• HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I mean that’s literally how television shows showing similar format content worked back in the before times… Introduction, footage, commentary.

      Now this lady didn’t add all that much, but it’s a stretch to make this seem like an “influencer” thing…more a product of her time.

      Whippersnapper.

      • paraphrand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        That context was totally different. Broadcast TV is not just a collection isolated clips you can search for and pull up. But the internet is. And we could just get or share the clip direct from the source without it being edited and packaged into influencer content. Maybe it’s not simple or easy sometimes, but it’s usually possible.

        Those shows of the past were what you tuned into. On the internet, we can share direct pieces of video and audio and images with each other. The commentary is optional. On broadcast television, the context had to come from the packaging. On the internet we can provide text based context alongside the videoclip. We can organize it into a database. We can share it in specific contexts like communities.

        influencers packaging clips like this is different, and the person you replied to is correct. People can enjoy this woman fine and follow her for her commentary. But suggesting this is how we should share information because it’s how broadcast television worked before the internet is justifying something we don’t need to justify. And it’s doing so with an onerous comparison, in my opinion.

    • cannedtuna@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      We really didn’t. I’d upload a different version without that before and after if I’d found it

      • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        You mean the American psyop app now. As of January 22, 2026, Oracle (Larry Ellison), Silver Lake, MGX, the personal investment entity for Michael Dell, and some others, own more than 80%. ByteDance in China retains only 19.9% ownership.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Is that the same Larry Ellison that’s buying all the network tv broadcast stations?

        • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 hours ago

          The algorithm is in Beijing. The algorithm has never and will never leave Beijing. All TikTok traffic is centralized in Beijing, and they have demonstrated they will shut it down before they ever change that, because it’s not a business it’s a weapon created by the CCP.

          Even the shares are still more Chinese than not.

          ByteDance employees own 20%
          The founder owns 21%
          Various international investment firms linked to China own large swaths

          Just because the Chinese fucks have always supported and worked with the Trump administration doesn’t make it any less a Chinese psyop.

          • plyth@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            The algorithm is in Beijing.

            It runs in Beijing or it is developed in Beijing?

            The US must have the power to manage block lists and weights and if they see undesired election influence they will pull the plug.