc wrote:
| Every dictionary definition of the word I'm looking at right
| now includes the words "original", "originality", or "not
| imitated."
|
| I think the word "prolific" applies to what TikTok
| facilitates, much more than the word "creative." And
| personally I find the amount of word for word and beat for
| beat mimicry on the app maddening.
| knolax wrote:
| > Every dictionary definition of the word I'm looking at
| right now includes the words "original", "originality", or
| "not imitated."
|
| Citing dictionary definitions just shifts your argument
| from one word whose meaning you didn't define to another
| word whose meaning you haven't defined. Is the Mona Lisa
| original? It's not the first oil painting, nor the first
| portrait, nor even the first painting of an Italian
| noblewoman made in the renaissance style. Yet it's commonly
| considered to be creative despite being imitative and
| unoriginal in all those previously mentioned aspects. What
| definition of original can you then make that
| simultaneously includes the Mona Lisa, is mutually
| exclusive with any imitation, and excludes the "majority of
| humans".
| tp3 wrote:
| In TikTok, it is easy to dismiss the whole project because,
| well, it's not a huge deal. It's fun. It's easy to take for
| granted that the entire thing is the work of a single person
| who is basically a public relations and marketing specialist
| named TiKTok. This is not a joke. This is a reality that
| requires every minute of the day to be spent creating an avatar
| for their fan base of 6.5M.
|
| But TiKTok has only just launched that avatar. TiKTok has
| created another one. They are still creating the first and are
| hoping to add another.
|
| And as a result, TikTok has become this strange thing called
| "the Internet's Most Dangerous Video." For some reason, even
| people who are a little skeptical have found the world and
| become so accustomed to the idea of TikTok and their little
| thing that they can't imagine how this project can kill their
| brains for some of the crazy shit they're actually watching on
| it.
| analyst74 wrote:
| "good artists copy; great artists steal"
|
| Even someone as great as Picasso would not have been able to
| create the masterwork he left us without learning and getting
| inspirations (aka, steal) from other artists before his time.
|
| If you ever think someone is creating good original art
| (because shitty original art is easy to create), chances are
| you are just not familiar with the work they stole from.
| OrbitRock wrote:
| Maybe all creativity is just mimics who repeat things and add a
| little bit of variation.
|
| I think the book Steal Like an Artist addresses this.
| cambalache wrote:
| Or maybe it isnt, and the great breakthroughs are the result
| of fantastic imaginative and courageous minds.
| OrbitRock wrote:
| Fantastic and courageous minds working from the void?
|
| Or fantastic and courageous minds responding to some
| cultural or historical material?
|
| (Which would be much in the way a TikToker responds to a
| meme while adding some of their own spice).
|
| Let's not get bogged down by the fact that one domain might
| be perceived as more valuable/respected and the other not
| so.
|
| What have philosophers ever done post-Socrates except come
| across the ecosystem of historical philosophers and riff
| off of that?
| cambalache wrote:
| Yes, fantastic and courageous minds. The kind of person
| we all due our civilization: Newton, Hooke, Darwin,Gauss,
| Euler,Watts.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| I think there is some truth in that those characters were
| more creative than many other, but they did not create in
| a void. Your first example, Newton, said "If I have seen
| further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
| Who am I to contradict Newton? :)
| cambalache wrote:
| Arent you the same kid saying in other comment that there
| is not creativity, just imitation? Take a position and
| stick to it. BTW you are misinterpreting Newton (on
| purpose or not). He didnt say he copy them, he was humbly
| acknowledging there have been giants in science before
| him.
| OrbitRock wrote:
| Well, I think the insight in the article here is that a
| network (including such "giants" that came before) can
| boost the creativity of those who come after, even
| including a new giant such as Newton.
|
| Think about any modern scientist. Has their creativity
| been boosted by the existence of all the other
| scientists?
|
| If I'm a physicist, the existence of Newton boosted my
| creativity because now I can apply calculus to problems.
| If I'm a biologist, Im leaning on Darwin and all the
| insights of statisticians and the people who have
| delineated the methods and findings around which I
| organize my science.
|
| People have previously innovated the concepts, methods,
| and foundational understandings, and finding new insight
| can be a matter of combining these in novel ways.
|
| I don't think this is completely different than what the
| author is describing in TikTok. Both the format and
| ecosystem of tools that the service creates, and the
| social network of users create an environment where it's
| easier to go out and make something.
|
| A similar thing happens in science.
| ramoz wrote:
| I dont think this is true. Creativity happens when you
| combine/blend prior knowledge. We don't magically create
| new information without prior meaning.
|
| TikTok acts likes this and the remix is like a
| blending/combining prior creativity that leads to
| continuous new creativity.
| cambalache wrote:
| This very easily refuted, then no creativity is possible
| because who was going to create the "first knowledge"
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Your refutations is even more easily refuted. First
| knowledge is created by observing the world around us.
| Mimickry of the natural world is all around us, you even
| see it in animals.
| cambalache wrote:
| So you could create the knowledge without imitating
| others. Try again. The second time maybe will be better.
| That without entering in the discredited philosophical
| position of empiricism for epistemology.
| boh wrote:
| In its basic form, creativity is an act of creation. Whether or
| not these creations are at the Picasso/Mozart/Proust level of
| high art, creativity is technically operating in this network.
| Measuring creativity in the way where more of x produces more
| of y (more users=more creativity) is of course, not a real
| analysis. More people produce more content which may or may not
| be creative in nature (it can be a product review for
| instance).
| [deleted]
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Sounds like you're talking about the difference between a
| sourcerer and a wizard in Discworld.
| ggggtez wrote:
| I think you're wrong, but I don't think this should be
| downvoted.
|
| I think it helps to compare "copy and remix" with "does
| nothing". Compare "watched 50 difference dances" with "saw 0
| dances". When you see it in that light, it would be difficult
| to argue that some people _don 't_ get inspired by seeing new
| things.
|
| Now, I might argue that the level of creativity added from each
| additional user is not linear. That the creativity added is
| vacuous, pointless, 99% mimicry, and doesn't actually move the
| conversation forward...
|
| But there are those 1% of users who are able to participate in
| the global conversation and say something new, who otherwise
| would not be able to participate, that I think it's at least
| worth acknolwedging.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > TikTok isn't a creativity amplification network, it's a mimic
| network.
|
| Replication with some source of variation (such as even just
| "people aren't perfect mimics", but "some people apply some
| minor modicum of creativity" enhances this) plus selective
| pressure (such as interesting novelty getting rewarded) is
| sufficient for it to function as as Darwinian creativity
| amplification system by way of being principally a mimic
| network.
| adventured wrote:
| I suspect that out of a zillion mimic events you will get a
| small number of truly creative bursts, yes. I think it's very
| rare though and wouldn't qualify as being widespread
| creativity or origination. Also those bursts of new/original
| content coming out of initial copying may primarily come from
| burgeoning originators that are just being born so to speak,
| rather than from the mimic group. I doubt the process overall
| results in an increase in originators.
|
| edit: to the repeat downvoters instantly hitting every one of
| my comments, those that don't like the fact that I'm pointing
| out that humans are 99%+ mimics, I'd encourage you to add to
| the discussion and dissent from what I'm saying. I'd enjoy
| reading that counter. Everyone isn't a butterfly just waiting
| to be unleashed into the next da Vinci, that's a fantasy. It
| makes perfect sense that the majority operate as
| distributors, mimics, for things that the 0.001% come up with
| that work effectively. It would be an enormous biological
| waste of energy for everyone to be so creative, the mimic and
| distribute what works approach is logical. Humans do it with
| everything, including learning / copying skills, behaviors,
| systems, almost anything you can name. For example, there are
| always a very small number of teachers (as a share of the
| population) distributing knowledge/skills, and most teachers
| are also mimics, but they're custodian mimics that use
| various bullhorns to (ideally) spread what works faster.
| Teachers are rarely originators, the knowledge is passed down
| a distribution chain by mimics that serve various functions
| along the way. That's how a lot of systems in human societies
| work (politics and religion all work that way).
| robocat wrote:
| Recognising creativity is also creative. Art is in the eye of
| the beholder (not necessarily the creator).
|
| Something can be authored that was unintentionally
| interesting, but amplified by the creative recognition of
| some weird facet. For example cat videos - the cat isn't
| trying to get likes! Edit: or a security camera video where
| there is zero intent to create, and the art is in the
| recognition of the clip by everybody.
| orangeoxidation wrote:
| "Everything is a remix"
|
| TikTok being a "mimic network" does not show it's not
| creative.
|
| Creativity is primarily a product of creation, rather than
| one of originality and TikTok is, in fact, inspiring to
| create.
| tomerico wrote:
| The most disruptive part of Tiktok is how it managed to
| dramatically reduce the "rich gets richer" effect of
| entertainment platforms. If you upload a video, TikTok will show
| it to other users even if it's your first. This allows them to
| assess it and progressively grow its audience. On YouTube and
| Instagram you'd have to rely on search traffic or external
| sources to build up your audience and get recommended (except for
| the new Reels / YouTube Shorts that are mimicking TikTok's UI).
|
| I've done an experiment on the new year and created a video on a
| new account trying to catch people's attention (relevant to the
| new year, funny, with something unusual). I've done i on
| Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. On TikTok it gained over half a
| million views, with 0 views on YouTube and Instagram.
|
| Another way to frame this is around the Gini Coefficient of these
| platform. TikTok has a much lower inequality measure, which
| increases the incentives to produce content and hence the quality
| of content.
| mtgx wrote:
| This is an issue I've always hated about Steemit.com, too.
|
| There were a few writing mediocre at best content making up to
| $1,500 a day/post at some point, just because they managed to
| gain a lot of followers initially, while everyone else had to
| deal with writing dozens of posts and making only a few dollars
| a month, if that.
|
| Social platforms should take this "inequality" issue a lot more
| seriously. It's in their long-term benefit to have thousands,
| millions of people who "make it big" on their platform, not
| just a handful that make it "really big."
| user00012-ab wrote:
| Are you sure this isn't more of the Medium model, where they
| can show you a bunch of new people all the time, but you'll
| never actually follow them or see them ever again (just another
| nebulous medium post)? So really the only person that profits
| in this model is the company hosting the content.
| fragmede wrote:
| That happens with TikTok, but it's a result of the app's UX.
| (It seems intentional, but that's conjecture.) Following a
| user whose video you like is easy, but the app defaults to
| the "For You" page, which presents videos as picked by an
| algorithm. That algorithm doesn't just iterate over all the
| videos out of a user's followed artists, leading to the
| effect on creators mentioned. I may never see an artist's new
| content if it doesn't surface via the For You page.
| feralimal wrote:
| Serious question - if we are being recommended anything to
| watch, shouldn't we have some sort of idea of what the
| algorithm does?
|
| I would love to see advocates for openness in algorithms, as we
| have advocates for open source software. We have no idea what
| filters are applied by tiktok, youtube, etc. If I knew what
| they were, would I agree with them?
|
| Questions that arise for me, are:
|
| * What are the value judgements behind the algorithmic
| recommendations?
|
| * Is it ok for corporations to entrain their users with
| specific content, if that it is not based on a neutral
| algorithm?
|
| * There is surely interest on the part of corporations to
| promote or constrain certain ideas, that do not suit them.
| These would play out in the political, economic, legal domains.
| If the algorithm does not let you know, this would be a lie by
| omission, and therefore immoral IMO.
|
| Etc.
|
| I don't think I have seen any discussion on this, albeit I
| think it is a hugely important issue.
| tp3 wrote:
| I watch TikTok and watch their videos because my audience is
| just me. And because they are just me. I don't want to watch
| anyone else because I believe it's not worth watching them. But
| they are my audience. That's all I want. And they are my
| audience. And I feel like I should be making sure that they
| feel that way for me.
|
| And they are making damn sure that it is worth watching.
|
| When I think of this "I believe this thing is fucking worth
| watching" line I think of the way things used to be.
| justwalt wrote:
| GPT3?
| _nothing wrote:
| That's also my suspicion. Their other comments seem equally
| unintelligible to me. Could also be someone for whom
| English isn't their first language, but I do suspect I'm
| going to find this account on some GPT-3 writeup in a few
| months time.
| tp3 wrote:
| I am not an GPT-3 robot and I do not even having access
| to API or model while I am on the wait listing. I do not
| speak of native ENglish and maybe no great writer. Please
| excuse this deficiency.
| tp3 wrote:
| Do you mean the model? What about it?
| psyc wrote:
| I think they mean the text of your comment. I'm unable to
| parse it.
| RGamma wrote:
| To be fair, the discoverability on Youtube is shit and has been
| for years now (another topic).
|
| As much as I dislike TikTok for being idiotic, that's actually
| an aspect to sort of like about it.
|
| Of course it's still algorithmic spoon-feeding, but it seems
| they're inching closer to saner discovery tools. One can
| hope...
| drawkbox wrote:
| Youtube early days were similar to TikTok or any new platform,
| there are now just regular people doing creative things. As
| more and more videos are added, more businesses start to
| participate and more video depth/detail is added, then it gets
| harder to compete. It becomes less about just content value
| creation and more about content value extraction.
|
| It is almost as if these platforms need a few different
| algorithm setups, the ones that are for more long term quality
| content, indie/business and just one that is raw where fresh
| content can be seen. They try this with "trending" type systems
| but due to market size they are usually heavily manipulated.
|
| _Right now_ featured platforms like TikTok are similar to like
| Twitter in that only the latest stuff matters. On Youtube it is
| more about quality, long term content for many creators. It is
| about _right now_ but also you 'll find amazing videos on
| history, art, gaming, development, markets, information and
| more. Youtube, Vimeo and others or sites that have been
| available for a while, are more about all types of creators so
| the real-time hype of new content isn't as successful for
| creatives, they start building more niche or long term bases
| that requires more work to produce. To compete the levels of
| production go up and up.
|
| Shorter term real-time fresh platforms like TikTok are like the
| "new" algorithms on reddit/HN or the Twitter style freshness.
|
| Longer term real-time fresh AND detailed deeper content videos
| are more like what you find on when looking for information on
| a search engine like Google or "popular" algorithms and more
| refined, more competitive and owned by larger players, but also
| more about information and answers.
| cma wrote:
| When I visit TikTok without logging in I see a side bar
| recommending Will Smith, Gordon Ramsey, Kevin Hart, Selena
| Gomez, and SnoopDogg.
|
| They may surface other stuff better than other platforms, but
| they definitely have the same "rich gets richer" stuff in the
| default landing page too.
| rrdharan wrote:
| This always sounded pretty unequal to me.. has it stopped?
|
| https://theintercept.com/2020/03/16/tiktok-app-moderators-us...
| awooooo56709 wrote:
| If you read the actual "leak" it's obviously that the article
| is twisting words. It suppresses videos where the ugliness of
| a person is the main focus, not videos with ugly people.
| That's a perfectly legitimate anti-bullying tactic. Ugly
| people don't make videos focusing on their ugliness, people
| mocking ugly people do. It doesn't say anything about
| censoring poor people, just videos where the environment is
| dilapidated. Saying that it leads to censoring poor people is
| a big logical leap. Most of the rest of the article is just
| filler that adds nothing to the central thesis. Classic
| "journalism".
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| skybrian wrote:
| It sounds like a tremendous amount of creativity, but limited in
| scope to making videos? It seems kind of narrowly focused on
| entertainment.
| saurik wrote:
| ...or anything else that you can fit into video, such as news
| and politics or education and editorial.
| Spivak wrote:
| Sorta but in a lot of TikTok niches the endgame isn't really a
| video, that's just how it's presented. All the hobbyist
| communities make videos that show off their work and inspire
| others in their bubble. Like sure the video is "entertainment"
| in that it holds your attention but that's pretty much the
| extent of it.
|
| Like hobby TikTok is genuinely just a bunch of nerds being
| genuinely excited to show you something they're passionate
| about or something they made. It's so god damn refreshing. Like
| the early days of Tumblr.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-22 23:01 UTC)