> Under this policy, TikTok moderators were explicitly told to suppress uploads from users with flaws both congenital and inevitable. “Abnormal body shape,” “ugly facial looks,” dwarfism, and “obvious beer belly,” “too many wrinkles,” “eye disorders,” and many other “low quality” traits are all enough to keep uploads out of the algorithmic fire hose.
A TikTok spokesperson seems to confirm they are real guidelines, but won’t confirm how they were used.
> TikTok spokesperson Josh Gartner told The Intercept that “most of” the livestream guidelines reviewed by The Intercept “are either no longer in use, or in some cases appear to never have been in place,” but would not provide specifics.
search for any tag that has mainly people like beach or hiking, all accounts are from very beautiful people with lots of followers.
your algorithm promotes people with more followers and likes, which are bound to be more beautiful people. Unless you avoid any interest in tags related to people and see only beautiful bunnies, not ugly bunnies, your feed will be only beautiful creatures.
I don't know how you can deny that.
No, it does not.
There is a big difference between:
- showing you unconnected content you are likely to engage with
- having rules enforced with the help of human reviewers to prevent any user from getting recommendations with people deemed ugly/poor/etc.
The content you see depends on your interests. Making this up: if you regularly engage with topics that have a majority of fat people posting, say weight loss strategies, you will see a lot of fat people in Instagram Explore.
It's the difference between:
- Instagram: "I mostly see beautiful people" (because that's the content I and many users engage with).
- Tiktok: "I never see ugly people" (because the platform has a guideline that prevents that content from being shown to me)
Suppose 10 users on average interact with 2 non-ugly persons and 1 ugly person. People like commenting on the non-ugly people's content with "wow so pretty!" and "that's awesome! ", etc, etc while ugly people don't get as many comments and maybe even receive neutral to non-positive comments.
Now a new person signs up. They get recommend non-ugly people in their feed since that's more popular based on views and interactions.
Another new person signs up and they get the same recommendation, and so on.
After 100 new sign ups, the recommendation engine has 'learned' that majority of people prefer interacting with non-ugly people.
Another new user signs up and all they see in non-ugly people recommendations.
The end result is pretty much the same. Ugly people will get pushed out enough either by the programmatic learning engine that becomes over trained and biased, or by manual reviewers that filter content based on data that shows that non-ugly people bring in more users, otherwise they'd promote ugly people content if that was driving more interactions.
(I work at IG, but not on Explore)
If you cannot see this critical difference between enforced directive and choice of interest, then god help you.
by the same standard, you can see ugly people on tiktok, because they don't delete the post, they just supress it from popular feeds.
That's not what happens to me. Instagram consistently pushes model-type people to me even though I hardly ever interact with those types.
It kind of makes sense. Bad results can and do come out of well-intentioned decisions. In other areas (business, legislation) we judge policies by their actual effects, not by their creators' intentions.
Half of my explore is memes and infographics because that’s what I interact with a lot.
The older crowd also prefer to look at beautiful people.
I don't understand why you would need to actively encourage this, I don't believe Twitter would ever have people with “Abnormal body shape,” “ugly facial looks,” dwarfism, and “obvious beer belly,” “too many wrinkles,” “eye disorders,” and many other “low quality” features trending.
Instagram on the other hand is so beauty centric that it's created its own makeup aesthetic.
Anyway, I uploaded the most recent video on my phone as a test which was me getting my nostrils waxed in a Turkish Barbers. It hit the For You page and it's now got 360k views :-(
The only difference with Facebook is that it got crap from people who wanted it to be responsible for it's content (fake news), while TikTok gets crap from people who were not prepated for it to be so moderated, but it's still the same fundamental problem of trying to sit on both chairs at the same time.
Maybe you don't owe a country better, but you owe this community considerably better if you want to post here.
But even apart from that, there is a litany of comments that broke the site guidelines. It's not like these were hard to find:
* TikTok's local moderation guidelines ban pro-LGBT content - Chinese-owned social media app bans such content even in countries where homosexuality has never been illegal 
* Revealed: how TikTok censors videos that do not please Beijing - Leak spells out how social media app advances China’s foreign policy aims 
It's unpleasant, but a handy reminder that TikTok and other social networks don't work for you, but make you into a product.
To me, this seems most similar to movie producers hiring attractive people to be in their movies. TikTok creators are making content for the platform, and the platform is curating the content to try and find things it thinks the audience will like. In the same way movie producers select specific people to be in their movies because they think their audience will appreciate them.
Sadly, they’re probably right.
Perhaps it feels sad because much of attractiveness is "unearned". Some people are born more or less attractive than others and that is unfair - but I think most human attributes are like this. A smart person didn't earn their intelligence, and while they may feel they earned their knowledge, and perhaps they're right, they'd never have been able to earn their knowledge and intellectual accomplishments if they had been born mentally deficient. Famous basketball players work hard, but it wouldn't matter if they were born into 5'5" bodies, etc.
That some people are more attractive than others is unfair, but that fundamental unfairness shouldn't prevent us from appreciating attractive people in my view. I don't see anything wrong with promoting more attractive TikTok users provided it does actually result in a better user experience. In the same way I don't see anything wrong with selecting attractive people to be actors in your movie or film. If you want people to like the main character then it is probably smart to cast an attractive person.
Sounds just like a lifestyle magazine, or a catwalk, or a million other situations that have been normalised in which people are chosen for how they look (just about every prospectus appears to choose people to present their idea of the right type of diversity, for example).
It's not great, but TikTok just seems to be doing the same as most other organisations?
Even disregarding social ideals about listening to people who don’t look like underwear models, the potential for harm is very real - look up Body dysmorphic disorder for the kinds of very real mental health problems this can create in younger generations.
I think given the potential risks, we should have conversations about what this problem is and possible policy solutions. Giving children skewed perceptions of the world, or encoding these kinds of biases about who is worth paying attention to is dangerous.
I am not saying this is an ethical thing to do, I am saying these apps are no different from nightclubs and they gotta do what they gotta do to survive. And no matter what you may say, humans prefer non ugly people over ugly people. I am sorry but this is simply how humans work. If you disagree, then you are a hypocrite.
So should high end nightclubs be publicly shamed for doing what they do (when what their "users" want is exactly non-ugly people) and driven out of business?
Or fashion products, which hire models based on attractiveness.
Or the music industry, which puts forward pop stars that are attractive while keeping ones that don't have sex appeal off the air.
Or the film industry. Or the literally any other industry that tries to survive via popularity and getting eye time. Attractiveness sells. What TikTok is doing is no different than any other industry, it's just that the models aren't getting paid.
Sure, why not?
Privately-run-and-owned social networks like TikTok tend to attain a critical mass where they're considered a utility when they're really not. So boycotts don't work because it becomes literally where everyone is after a while, and alternatives become difficult because the barrier to entry gets so high.
That's the real problem, and the problem of a centralized Internet. I should be able to broadcast video from my house and participate in a peer-to-peer CDN of my choice.
Tiktok is not a CDN, it's a presentation layer on top of their own CDN or one they rent through cloud providers.
But even ignoring the authoritarian state angle, surely you'd think it'd be weird and counterproductive for user content from YouTube or Instagram or imgur to have similar policies? Those sites are also not nightclubs or modeling agencies or a Hooters franchise either.
FWIW it's totally shitty for nightclubs to be discriminatory in that way. I get why they do it, but it doesn't make it any less shitty of them, and it sure as hell doesn't let them off the hook for their shittiness in this regard.
Tangentially, this is one of infinitely many reasons that nearly all of humanity hates nightclubs, including the people that feel socially obligated to go to them, and including people still young enough to convince themselves that they must be having fun there because it sure looks like everyone else is, not realizing that everyone else is thinking the exact same thing.
You say "it's a place for people to put their content out on the internet", but you don't ask WHY they would do that. And I don't know if you have used TikTok at all, but if you ask anyone who "put their content out on" TikTok, they would agree TikTok is like a giant nightclub.
It's more like a strip club, where the beautiful people are unpaid strippers who don't even know that they are strippers. And even that's a poor metaphor.
Spend just a little time on Twitter/Instagram/Tiktok or click on any given Patreon link and you're likely to come across new age digital strippers. If anybody is unpaid and making popular content these days, they're very unaware.
And why I think the analogy does have some merit, is because the metric used to decide on who gets restricted is the very similar in both of these cases.
Also, again, the people turned away from the night club door still can’t go in. Took Too users who don’t post can still view content.
However, if this article is correct, they also seem to favour good looking TikTok users, which is not unlike Night Clubs who also like to favour good looking patrons.
Something not trending on Twitter isn't the same as not existing or not showing to one's followers. Likewise, something not becoming a suggested TikTok isn't the same as not allowing the post wholesale.
Don’t blame this on young people, IRC was becoming popular again right around when the iPhone started to become necessary for everything.
Emphasis added for clarification.
For example, there's a massive difference between saying "everyone has a right to healthcare" in a country than saying "the provincial governments of Canada has to provide a public health insurance option to tax paying citizens and temporary visitors".
When I walk into a doctors office as a Canadian citizen or enter the ER I'm still at the whims of the system. All that I know is that the financial costs of the what care I can find will be covered, care which is provided by a limited set of doctors, care the doctors decide to provide me often based on their perceptions of need and a broad definition of 'cosmetic'. If the doctors office is busy and all the ERs are full, or they don't believe what I say or that my symptoms don't require care, there's no one I can go to about my "right to healthcare" or right to spend the health insurance.
Proposing these limited arrangements as if they are positive rights does more harm than good. Once you add enough modifiers to make it accurate, you might as well not say it at all.
I know this matters little during political campaigns and all promises are non-binding so they might as well lie through their teeth as much as possible, up to the point people call bullshit. But it still significantly influences how we debate and discuss important topics, and it's a type of thinking which filters down into a lot of things which have little to do with political campaigns.
I do find this nomenclature helpful when trying to convince people.
The web is still the web, most people still don’t bother using it.
If I actually had interesting things on there it would probably be on the front page for a few related keywords.
Their platform, their choice for what goes on. You want something better? Go build in yourself. I have no problem with platforms self moderating. At the end of the day consumers speak with their actions.
How many TV shows feature dwarfs or people with who are abnormal? Don't blame a platform for the inherit flaws in most of us. It really only serves as a black mirror to the truth.
Yet for some reason, TikTok wants to hide this story. Why do you think that is?
This is what people want. I mean, if they wanted to see ugly people or whatever, then TikTok would show them it. It's not any different than Tinder filtering out the duds.
The person I was responding to was basically saying "let the users decide" but that can't happen if TikTok is lying to the users.
So there isn't much difference between algorithmic and manual sorting yet, because the AI needed for algorithmic curation is not intelligent enough yet.
Oh I don't know...Game of Thrones (Tyrion), Stranger Things (Dustin), Breaking Bad (Walt Jr.) etc.
A platform is not entitled to be free from criticism. And neither are you.
The platform can do what it wants, and the rest of society is free to attack them for it, and cause them to get bad publicity.
And it is silly for you to attack people for giving their opinion on the matter.
Can you say the same about Facebook?
No, TikTok is a place for a company to sell ads on views of creator content and they, much like those nightclubs, believe having "desireable" creators will get them those views.
Other sites have different strategies (much like the local bar in comparison to that nightclub). Their strategy seems to work for a variety of industries.
I am not supporting it, as being on the other side of the good looking line does tend to make life a pain in the butt around the "pretty" people.
Please, please, read the ToS and stop thinking like that! This is not people's own content, it's Facebook's, YouTube's, Reddit's content. If you want to own your content - you should rent a domain name, a server and host it by yourself.
Except typical social network users doesn't want to own their content. They are here for other's attention.
Or maybe there's a case to be made that censoring people for being homosexual or looking different is a form of harassment by censorship?
It's not like these platforms offer any kind of critical service. They come and go every couple of years it seems. TikTok seems pretty crap, just tell people to stop supporting it.
Some people feel socially obligated to go to nightclub, others feel socially obligated to use some social networking app. They're probably both wrong.
No it's not. China has their own version of TikTok called Douyin. If I recall correctly, TikTok isn't even available in China.
Since TikTok isn't even used in China, who exactly are the users you're describing as "people living in a pathologically authoritarian state"?
> but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that
This is patently false. Unless you're calling the US an authoritarian state.
The point is:
What would shaming them for this accomplish? Is the idea to shame them so much that they pretend to like ugly people like me? What would be the point of that?
Tell that to the black people who demanded the right to eat in "white" restaurants.
This is an incredibly ignorant and offensive analogy.
The ignorance here is among those who don't understand that people are suffering from this discrimation, and the offense is coming from people who justify and defend it.
Nightclubs and TikTok aren't the most important examples of this, but for people who faced discrimination their entire lives, any victory would make life a little easier.
Exclusivity is a necessity for society.
But if a group is excluding people based on innate physical characteristics, maybe they should rethink that.
Many physical attributes are absolutely relevant for a given context.
What we should do, is getting rid of irrelevant and abhorrent discrimination, such as racial selection.
Society made progress only because people fought against that. They were all accused of fighting against nature, but over time, more people realized those old standards weren't as "natural" as they were once thought to be.
Do you imagine we've reached the pinnacle of human social evolution and tolerance? Perhaps we still have similar lessons to learn, and people of the future will consider our behavior as abhorrent as we consider the 1800s.
The only progress that could push society past that, is genetic engineering. Everyone on equal footing or so different, that sport as we know it ceases to exist.
But that's no reason not to eliminate discrimination when we can.
What effect on their behavior do you hope to accomplish by shaming pretty people for not wanting to hang out with ugly people? I'm not seeing a productive reason to do this.
In addition to that I doubt that refusing to sell a cake to someone because they are ugly would be considered an acceptable thing in a court of law.
This is not a distinction that most people have the mental capacity to make. Whatever the law is, that's obviously what it should be.
Aside from beauty, if you do things to signal you are poor as a luxury sales person, I’m not sure the company is required to keep you on, right or wrong.
Which is not a statement of whether it is moral, or a social benefit. Discrimination against an “unprotected class” can still be worthy of criticism.
For a very long time in Ontario, homosexuals were not protected from discrimination by law. The laws protecting them came about because people would not settle for, “if it’s legal, it must be above reproach.”
If you're by some semantic classified as unattractive, you will automatically feel segregated and marginalized. This is not like sexual orientation where non-heterosexual people actually have a desire to express their sexuality but this desire is repressed by a regressive, judgemental society. This is exactly why "Gay Pride" is a thing.
Compare that to being unattractive. Unattractive people, whatever that means, don't want to be part of that group. That's a pure factual reality of the human instinct. People want to feel attractive because they have a natural instinct to intermingle and reproduce.
But even if we opt to oversee this particular deficiency when attempting to justify an "unattractive" protected class, the problem is that "attractive" is extremely subjective and usually dictated by societal norms.
What's attractive today wasn't attractive 100 years ago. What's attractive in Africa is not what's attractive in North America. What's attractive for me (even in this dictated herd mentality) is not necessarily attractive to you. The only common factor that all these perspectives share is that nobody wants to be classified as unattractive.
We have an example of that right here from TikTok.
"I determine you're ugly but you can still come into my nightclub" is not that much better than "I determine you're ugly and you can't come into my nightclub"
The laws prohibit certain behaviors, like excluding people from nightclubs on the basis of skin color. They could easily also prohibit excluding people from nightclubs on other appearance criteria.
Of course no one can control thoughts, and some people will still feel and think hateful things, but that's true for every protected class.
Neither do the elderly, the disabled, etc, but still they are legally protected from descrimination.
Unattractive people don't want to be part of that classification and their belonging to that class is 100% subjective in any direction. Even them leveraging their status to get some sort of benefit.
Also, where's the line? Does that mean that rhinoplasty should be covered by insurance under the same merits of sex reassignment surgery?
You'd be surprised. Being disabled is a spectrum just as being ugly is. It's not just perfectly healthy people vs people missing entire limbs. It's also the person with moderate chronic pain who can do anything they like but not everything they like.
And then there's the whole other subjectiveness that comes from bureaucrats having to classify people into discrete buckets based on how disabled they are. Sure you can't raise your arms above parallel, but does that qualify you for 4C coverage and not just 3D?
If someone's nose is causing as much distress as gender dysphoria, why not?
Sex reassignment surgery isn't easy to get, and presumably coverage for "corrective" cosmetic surgery would also take some evidence. Patients couldn't just make an appointment on a whim.
I definitely agree with you on this one.
But that's where I feel the line gets super blurry. This is not a white or black issue. Gender Dysphoria is an actual documented mental disorder.
Feeling ugly (or in the context of this debate, being classified as ugly), in general, it's not.
Body dysorphic disorder is a real thing (probably spelled incorrectly). There are people out there that feel like their limb isn't theirs - it is alien - and go to great lengths to stop it. Some folks spend lots of time and money hiding "flaws" (like their nose), even when they cannot really afford the costs every month, and avoid dating and going out because of these things. Just because it isn't a specific disorder doesn't mean the people are healthy.
And then there is another category altogether: Folks that have had accidents of different sorts. Sure, facial scars from burns or a disfigured nose might not actually cause a psychological disorder and it might not make things physically difficult, but damn it is hard to argue that fixing these things (when possible) wouldn't improve one's quality of life.
Or perhaps a mental disorder in those other people, but that's not likely.
On the other hand, your health insurance could easily create subjective definitions to deny coverage. Because unlike gender dysphoria, beauty is not binary.
With Gender Dysphoria there is only one direction when it comes to re-assignment options, and it is fully documented that this surgery is beneficial for the patient's mental health.
With beauty/ugliness, there are hundreds of possible permutations and no documented precedence to validate that this is a necessary surgery.
The way these laws work would not necessitate that. People who are old, disabled or queer are not required to carry a card or get a face tattoo. You are simply unable to descriminate on that variable, whatever the value is (old or young, able or unable, etc).
>Does that mean that rhinoplasty should be covered by insurance under the same merits of sex reassignment surgery?
Age is a protected class in Canada/Ontario but they don't cover blood boys for seniors under OHIP either (although I will strongly lobby for it in old age).
It's difficult to prove individual cases of discrimination. Evidence can take the form of written commentary about a person's looks, or a documented policy about hiring practices. That is to say, you don't need to prove that somebody's unattractive; only that damage was done on the basis of that perception / judgement.
Dating apps are a good data point to start with.
That sentence is super ambiguous.
Do you mean “Most gay people have a desire to be not gay.”
Or “Most gay people lack any desire with regard to there orientation.”
Mainly his points:
"There's no solidarity with the ugly" and "people would rather be called the worst racial slur for their race then be called ugly"
Some people don't want to see you, and that's their business.
"Protected class" is a cop out because the question isn't about what the law says but what is moral.
I mean, some nightclubs have immigrants, but nobody goes there because there are too many immigrants.
It's sort of the same thing here with TikTok: on one hand we say that it's bad to ethnically discriminate in nightclubs, on the other hand we don't go to the 'urban' nightclubs, and take it as a good signal when we read the immigrant patrons online complaining about ethnic discrimination.
Provided it's not a matter of a protected characteristic, the idea that you can push your way through the door by law is silly.
They go there to meet people who titilate them, and who don't remind them of how life can go wrong; that's their business in my view.
I know that I'm not attracted to ugly, unhealthy, or elderly people, and it's not wrong to feel that way, it is basically natural; and people who are themselves ugly, unhealthy, or elderly also feel these same things that you find ugly to acknowledge.
I guess you missed the part where I said you can leave them alone.
The nightclub lets you know where you stand at the door. I took a read of tik-tok's about page, and it gives me the impression that they're here for everyone. Just a platform to share short videos. The author of one of the featured videos on that page looks like someone who may have been filtered out.
I don't think the analogy is completely off base, but we can judge tik-tok for being deceptive.
TikTok users aren't aware of filtering yet, so telling them is a social good. Humans may prefer to see beautiful people, but filtering out ugly people means the majority of users will be below average compared to the content they view. They should at least know it's happening.
> and driven out of business?
Has this happened to TikTok?
That kind of tone is frowned upon here.
The individuals who they reject on the other hand are living beings, more specifically humans. And that is the point where it starts to become a moral issue because the business interest of an organization is directly linked to the discrimination of a group of humans.
Yes, that is the way that kind of business works, but it should also be valid to consequently judge it as immoral.
It's not, and that's pretty messed up too when you stop and actually think about it.
> If you disagree, then you are a hypocrite.
Just going to shut out any opposition to your view point like that huh? Great chat.
> So should high end nightclubs be publicly shamed for doing what they do and driven out of business?
Actually yes, discrimination is NOT OK and those supporting it need to be named and shamed.
Many night clubs want users to have "fun" so they pay for a membership. TikTok wants users to stay so they can collect enough data to give it to advertisers or government to target them better.
A single night club won't have more than 100 people at any given time. But tiktok boasts 1.5 billion+ users and millions of them are active at any given time.
Few people going to night clubs won't decide the future of your country but millions on tiktok or other US centric social media might - facebook? instagram?
This too - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22611404
Other comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22612589
Most people going to nightclubs are there for fun. In contrast, it's possible to make money on Tiktok and a lot of handicapped people are desperately looking for ways to make money online.
A lot of those people will not be beautiful people. Their disability makes sure of that in many cases.
So the difference is that nightclubs are not telling people "You can make money from the comfort of home" and then shafting people who have few other viable means to make money.
There may be a few sex workers and drug dealers making bank at the nightclub, but they already know they have to fly under the radar and can be thrown out if caught, etc. The nightclub isn't actively telling them they are welcome to hang there and establish an income, then secretly saying "only the sexy people."
Now as for how we should treat businesses that treat people better based on their looks is not something I have a strong opinion about, but my two cents is that looks should not be a factor of how people get treated because it is possible that representation of "ugly" people in media could make many diverse looking people "attractive" to younger generations. This would be beneficial because it means that talent would have more priority over looks than before.
Nightclubs tell you if they think you're not up to their standard. This is far more manipulative and cruel. You could even call it gas-lighting to simply encourage these people to post content!
Nightclubs that have physical appearance standards have a business model designed around one end of the beauty preference spectrum. By itself, that's not bad; if you want to have a club for only right-handed people, that's fine.
But it's unethical to then pretend that the club is for everyone, when it's really not. That's more like selling someone a car with a top speed of 120mph, but artificially limiting the speed for poorer people, and not telling them. Just because nightclubs walk a fine ethical line doesn't make other companies that also walk that line a great idea.
A lot of things are like that. One example that comes to mind is that the New York Times, which frequently runs articles criticising tech companies for invading their users' privacy, loads a million trackers every time you access its website. When you're bigger (and more lucrative), different rules apply to you. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
Tell me how it could work any other way? nightclubs are "popular" because of this selection, if anybody could come and go, what would make a place popular?
I don't go to nightclubs and I don't enjoy it, but I can understand why it works that way, it may be unfair but if you break that, the whole concept falls apart. It is valid with any type of community, they simply value different things.
Business that engage in immoral behaviour should be shamed. Doesn't matter if it is casino sites, drug dealers or nightclubs that discriminate against ugly people. Whether that shaming results in them becoming unprofitable is beside the point.
Or do you mean another kind of bar?
Pretty similar to how TikTok isn't stopping anybody from posting, they are just selective about what they feature.
Don't casting agents and producers essentially do the same thing for movies and TV?
No, that's how you work.
Humans exist within a fitness gradient and we naturally evaluate other humans according to how they fit within it.
I don't like it, but we're bloody animals.
I wonder how much is genetic and how much is learned or conditioned.
Why does it matter? Because a nightclub does it, suddenly it's OK for TikTok to do it, too?
If Johnny jumps off a bridge, are you going to leap as well?
I gather that TikTok claimed to be inclusive. Nightclubs almost by definition don't.
If you want to do that, then go ahead.
But you should not use whataboutism to shame people into not fighting bad behavior on other platforms.
At the end of the day, this behavior is not normal on most online platforms. And users have the right to shame platforms that do this, and you are the immoral one if you are trying to attack people for doing what they believe is right.
Are you implying that it is only because of a sense of “political correctness” that people would object to discrimination?
Now that is some fine spin! Reminds of the Oscar Wilde sketch.
TikTok doesn’t care about bullying.
Here it’s humans taking that shortcut, in the future I’d totally imagine AIs resolving to eliminate the source of the problems when dealing with societal issues. And we sure won’t be happy about it.
Seems kind of similar to what supermarket magazines do. Obviously a social media app is not a supermarket magazine, but the premise of cynically using pretty people to drive up engagement is nothing new.
A better comparison might be bottle-service bars where looks or money buys your way in. Which I personally don't mind - if that's your thing, I guess, go for it. Not every place has to be somewhere I want to go, and they're pretty up-front that you need to meet whatever standards or pay crazy money.
Tik Tok, from observed behavior, is weaselly about it.
Combine with the fact that it is obviously part of the Silk Road strategy and likely an intelligence tool, and I'm going to continue to treat is as the radioactive garbage it is.
What in TFA indicates that these policies were intended to stop online bullying? Just as plausible to think that they were intended to create a saccharine user experience in order to promote growth.
I don't think these were intended to stop online bullying as much as they are just another bullying tactic themselves.
Porn also seems like a very reasonable place to draw the line for the app store. It's not like the iPhone has a porn filter, you just have to use a browser to watch your porn.
'Regarding the policy of suppressing videos featuring unattractive, disabled, or poor users, Gartner stated that the rules “represented an early blunt attempt at preventing bullying, but are no longer in place, and were already out of use when The Intercept obtained them.”'
Any traditional teen magazine from 20 years ago (seventeen, tigerbeat) wouldn't be scolded for heavily policing what photos go in the pages. Not only that, they heavily post processed everything.
There's superficial and arbitrary gatekeepers for what is called news, what is played on the radio, basically everything. Even some of the talent shows have strict, rather low, age cutoffs. 29 is too old for American Idol (it used to be 25).
Even more apparently egalitarian entertainment, such as contestants on the Price is Right aren't "truly random" and get shortlisted into energetic people who come in larger crowds in order to make better television. Most people think that's probably also fine. Some guy just standing and shrugging after being revealed a "brand new car" wouldn't really be right.
So for a digital social entertainment platform to do the same kind of pruning, it's kind of expected. Content is filtered to create better entertainment for the target demographic, one that I'm not in.
Maybe you think it's not the right filter system but now we're doing a target marketing debate and not one of ethics.
For instance, if a PhD program only accepted white male applicants, we'd find that unacceptable. If instead, they only accepted people with proper credentials, scores, and recommendations, we'd find that fine. It's not no filter, just the right one.
Similarly, if we were making a movie about Jim Crow segregation and needed actors to play white racist men then our same unacceptable filter all of a sudden looks reasonable.
So it's not about removing filters, it's about making them justifiable and relevant. That's why we say "there's no reason that a qualified X can't be a Y", that part, the reason part, is important.