Skip To Content
No Mercy No Malice

WMDs

May 6, 2022

The element fueling economic growth is not a rare earth metal, processing power, or NFTs: It’s attention. The average American spends 11 hours per day consuming media, 65% of their waking life. Roughly 40% of that time is spent on a mobile device. Billions of dollars and millions of person-years are spent capturing and monetizing that attention. The more attention, the more data, the more money, the more relevant offering(s), the more attention … and so on and so on.

The most successful players in the Attention Economy are WMDs: weapons of mass distraction. Meta is a half-trillion-dollar business predicated on diverting attention away from physical life to its apps — advertising generates 98% of its revenue. Google started as a simple digital billboard appended to an industry-leading search bar; it’s morphed into a digital Times Square masquerading as a search engine.

Individuals, too, have turned their attention-capture skills into wealth and power. Social media has been a steroid for reality television, turning suburban teenagers into “influencers,” B-listers into millionaires, and the attention economy has turned game show hosts and comedy actors into presidents. There is real upside in the reshaping of the attention supply chain. From Substack to Spaces, thinkers and entertainers with heft and talent have established distribution channels outside the superstructure of media brands.

On balance, however, WMDs have proven corrosive to the commonwealth. They are highly infectious, as we have no natural immunities. One of the problems with the Attention Economy is the sclerotic lurching from single topic to single topic. We’re losing the capacity to follow multiple threads, with more nuance, at once. We’re becoming a one-track hive mind, when we need to be a community of multithreaded individuals. F. Scott Fitzgerald described intelligence as the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in your head concurrently. Speeding down our one-lane highway with no scenery or opposing traffic is making us stupid.

For the past few weeks, we’ve had our attention diverted by an extraordinary entrepreneur’s quest to become a co-co-co-CEO. We (myself included) went too deep into the paint on this one. My NYU colleague Aswath Damodaran said, “We shouldn’t think of Twitter as some national treasure that needs to be saved,” and he’s right.

On that note, let’s re-embrace our peripheral vision:

Rights

After 50 years of the constitutionally protected right to abortion, a leaked opinion draft alerted us that the Supreme Court is poised to reverse Roe v. Wade. Conservative legislators are filling the gap that will create. Last year, Texas banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy; Oklahoma followed suit in August; then Governor DeSantis signed into law a ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy in Florida; new laws in Kentucky mean the state’s last two remaining abortion clinics will close. It’s a profoundly undemocratic movement: Less than a third of Americans want to see Roe reversed, and popular support for prohibiting abortions entirely remains at under 20%.

Reversing Roe is not merely a validation of an extreme minority view. It’s a reversal of what we have come to rely on the Court for: conferring rights, not removing them. Where will this conservative majority go next? Rights not expressly granted by the Constitution undergird our society. Will the Constitution continue to protect gay marriage? Interracial marriage? The Constitution does not expressly obligate that women be treated equally with men, but the Court has conferred that right over and over again. Will it now reconsider? The right of women to vote is guaranteed by the 19th Amendment, but the value of all our votes is protected by the Court’s decisions (not texts) assuming every person’s vote should have equal force.

My mother became pregnant at 47. I’ve written about this. Without her having access to family planning, I would have been tasked with economic responsibility for the household as the 17-year-old son of a single woman who was a secretary. I wouldn’t have attended college, much less gone on to graduate school and founded e-commerce, strategy, and analytics firms. Without the economic security these ventures provided me, I wouldn’t have had kids … full stop. What Trotsky said about war applies to men here. You may not be interested in choice, but choice (specifically the diminution of choice) is interested in you.

War

As Putin loses an information war, he continues to kill thousands in a real war we’re losing interest in.

Europe’s superpower is starting world wars, and this is beginning to look like the worst fucking sequel ever. Last week, Ukraine deployed a drone strike that sank two Russian naval boats in the Black Sea. Russia launched missiles into a bridge and a church in Odessa, killing multiple civilians, including a 13-year-old child. An anchor on Russian state television warned the Kremlin could use a nuclear underwater drone to wipe out the U.K. in retaliation for its support for Ukraine. Europe responded with more sanctions, while China offered more rhetorical support for Putin and spread conspiracy theories that the U.S. operates a network of weapons biolabs in Ukraine. Russia has killed twice as many people in Mariupol as Nazi Germany did, and 5.5 million people have fled the nation since the war began.

Recession

It also appears we are headed into a recession. Inflation in the U.S. is at 8.5%, the highest it’s been in 40 years. The price of an average home is up 15%. We’re in the midst of the perfect inflationary storm: A money-printing orgy, supply chains seizing, and the leading producers of energy and goods, Russia and China, fighting wars with neighbors and a virus, respectively. European inflation hit an all-time high of 7.5% last month.

The Rube Goldberg device of economic turmoil (which began with an enemy one-400th the width of a human hair) has, despite our distractions, captured the attention of the market. Roughly half the stocks in the Nasdaq are down 50% from their 52-week highs, a quarter are down 75%, and more than 5% are down 90%. The only comparable drawdowns in Nasdaq history came in 2000 and 2008. The pandemic’s darlings, i.e. high-growth tech companies with online-rooted businesses, are enduring the greatest declines.

The slide may continue if the Fed makes further interest rate hikes, causing the economy to contract. Until China figures out Covid policies that don’t involve shutting down entire cities, its supply chain woes will rage on — which will continue to push prices up in the U.S. and Europe.

Unstoppable Force

It’s still the Attention Economy, however. And the business iceberg whose mass is hidden underwater by the lack of a daily mark, as it’s private, is not a bird app or Netflix. It’s … TikTok. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is now the most valuable startup in the world — with an estimated valuation of $360 billion, larger than Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Uber, and PayPal combined. Ironically, this was the value of Netflix just six months ago.

The key to capturing attention is short, addictive bites of entertainment. The New York Times’s acquisition of the quick, five-letter puzzle game Wordle brought millions of new users to its platform. That’s TikTok’s DNA, and the app now commands more engagement per user than Facebook and Instagram combined. It’s producing revenue that’s orders of magnitude greater than the other social media companies can generate.

In the first quarter of this year, TikTok surpassed 3.5 billion all-time downloads, becoming the fifth app (and the only one not owned by Meta) to cross this threshold. It was also the most downloaded app this quarter, and for the last five.

What Facebook did to traditional media and Netflix did to cable TV, TikTok is doing to Facebook and Netflix both. The social media/streaming hybrid has quietly become one of the most powerful WMDs in the world, with a production army of a billion users producing its content for free. This unrivaled reserve of energy is refined by an algorithm that is a supercollider of the TV Guide, TiVo, a remote control, and the brain, choosing between billions of programs (globally) in a fraction of a second. Imagine if Netflix reported that it had reduced its content budget from $17 billion to zero … yet still added new users equal to the populations of Japan and the U.K. No need to imagine, that’s TikTok.

We become what we pay attention to. So we are becoming celebrities people are addicted to … but don’t really care about. I tried to think of a more incisive ending but lost focus.

Life is so rich,

P.S. Not all customers are alike. Neil Hoyne can teach you to capture higher-value ones in our new workshop Increasing Customer Lifetime Value. Enrollment closes next Thursday.

54 comments

  1. Panda says:

    TikTok revenue prediction is way off.

  2. Rafael says:

    as always, a very good content, Professor

  3. Sandy says:

    Always enjoy the reading. Tik Tok is reportedly filing a IPO in HK? Guess attention is indeed the new currency. I have deleted the tik tok for 3 years. Sometimes I would doubt if I was the Luddite dumbass in the new digital era coz the short video platform indeed develops new format of advertising etc., but I truly enjoyed the tranquility…

  4. Denys says:

    As concerns Roe vs. Wade, It boils down to One’s approach to life& death. That is, do you believe there is only life in the form of various genetic pools confined to Earth, or is Life a Cosmic Rebirth type of situation,Any Universe, Any Realm. The First group takes life more seriously perhaps, because it is Finite,if you will.
    I would leave it up to the Scientists,when they say sentient life has taken root in the fetus, it is then too late to perform an abortion, at whatever distance into the pregnancy that would be.

  5. C says:

    I see many prompt commenters jumping up on the abortion topic, all arguing you are wrong. As an outside viewer this looks like a coordinated attack.

  6. Robert says:

    Scott since when is the process of Democratically elected State legislatures enacting laws “profoundly undemocratic”? Last I checked, citizens elect their representatives and these representatives enact laws that reflect the will of the people. In the states you mentioned (Texas, Kentucky, Florida etc) they have legislatures that have passed laws reflective of what the majority in these States desire. Why not mention liberal states that enact laws in favor of late term abortions? These laws need to be respected as they are also reflective of the will of the people in those states. To say that there is a “a profoundly undemocratic movement” is BS and you know it. Disinformation is what I really call it. Democracy is alive and well in America.

  7. Booboo says:

    Did you know that the Abortion issue can solved forever? When all men are responsible for their sperm… 18 years, he’s a nanny, mommy for 18 years.

  8. Sophie Johnson says:

    I always appreciate your deep thinking and the questions you pose. I can’t help but let you know, however, that MY attention has shifted to you and Kara over the last could of years (maybe 4 hours a week). And though you are celebrities I pay attention to, I care about you deeply!

  9. DT says:

    Scott. Only a subscriber for two columns but so unhappy in your lack constant disregard for the truth and common sense.

    It’s only willful ignorance on display that are expressing these fears of “fascism down the line” and suggesting “they’ll go after gay marriage next” and reinstitute racial segregation, while smearing a third of the Supreme Court Justices as liars and some even threatening to kill them.

    The truth is many blue states will quickly pass statutes or take other measures to maintain the legality of the procedure in addition to whatever related laws are already on the books. To say, or even suggest, that this is the end of abortion in the USA is an outright lie intended only to deliberately upset people too damn lazy to read! The FNM continues to shamefully spread falsehoods, unabated, intened to inflame riots about something that likely will have no effect on 90% of the female population!

    Alito’s decision, IF IT BECOMES THE COURTS RULING, would not ban abortions. It just lifts the Judicial prohibition on the ability of the states to enact laws restricting or banning abortions. Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is celebrated as a champion of women’s rights and the pro-choice cause, reportedly expressed the view that Roe was too sweeping in its scope. Roe was the classic case of a Supreme Court ruling that denied the right of majorities what laws should govern their lives and society.

    • lisa a says:

      I didn’t read half the stuff you complained about in the column. I do hope those in Tennessee who need abortions can get them. Would you be okay with < 10% of men being forced sterilized?

    • Steven says:

      As the final arbiter of the law, the Supreme Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. They do not confer nor do they revoke rights. This is the Court’s description of itself, not my opinion.

  10. DT says:

    Scott. Only a subscriber for two columns but so diassapointed in your lack of common sense.

    It’s only willful ignorance on display expressing these fears of “fascism down the line” and suggesting “they’ll go after gay marriage next” and reinstitute racial segregation, while smearing a third of the Supreme Court Justices as liars and some even threatening to kill them.

    The truth is many blue states will quickly pass statutes or take other measures to maintain the legality of the procedure in addition to whatever related laws are already on the books. To say, or even suggest, that this is the end of abortion in the USA is an outright lie intended only to deliberately upset people too damn lazy to read! The FNM continues to shamefully spread falsehoods, unabated, intened to inflame riots about something that likely will have no effect on 90% of the female population!

    Alito’s decision, IF IT BECOMES THE COURTS RULING, would not ban abortions. It just lifts the Judicial prohibition on the ability of the states to enact laws restricting or banning abortions. Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is celebrated as a champion of women’s rights and the pro-choice cause, reportedly expressed the view that Roe was too sweeping in its scope. Roe was the classic case of a Supreme Court ruling that denied the right of majorities what laws should govern their lives and society.

  11. Tony says:

    What a garbage column. At least the “Rights” passage, I stopped reading after that. You’re either ignorant of what Roe said and does or purposefully misconstrued it. How is it “undemocratic” to let voters in the states decide what restrictions to place on killing the unborn, sorry, I mean “family planning?” It’s not the place of unelected judges to confer right on the citizenry, those protected rights are laid out in the Constitution. Constitutional scholars on both sides agree that Roe was a horrible decision from a legal standpoint, regardless of how you feel on the topic. The reason polls show people don’t want Roe overturned is because people like you and other dishonest media imply, or outright state, that overturning Roe would ban abortions. Then I love how your selfishness and lack of self awareness shines through when talking about how fortunate you were that your mother decided to kill your unborn sibling so your life could be easier. You should be sad she made that decision, but grateful she didn’t make it 17 years earlier.

    • Devon says:

      How are individual rights respected by allowing states to decide what medical procedures a person can and cannot do to their body? States rights are important features of our constitutional system but what of those of the individual? I believe the framers, even with ther many flaws in their enactment of their principles, held those in higher regard. In regard to the constitutional scholars who hold roe as being “a horrible decision from a legal standpoint”. I’ve read the legal opinions. They’re motivate post-facto takes based on a belief they hold deeply outside of the context of constitutional law.

    • Cheyenne says:

      The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. Bodily autonomy is a human right. Right to abortion is protected in the Jewish faith. “Life” is a religious/personal opinion that has no place in a separate church and state. Abortion is healthcare in the case of post-miscarriage d&c and ectopic pregnancies and a million other medical instances. Abortion wasn’t even really an issue in the US until desegregation created a vacuum for religious conservatives’ influence on government. Overturning Roe means we’re ok now with our constitutional rights being up for negotiation. In short, this “debate” should have never been handed to federal OR state politicians and if you don’t like abortions, then don’t get one.

      • Tony says:

        Amazing how you were able to get just about every statement you made wrong. First off, it’s funny how liberals only believe in privacy rights and bodily autonomy when it comes to killing defenseless, unborn babies and not when it comes to mandating unproven vaccines on healthy adults. And I believe you meant “birthing person’s” right, not sure what you meant by “woman.” Anyway, when the 14 amendment passed abortion was illegal in most states so dont think they meant for it to provide a right to abortion. Also, “life” is not an “opinion,” religious or otherwise, being of the party of “science” you must know that life begins at conception. That may be inconvenient for you but it’s “settled science” as they like to say. Then you talk about separation of church and state but also say the right to abortion is protected in Judaism…which is also false. And there aren’t “millions” of medical instances where abortion is healthcare, that’s a very small number–most abortions are for convenience. And lastly, I don’t even know whare to begin with your nonsense about desegregation and vacuums and conservatives…you have it exactly backwards…the destruction of the nuclear family by liberal policies and the influence of racist liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood pushing eugenics is what caused the surge in abortions. So other than those points, good comment.

  12. Susan stehlik says:

    I put down my devices and paid attention to what we did in the 60s
    Went to the courthouse and protested SCOTUS draft statement Productive and found 50 new alllies – all real people. Keep up the words, Scott

  13. Jim McKnight says:

    As Peggy Noonan pointed out in her excellent WSJ column, SCOTUS has opined on controversial subjects before … under the umbrella of Congressional legislation, SCOTUS banned prayer in school, school segregation, allowed gay marriage and the list goes on … in the leaked SCOTUS paper, the Justices are not opining on abortion, they are taking a more narrow and legal view that SCOTUS does not have the right to opine in the absence of Congressional legislation … and kindly note that the gutless bastards in Congress have never proposed, let alone passed a pro-abortion law … and just in case you think that I am an old, white male bastard (which I am), I am personally in favor of a woman being in charge of her body, and if that includes abortion, then as much as I might find it difficult and distasteful, I should shove off and stick a sock in it … j.

    • Carlos Barberena says:

      Hear, hear. I especially love the comments on the gutless bastards in Congress. You’re much to kind, I prefer spineless bastards.

  14. Brian says:

    Scott-Love your work and am a big fan. I find you comments regarding abortion to be unusually narrow for you. Considering the science (we are supposed to follow science, right?) do you find the act of abortion disturbing? A heartbeat? Pain receptors? Viability is clear and established scientifically, but literal butchering permitted very late into pregnancy? Sorry to be blunt but this side of the issue is dismissed and not discussed. Why?

    • Beatrice says:

      The issue is NOT the “science”, the issue is whether males have the right to tell females how to live their lives.
      And if it’s a choice between the mother’s life or the fetus/embryo, the mother’s life is FAR MORE important. Period. End of discussion.

      • Brian says:

        If it is not an issue, why did SCOTUS address viability in Roe v. Wade? It is an issue. You choose not to consider it as an issue in your decision to hold the position you hold. I choose to consider it as an issue in determining my position as do many others, including women.

        • Beatrice says:

          I stand by my decision.
          It is NOT your place as a man to tell a woman she cannot choose to have an abortion.

          • AR says:

            Beatrice, your an ignoramus repeating nonintellectual talking points. Making this a sexist issue clearly states your research level. You would be better served doing more reading/research on facts. If Roe is reversed, it is based on constitutional overreach, zero about sexism. The Founders of the US created states rights powers so it’s citizens could move to the state that suited their views, the current SCOTUS is correcting a mistake/overreach.

            Scott, since the pandemic you have made a decision to become political, why? Pre-pandemic you were much more business based without real bias (my opinion, some obvious exceptions). You have your right of freedom of speech, and I would defend it for you, but your turning into Margaret Brennan or Joy Behar… Speaking and referencing one sided arguments creates further disinformation and siloing of information – severe problem in the US right now. I implore you to go back to analyzing markets, businesses, interest rates, etc. Your political slant is now known (for some time….), can we please move on?

    • Lucy says:

      Hi Brian. I understand your comment on abortion, however, I do believe that this topic is much more complicated than you described. Abortion should be the choice of the woman whose life it affects, and not the law or social opinions. I believe society should develop its thinking on this topic and respect the decisions made by individuals, also knowing that they are the ones who will deal with the emotional consequences, not the public. So yes despite not fully exploring the other perspective of abortion, I don’t think we are to decide for others what they do with their body and their choices. So perhaps that’s why he didn’t discuss it, because it is not in societies place to judge.

    • Annie says:

      Brian, my dear you think just like the Taliban. With the laws to go forth in some states, a girl/woman’s corpse has more legal protection.

  15. marino says:

    Hi Scott! I am infinite grateful that your fantastic brain mix, between logic and creativity, produces amazing stuff to think about!
    But!! because I know you are way more intelligent than me, I want to speculate that you know that you 50% of your mathematical setup into your scripts, rocketing us out to oversee social space from above, are not COMPARABLE?! right! ahahahahah
    BUT YOU LEAVE THEM ON PURPOSE to challenge our brain and to create the real RATIOS!! ahahah
    I ADORE YOU! … all the pussy in the world should give it to you! YOU really deserve it! ahahah but justly you care and you don’t care!
    Little bit like: GOD! ahahahah
    marino
    South Bay LA

  16. JN says:

    “So we are becoming celebrities people are addicted to … but don’t really care about. I tried to think of a more incisive ending but lost focus.” … brilliant!

  17. Wista Johnson says:

    So love how you dissect the ways that social media has turned us into a nation with little interest in or time for caring about larger issues (e,g, our sinking economy, the possible cataclysmic consequences of Russia’s aggression, anti-woman legislation in states).
    Silly diversions are necessary for temporary relief from the struggles of daily life, but we can’t run away forever.

  18. MTC says:

    How can you know the ways in which your life would be different if your sibling had lived? It seems to me that all you can know is that you would have walked a different path, but there’s no telling where it would have led.

  19. duncan rowland says:

    total crap!!! I am a graduate of NYU with an MBA-NIGHT SCHOOL. Like all liberals seeking freebees you whine. What a bunch of BS. You could have gone to night school too, instead of murdering your potential sibling who might have been more successful than your sorry ass.

    • Tom says:

      What an unhelpful and inflammatory response. As usual, the hard right is blind to the provision in the constitution creating the division between church and state. And for the record, you are not morally superior to anyone from the hard left.

  20. William says:

    Scott- I loved your first paragraph particularly this section “We’re losing the capacity to follow multiple threads, with more nuance, at once. We’re becoming a one-track hive mind, when we need to be a community of multithreaded individuals. F. Scott Fitzgerald described intelligence as the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in your head concurrently. Speeding down our one-lane highway with no scenery or opposing traffic is making us stupid.” And then you launch in a full criticism of the (potential) Roe reversal without even the slightest acknowledgement of why about 1/3 to 1/2 of the Country (depending on your poll) might not agree with you and why. I believe perhaps naively, that if the fringe right (life begins at conception) and left (abortion is cool until the baby leaves the hospital) were ignored the rest of the country could get together and agree on some reasonable limits to protect women and their unborn babies. But we need to take off our R and D jerseys and stop calling each other names first.

  21. Miyaa says:

    If Google can figure out how to turn Reels into a better version of TikTok, then ByteDance might have a challenge on their hands.

    • marino says:

      it is an idea! .. even if TIK TOK is grabbing because it is effortless and creates relax in our stressed world.
      I doubt the reels can compete but .. I love your kicking in, show wish to create competition! BRAVA! COMPETITION is the only real democracy!
      love

  22. Thorsten says:

    Best last line ever! Perfectly captures the impact on our potenti

  23. Mark says:

    You would enjoy the investment letters of Walter Gutman, whose 1959 comments on long distance telephone calls anticipated our moment. And he was funny smart and wonderfully discursive

  24. Robert Turffs says:

    Thanks for the humor and vision clear enough to notice that the king is not wearing clothes.

  25. Alan Kavanaugh says:

    Scott, Great posts and insights as usual. We’re using Linkedin right now and to be honest I don’t really see all the benefits People are hyping about. More posts about personal experiences, having babies, graduating from High School then talk about business. Microsoft’s very own Facebook site. I live in Canada so I use your quote about being treated for breast cancer and not having to remortgage your home!! Thanks buddy! Cheers

  26. Brian W says:

    At what point do we take ownership for own problems? The best form of “insulation” from the social media flamethrowers is the click of a button to “OFF”. Our addictions with curating the “self”, rather than focusing on improving the well being of others might have something to do with this. Add in a lack of critical thinking and too much idleness and we have set the kindling for a social media firestorm.

  27. Ruth says:

    Dizzying, dismaying, diabolical. Always learn so much from your discourse, thanks Dog.

  28. Andrew says:

    I really appreciate the nuance you bring to these issues, how you frame the argument and issues, and your acknowledgment of how f***ing bananas things have gotten. The damage that these technology/media companies have wrought on our collective cohesion and consciousness is just unfathomable in the context of history.

    These companies developed an incredible technology, the printing press in your pocket with infinite reach, and decided that the societal consequences are not their problem. Mark Zuckerberg says ‘oops’ and shrugs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As long as it can be monetized by stealing and highjacking our attention, and provides shareholder value, then no big deal.

    They’ve invented a technology that provides that perfect dopamine rush. Humans crave variability, we get excited about seeing the unexpected, we love to scroll infinitely as that hit of dopamine might be coming next, and it always does.

    It’s just wild that these companies just don’t care. They use metrics/KPIs that show how addictive these products are! They develop new products to make them more addictive! They get offended when called out on their bull****! As long as you can put some ads in there, no big deal, we’re creating shareholder value. Who cares about the consequences, we have plausible deniability.

    And they’ve been doing this for over a decade! The damage that this has down to our collective psyche is equally unfathomable. Our brains are plastic, we learn new behaviors from past experiences, and they slowly but constantly rewire themselves to give us what we want. Which in this case is opening Instagram or TikTok and taking a big hit of that sweet, sweet dopamine.

    These companies get offended when their social damage is compared to smoking and nicotine, how quaint! The nicotine molecule substitutes for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, a molecule that is critical for muscle movement, breathing, heart rate, learning, and memory. When you suck on your e-cig, your body lights up in autonomic stimulation, it feels good, and your brain and spinal cord become addicted to it. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter of pleasure (or motivation salience), and can make you become addicted to pleasurable stimuli. And there’s nothing quite as pleasurable and stimulating as cute dogs doing cute things, chiropractor adjustments, or beautiful women dancing without bras on. This sh*t is just bananas.

    What do we do about it? I’m curious what your thoughts are. In particular if our current system of stakeholder and surveillance capitalism is capable of self regulating itself, or if regulators are capable of articulating an appropriate line of attack against our technological overlords.

    Cheers to you and your work! RIP CNN+

  29. Attention Span says:

    It’s hard to stop COVID or inflation when President Biden doesn’t have the attention span necessary to do so. Has Biden been playing video games and looking at Tiktok videos too much? Must be why he met with teen influencers in the middle of all these problems.

  30. Mdpetill says:

    3 countries allow abortion up until birth: China, N. Korea and the United States. Most Americans do not support this. In any event, this should be decided by the people, not by unelected judges.

    • Harvey says:

      This is a lie. The United States does not allow abortion until birth. Killing somebody after they are born is called homocide.

  31. Chairman Mao says:

    Tiktok is a psychological warfare weapon developed by the CCP to corrupt American youth. Their algorithm pushes trans content onto our kids, but they ban it for theirs. And you wonder why mental illness runs rampant in Gen Z…

    • AJ says:

      You are literally the WMD’s Galloway is writing about. Troll elsewhere, please.

    • Harvey says:

      Take any of these points. As many as you see fit.
      1.) So the $360 billion company was a side benefit?
      2.) There is a math program capable of turning people trans?
      3.) Would exposure to TikTok make you trans?
      4.) How does any person being trans affect you personally?
      5.) Have you sought out mental wellness treatment for yourself? Physician, diagnose thyself. Instead of impugning the mental health of others, think to yourself if the idea that China would develop an app to turn American kids into mentally ill, brainwashed transsexuals is the thought process of a healthy person with healthy habits.

      • Harvey's TheRapist says:

        Perhaps you should try googling “tiktok ccp”.

      • marino says:

        Harvey ! you are too simplistic …
        If you show in tv that taking it into your axx is good feeling (as it touches the prostate) way more than am marginale amount of people will feel to try and many more will like it! (I DONT! but I may like it! ahahah but who cares! why we should go only for a LIKE ! ahahah) and keeping attention maybe many kids they would not grow up with this distraction! and decide for themselves later!
        Going random into shortening the human cycle, you surely increase people into edge interests (Agreeing that is free to choose in adult age!!) .. and the same LIBERTINE (if not you are OUT attitude) is a MASS DISTRACTION of OVERRATED sexuality!
        we bring a chemical trick to PROCREATE and turned into a LIFE SELF DRIVING waste of time.
        IT IS THE WASTE OF TIME THE PROBLEM not the TRANS AND THE DICK INTO xxxx ahahahah

        We certainly need to be HUMANS, but LOGOS as intelligence always exists to protect us from VICEs which are a disaster for humanity!
        THE EXAGERATION of ExTREMITIES is ALWAYS a deterrent to a better life or human growth.
        The human being surely can share Material vs (more difficult) spirituality (searching for something more than being animals!) but we cannot go ballistic into the other side!!

        Doesn’t it sounds like : <<>>

        LOVE
        marino

        • marino says:

          Sorry it cut it off:
          …. Doesn’t it sounds like : <>

          • marino says:

            Fitzgerald –> described intelligence.. as the ability to hold …two opposing thoughts in your head concurrently… ?

    • Haha says:

      Algorithm is not human. It does not have political views or emotions. It only recognizes view through rate, engagements, play time, and other quantifiable metrics.
      What I’m trying to say is, when algorithms pushes trans video to your children(if you were not lying), algorithms does not necessarily know the specific content within the video. However, based on previous content your children viewed and the lookalike audience, it pushes trans video to your children.
      This signals a few points:
      1. Your kids may be curious, so they have searched and viewed similar content before.
      2. Your kids have friends who are LGBTQ. They are open minded and considerate.
      3. There is legal age restrictions to use TikTok app.
      I have 2 questions for you:
      1. Why are you letting your kids using TikTok app without parent supervision?
      2. And why didn’t you turn on teenage mode?
      3. Is this child negligence? Or just another typical case of blaming everything on China from a mediocre person?
      Have a nice day. 🙂