I've been using it for a small real estate app for like ~8 years. Zero problems, works like a dream. I use MySQL for some app-user data, but most of the bulk data is on ES.
Nonsense. A free and open system does not require foreign adversaries to be given free access to manipulate and control the population. That's not an open system, that's pure stupidity.
So you're saying the USA is better and thus it never needs to be compared in any aspect related to 'freedom'? That's a nice way of never having to challenge your assumptions.
It's not a strawman. The US espouses freedom of speech, and TikTok is comparable to running a printing press. It also espouses a general freedom to own and run private enterprises.
> A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Grandparent: Please, US doesn't need to prove anything w.r.t freedom vs. China.
Parent: So you're saying the USA is better and thus it never needs to be compared in any aspect related to 'freedom'?
Me: GP didn't say the USA never needs to be compared in any aspect related to freedom, they said _relative to China_ the US doesn't need to prove anything.
It's objectively a strawman.
That's separate from the issue of whether or not this infringes on the freedom of speech, but 1) freedom of speech in the US is not nor ever has been absolute with no limits and 2) this move absolutely deserves scrutiny.
Meh, foreign tech companies still can't even operate in China. The only way even things like iCloud exist there is because Apple literally handed it over to be owned and operated by the Guizhou government.
What sort of adversarial actions have they taken against the US?
The most recent one I can think of is responding with tariffs against the US after we put tariffs on their solar exports.
Beyond that... the Korean war I think was the last time we were any sort of direct/semi direct conflict with them. And Taiwan is the touchiest aspect we have with them.
Large scale hacking of US companies, IP theft, brinksmanship regarding issue of Taiwan (backed by real incentive to follow through) where have you been?
This is a solid point. What most people don't get is that despite the enormous investment the CIA, NSA, and DoD Sigint have made into their offensive security teams, most of their budget is dedicated to Friday team-building activities, Bowling Nights, and Foosball tables. The US definitely does not hack anybody.
"Everyone but FVEY are the super evil hackerz" is a childish, head-in-the-sand position to hold in the modern geopolitical climate. Everyone is hacking everyone, and China is not some sort of unique Bad Guy in this regard.
Agreed, but if you're going to play whataboutism, then you surely understand that China does not allow US companies unfettered idealogical access to their populace, so why should we grant them as much?
Articles and headlines themselves do not constitute evidence. All we get from your Reuters article is an allegation from the US Government (of Iraq WMD fame), and a denial from the Chinese Government. It's hearsay not evidence. Where is the evidence?
What type of company does China keep?
Last I checked, they were pretty buddy-buddy with Russia, and North korea on an estranged leash. If we know other countries fund terrorist organizations for intent of undermining western influence, is it that big of a stretch to say China is probably doing the same thing?
You can't use 'direct conflict' as a measure in this type of game. Russia has done damning harm to american politics, but its not clear how to measure that effect.
I mean.. are you really not aware that the US and China have an adversarial relationship? Both countries embedding spies, industrial espionage, trade wars, soft power projection, etc etc. Power is a zero-sum game.
What kind of power do you mean? The military, economic, and industrial power of China and United States have both been increasing, it doesn't look like "zero-sum".
US and China choose to act this way, but they could stop harassing each other without affecting their own power bases.
I'm writing one right now, just waiting on the CCP to get back to me with their internal communications and commit history at tiktok which will prove this.
Let's get rid of bitcoin. Then we can use "green" dollars. They don't need servers to run. Well, except for all the banks, federal reserves, and credit card processors. I wonder how much electricity they take to run. Well, probably not 2% of all US electricity.
But why are banks so secure? I guess because of police partially. I guess those police need electricity too. But we need them anyways, so I guess that only partially counts.
But why dollars? Why not pesos, or euros? The dollar is backed by the US military, of course. I wonder how much electricity the military uses.
Anyways. Let's get rid of bitcoin. That will solve the climate crisis! We can sell anti-bitcoin stickers made in China on Amazon to show our support!
Police, banks, the military, the Fed all provide many more services than bitcoin does and do more than just protect the dollar. What an incredibly dumb comparison.
Your assertion is that it's dumb to compare two competing financial systems?
The dumb analysis is to talk about Bitcoin energy usage in isolation, without comparing it to the present system. The present system would not work without police officers and military. Bitcoin replaces these things with servers and decentralization.
There is no military protecting the internet. You would need to bomb every country in the world to destroy the internet. The same is true for Bitcoin.
US military is 100% necessary for the dollar-based world order. The fact they do other things is not important. You still need the full US military to protect the dollar, even if they didn't do other things.
> Bitcoin replaces these things with servers and decentralization.
This is totally absurd. We would still need police and military even if the USD stopped existing and we switched over to Bitcoin. You cannot replace them with servers because servers can't protect a nation or enforce laws.
> The fact they do other things is not important.
It is important, because it means they must exist anyway. So it makes no sense to factor in their cost if the cost would still need to be paid regardless of which financial system we use.
I don't think so. It's not like we have a branch of the military dedicated solely to maintaining the dominance of the USD. It protects our national security interests as a whole. The fact that it also scares everyone into using the dollar is just a bonus.
And while there are police dedicated to investigating financial crimes involving dollars today, we would still have them. They'd just be investigating crimes involving BTC.
> It protects our national security interests as a whole.
The emphasis of those interests is on ensuring that the US remains the dominant global superpower, particularly economically. Only a modest portion of our "defense" spending actually goes toward defending our own territory; most of it goes toward global force projection.
> And while there are police dedicated to investigating financial crimes involving dollars today, we would still have them. They'd just be investigating crimes involving BTC.
A lot of avenues for financial crime become impossible in a post-dollar world, and said world doesn't really introduce any new avenues compared to cash; that's a strict reduction, and therefore a strict reduction in the need for police on that front.
There's also a considerable reduction in demand for police to investigate robberies when there's a lot less to rob. Banks get reduced to loan centers and safe deposit boxes, armored trucks moving cash around stop being a thing, nothing in cash registers to steal at gunpoint... yeah, criminals will probably try to commit robberies, but will quickly find out that the reward ain't worth the risk.
Police corruption also becomes trickier, especially when it comes to civil asset forfeiture. No cash to steal during traffic stops means less motivation for said traffic stops in the first place.
My dude there is a whole lot of public security infrastructure protecting the internet. Just because the basic internet protocols are public doesn't make it magic.
Haha. It is, but I always found it funny, the south park song. But yea, bitcoiners will push the military of just being this evil force of violence. And trust me, it can be. I was in the Navy. But we also did so much more. We did search and rescue for civilians missing at sea regardless of their nationality. We did evacuations for scientist and researchers on islands in the path of a really bad storms. Used our hospital on board to respond to calls for helps from smaller ships that needed assistance with emergency medical situations, etc. Provide disaster relief, etc. Had a fellow sailor at the time who was on an air craft carrier that responded to Fukushima by flying all their food on board to the ship to feed victims of that disaster.
Still, considering the tiny amount of Bitcoin transactions per day, and the large number of speculators, hardly anybody can be using it for real things, anywhere.
In which case the question of "to whom?" still applies. As it stands, the primary beneficiaries of American police and military operations are the very same wealthy elites at the helm of the dollar-based global economy.
I do some work with financial tech and let me tell you, working with integration partners for payment processing who are fully into crypto made me realize, we shouldn't trust these people with our financial system. I had to explain to a senior engineer with 20+ years of experience why he shouldn't rely on floating point to calculate service fees (their calculations were always wrong and over charged our customer's customers because they used floating point). Can't calculate a 3.5% service fee properly, but will tell you why he so so much smarter than the everyone in traditional finance (who don't fuck up this calculation). And this has been an ongoing problem for a year, to the point that we built around their system because we can't trust their system does what they say.
Yep. The number of crypto hacks reported by https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com is just mental. Over 100m$ stolen in multiple hacks just this week, and it's not even a particularly busy one.
A Visa fact sheet [0] claims 276 billion transactions in a 12-month period, which would be less than 9,000 per second, but still an impressive figure.
Fedwire, the settlement system operated by the Federal Reserve, processed 196 million settlements in 2022, each about $5.4 million, for a total of over $1,000 trillion. [1] That would be about 16 settlements per second. Visa handles many more smaller, individual transactions; aggregates and nets them; and uses Fedwire to settle them between member banks.
Bitcoin could be used in a similar manner, handling a relatively small number of larger settlements; leaving other systems to handle smaller, individual transactions.
> Bitcoin could be used in a similar manner, handling a relatively small number of larger settlements; leaving other systems to handle smaller, individual transactions.
That’s what Lightning does but it also removes most of the sales pitch for the system since you’re giving up the global ledger. Once you’re relying on a bank in all but name for your transactions, it’s unclear what you’re getting for the extra cost and lower usability.
Are these Visa numbers published somewhere? The scale and must-not-fail nature of this infrastructure would be an interesting read to understand how they have built out the platform. Probably all sorts of lessons learned that only apply to a global financial network, but still probably some universal truths.
Cryptocurrency is a speculative gamble, not an alternative financial system. There’s no path to real world adoption without better cost, performance, fraud control or customer service[1] but the changes needed to deliver negate the concept.
1. Not saying that banks are great here, but that better isn’t an impossibly high bar.
Fiat currency is a speculative gamble, and controlled by a specious and small number of players.
You could have said the same thing about it the early financial system as well.
What you have is a developed ecosystem and a developing ecosystem, and you’re pointing to the developed ecosystem and saying the developing one doesn’t have all the things. Of course it doesn’t. It’s developing. And it’s doing it in spite of the existing financial system trying to damage or destroy it periodically.
Let’s not confuse the technology innovation we’re referring for the mature ecosystem of a graduated and dominant financial ecosystem.
> You could have said the same thing about it the early financial system as well.
Only if you have no understanding of what the words mean. For example, most cryptocurrencies are fiat currencies - just exceptionally weak ones. The reason why using USD isn’t a gamble is that it’s linked to a massive economy with guaranteed demand.
> Of course it doesn’t. It’s developing. And it’s doing it in spite of the existing financial system trying to damage or destroy it periodically.
Ah, yes, this part of the sales pitch was bound to come up. The flaws I described aren’t some sort of minor growing pains, they’re architectural. After 15 years and billions of dollars, not having a progress towards fixing them suggests that telling people to ignore them and buy in anyway is not the way you fix design defects.
1) Sigh. These arguments are far too ideologically generated.
2) There are many “cryptos” and technologies. Crypto is not a homogeneous system. Fiats all suck: even ones I implemented as crypto or digital currencies or whatever terminology one would want to use.
3) I think you have it out for crypto. I’m not a hype person or a crypto advocate, but I like the idea of decentralized financial systems and believe we have had very little innovation in the space (and need more).
4) Technology waves take 20-40 years to reach maturity. Radio. Television. Internet. They all take a lot longer than people realize.
5) There has been plenty of progress. If you want to be closed to that progress and dig your feet in to defending the existing system, that’s fine. But the idea that there hasn’t been “progress in 15 years” is absurd reasoning.
The early internet or web are often used in cryptocurrency sales pitches to excuse the lack of demand, but the comparison falls apart as soon as you learn any of the history. When the internet dawned, computers were incredibly expensive and slow and networks were even worse – but people went to great lengths to get online because it offered something immediately of value which was unrelated to the business of making or selling internet access. By the 1980s, people were paying for connectivity even at telephone monopoly rates because there were things like email, Usenet, IRC, file transfers, etc. which made your life better. When the first TV station opened in the 1920s, ordinary people went to buy sets because it gave them something they’d never had before.
In contrast, Bitcoin has been available globally since it launched and it did so in an era where much of the human population had everything they needed to use it - very much unlike the early internet, or radio, or TV. Tons of speculative money poured in hoping to find demand … but nobody really cares about it because for most it’s not better than what they had before. It isn’t cheaper, faster, or safer and it is much less convenient to use, so even the few people who hold it don’t. The few businesses which accepted it have generally reported very little consumer interest and many have stopped. That just isn’t like the demand curve for those other technologies: as soon as Marconi had his first radio telegraph demo, he had businesses and governments interested and the primary limit was the difficulty of making the technology available, not lack of public interest – anyone could see how it could let them do something they couldn’t do before.
That last part is key: I’m all for changes to the financial system, I’ve followed this space since David Chaum was writing in the 90s, but you have to base it on an advantage over the status quo. The problem is not just that they picked an unsuitable data structure but also that it became the community identity, preventing attempts to learn from the mistake.
But it's not an alternative to the financial system, outside of crime in order to do anything useful with it you have to move it back into the existing financial system.
I literally just answered the question about energy use.
Crypto could arguably become a potential alternative financial system. Bitcoin by itself is not.
Crime is primarily conducted in USD (by volume). The purpose of financial compliance is not to eliminate crime but to manage it, and arguably the techniques we have used to create exclusionary financial systems have done more harm than good (better the terrorist you know in your financial system than the terrorist who doesn’t even use your financial system that you don’t have any awareness of, aka. The Patriot Act missed the mark).
Further, the existing system is working about as well as the war on drugs. Every recommendation I have read is to find ways to shore it up, rather than find new ways to conduct financial crimes oversight, and the primary recommendation for the resulting inevitable escalation is to build a gigantic skynet of information sharing that looks an awful lot like surveillance capitalism.
I personally view Bitcoin as a runaway proof-of-concept. It’s rather insane how successful it’s become considering how it got started.
If we look at it from a product / market fit perspective, there is clearly a product / market fit. And that’s in the face of the intact existing financial system, Visa’s volume, the USD, etc. That’s probably a point worth considering.
The difference is that the existing financial system is used by about 3/4 of the world population (closer to 94% in developed nations) for the exchange of actual goods and services.
Bitcoin has significantly fewer users, but more importantly it is almost never used for the actual exchange of goods or services.
With my bank (and the accompanying infrastructure that goes along with it), my employer can deposit directly into my account, which I can then use to pay rent online (as opposed to physically traveling to their office), buy groceries at the store, and purchase nearly every legal good or service that is for sale, all while reducing the odds of me being robbed or losing money (e.g. losing my wallet.) If someone or some business scams me, I'm given methods of retrieving my money without confronting them in person. It also allows me to autopay all my bills so I'm never charged for forgetting to pay (and frankly I have very little desire to write and mail several checks each month or travel to various places to pay in cash.)
Credit cards, debit cards, direct deposit and money transfers are far more convenient than using cash, and aside from convenience, I imagine they decrease a nation's carbon footprint over using exclusively cash (due to less need to mint, print and transport physical currency, as well as travel in person to pay or receive payment.)
They do come at a cost of privacy, but if I wanted privacy for a specific purchase, I can still use cash for those specific transactions. While it may have a higher carbon footprint than digital payments, overall ink and paper tend to have low carbon footprints (though it's probably a bit higher for currency than it is for standard A4 paper.) Still, it's near certainly less carbon intensive than Bitcoin (per purchase, maybe not in total since billions of people actually use paper currency to buy things at least sometimes.)
Cryptocurrencies and their accompanying anonymity can bring about good things, so I'm open to at least considering their value — there are countries with authoritarian and oppressive governments, and there have been several democracies that have fallen to dictatorship before and that very well could happen again in the future. As such, being able to anonymously transfer money does have its value, especially in a world with CCTVs and facial recognition.
Cryptocurrencies, of course, also can be used for illegal services that are near universally considered immoral and evil. Currently, in most countries (even ones that aren't exactly liberal democracies), this is likely a much larger harm.
Balancing freedom from and freedom to is always tricky: neither authoritarianism nor anarchy are appealing — allowing personal freedom while preventing people from encroaching on other people's personal freedoms is difficult to achieve.
However, even if I were fully convinced that cryptocurrencies currencies were a net positive on society (open to considering the idea but definitely not convinced yet), I struggle to see how one with such a large carbon footprint is what should be used.
you really think that every credit card reader in the country, every ATM, every computer and piece of electronics at every branch of every bank, and all of Wall Street and everything, adds up to less than the sum total of Bitcoin mining in the country, in terms of energy usage? how could this possibly be the case? I'm not even a Bitcoin guy and this is absurd on its face.
This article gives an estimate of about 2% of all electricity usage going to bitcoin mining. All data centers in the country combine to a similar ballpark in energy usage (another comment states 1-3%). Finance accounts for 20% of US GDP, so we'll be charitable, round up its usage of datacenters to 50%, to get about 1% of electricity from financial data centers.
There are about 6.7 million employees in the financial sector [1]. Assume everyone has a computer with a 600W power supply at full bore for 12 hours a day [2]. That comes out to about 18 billion kWh of electricity a year, which is (checks math) 0.425% of US electricity consumption [3]. Sure, I'm not accounting for all the PoS systems at every retail location in the country, but they're going to use far less energy than even the overspecced numbers I'm using.
So overall, this comes out to about 1.5-2% of US electricity usage going to the financial sector, less than Bitcoin mining. Also remember that magically switching everything over to Bitcoin would still require all those PoS systems, not to mention large fractions of Wall Street and bank branches and whatnot, so this isn't really a fair comparison overall. And some amount of the financial sector includes cryptocurrency companies already.
[2] This basically comes out to a decently powerful computer being used at max spec for an 84 hour work week. A generous overestimate, I'd hope you agree.
Right, but the financial system is actually used by most people in the US. Bitcoin, a small fraction of that...and this figure does not include all of the energy expended to process bitcoin transactions.
You are comparing the transaction cost of credit cards/banking/trade to the transaction cost + infrastructure cost of bitcoin. Credit card companies, banks, financial institutes have millions of employees that drive to work, HVAC in their offices, etc. that is not required with bitcoin. This is ignoring all of the rest of OPs point that preserving the dollar system has countless other external costs.
I would think those employees exist because people demand a whole bunch of services from the financial system, like fraud protection, chargebacks/disputes, customer support, and so on. If you stripped down Visa or whatever to its bare minimum of just processing online transactions, I'm sure it could do it pretty efficiently. Conversely, if all our money ran on Bitcoin, I'm sure most people would still want to interact with companies that provide extra services and support on top, and then you'd be back in the same place.
I don't disagree that US politicians are corrupt and stupid but as an American citizen I want to be able to access the world's information in order to establish an accurate perspective for myself. Banning media from certain countries is exactly how you develop a delusional worldview and ironically become more susceptible to propaganda.
Exactly this. There is quite a bit of hubris to thinking to that you can consume the media of a propaganda state and be intentional about understanding what is and is not propaganda. It works because it’s subtle. And it works at individual, population, and network levels. So even of you identify and maintain the noble truth, you will have no one in your network to meaningfully corroborate it.
The "beauty" of the plausible deniability in these systems is the hidden reward mechanisms that are in place: you can get a whole country to kick themselves in the groin if the algorithm rewards it and people think they can monetize the attention.
I'm personally quite interested in propaganda and TikTok let's you see both American leftist/rightist propaganda, European leftist/rightist propaganda and pro-Russian/pro-Chinese propaganda. Now there's a lot more on Palestine and Israel obviously. On Reddit it's largely leftist American, although the European right has had a recent resurgence due to refugees.
Weird hobby, I know, but it is actually a great place to look at all the different ways propaganda is done. Everyone is doing it..
Yes, propaganda will always exist. With traditional media (assuming you have cookies and tracking disabled) you are the on that decides what propaganda (which articles) to consume.
With social media like TikTok, they decide what propaganda to feed you.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
It is quite unnecessary to hear you call everyone you disagree with uneducated or similar.
Have you seen the CCP propaganda on Tik Tok though? It’s quite wholesome. Like there’s one where this guy randomly helps poor kids and old people he encounters. It paints Chinese society in a positive light, probably making the standard of living seem better than it is. But in a way it’s not unlike what many Americans wish their kids were watching.
Show the one where the guy gets caught up in an obscure non-state approved religion, falls down on his luck, but the government steps in & sends him to a retreat to get better. Then he enjoys the rest of his life manufacturing goods in a factory as part of his rehabilitation.
Why do you think Tiktok is brainwashing children (why is it always children?) and Facebook, Twitter, etc aren't?
Why do you think Tiktok is the only vector for foreign influence, when it's been documented many, many times that domestic social media sites are rife with foreign misinformation?
What do you think Tiktok will do? Destabilize the US? Our politicians are already doing that. No need to worry about a boogyman from the other side of the globe. It's just a distraction.
On the long term, anthropological warfare is a clever idea... but it's probably a little too optimistic to think you can implement with just one app. The CCP/tiktok hysteria feels overblown to me - public education is what constituents should feel concerned about.
I think it depends, my experience on hacker news has been extremely positive with the exceptions of malicious posters who downvote my cries for help. These are obvious and not depend on the platform but the user's in question. The experience I have with Twitter (X) has been people trying to help me.
There's a difference between malicious users and malicious platforms.
There is a difference between Chinese society and western society. Chinese do not allow kids to play video games for too long because they know effects of games on the youth, they also restrict what can be viewed by children on Chinese version of tik tok for the exactly same reason. They restrict freedom of their kids because they believe it's more productive and better for society. In west we do not do that because freedom is important for us. What you need to understand is that there is no free lunch, freedom has a cost that you need to pay, and we are paying for it.
So while the US pacifies its citizens China tried to make foreign solders to send to the US. TikTok being a tool to "slow down" Americans while enabling foreigners. Seems pretty Sus to me.
Please stop telling people they’re uneducated on the topic in response to one comment. You’ve done it multiple times and it’s unnecessarily aggressive. Ask clarifying questions or provide counterfactuals.
I made a new account last week – totally blank, new device everything. The default FYP so far is all anti-Jewish – not anti-Israel, anti-Jewish – and far left-wing anti-American stuff. it intersperse with really low brow celebrity stuff.
Pretty intense stuff. Lots of “Jews run the world, and hate you” stuff that reporting doesn’t seem to work on. Lots of “America is a nightmare place” aimed at teenagers.
Pretty sure thats the CCP whipping up internal unrest here.
Shit I’ve had youtube try to brainwash me. I clicked on one lecture, that I watched and thought was generally good, if not slightly contrarian. Turns out his later work was hugely influencial in the red pill nonsense. Needless to say, just watching this one lecture led my entire feed to be filled with red pill nonsense.
I have no doubt if I had clicked on similar content on tiktok I would have deluged with similar nonsense.
We have heard about it.... you're just not getting your news from sources that mention it. There are multiple things they allow on American TikTok that they do not allow on Chinese TikTok. They allow these things because they know it helps with social decay in America.
What are you talking about?! Listen to yourself dude, you've completely fallen down a conspiracy rabbit hole. If the US exerted that level of control over private media you would call it a dystopia and a violation of 1A. China also has a policy that limits teenagers to 1hr of online video games a day, surely you wouldn't look at that and jump straight to Activation being a government psyop to stunt education.
TikTok would have to be doing something anything unique in this situation and they aren't. YouTube is the OG radicalization pipeline, Tumblr is more pro-communism than TikTok will ever dream to be, Facebook and IG pioneered doomscrolling before it was cool, and Twitter/Reddit ruined an entire generation of men with the enlightened technoconservatarian nonsense.
I promise you if there is one thing that is absolutely completely certain in America is that we need no help whatsoever in destroying the fabric of our own society and to say otherwise is an affront to American exceptionalism.
Not sure about "corrupting America's youth," but TikTok has been proven to selectively show content to different regions to promote only certain kinds of thought: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30917474
This was enough for me to resolve to never use it. And you're right that other social media isn't much better, though I don't think that was being called into question in the first place.
> Not sure about "corrupting America's youth," but TikTok has been proven to selectively show content to different regions to promote only certain kinds of thought
The example cited there seems a lot like it is to conform to local censorship policies, not to manipulate thought around some centralized objective of TikTok or the CCP.
Its a different thing, whether its better or not is a completely unrelated argument.
> Not to mention, being capable of one means they are capable of the other.
Neither one is a particularly deep capability, anyone with an information service with a personalized feed is capable of both, and if they don't conform to local censorship policies they simply will be banned where that occurs.
I agree with you in principle but there's no difference between that and what's allowed in other American platforms. Degenerate content is everywhere in all platforms.
For tiktok to be special in this regard they would have to allow something different that went way beyond what American platforms allow, and that's thus far not happening.
> For tiktok to be special in this regard they would have to allow something different that went way beyond what American platforms allow
I'm not sure that's true. There's a big difference between "Some amount of degenerate content exists on American platforms which are constantly fighting to identify and remove it" and "Adversarial foreign platform intentionally creates/curates degenerate content to push it to American audiences while keeping it from their own users"
Even if you're talking about content that both platforms fully allow, if one platform targets a group and floods their feeds with certain content with an intent to harm that group that is itself a problem. The fact that it is possible to find harmful content on youtube doesn't make it the same as a platform that intentionally and relentlessly shoves harmful content in your face. I can't say how guilty tiktok is of doing that however.
Solo dev running a 3 node cluster on Hetzner.