[HN Gopher] Instagram deals reveal Meta is offering TikTok creat...
___________________________________________________________________
Instagram deals reveal Meta is offering TikTok creators as much as
$300k to post
Author : belter
Score : 75 points
Date : 2025-01-28 19:29 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.businessinsider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.businessinsider.com)
| belter wrote:
| https://archive.is/yhQHI
| grajaganDev wrote:
| "Meta has been contacting creators and their teams with deals
| offering thousands of dollars in exchange for exclusive video
| content posted to Instagram reels. The payouts described to
| Business Insider ranged from $2,500 to $50,000 a month and
| required the content to be exclusive to Instagram for three
| months."
| zakki wrote:
| The problem is there are many accounts that will happily remix
| the content and post to other platfrom, something like a
| reaction content.
| nemomarx wrote:
| is there a good historical example of this strategy working? I
| know platforms have tried paying for apps to be ported or etc and
| it never seems to drum up organic interest sufficiently.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Kick has successfully lured some big Twitch streamers away with
| incentives:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(service)#Streaming_deals
|
| And they seem to be trying to lure more people away by offering
| more favorable revenue splits than YT/Twitch.
|
| Of course this is all funded by online casino revenue, I don't
| know if it would "work" without being able to light money on
| fire. There are credible people out there insisting that Kick
| is losing money and only exists to funnel new customers to
| Stake's online gambling services.
| jorams wrote:
| > There are credible people out there insisting that Kick is
| losing money and only exists to funnel new customers to
| Stake's online gambling services.
|
| This is trivial to determine without even needing to defer to
| credible people: Its entire business model _outside of
| funneling people into gambling addiction_ is taking a 5%
| split of subscription revenue. This while it is paying Amazon
| for the actual (expensive) streaming tech[1], in a market
| that 's notoriously hard to be profitable in for companies
| taking both a larger cut and running ads.
|
| [1]: https://aws.amazon.com/ivs/
| criddell wrote:
| Didn't Substack pay some big names early on to use the
| platform?
| fullshark wrote:
| Spotify's podcasts and Joe Rogan? SiriusXM and Howard Stern?
| Those were superstars with undue influence though.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| From what I've seen in r/TikTok (curiosity has kept me going back
| to seeing how users are reacting everyday) they really hate Meta.
| They're so upset, they don't trust that the current
| administration wont taint the algorithm of TikTok as well. It's
| really wild to see the varying views.
|
| With that in mind, I would not be surprised if the top TikTok
| users will not take the free money. I mean its free money. If it
| actually works is another story though. Meta has been trying to
| force growth in new social media apps several times now, and its
| not really working, social media apps are basically generational.
|
| I feel bad for them I grew up on the internet, in my day it was
| MySpace and a few other sites, I can only imagine the outrage I
| would have felt if they knocked off one of my social communities
| I frequented as a teen.
| grajaganDev wrote:
| Meta is asking for exclusivity.
|
| It is important for influencers to diversify across platforms
| so I don't think this is a good deal.
| plorg wrote:
| I assume any one person's decision would rest on some kind of
| risk perception that TikTok becomes/remains non-viable for
| the given period of exclusivity.
| grajaganDev wrote:
| Yes, which is why I am advocating for diversification.
|
| If your livelihood depends on a single company, you exist
| at their pleasure.
| settsu wrote:
| This has been an unending source of frustration for me
| when I have followed someone on any of the algorithmic
| platforms vs. self-publishing.
|
| So often many will invariably end up letting the place
| where they predominant publish to dictate what and how
| they produce whatever it is they output. (I was fighting
| hard not to say the word "content"...)
|
| Which I despise but also understand: you do what anyone
| with a job does to keep the money flowing until someone
| in the relationship decides to end the arrangement.
|
| (Now that I think about it, self-publishing is hardly
| immune to that. It just means perhaps the creator's
| motives could be more varied and fluid?)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It must've _really_ pissed off Zuckerberg when for the first
| few months every popular reel had the TikTok logo and
| soundbite at the end.
| CommanderData wrote:
| Taint the algorithm away from what exactly?
| dns_snek wrote:
| Away from genuinely interesting, personalized
| recommendations, to be replaced with depressing rage-bait
| algorithm of sites like Twitter.
| Salgat wrote:
| I made the switch to YouTube shorts when tiktok went down
| and my experience is largely the same, if anything I'm
| seeing more educational material on electronics and
| programming which I enjoy. No ragebait yet unlike TikTok.
| No idea about instagram reels though.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| The TikTok algorithm is generally seen, by its users, as
| being really good. Once you've spent some time there and your
| For You Page really gets going, it really feels like it's For
| You. And the algorithm there doesn't seem to penalize people
| doing original reporting, current events explainers, science
| content and educational content, musical performances,
| tutorials, etc., alongside typical social media stuff like
| viral challenges and pet videos or whatever. The general
| "vibe" is that TikTok feels more "authentic," while Reels is
| mostly manufactured content (dance videos, AI slop, "funny"
| compilations, lots and lots of ads) and YouTube Shorts is
| where comedy skits and reuploads of TikTok content go to die.
| fetus8 wrote:
| Meta's algorithm on IG has gone so far down the toilet over
| the years. Before I deleted my account last year, I'd have to
| scroll through 5-7 sponsored posts before I'd actually see
| something from someone I actually follow. Nevermind the
| amount of regular old ads that were inserted into my feed.
| ceroxylon wrote:
| If they're already getting money from selling their attention
| and being constantly surveilled, it will take a much larger
| temptation to move to a different hypnosis platform.
| beastman82 wrote:
| > not be surprised if the top TikTok users will not take the
| free money
|
| This is a double negative. It means you would be surprised if
| they take the free money.
|
| Judging by the following text I think you mean you _would_ be
| surprised.
| bennettnate5 wrote:
| > This is a double negative.
|
| Not necessarily--one can be unsurprised at both the decision
| to take or not to take money, the two aren't mutually
| exclusive. I'm not surprised if it's not cloudy outside on a
| given day, but that doesn't mean I _am_ surprised if it is. I
| 'm just not surprised by general day-to-day changes in
| weather.
|
| The default surprising behavior here is to refuse $300k just
| to post on a different social media site; given the context
| of /r/TikTok, the parent comment not surprised that they
| don't take the money.
| nipponese wrote:
| It's hard for me to see influencers of today as organic users
| of the past.
|
| Many modern users start their journey as a business though the
| content may appear innocent or authentic.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _It's hard for me to see influencers of today as organic
| users of the past._
|
| They're not, and never have been. Nor are they innocent -
| they're corrupting and destroying the platforms they're on.
| And, for all the talk on authenticity, they're the direct
| opposite of it.
|
| I remain bewildered by the continued social acceptance of
| this work. We're talking about people who openly accept and
| refer to themselves using the term "influencer" - a word
| that's directly synonymous to "manipulator". How much more
| in-your-face do they have to be about telegraphing malicious
| intent?
| ryandrake wrote:
| Addictive brainrot is a powerful force. Like cigarettes.
| You could put a skull and crossbones on the packaging and
| call them "Marlboro Tumors" and people would still line up
| to buy them. Social Media consumers know what they are
| doing is bad--they can't stop because they are addicted.
| ideashower wrote:
| I think a lot of those offered would understand how people on
| TikTok would turn on them for selling out. They're not stupid,
| quite the opposite. I detest how the political landscape of the
| internet has evolved to such an extent that it now influences
| our decisions about posting or not posting content online.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > From what I've seen in r/TikTok (curiosity has kept me going
| back to seeing how users are reacting everyday) they really
| hate Meta. They're so upset, they don't trust that the current
| administration wont taint the algorithm of TikTok as well. It's
| really wild to see the varying views.
|
| "I don't like people in government dictating what I see online.
| My stand against it will be to create an account for an online
| service run by a company based in the People's Republic of
| China."
|
| EDIT:
|
| Downvote all you want, that's what they're doing.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| It's not "free money". Posting exclusively on Meta's apps means
| missing out on the biggest portion of their audience. For a
| very lucrative channel they could be giving up much more than
| they gain.
| area51org wrote:
| Stupid question, maybe, but IANAL: is this even legal? Isn't it
| _illegal_ to pay others to bury your competitor?
| grajaganDev wrote:
| I think it is legal but it risks anti-trust scrutiny.
|
| Google pays Apple tens of billions to be the default iPhone
| search engine - this seems quite similar.
| spencerflem wrote:
| Or would, if the anti trust people did their jobs
| grajaganDev wrote:
| Yup and we will be seeing even less enforcement going
| forward.
| martinky24 wrote:
| How is this any different than the a sports league giving
| exclusive rights to their product to a specific network...?
| redeux wrote:
| No it's definitely not illegal. Companies hire consultants,
| influencers, contractors all the time to help them improve
| their product, brand, positioning etc. It could be an issue if
| the influencers have a contract with TikTok and Meta encourages
| them to break it. Then it becomes tortious interference. Also,
| IANAL but I took a business ethics class in college that
| covered this topic.
| ru552 wrote:
| Of course it's legal. They offer you money to exclusively post
| on their platform. Joe Rogan got paid to exclusively podcast on
| spotify. All of the talking heads on TV news are paid to
| exclusively be on their specific channel (ABC,NBC,FOX,etc.) The
| twitch streamer, Ninja, that got paid to move from twitch to
| Microsft's failed Mixer platform, etc. etc..
| singleshot_ wrote:
| This is an extremely low-quality answer which in no way
| correctly represents the complexity underlying the question.
|
| GP would need to talk to an antitrust expert to learn more
| useful information concerning the distinction between being a
| monopoly, and illegally leveraging monopoly power. I am not
| such a person, so I'm not going to say more here.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Contracts are a fundamental part of common law, why would it be
| illegal to enter one?
|
| Also, it's a big leap to prove that exclusive agreements to
| post on a specific platform is attempting to bury a competitor,
| TikTok (and every other company) is free to offer exclusivity
| contracts as well.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| If you phrase it like that, sure. But I'm positive that's not
| how meta phrased it.
|
| Everyone at Meta needs to take a "communicating with care"
| course every year which exactly trains you to hide your true
| intentions and not leave a paper trail of anti-competitive
| statements.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Anyone else concerned that Americans are embracing Chinese
| technology? A bit before Tiktok went down the app store showed
| that Chinese "Red," Tiktok type of app was at the top of the
| charts. Why wouldnt American users flock to American apps like
| Snapchat, YouTube, etc? Is it a bratty thing ... govt took away
| what I was using and so Im going to go all in and only use
| Chinese Tiktok competitors?
|
| Also, with Threads at the top of the iPhone app store constantly
| yet I dont know anyone who uses it .. makes me wonder is there a
| way to gain the top positions in the app store? Either paying for
| it and or gaming the system via massive army of bots?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Conversely, why wouldn't we expect the rest of the world to
| abandon American technology? We have members of the current
| administration in Germany stumping for AfD, and all of the
| American tech giants are toeing the party line.
|
| For the rest of the world, the risk and dangers of American
| interference in their elections appears to be more present and
| explicit than the dangers of Chinese interference.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| If that's their reasoning, then there's not much we can say
| to change their minds.
|
| After all, look at China's thriving, diverse political
| environment.
| g8oz wrote:
| The impression for better or worse is that the U.S
| interferes abroad far more than China, so they are a safer
| bet.
| ohjimny wrote:
| I find it hard to empathize with your views that American
| political life is healthy and democratic, and China is
| corrupt and stagnant.
|
| American imprisons 10 times as many of its citizens than
| PRC. Most of these people are imprisoned for ideological
| crimes ("Protestant norms say that you should not
| intoxicate yourself") or political crimes ("our system
| holds that no one is entitled to the necessities of human
| life").
| Micrococonut wrote:
| People are very aware that American tech companies want to
| control and exploit them as much as possible so there's really
| no difference to them between a Chinese app and an American
| app. Big tech trying to use its political power to force users
| into their platforms is an assault on our freedoms. You call it
| a bratty thing but I call it the only way the people have left
| to protest the enshittification of their digital lives.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > People are very aware that American tech companies want to
| control and exploit them as much as possible so there's
| really no difference to them between a Chinese app and an
| American app
|
| I mean, if that is indeed their rationale, then our civics
| education really does suck.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| Or, perhaps they have made a reasoned determination that
| their own government does not represent their best
| interests, and are less concerned about the impact a
| foreign power thousands of miles away has on their lives.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| The ultimate goal for the foreign power is to impact
| people thousands of miles away.
| spencerflem wrote:
| less concerned not unconcerned. learn to read yourself
| before lecturing people about education
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > less concerned not unconcerned
|
| Giving a totalitarian regime access to the device that
| more-or-less holds your entire life and acts as a perfect
| surveillance portal to your every move decidedly falls
| more on the unconcerned side of the scale.
|
| Unless, of course, they didn't make a particularly
| "reasoned" determination like you said.
|
| > learn to read yourself before lecturing people about
| education
|
| Let's keep the ad hominem to a bare minimum.
| spencerflem wrote:
| Some of us consider the USA to be an authoritarian
| regime. And without a doubt as someone living there they
| have massively more influence over my life.
|
| _poof_ China has all my data - what do they do with it?
| Vs the USA where there is documented proof that the NSA
| was used against Vietnam War critics etc.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > Some of us consider the USA to be an authoritarian
| regime.
|
| Some of us have a definition of "authoritarian" that is
| different from that of reality. I've lost count of the
| number of political dissent posts I've seen towards both
| sides of the political spectrum in the United States on
| American-based social media platforms.
|
| And if authoritarianism is really a problem, why double
| down on the governments you give your data to?
|
| > And without a doubt as someone living there they have
| massively more influence over my life.
|
| Compared to the influence that the Chinese government has
| over the Chinese people, it's minor. That also goes for
| the governments of most places China has strong ties
| with. Strengthening their sphere of influence in the US
| is not the act of those who have concerns over
| authoritarian regimes influencing their lives.
|
| > poof China has all my data - what do they do with it?
|
| They're a rather imaginative bunch when it comes to cyber
| offensives, so let's imagine one ourselves.
|
| They could scour your contacts and content for dissidents
| abroad, using that information to inform those operating
| one of their extralegal international "police stations"
| as to their whereabouts. [0]
|
| Now, let's stop imagining. Let's see what they have been
| confirmed as actually doing with it.
|
| They could collect geospatial data and combine that
| information with other personal details to compromise the
| security of people who work in sensitive places. This has
| actually led a number of nations, including Norway,
| Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK to ban TikTok
| from being installed on devices with access to government
| networks [1]
|
| It's worth remembering that the US only banned the TikTok
| app - they could have continued operating in the US
| through a mobile webpage, but decided not to and threw a
| fit until Trump rearranged (perhaps extralegally) the law
| banning the app. Why? Because apps give _far_ more access
| to devices than webpages, which have sandboxed processes
| and other checks on what code can access. If keeping
| American eyes on TikTok was the one and only goal, that
| app would have been a sacrifice that they were willing to
| make. The fact that they _had_ to have the app tells me
| that they may have wanted the extra access that native
| apps afford.
|
| > Vs the USA where there is documented proof that the NSA
| was used against Vietnam War critics etc.
|
| I'm not saying the American intelligence apparatus has
| clean hands. If that's the concern, then again, _cut back
| on social media and apps that collect unknown quantities
| and qualities of data_ , instead of opening up more
| accounts to totalitarian governments that have a long
| history of using censorship and surveillance in a very
| straightforward way to achieve their political aims.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_
| servic... [1]https://www.context.news/big-tech/us-tiktok-
| ban-which-other-...
| spencerflem wrote:
| Hey I'm all for not using either, that's what I do. And I
| get banning it on government phones. They ought to ban
| almost everyhring on those, but especially foreign
| controlled apps. And I don't like what China does to
| their citizens either.
|
| But you'll never convince me that the main reason for the
| ban wasn't to replace Chinese propaganda with American /
| Billionaire propaganda and tbh that one's less charming.
|
| And if your imaginative worst case scenario is that they
| use my data to root out and extrajudiciously kill ex-
| Chinese dissidents in America then idk why that would be
| a problem for me since I don't know any of those. I do
| know some American activists, though.
|
| I can easily invent way more damning fantasies of what
| the US Govt could do to me, a US citizen, if they had an
| admin willing to subvert constitutional norms and more
| visibly use the PRISM surveillance tools.
| ohjimny wrote:
| You think the purpose of civics education is to teach young
| people to trust American big tech and the American
| government above foreigners regardless of evidence??
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Zizek has a very interesting argument [1] that is perhaps
| relevant here. (Lightly cleaned up transcript)
|
| > Imagine you are a small girl or boy of, let's say, eight
| years. It's Sunday afternoon and your father wants you to
| visit your old grandmother. You, of course, detest it - she's
| old, senile, whatever. But then, if you have an old
| authoritarian father, he will tell you something like - and
| this would be, as Alenka put it, a good thing to do - he will
| tell you: "Listen, I don't care how you feel. Just do your
| duty, go to your grandmother and behave there properly."
| That's perfect, I claim, because you will retain your, let's
| call it, inner freedom. You will be furious at your father,
| but that's good for your long-term freedom.
|
| > Now, what would a monster called post-modern permissive
| father do? He would not give you an order, but he would have
| told you something like this: "You only go to visit your
| grandmother if you really want to. Just remember how much
| your grandmother loves you." Now, a child is not an idiot,
| and he or she will know perfectly what this order means.
| Beneath the appearance of a free choice, it gives you a much
| harsher order. The order is not only "you must go and visit
| your grandmother," but "you must do it freely." You must
| really wish to visit your grandmother.
|
| > So you see, this nice example of how - and this is
| basically what also Alenka described as that situation - "do
| whatever you want," etc., where the apparent freedom of
| choice masks a much harsher choice.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZoheZbxT6I
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| > Is it a bratty thing ... govt took away what I was using and
| so Im going to go all in and only use Chinese Tiktok
| competitors?
|
| I wouldn't call it "bratty," but that is certainly part of it.
| My impression of the situation is that yes, folks flocked to a
| Chinese app because they were a) angry at the US government and
| wanted to undermine the purpose of the TikTok ban; b) equally
| angry at US social media services that are seen as being to
| willing to acquiesce to the demands of the US government in
| general and the current administration in particular, and c)
| ultimately unconcerned about who has their data.
|
| I have a hypothesis about my point c, which is that TikTok's
| user population skews younger, and so we have a population of
| social media users who grew up with the understanding that
| their data and attention are packaged, sold, and analyzed by
| anyone and everyone; they're not concerned about the
| implications of giving data to China, and it strikes them as
| hypocritical for the US government to spend decades on data
| collection and only express concern when users decide to take
| that data outside the the US sphere of influence.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| I agree with you. I actually had a nice group chat with some
| family members about this particular thing recently. This stood
| out in particular which my niece posted:
|
| "The only thing China has ever done to me is sell me cheap
| stuff, which is great because the main way people get money who
| aren't rich are through jobs, and companies don't really want
| to A) have employees and B) pay them anything. Companies are
| controlling everything so everyone I know is poor and just
| going to get poorer. I don't know how China is supposed to be
| harming me through Tiktok. I don't know how China is going to
| use my data to hurt me. Honestly I don't know why people want
| data so badly when everyone's broke-why don't you already know
| that. The only chinese stuff I see on Tiktok are people cooking
| and burning incense. I would understand if I like worked for
| the government but I work at a fast food place so ... what are
| they gonna do? Get me fired from Mcdonalds? Lol you could have
| multiple felonies and still work at Mcdonalds. Now they're
| gonna take Tiktok away like they take everything else and it's
| stupid. The other stuff sucks-Facebook is for old people and
| dumb minion memes, I keep seeing dumb alpha male crap on
| YouTube, and Instagram doesn't show me anything new after
| scrolling on it for ten minutes. Why do like 3 companies have
| to control everything?"
|
| Lots of fallacies and issues with those statements. We had lots
| of conversation after that. But I think that shows the general
| mood among those who are sticking with Tiktok. A lot of the
| value is that it's simply not Meta.
| spencerflem wrote:
| kinda agree with everything there tbh
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| I don't really see the fallacies and issues in what your
| niece said, sounds like she's got a good head on her
| shoulders.
| 65 wrote:
| I think the whole Deepseek fiasco revealed a lot about where
| the American technology world is at, which is funneling huge
| sums of money into tech monopolies. If Chinese companies
| disrupt American monopolies, to me that's a good thing.
| andrewla wrote:
| I mean, the company happens to be Chinese but I don't think
| that's why anyone is using it. The "little red book" app was a
| flash in the pan because it was hyped as a successor, but the
| download charts are ephemeral.
|
| The reason that TikTok is winning is because it is a superior
| app in pretty much every way to its competitors (reels or
| shorts). The UI is clean and simple for producers and
| consumers, the interactions are all well done, and most of all,
| the content is all there, with some cross-posted to the others
| but mostly for larger channels that can afford to invest in
| boosting their reach.
|
| You can bemoan its addictiveness or whatever, but don't pretend
| that it's a bad app that people use because they are desperate
| for Chinese propaganda. It's so much better that the US
| government is actively trying to kill it so that the domestic
| alternatives have a chance.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Better be Mr Beast level to get that
| ohjimny wrote:
| Mr Beast is orders of magnitude above that. He spends around
| $1m a week on his YouTube videos. His Amazon show has a nine
| figure budget.
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Makes me really want to work for TikTok
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I'm always bearish on social networks that have to poach
| creators, it's a sign that there's no underlying culture or
| authenticity. A related case is Twitch which people have been
| relatively negative about, but it seems pretty telling to me that
| every time a creator leaves it's generally for a fat contract,
| and the moment that runs out they're immediately back.
|
| I'd always bet on the platforms that have a natural draw and
| appeal even with worse payment, and TikTok is one such case. It
| seems kind of painful honestly how hard Meta or Youtube with
| shorts have tried to emulate it while it's pretty obvious they're
| out of touch in some way.
|
| Facebook and even Zuckerberg himself personally with his cringy
| rebranding has increasingly that "How do you do fellow kids"
| energy to him
| fumar wrote:
| I am surprised about the lack of alternatives. I grew up during
| live journal and Myspace days so it felt like new communities
| were developing all the time. Don't young folks want to rebel
| against the status quo (including tik tok)?
| Kye wrote:
| You couldn't avoid interacting with the rest of the tech stack
| that provided access to Myspace. You can use TikTok, even have
| a career on it, and never know a single thing about the web,
| internet, tech, etc. This is increasingly the normal
| experience. There's no built in way to learn there's other
| possibilities unless they happen upon a video about it.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| No I think young people want to be a part of the status quo
| more than anything.
| hnthrow90348765 wrote:
| There's a huge moat with getting the critical mass of users to
| produce/consume content to make everyone follow-on to the
| platform before your startup cash runs out. That all depends on
| technical competency to make and keep it smooth, on top of
| offering enough to creators and advertisers to be competitive.
| fullshark wrote:
| They like attention more
| bastardoperator wrote:
| They could post their content to instagram today and "make" money
| themselves. I do a little bit of advertising for some projects I
| work on, we cut instagram because it has the lowest of all
| traffic. I have videos getting 180K-10K views hundreds of likes
| and comments on some platforms, 3 on instagram. It's not even
| worth the effort...
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Reels are reportedly easier to go viral for organic marketing
| vs TT for <1 minute content. Assume you're talking about paid
| ads
| bastardoperator wrote:
| All of our videos are under a minute. We have hundreds of
| them. We have over a million views on TikTok and YT, and
| almost nothing on Instagram. The interesting part is we did a
| project awhile back on Instagram and we got tons of followers
| but little engagement. This could all be antidotal and
| something we're not doing right, but we didn't try cracking
| some code on the other platforms, we upload and it mostly
| does its thing.
| cmdtab wrote:
| What kind of content are you producing and whom are you
| targeting as customer?
| axegon_ wrote:
| Nothing surprising. We are deep into the age of griefter economy
| - make a cringey video - making a scene - whether it's an
| argument between people or "owning someone", get people roiled up
| against each other, start selling merch like shirts or a book
| full of your "wisdom" and you are set for life. Tiktok is the
| perfect platform for stuff like that with practically 0
| regulation. Meta just wants a piece of that cake, simple as that.
| 300k may as well be well worth it. The sad part is that
| ultimately it is us, the users that end up suffering. A decade
| ago science videos were thriving on YouTube and I loved it. These
| days we are lucky if we get two videos out of hundreds if not
| thousands of youtubers that used to push 40 minutes of videos
| each every month. I don't blame them, I'd also find it utterly
| demotivating to have a team of people and a month worth of work
| from dawn till dusk every month just to get a microscopical
| fraction of what some teen gets for shouting at a minecraft
| screen for 30 minutes.
| dns_snek wrote:
| I think that in some ways, certain parts of TikTok feel like
| the old YouTube. It's usually one person talking into a camera
| about a subject they know a lot about and it's usually straight
| to the point. Videos aren't as long as they're on YouTube but
| there's a lot of 3-5 min long content.
| uhoh-itsmaciek wrote:
| https://nebula.tv/ is a nice YouTube alternative for that kind
| of stuff (disclaimer: I'm mostly a subscriber for the music
| content, so my perception may be skewed).
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I pine for an in-between world. My youtube feed and Watch Later
| list is filled to the brim with 40-90 minute videos I'll likely
| never get to. Youtube seems determined to push longer videos on
| me. I'd much prefer more 8-15 minute videos which seem to be as
| rare as hen's teeth. It feels like you either get 4 seconds or
| 45 minutes. Nothing in between.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| I think your point about the grift is well-put.
|
| But I disagree with your comment about YouTube. I think YouTube
| recommendations work extremely well, and I only see videos that
| are related to the 5-6 topics I am exploring on YouTube in the
| previous few weeks. And when I explore a new topic I start
| seeing those recommendations instead.
|
| I have never seen a Mr Beast video (or any other video by
| similar hucksters) on my feed.
|
| You do need to be logged in though. But I use Premium, so
| that's a given.
| ipdashc wrote:
| Yeah, I thought it was odd to call out Youtube, especially
| science videos in particular. To me it's always seemed
| Youtube is one part of the internet that has managed to
| maintain some decently sane bits among the brainrot. I'm not
| even logged in half the time, but the recommendation
| algorithm kicks quite well after a video or two, even in
| incognito (after you make it past the whiplash of the
| "default" home page, which is admittedly pretty nasty). My
| sidebar is typically mostly edutainment type stuff
| (AlphaPhoenix, Technology Connections, Applied Science,
| NileRed...) and while it's not refined university-level
| content or anything, it's quite alright. (And I'm confused
| why the parent comment lamented the lack of science videos!
| There's honestly so much neat stuff still being made today.
| Heck, look at 3b1b.) Like you said, I never really see Mr.
| Beast or alt-right pipeline stuff or anything like that. If
| anything, maybe the other platforms could learn from Youtube
| - I get the feeling they've cleaned up their algorithm in
| recent years?
| giarc wrote:
| This is why any sale of Tiktok without the algorithm will fail.
| The Chinese will just stand up another app with the TT algo and
| just incentivize a ton of creators with big paycheques. The
| eyeballs will follow, TT will die and we'll move onto the next
| Chinese surveillance app. Hence why the US should have been more
| broad in their law rather than target TT specifically.
| thih9 wrote:
| > the US should have been more broad in their law rather than
| target TT specifically
|
| This is already the case; the law doesn't just target TT, it is
| applicable to other platforms too.
|
| "It would ban social networking services within 270 days if
| they are determined by the president of the United States and
| relevant provisions to be a "foreign adversary controlled
| application""[1]
|
| [1]:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fo...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| _edit:_ Parent comment previously stated simply that the law
| didn 't target TikTok specifically.
|
| Yes, it does.
|
| https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/PLAW/118/public/PLAW-118pub.
| ..
|
| > (i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
|
| > (ii) TikTok;
|
| > (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity
| identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a
| foreign adversary; or
|
| > (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly,
| by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
|
| It can be applied to others, but there's a process.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| (iii) would be easy to show for any new Chinese app that
| gets anywhere near as big as TT
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No, not unless it has shared ownership/assets/employees
| etc. with ByteDance/TikTok. A new Chinese app falls under
| the later part of the law; there's more process
| (Presidential assessment, declaration, and report to
| Congress). ByteDance/TikTok specifically are deemed
| already problematic in the law.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I didn't say there wouldn't be any process, but it's easy
| to show since all media corporations in China are subject
| to control by the CCP -- it's not a secret or difficult
| to detect, and it doesn't necessarily involve identifying
| shareholders.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| OK, but that's not _this_ part of the law; this part is
| entirely specific to ByteDance and its TikTok subsidiary.
| Non-ByteDance Chinese companies would fall under the
| separate extra-process bit here:
|
| > (B) a covered company that (i) is controlled by a
| foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the
| President to present a significant threat to the national
| security of the United States following the issuance of a
| public notice proposing such determination; and (II) a
| public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30
| days before such determination, describing the specific
| national security concern involved and containing a
| classified annex and a description of what assets would
| need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
| biohcacker84 wrote:
| Isn't the algorithm publicly known? Any video show it to at
| least one person, if they watch it show it to more.
|
| Which people on TikTok early on called the most fair algorithm.
| However, I suspect Youtube initially had the same or a very
| similar one.
|
| And in both cases I suspect once the app becomes very popular
| the algorithm is updated to be more profitable, whatever that
| requires.
|
| In other words, enshittification affects everything.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > In other words, enshittification affects everything.
|
| The presence of this comment in every HN thread is a meta-
| example.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-28 23:01 UTC)