Ryick

@Ryick@lemm.ee

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for TikTok clout⁩ ⁨⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  it is one of the few things I can see people actually pointing at when saying TikTok is bad

  Yes, and this article reinforces that idea, regardless of whether or not TikTok = bad is correct, which is my point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for TikTok clout⁩ ⁨⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  If it had happened on Friendster; then it would have been because of the specific user(s) creating and posting such content, not because of the platform. To say platform = bad because a user or users post negatively affecting content is a sweeping generalization which does not reflect reality, meaning that the negative connotation of TikTok = bad is still incorrect. The users which created and posted such content, in this case, are to blame.

  If students see such content on social media; then the first thought should not be: platform bad; it should be: who posted it, and for what reason(s).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for TikTok clout⁩ ⁨⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  You can replace TikTok with any social media platform. That’s why this argument is illogical in that it blames TikTok.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for TikTok clout⁩ ⁨⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  If this were an unbiased and honest article; then it would read “Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for social clout.” The subtle message, in this article, is TikTok = bad, which is illogical because events such as this will occur regardless of platform or even lack of a platform. It will ALWAYS happen. The question is how to mitigate these events as much as possible, because it’s impossible to completely eradicate “kids doing X for social clout.” It’s a part of learning and being human.