Today we're sharing an episode of a new podcast called Power User, which explores how technology and the internet are upending our lives and the world around us, hosted by tech journalist Taylor Lorenz.
Subscribe: goo.gl/G5RXGs
Like The Verge on Facebook: goo.gl/2P1aGc
Follow on Twitter: goo.gl/XTWX61
Follow on Instagram: goo.gl/7ZeLvX
Follow on TikTok: bit.ly/42VeCVU
The Vergecast Podcast: pod.link/430333725
Decoder with Nilay Patel: apple.co/3v29nDc
More about our podcasts: www.theverge.com/podcasts
Read More: www.theverge.com
Community guidelines: bit.ly/2D0hlAv
Wallpapers from The Verge: bit.ly/2xQXYJr
Subscribe to The Vergecast on KZhead, new episodes on Tuesday and Friday: bit.ly/3I6nJtz
If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may receive a commission without exerting any influence on editorial content. For more information about our ethics policy, visit: www.theverge.com/ethics-state...
The thing I loved about the Verge’s Tik Tok debate from a few weeks ago, is that it provided arguments from both sides. I was a bit disappointed that this wasn’t that at all and only one sided. I appreciate Taylor’s points, but I feel like this topic is too important to release an episode (even it isn’t the flagship podcast) that takes one side. Maybe the next one will focus on the counter argument.
The adult Nilay wasn't in the room this time to add actual context, history, and established precedent this time around.
Could you pose the counter argument? I don't know of one - genuinely. A US GDPR would be a much more reasonable response that wouldn't single out one company for no apparent reason.
The counter argument is two-fold: 1. There is precedent for banning media from hostile nations, ie some 1930s statutes on foreign ownership of broadcast channels. It is firmly constitutional to ban foreign ownership of American broadcast channels (and Tiktok is a media broadcasting channel). China is a foreign adversary. 2. We KNOW China already exerts influence over Tiktok. It censors search of Uighur and China dissident content, even on the American version. That demonstrates some base level of control of the platform, despite Lorenz's assertions.
@@gavinathling Just the way you framed the question, suggests you have done absolutely no investigation of any contrary views. Listen to Hard Fork (NYTimes), for instance which gives two sides to the debate. (The no apparent reason, btw, is that they are controlled by a non-allied foreign government, something that we do not allow for ANY US broadcast companies, for instance.)
@@shadaoshai People with conservative or pro-"security" views like to see themselves as the 'adults in the room,' thinking they're all about stability and safety... but remember the Iraq War and the Patriot Act? Yet, we have to ask why American companies often navigate gray areas around user data without similar uproar. The same 'adults' worried about foreign influence seem less concerned when domestic entities exploit user data. This debate isn't just about security... it's about who gets to control the narrative and the platforms that challenge or uphold power structures. When they label themselves as 'adults,' are they protecting us, or just their own interests?
I appreciate a lot of these points, BUT they don’t argue against the reasons the lawmakers believe they should ban tiktok. Adding more reasons NOT to ban tiktok doesn’t inherently remove the reasons TO ban it. The fight can’t be won with whataboutisms.
Agree. I think they are missing the point. They make some good points too, but cover the whole story.
To all commenters: - Yes, it is one-sided discussion. - There’s not a conspiracy for the verge to publish one-sided views in tik tok. Nilay is literally the editor-in-chief and he argued the opposite case. - Data broker privacy laws are a fundamentally good idea, much needed in the US irrespective of a tik tok ban. - I don’t get the digs at Taylor’s persona, that is very irrelevant here.
while i agree that the conversation was one sided… i will say i think they made a LOT of valid points.
I thought this was about Tik Tok not MySpace
MySpace and TikTok > Facebook and Instagram
Ban toxic social media
Having an "expert" come on who gets several facts objectively wrong or so shallow in perspective as to be misleading, is a really bad look. Disappointing.
I come to the Vergecast for well researched debates looking at things from all possible angles. This is a one-sided opinion piece. @Vergecast team: What's the rationale behind promoting this?
great episode! will definitely add this on my weekly tech watch list^ Keep it up!
We talked about all of the things we should have done to fight misinformation after the 2016 election. We now have an opportunity to get ahead of the problem and we are digging our heels in. Did we actually learn anything from Russia’s misinformation campaign?
This would hurt so many small businesses that depend on TikTok for their living, plus infuriate many young people under the age of 25. Big brother focused on the wrong issues. Fix our infrastructure for one, maybe healthcare for two, then we can talk about social media apps 😅
For real, these people need to touch grass and go outside.
It's not either/or. We can fix infrastructure and healthcare, AND prohibit adversarial-controlled media companies from operating in the US. We don't have to choose between them.
Oh Boy 5:51
I subscribed to Taylor on threads (I am old, I know). To be honest, it gets a bit repetitive. She has many fine points and obviously experience but it gets a bit much for me sometimes. I know its hard when you are passionate about something but the sky is always falling.
A drama queen for laughable topics she is
Nilay is gone so David “continued the conversation” by flooding the channel with people who agree with him.
If David agrees that Tictok should be allowed to propagandize the American people then I would assume he would be ok with it himself… I’m not surprised.
Neither of them gets to make these decisions.
Great first episode. As soon as he mentioned algorithmic transparency laws I knew this show would be good
Bad form Verge. Two people who agree with each other framing it as a serious conversation is pointless. This feels about as partisan as it gets.
Thank you for having on a member of the elderly community to share their decades of experience with us.
Okay, Similac breath
Edgy tween content from 57 year old taylor lorenz
Boy, this wasn't what I expected. This is advocacy journalism and seems to use the Trump approach of just repeating the same (incorrect or incomplete) thing over and over to try to convince someone, although I have to admit I had to stop watching so maybe some actual points were made later. Hopefully everyone will be back next week.
The idea of free speech that gets thrown around isn't an ideal. Government (even in America) bears some responsibility for protecting its citizens. Yes fear mongering and saying "it's for kids" isn't ideal. But saying negative foreign influence on US culture is still free speech, I'm sorry I disagree. Not all regulations are bad. Apple could ban tiktok tomorrow just for profits. It's bizzare
can you have a Gen-Z guest though?
I think they’re both Z…no?
Taylor has her mic orientation wrong. You need to turn in towards yourself instead of talking into its side.
She doesn’t actually know anything about tech. She just gets hysterical over trivial topics.
I can hear her just fine
Taylor Lorenz lol
why is verge giving taylor lorenz a platform?!
I wanna ban all the Tik’s and the Tok’s
Ugh, Taylor Lorenz. No thank you. I know the site is friends with her and she's here only because she needs help promoting her podcast, but still, always a hard pass with her as a guest.
Taylor Lorenz…lol
WHen you have Taylor Lorenz, its always a lose lose.
Taylor Lorenz lol