I’m no fan of CCP policy or propaganda but the headline could also be “Non-peer reviewed institute publishes study making dubious claims by comparing one social media platform to another that likely has its own biases that are just as strong”
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
192 points (90.0% liked)
News
23371 readers
4605 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"tiktok aligns with china sometimes, more at 5"
They keep removing the songs by that band Uyghur Concentration Camps.
I am shocked. Surely the CCP would never do such a thing. Use companies are a proxy for their national interests and play dumb all the while. Why, I think we should buy more telecommunications equipment from them. They're trustworthy, unlike the Westoid 'NBC' news funded by the CIA.
/s
They have different algorithms serving content within and outside the country. Outside the country, all the garbage, the thirst traps and sexualised shit and attention-span-fucking shit gets shown to children, while within the country all the content is about developing a strong work ethic and recognising some childs achievements and stuff like that.
It's a literal psyop and people just swallow it shaft and balls. Incomprehensible.
strong work ethic in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
This too, but usually not. It just shows a bunch of entreprenuers and kid prodigies and stuff. The factory floor truth isn't usually broadcast because, you know, its depressing.
Yep, my buddy’s wife just had her Kia stolen, joy ridden, and ruined by kids who learned how to do it on TikTok
That a failure of family and the state.
"Some content on platform X says Y" isn't exactly something to write home about.
This isn't about X, it's about Tik Tok
Well played, minch.
A new report from the Network Contagion Research Institute says that TikTok likely promotes and demotes certain topics based on the perceived preferences of the Chinese government.
It's not about what it hosts, it's what it pushes and promotes. And this was research on politically sensitive subjects.
"The perceived preferences" as opposed to "the preferences" I think is an important choice of words for the article.
Well I think the question they are asking is why some content is promoted or demoted, not a question of whether it is happening according to the article.
I think it's less about asking a question than it is pushing a narrative. Now, I'm not claiming that it's a false narrative, but we should at least be able to admit when something is probably propaganda.
Yeah. But they are saying the data is demonstrating that for non controversial hash tags, there is a lot of similarity between Tik tok and Instagram. But when it comes to hash tags that are controversial from a CCP POV, there is a strange disparity between hash tag prevalence. So it appears that this is due to intervention from the tik tok platform. But the data can't definitively say who is responsible for this censorship of hash tags or conversations on CCP controversial subjects.
With the way this is worded I'm just thinking "yeah and some content probably aligns with the Norwegian government".
The article itself does a good job at explaining the issue. You should try to read it.
The above reply could still be true. If you run this sort of hashtag analysis on other countries you could probably find a bunch that the platform is "favoring" .
Hell you could uno reverse this whole argument and say meta is boosting western aligned content. Claiming Instagram is some sort of unbiased real base for social media is a bad premise.
Yes, but the things that are specifically being favored or silenced, as the article shows, are things that the CCP wants to be favored or silenced.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Or in this case, if it looks like it's owned by CCP, takes orders from the CCP, and promotes the views of the CCP, it's probably a CCP intelligence operation.
( sigh )
Everybody, shut the fuck up.
I read the NCRI-Rutgers report in question. You can, too.
The report's conclusion states...
Given the research above, we assess a strong possibility that content on TikTok is either amplified or suppressed based on its alignment with the interests of the Chinese Government.
...but the data they present doesn't prove that statement at all.
The report authors describe their data collection methodology at the top of Page 5 of the report. They state that they're using each platform's advertising management system to count the total number of posts/entries that feature a given hash tag, and comparing the counts on one platform to the counts on the other.
Think about that for a second. Those numbers are just aggregates of tagged user posts. To assert that ByteDance is "amplifying" or "suppressing" a given topic, the data would need to show evidence of raw posts in a given category being edited or deleted en mass, or that perhaps the content feeds and searches that each platform provides to its users are being modified to hide or promote posts aligned with specific subjects. The data doesn't address any of that.
What the data DOES show is how many posts on each platform align with given topics that advertisers have access to. Taken at face value, this data can tell us a lot of interesting things about the users of these particular platforms. For example, TikTok seems to be a lot more into Shakira than Harry Styles. That's interesting, I guess. Also, Instagram users are making more posts about Uyghurs than TikTok users. That's also interesting, but that's not necessarily evidence that ByteDance is suppressing content. What seems more likely is that people who give enough of a shit about Uyghurs to write posts about it aren't using TikTok.
So ok, fine, let's get into some deep-data-fuckery hypotheticals:
Could TikTok posts pertaining to topics that the Chinese government has expressed opinions about be being edited or deleted? Maybe. That should be easy enough to collect data on and test.
Could the aggregation of TikTok posts for the advertising/marketing systems be deliberately fudging the numbers by under-counting posts for some topics and/or over-counting for others? Maybe. The data doesn't prove it. But... why? The function of those advertising systems is to allow marketers to buy ads and figure out costs. Lying about those numbers would mean ByteDance was scamming advertisers. Admittedly, that would be quite a scandal if it were happening, but that's nowhere near the same thing as the report's conclusion.
The report's conclusion is a full-throated statement that ByteDance is tipping the scales in terms of what content is being served to TikTok's users. This might actually be happening, and it's absolutely worth investigating, but the evidence in this report does not back up that claim.
Finally, a pro-tip: if you're skimming a research report and spot the authors misusing the phrase "begging the question", it's time to crank up your bullshit detector to maximum.
I think it's a fair conclusion, and the conclusion is caveated saying more research is needed.
Conclusion: Substantial Differences in Hashtag Ratios Raise Concerns about TikTok’s Impartiality. Given the research above, we assess a strong possibility that content on TikTok is either amplified or suppressed based on its alignment with the interests of the Chinese Government. Future research should aim towards a more comprehensive analysis to determine the potential influence of TikTok on popular public narratives. This research should determine if and how TikTok might be utilized for furthering national/regional or international objectives of the Chinese Government. Should such research determine that TikTok users exhibit attitudes and assessments of world events aligned with the information distortions that we have discovered, democracies will need to consider appropriate counter-measures to better protect information integrity and mitigate potential real-world impacts.
Some pretty good sleuthing there
I thought that this was what tik tok is known for (besides silly videos)
It's still good to verify whether the suspicions are well-founded or not
This study doesn't actually do that.
Chinese app has views aligning with Chinese goverment? Imagine my shock
Wow really?? Chinese social media app has Chinese political views? 🤯
Just like any west social network(propaganda networks) isn't new these platforms are not just used to harvest people information but to use it to manipulate the public opinion specially in political related subjects. Just part of the business.
No shit, it's called asymmetrical warfare.
Meta's content on some political subjects aligns with the American government, reality shows.
Enjoy the internet of propaganda, kids 💖
China app shows global audience Chinese viewpoints! Bad!
American app shows global audience American viewpoints! Good!
...
Perhaps it is ok if humans don't have one Borg Collective type hive mind and more than one opinion can coexist simultaneously.
What do you think is a positive viewpoint expressed by the Chinese government that should be spread around to avoid a Borg Collective hive mind?
The importance of STEM instead of sports and instafanous ambitions? The ability to spread soft power diplomacy through infrastructure building and not just bombing brown people into oblivion. How about something safe like food can have more spices than just black pepper.
If you see EVERYTHING that China does as bad, you have fallen for the propaganda by the US. Nobody is perfect but nobody is pure evil either.
The ability to spread soft power diplomacy through infrastructure building and not just bombing brown people into oblivion
The US is vastly better at this, and has been doing this for considerably longer, than China.
How about something safe like food can have more spices than just black pepper.
That's laughable given the two countries being discussed
The algorithm is different in China than it is in the US, this isn't news. However we are waiting to hear what beneficial Chinese viewpoints we are lacking. Care to share?
I have Douyin as well and the content is completely different. Same person behind the little screen. It is a lot more news, or rather opinion pieces. Sort of like clipped interviews that you'd see with pundits on MSNBC or Fox.
It's also a lot more critical thinking and science and maths. For example it's almost like the TV show How It's Made where they tour a factory and show step by step. But it's a fast narration showing all the steps. Math tricks on how to do basic and next level up math skills in a very different way than the west is taught.
Exercise videos but not thirst traps. Translation and learn new language videos. Lots of that.
There is some stupid fluff that is pure entertainment. The Asians love scripted funny scenes. There is some dancing and trending songs. But the ratio is completely flipped vs. Tiktok.
Math tricks on how to do basic and next level up math skills in a very different way than the west is taught.
As a math undergrad student I can tell you that if it doesn't involve sitting down and thinking about it with pen and paper for a few hours it's at best math related entertainment. No useful skills will be remembered.
As a professional that has completed multiple years of calculus, discrete math, etc, that isn't true. If you're doing real math, you're sitting down and doing it.
Most of daily adult math is 1st grader level addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The tricks are for basics for children that you use as an adult.
Tiktok has a lot of serious problems associated with it but I doubt the CCP's involvement is anywhere near as high as political morons who barely know how to use their phones are proposing.
Especially given the statistics presented do not, in fact, paint a line as much as a number of random dots with a focus on the ones the 'researchers' don't like. This is easily a type 1 error that these people are engaging in and absolutely failing at restricting. The point of research is to remove personal bias in an attempt to determine the truth of the matter, not disregard evidence to pursue your personal vendettas on the public stage using erroneous data