/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I'm using the app and realizing they're rebuilding it on the fly to support english speakers and get their feedback. I guess it's made in a way where they don't need an app update to change it from their end.

wait a minute that name sounds familiar…

>>486884
You're in the know ?
Mind elaborating ?

>>486891
That's a pretty dope edit

I heard a rumor that I hope isn't true: that xiaohongshu is going to silo all the burgers and euros into their own section by ip. It better not happen because the more that Americans talk to people outside the western sphere of influence the better it is for people's class consciousness.

>>486915
Also supposedly they are going to delay the TikTok ban for 270 days. What a bunch of cowards lol.

Pretty hilarious that the freedom of China's internet is what people flock to and America is in the business of destroying public speech and mandating an insane narrative. Then you find out the people mandating this narrative believe they're actually space aliens and they're selected to live. Seriously, that's what they believe "up there".

>>486915
So I think that the US state propaganda machine is trying to guilt trip Americans into leaving XHS. And people are buying it.

They're running videos of crying asian people on TikTok saying that Americans jumping on the app made the app devs implement the IP segregation thing, and now they're going to lose touch with Chinese people living abroad. They're saying this feature already exists in an update.

The reason I don't believe this is because there are comments in Chinese saying this is BS (translated using chatgpt):

> Don't feel sorry; what she said didn't happen. Even the Chinese government has stated that they welcome you! China doesn't just have Red Note, it also has WeChat. As a Chinese person, I really don't understand why she would say such things—perhaps she wants to attract attention. In reality, Chinese people are very welcoming to others using these platforms. I even checked using my son's Red Note, and there was no effect at all. His page still showed the content he wanted to see.

Also because Chinese people don't have TikTok. So it's very sus.


But Americans are buying it and leaving the app because it's SO FUCKING CLEVER to play on American's guilt and self-image.

I just want you, /leftypol/, to appreciate the depth of understanding of human psychology and the sophistication of this messaging. It works to control people and is very hard to combat.

>>486940
>Pretty hilarious that the freedom of China's internet is what people flock to and America is in the business of destroying public speech and mandating an insane narrative.
Yeah it's quite ironic that people go to a Chinese platform because it's less censored.


>>486945
>But Americans are buying it and leaving the app because it's SO FUCKING CLEVER to play on American's guilt and self-image.
>I just want you, /leftypol/, to appreciate the depth of understanding of human psychology and the sophistication of this messaging. It works to control people and is very hard to combat.
Well the guy who runs the app likely makes more money if more people use it, so he'll likely adjust the algorithm to down-rank the content that tells people to stop using the app. I'm not really convinced that designing a psyop to go against the flow of capitalism is actually that clever.

>>486940
Yup. I think TikTok users consciously did this to spite zuckyboi. And China has enough digital infrastructure to handle it with ease.

>Seriously, that's what they believe
It would be hard for having one hundred billion dollars not go to your head.

>>486946
>Well the guy who runs the app likely makes more money if more people use it
To clarify what I posted happened on TikTok.

>I'm not really convinced that designing a psyop to go against the flow of capitalism is actually that clever.
Well it's a psyop designed to keep people from breaking out of the controlled internet that the west have set up. Or just to get more users on facebook, which amounts to the same thing. America is losing control and they are clawing it back any way they can.

>>486945
rofl why is there goofy captions for this video when her English is clear and understandable?

>>486953
boomer

Why are people using electronic programs when they can just talk to people face to face?

Why are people writing things down when you can just say them and memorize them?

Why say words when you can just nod?

Why nod when you can ignore?

>Well it's a psyop designed to keep people from breaking out of the controlled internet that the west have set up.
If the motivation was rational economic interests of western owned media, they would not fuck with western media, the "narrative pushers" are damaging the medium. They're the main reason why so many people dropped TV and newspapers 20 years ago.

>America is losing control and they are clawing it back any way they can.
Are they really clawing anything back ?

The US became the dominant player online because US tech had the most expression freedom.

During the cold war many noticed how the Soviets lost the struggle to get eyeballs and eardrums for their media. And the realization was that controlling the narrative was worth less than owning the neutral pipe through which all media went. That's why the commercial internet was designed with a Hobsian philosophy. By having the neutral pipe your narrative got a head-start because you could make it the default option that everybody could sample without driving people away by suppressing other narratives. If you suppress stuff people will eventually reject the medium because they can't find the information they are looking for.

The Soviets made this mistake because their reference frame was skewed by the preceding feudal system where total repression was the norm. The people who are trying to re-introduce the censorship systems today don't have such excuses.

I'm not sure what the Chinese are going to do, but i read machine translations of official policy documents. And the impression i got by interpreting the broken "machine-chinglish" is that they don't primarily see their state-censor as a means to enforce an official narrative. They primarily see it as a way to do protectionism to grow their own media production. So if they later open up their information sphere while the rest of the world closes theirs down, they likely will replicate the soft-power success the US had with it's media during the last 30 years.

The real stakes are about whose information technology gets used by humanity. But also whose defaults, not just ideologically, politically and philosophically but also other stuff like language. The US "winning the internet" made English the default language. Also many technical design specifications. That represents an enormous competitive advantage. It's madness to give that up, what people say matters a lot less than the means they use to say it.

Information technology probably is only 1/3 through it's primary development phase, before it settles into a stable groove of slow incremental improvements. So large changes are yet to come. So if the west locks down the info sphere, we might end up in a tech-dead-end, stuck on what we have now. If the Chinese system opens up they'll capture the next innovation waves, and eventually their stuff will be significantly more advanced. We've been using radio waves and microwaves for a very long time, so a new transportation layer that uses less energy and is better at passing through solid matter seems likely.

The censorship gang would cause our system to technologically ossify, but inevitably new tech will break through and completely overrun it. Like the printing press overturned the narrative controle of the church who relied on illiterate peasants. Except that the time-frame will be much shorter, and the resulting rupture will hit much harder.

>>486956
>Why are people using electronic programs when they can just talk to people face to face?
electronic communication lets you talk to people who live outside your immediate neighborhood.
>Why are people writing things down when you can just say them and memorize them?
Accuracy and capacity is better that way
>Why say words when you can just nod?
binary code head-banging communication would be rad but it would cause significant neck-injuries.
>you can ignore?
arguing is more fun, i guess

i like how westoids always skip significant portion of technology (like 70 %) and always go to printing press

also einstein already said usa has no freedom

>>486956
actually modern people sort of use less technology (maybe)

like many don't have work stations at home now which became almost mainstream
and they use computers just at their work place

>>486964
Many people use smartphones, which compared to desktop computers, are worse in terms of technological functionality, because so much utility has been stripped out. But you can hardly say that a smartphone contains less technology.

I'm assuming you are trying to say something else. Like maybe the average smartphone user today is less tech-savvy, than the average desktop computer user 20-30 yeas ago.

But then again on the hole there are a lot more tech-savvy people now that there were 20-30 years ago.

>>486968
they sort of only use what they need
rather than depend on it more like maybe in the past
today smartphone is just a tool to access some shit
it can be also greatly simplified (which is actually good. nobody runs irc with its long setup on a smartphone)

>>486969
Ok lets dispel some errors.

Smartphones are not designed for the needs of the user. Users don't need any of the surveillance bullshit that has been inserted into smartphones. Also smartphones are not simplified. All the superfluous surveillance technology is anything but simple. If you removed all the tracking, profiling and personal data gathering crap, smartphones might actually be able to achieve reasonable battery autonomy. Once upon a time personal communication devices could remain on battery standby for 2-4 weeks. That must have been an ancient civilization with advanced alien technology now lost to time.

Furthermore cell towers could work like public wifi, that allowed any device with a compatible radio to connect to it and go online. All the fuss with cell contracts, sim-cards/e-sins, that is just legacy crap far more outdated than IRC. The only reason why that still persists is because it enables legacy telecom companies to maintain a monopoly. While an open model similar to wifi is a service that can be provided by anybody with the technical skills to configure advanced network routers and radio equipment. The open model would even allow for smartphones them selves to route some of the network traffic which would make the system far more robust and fix most situational bandwidth bottlenecks.

>today smartphone is just a tool to access some shit
Yeah from the point of view of surveillance capitalism and panopticon-surveillance-state extremists perhaps. For whom Smartphones are a privacy violation tool to access some personal data they shouldn't be able to. People use their smartphones as a brain-extension, they clearly need to have full controle over it because that tech clearly is now included in personal bodily autonomy.

>it can be also greatly simplified (which is actually good. nobody runs irc with its long setup on a smartphone)
Technologically smartphones could be simplified a lot but for that corporate walled gardens have to die, no more proprietary lock-in of any kind: not with screws , not with spare parts, not with cables, and certainly not with software. Governments also have to chill out and stop behaving like creepy stalkers. No gate keepers and no creepers. Also locked boot-loaders need to die extra hard, all those slightly out-dated smartphones that people discard after 18 months, those could be repurposed to compute other stuff if you could easily install another OS on it. The useful service life of smartphone SOCs in terms of compute could be 12 years, there could be a second- and tertiary-hand market.

In conclusion:
No ! Smartphones as they are now are an over-complicated user-hostile nightmare with tonnes of unnecessary hurdles, that in no way are anything even remotely resembling a neutral technological tool that people can easily use to access information. If you need to use a hot-air-blower, special screwdrivers, 3 spudgers and a soldering iron to swap out the battery, the word "simple" does not apply.

Maybe it's unrealistic to expect smartphones to become a simple and elegant technology designed to service the needs of users, given the baggage, maybe it's just going to die from enshitifcation and eventually get superseded by something else that is sensibly configured. I'm still hoping for a linux phone tho, that might save the "smart"-phone.

>>486970
you probably don't read news
but there *is* linux smart phones
there's also *wifi* only phones (no cell technology)

and cell tower tracks you even harder
try to call police for instance or ambulance… they don't ask you where you are (because they already know…)

its not really how it works

>>486972
i can say even how it works, because now even kids know

basically
and it was actually in the design since always or forever
1. your phone is registering on a tower (or multiple towers)
2. for this it sends the number or anything
3. there number stored in a local (tower's) (or multiple towers) database
4. these database (with just has numbers) uploaded or sent to the central unit or something (via cell technology/level)
5. there it (this data) can be processed. which just means easily triangulated.
there fore your position is easily calculated (from the distance or something, from near by towers (more towers better))

also they probably can send signal level or w/e that improves distance in theory, but generally its not needed
some 3 towers give nice accuracy (maybe like 50 meters)

can be calculated just by averaging
also you already have the coordinates of tower basically

TikTok reportedly getting banned on Sunday: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/18/fzgv-j18.html