No it’s not. It’s made up bullshit that arises for reasons that literally no one can formalize or reliably prevent. This is the exact opposite of specific.
Discrimination along protected attributes such as gender would be highly illegal though, so no doubt you’d have tons of evidence to present beyond “gossipy HR ladies”.
I didn't mention gossip at all. Are you pretending to quote something I never said, to just perfectly illustrate the bad faith nonsense that is ever-injected into even simple conversations about this topic?
It might be worth Googling James Damore as an early example of this chilling effect.
Yeah “society” had millennia of that. It’s quite telling that perhaps less than a decade of taking women seriously led to a a vitriol filled backlash full of Tates, Trumps and the manosphere.
It’s also quite telling that your main complaint is Disney superhero movies. It’s difficult to think of something more juvenile and unimportant.
> It’s quite telling that perhaps less than a decade of taking women seriously led to a a vitriol filled backlash full of Tates, Trumps and the manosphere.
1. It's been about 30 years since the "strong independent women" meme first started in popular media.
2. Where is the vitriol and backlash in my post to which you are referring to?
Your response looks like a canned one that can be inserted into any discussion about males.
> It's been about 30 years since the "strong independent women" meme first started in popular media.
Much longer than that. While there was significant pre-war feminism, it really took off in the 1960s. Perhaps what people mean is a sort of post-"Bechdel test" world, where people will be sharply criticized if they make a piece of media that only has (properly characterized) male characters.
I see it as a co-existence problem. Trying to insist on male-only spaces or male-only values isn't going to fly any more. A lot of traditional masculinity is framed around being "not a woman", an inherently denigratory concept. It needs a programme that is (a) positive and (b) a concept of personhood and value that's not tied to gender.
lol title IX was only in the 70s. Post bechdel whatever, it was only a handful of years ago that women could finally speak out en masse about not being sexually assaulted on film and TV sets.
> it was only a handful of years ago that women could finally speak out en masse about not being sexually assaulted on film and TV sets.
That wasn't a women-only problem, IIRC. The Hollywood casting couch (and similar problems) was used against both men and women. Some actors (like Kevin Spacey) were called out/blackballed for unwanted sexual attention/acts that they perpetrated against men.
As far as women being allowed to speak out - everyone is allowed to speak out, but the rich and influential silences people who they have left aggrieved. These include both men and women.
To put things in perspective, you joined a thread discussing a singular male-only problem, and dragged female issues into it, which, on closer inspection, turned out to be not female-exclusive anyway.
Because TikTok is free, had no competitors and network effects given that it is a social media platform. ChatGPT already depends on subscription income, has to compete with companies that can offer the same service for free and has no network effects because you're literally talking to a commodified bot
> TikTok [..] had no competitors and network effects
TikTok, or rather ByteDance, acquired Musical.ly as a competitor to absorb the user base and jump start their network. Their also have been a lot of short-form video platforms before (e. G., Vine) and during TikToks growth (Instagram reels, YT Shorts).
Reuters reported that ByteDance (TikTok parent) in Q1 2025 had $48b in revenue.[0] They should surpass $200b for 2025 which would make them bigger than Meta.
In other words, Tiktok has already caught up with Instagram in terms of revenue.
> most of which is from the Chinese market as it continues to face political pressure to divest its U.S. arm.
We're not comparing apples and oranges here. Google and Meta don't operate in China, so there is no giant online ad spend (especially for social) already allocated like there is in the US.
I agree with the gist of your statement but the same could've been said for a number of new companies against entrenched players. Heck, I'm pretty sure google was that company against the existing search.
You'll probably argue that this time it's different but no one knows what's different until it's already changed.
So few people understand how advertising on the internet works and that is I guess why Google and Meta basically print money.
Even here the idea that it’s as simple as “just sell ads” is utterly laughable and yet it’s literally the mechanism by which most of the internet operates.
Anthropic have consistently shown they don’t know shit about anything but training LLMs. Why should we consider their political/sociological/ethical work to be anything other than garbage with no scholarly merit.
