I'm not disinclined to believe that TikTok promotes pro-China sentiment, but this report is far from academically rigorous and has gaping holes in its methodology that would not pass peer review.
* Most notable is that the baseline for determining whether a hashtag has been boosted or deboosted on TikTok comes from Instagram---hardly an unbiased source of ground truth, especially in light of the recent allegations that Meta deboosts pro-Palestinian content and other controversial political content.
* Worse is that there's no statistical analysis showing that generic political hashtags are significantly different from China-sensitive political hashtags between TikTok and Instagram. There is large variance within categories, and even some of the generic political hashtags show a bigger difference between platforms than the China-sensitive political hashtags. Statistics would help determine whether a real difference exists beyond sampling error, but none are to be found in this report.
* No explanation of how the hashtags were determined. They were apparently chosen a priori by the authors, but no criteria for inclusion or exclusion are mentioned.
* Other small details like discrepencies between Fig 2. and Fig 3. in describing TikTok as having half the hashtags as Instagram and Instagram has having double the hashtags as TikTok.
Overall, this report just seems like fodder for the anti-TikTok crowd, not a dispassionate inquiry into how TikTok trends relfect CCP narrative building.
> Overall, this report just seems like fodder for the anti-TikTok crowd,
Can confirm, I do belong to that crowd and I did share it after reading it. An hour later, it dawned on me that this report is maybe kinda cool, but really isn't enough to draw any conclusions from and I should not have shared it.
> No explanation of how the hashtags were determined.
> Our presentation of data starts with Uyghurs and Tiananmen Square because those were two topics specifically called out at the March 2023 Congressional hearings, and TikTok’s CEO explicitly denied that in either case were posts on those topics suppressed or in any way demoted on the platform
Their methodology (comparing hashtag counts) does not make sense for detecting whether content is systematically promoted and demoted to fit some agenda. I can make one video, have it artificially promoted to reach a million viewers, and that's a hashtag increment of 1. Or I can make ten videos that are all unfairly demoted and therefore barely get any views, and that's a hashtag increment of 10.
The discrepancy for Kashmir-related hashtags makes me think there are a lot of Pakistanis on TikTok who never use Instagram...
Alternatively, Instagram is heavily amplifying the hashtags supposedly suppressed on TikTok, and suppressing the hashtags supposedly amplified on TikTok. You can literally turn the table and use the exact same report as “evidence” of Instagram pushing American geostrategic objectives. More realistically, it’s probably a product of both. We already know Palestine-related hashtags are heavily suppressed on Meta properties.
I'm a heavy TikTok user (entirely scrolling the For You page) and can't think of any Israel or Palestine related videos I've seen. If there's any CCP propaganda I see in my feed, it is in the form of efficient Chinese factory and farm worker montages.
If the overall concern is exposure to propaganda, why waste time blocking the holes it comes in through? Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to identify propaganda? I would think this would also help to keep the powers that be in this country in Check as well... I find it worrying that we can see how effective propaganda has been at polarizing our country but no one wants to address all propaganda, just the other side's version. If this were to become a basic core competency in our education system, I guess it would undermine advertising as well, but IMO that would be a plus...
The goal is to guard against wrongthink and ensure that people act and think like their politicians want them to act and think.
On the other hand, give them a framework to think for themselves, expose them to inconvenient perspectives, and this will endanger livelihood of so many powerful opportunistic people.
The propaganda is in controlling the dials/levers of what is seen which gives an artificial sense of prevalence. You can tell any story you want- make elderly people beating up young people trend more and people will think it's a common occurrence.
I think mandatory transparency into the algos is a start but that assumes nobody tampers behind the scenes which would be trivial w/ software.
> Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to...
yeah, maybe we could create a state-controlled social media app to educate via subtle influ-
But seriously if someone has found a strong, repeatable, almost flashcard-like vector for transmitting information to millions, its going to beat your education plan. And even then, even highly educated people are not immune to propaganda.
> Wouldn't it just be simpler to educate our citizens to identify propaganda?
TikTok is currently running a commercial on Twitch (and I assume elsewhere) which shows people explaining what good they themselves are doing and it is "because of TikTok" with a final message that (possibly paraphrasing) says "TikTok Does Good".
The government would not only need to educate their citizens against the lies of capitalism, but their own lies, as well.
Imagine if 350 million people became resistant to the messaging of capitalism?
How do they account for variation in demographics of the user bases and the potential that Instagram is also promoting/demoting certain types of content?
China has a separate app like TikTok and TikTok is not allowed inside China. I don’t see where in the PDF they address demographics but could you explain how you think that factors into this analysis? The numbers indicate they’re global like other massive social networks.
Also, is the issue with Instagram political in nature like TikTok and China? At first glance it looks like the distribution is controlled based on their publicly available content guidelines. Doesn’t that make it inherently different than non-public content manipulation?
In the paper they use a ratio defined by comparing a hashtag's popularity on TikTok vs on Instagram. So it accounts for Instagram's biases since they're comparing to them. Not sure if that's what you're asking.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Tiktok has made it clear many times over that while they pretend to be in the clear and un affiliated with the ccp they are a direct arm of the ccp that uses tiktok as an arm to influence global politics.
Why this stuff has not been banned as a national security threat is beyond me.
I hope it does not get banned. Even if they try to ban it, they have to then contend with all the people building their careers on it/consider it a essential part of their lives. Might be enough to motivate Millenials/Gen Z to cone out to the ballot box and remove anyone who was responsible. (This is probably why they havent banned it yet)
While I don't use TikTok, its been fascinating watching the US lose its marbles over the idea that there is an avenue for mass dissemination of ideas that they cannot control. It really became real when the Pro-Palestine content translated into mass protests all across the west. Israel really dug themselves into a hole and I sometimes wonder, if this trend continues, what are they going to do once the Boomers die and down the road we get a Gen-Z president?
Sure you have state sponsored channels like RT that try to provide alternative views but they dont have anywhere near the eyeballs TikTok gets and they can be easily discredited.
The last time the US had a major competitor was in the 80s. Finally someone has come along that is challenging the US on many levels, not just social media apps.
I had always wished Europe to get their act together and serve as a democratic counter balance to the US but these days they are not even in the conversation. But at least China is trying despite the fact that they are less than savory.
We will continue to have access to American social media apps pushing their nonsense and acting like they provide freedom while quietly suppressing content they don't like (ex. anti-Israel). Meta/Youtube/X platforms are not going away. I love the fact that the mass market has some choice now.
As a Chinese, I can use YouTube, X, and Instagram, but I can hardly use TikTok,it detect which country my SIM card belongs to. I often come across false content about China on Western social media, which significantly outweighs the real content. Of course, there is about 10% of real content that I cannot access on domestic social media platforms. Regarding China, Western media consists of nearly 80% false content and 20% real content, with the real content being mostly negative. The information about the West in China is similar, where the saying "all crows are black" applies.In the end, we live in a safe authoritarian country. Of course, I wish to live in a true democratic country, but does it exist? The United States? Hilarious.
I’m not sure why anyone finds this hard to believe. Do US media companies tend to align with US geostrategic objectives? Now consider that the link between the Chinese state and its companies is much firmer and more authoritarian than it is in the US.
Tiktok and their relationship with CCP is something anyone can see plainly. I mean, if the US government was installing implants (snowden leaks) at US tech companies, if you disagree with my first statement then you must believe China is an even more free society than the US.
The biggest tragedy in america right now, one that fuels the apathy and national self-destruction is the lack of gratitude and appreciation of just how precious and priceless the peace, stability and prosperity we have now (not decades ago but today) is. Americans just simply don't know the levels of poverty and desperation much of the world has seen, it is just impossible here. They don't know that just in the 70s and 80s China was having mass starvations. Their appreciation of their government's ability to lift them out of that and the century of humiliation they had before that is not small (unlike americans).
The world is not a nice place, the CCP is much worse than putin and their goal is not to coexist with the west.
And if tiktok ends up giving the CCP an advantage, whether in the 2024 elections or future cold/hot conflict with the PLA, I for one would lay significant blame on HNers who rallied against Biden's attempt to block tiktock because of b.s. slipperly slop fallacies. They already ban US social media there! This would have been reciprocal, it might have been one of the smallest things that could have been done to avoid possible chaos and carnage in the future. The government does have power to censor foreign companies's speech. Matter of fact, the first amendment does not apply to companies, it applies to people, and no one who uses tiktok would be prevented from using another platform to make the same speech!
This about tech companies and startups worried about "what if I am next".
Your opinions have consequences because people consider many of you on HN knowledgable or experts in tech.
The best solution to TikTok would seem to be for the responsible parties, such as Google and Apple, to add a warning message to apps believed to be controlled by governments. The same way Google already does with YouTube channels.
And for journalists and the government to investigate suspected ties and announce their findings loudly, so that people can make an informed choice.
But actually banning the app, even though it would be a good thing for users, seems like a fraught choice for a free country.
I've worked with NCRI before. I worked on a paper about DAOs, blockchain, memecoins and market manipulation. While it may not be intended to pass peer review, they do bring to light novel concepts and trends and do so in an intellectually honest way... fwiw.
Apple, google global platform anomalies align with us geostrategic objectives.
I do not know why this is news. Every single large company in every country has strong ties to the govt and works in sync with it. It's not a big secret.
The west calls it "pursuit of profit", i call it intentional social engineering, since we all know most of the social media apps have for "content moderation" team former CIA agents, and part of their existence is due to CIA/NSA research grants/programs, and the US has clear interests in that region, for that one specific case
This is why it is important for parents to properly educate their children when it comes to social media, i would personally prohibit them all
But let's be honest, TikTok is the least harmful of them all, Twitter and Facebook comes to mind first when it comes to political propaganda, as well as disturbing content
Wanting it banned without expecting all the other ones to follow is disingenuous, to say the least, or it is perhaps "propaganda" ;)
Of course they do, however an important distinction here is that Meta is banned in China and TikTok is not banned here. Both are bad, but Chinese netizens aren’t exposed to one of the two.
China is quite good about filtering out which propaganda interests they want their citizens exposed to, and of course are more active in influencing operations globally as well.
We can argue if that model of propaganda and control is good or not, but regardless they are smart enough to know that they don’t want to open up their youth to US propaganda machines but are happy to have us open ourselves to their propaganda. It’s asymmetrical, and that causes a lot of consternation. It’s also risky.
Maybe, but isn’t part of the problem contextual? Multiple US corporations have manipulated their content based on sensitivities that are promoted from specifically the CCP and not based on moral outlook of their population. It seems to me that’s a clear indicator of over bearing authoritarian control. Baring any value statements about political systems, isn’t there a political problem with a foreign entity controlling the content of another; particularly when an adversarial relationship exists?
Both are bad but there is a qualitative difference between the badness of USA's global objectives and China's global objectives, and the means by which they work towards these objectives. The equivalence people draw between western powers and China is really puzzling to me. And no, I'm not American and I am no fan of American foreign policy.
> How this is different from Meta's "reduction" of pro-Palestinian posts exposure and preventing it from spreading too far?
Presumably because Palestine is one salient issue, being moderated at a time of extreme engagement, while the linked article asserts a pattern of such moderation across the site.
It's the difference between "This subreddit doesn't allow political discussion" and "conservative topics are banned on Reddit".
Speaking as an American, yes, it is most definitely "us vs. them".
China is a geopolitical enemy ruled by a communist dictatorship that wants to diminish America's power, standing, and influence in the world to advance their own. American power and the mere threat of bringing it to bear on our adversaries is what enabled the past three decades of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, and China is actively working to undermine and diminish it in favor of their own.
Asking for some kind of balance or symmetry here is like saying it's unfair that fighter jets drop bombs on the enemy and not their own side. Yes, that's the whole point. We win, they lose.
Meta is run by billionaires acting in their own self interest and it’s obvious when often in conflict with the USA government. TikTok parent company is accountable to the government of China.
This nonsense was created as fodder for incompetent and dishonest politicians.
You’ll now hear the least competent ones exclaim things like “a rutgers study says China bad, China spy, China control of social media not same as US government control of social media ugg ugg fire fire”.
[+] [-] ramblenode|2 years ago|reply
* Most notable is that the baseline for determining whether a hashtag has been boosted or deboosted on TikTok comes from Instagram---hardly an unbiased source of ground truth, especially in light of the recent allegations that Meta deboosts pro-Palestinian content and other controversial political content.
* Worse is that there's no statistical analysis showing that generic political hashtags are significantly different from China-sensitive political hashtags between TikTok and Instagram. There is large variance within categories, and even some of the generic political hashtags show a bigger difference between platforms than the China-sensitive political hashtags. Statistics would help determine whether a real difference exists beyond sampling error, but none are to be found in this report.
* No explanation of how the hashtags were determined. They were apparently chosen a priori by the authors, but no criteria for inclusion or exclusion are mentioned.
* Other small details like discrepencies between Fig 2. and Fig 3. in describing TikTok as having half the hashtags as Instagram and Instagram has having double the hashtags as TikTok.
Overall, this report just seems like fodder for the anti-TikTok crowd, not a dispassionate inquiry into how TikTok trends relfect CCP narrative building.
[+] [-] rutierut|2 years ago|reply
Can confirm, I do belong to that crowd and I did share it after reading it. An hour later, it dawned on me that this report is maybe kinda cool, but really isn't enough to draw any conclusions from and I should not have shared it.
[+] [-] nneonneo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Thorrez|2 years ago|reply
> Our presentation of data starts with Uyghurs and Tiananmen Square because those were two topics specifically called out at the March 2023 Congressional hearings, and TikTok’s CEO explicitly denied that in either case were posts on those topics suppressed or in any way demoted on the platform
[+] [-] Morte42|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yorwba|2 years ago|reply
Their methodology (comparing hashtag counts) does not make sense for detecting whether content is systematically promoted and demoted to fit some agenda. I can make one video, have it artificially promoted to reach a million viewers, and that's a hashtag increment of 1. Or I can make ten videos that are all unfairly demoted and therefore barely get any views, and that's a hashtag increment of 10.
The discrepancy for Kashmir-related hashtags makes me think there are a lot of Pakistanis on TikTok who never use Instagram...
[+] [-] oefrha|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xnx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hotdogscout|2 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine
Extremely relevant with each passing year:
https://youtu.be/hhMAt3BluAU?si=URc2oDbqWRptJm0s
[+] [-] gibbitz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foverzar|2 years ago|reply
On the other hand, give them a framework to think for themselves, expose them to inconvenient perspectives, and this will endanger livelihood of so many powerful opportunistic people.
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|2 years ago|reply
I think mandatory transparency into the algos is a start but that assumes nobody tampers behind the scenes which would be trivial w/ software.
[+] [-] simonsarris|2 years ago|reply
yeah, maybe we could create a state-controlled social media app to educate via subtle influ-
But seriously if someone has found a strong, repeatable, almost flashcard-like vector for transmitting information to millions, its going to beat your education plan. And even then, even highly educated people are not immune to propaganda.
[+] [-] jeffybefffy519|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nullindividual|2 years ago|reply
TikTok is currently running a commercial on Twitch (and I assume elsewhere) which shows people explaining what good they themselves are doing and it is "because of TikTok" with a final message that (possibly paraphrasing) says "TikTok Does Good".
The government would not only need to educate their citizens against the lies of capitalism, but their own lies, as well.
Imagine if 350 million people became resistant to the messaging of capitalism?
The world might actually be a better place!
[+] [-] 23B1|2 years ago|reply
Sweet summer child
[+] [-] SalmoShalazar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notjoemama|2 years ago|reply
China has a separate app like TikTok and TikTok is not allowed inside China. I don’t see where in the PDF they address demographics but could you explain how you think that factors into this analysis? The numbers indicate they’re global like other massive social networks.
Also, is the issue with Instagram political in nature like TikTok and China? At first glance it looks like the distribution is controlled based on their publicly available content guidelines. Doesn’t that make it inherently different than non-public content manipulation?
[+] [-] ziddoap|2 years ago|reply
The first line of the article is:
>analyzed hashtag ratios between Instagram and TikTok
[+] [-] oehtXRwMkIs|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greatjack613|2 years ago|reply
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Tiktok has made it clear many times over that while they pretend to be in the clear and un affiliated with the ccp they are a direct arm of the ccp that uses tiktok as an arm to influence global politics.
Why this stuff has not been banned as a national security threat is beyond me.
[+] [-] nebula8804|2 years ago|reply
While I don't use TikTok, its been fascinating watching the US lose its marbles over the idea that there is an avenue for mass dissemination of ideas that they cannot control. It really became real when the Pro-Palestine content translated into mass protests all across the west. Israel really dug themselves into a hole and I sometimes wonder, if this trend continues, what are they going to do once the Boomers die and down the road we get a Gen-Z president?
Sure you have state sponsored channels like RT that try to provide alternative views but they dont have anywhere near the eyeballs TikTok gets and they can be easily discredited.
The last time the US had a major competitor was in the 80s. Finally someone has come along that is challenging the US on many levels, not just social media apps.
I had always wished Europe to get their act together and serve as a democratic counter balance to the US but these days they are not even in the conversation. But at least China is trying despite the fact that they are less than savory.
We will continue to have access to American social media apps pushing their nonsense and acting like they provide freedom while quietly suppressing content they don't like (ex. anti-Israel). Meta/Youtube/X platforms are not going away. I love the fact that the mass market has some choice now.
[+] [-] jumpman500|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mingKun|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badrabbit|2 years ago|reply
The biggest tragedy in america right now, one that fuels the apathy and national self-destruction is the lack of gratitude and appreciation of just how precious and priceless the peace, stability and prosperity we have now (not decades ago but today) is. Americans just simply don't know the levels of poverty and desperation much of the world has seen, it is just impossible here. They don't know that just in the 70s and 80s China was having mass starvations. Their appreciation of their government's ability to lift them out of that and the century of humiliation they had before that is not small (unlike americans).
The world is not a nice place, the CCP is much worse than putin and their goal is not to coexist with the west.
And if tiktok ends up giving the CCP an advantage, whether in the 2024 elections or future cold/hot conflict with the PLA, I for one would lay significant blame on HNers who rallied against Biden's attempt to block tiktock because of b.s. slipperly slop fallacies. They already ban US social media there! This would have been reciprocal, it might have been one of the smallest things that could have been done to avoid possible chaos and carnage in the future. The government does have power to censor foreign companies's speech. Matter of fact, the first amendment does not apply to companies, it applies to people, and no one who uses tiktok would be prevented from using another platform to make the same speech!
This about tech companies and startups worried about "what if I am next".
Your opinions have consequences because people consider many of you on HN knowledgable or experts in tech.
[+] [-] lagichikool|2 years ago|reply
And for journalists and the government to investigate suspected ties and announce their findings loudly, so that people can make an informed choice.
But actually banning the app, even though it would be a good thing for users, seems like a fraught choice for a free country.
[+] [-] ZoomerCretin|2 years ago|reply
In theory this sounds nice, but in practice it has a very pro-western bias.
For example:
Under BBC videos, the warning is "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
Under NPR videos, the warning is "NPR is an American public broadcast service."
Under CGTN videos, the warning is "CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the Chinese government."
The BBC and NPR are also "funded in whole in part by the [UK/US] government", yet it comes with a much nicer warning.
[+] [-] Dah00n|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] actuallyrizzn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilrwbwrkhv|2 years ago|reply
I do not know why this is news. Every single large company in every country has strong ties to the govt and works in sync with it. It's not a big secret.
[+] [-] mulmen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phendrenad2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WhereIsTheTruth|2 years ago|reply
Let us not forget about Facebook / Myanmar
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
The west calls it "pursuit of profit", i call it intentional social engineering, since we all know most of the social media apps have for "content moderation" team former CIA agents, and part of their existence is due to CIA/NSA research grants/programs, and the US has clear interests in that region, for that one specific case
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
This is why it is important for parents to properly educate their children when it comes to social media, i would personally prohibit them all
But let's be honest, TikTok is the least harmful of them all, Twitter and Facebook comes to mind first when it comes to political propaganda, as well as disturbing content
Wanting it banned without expecting all the other ones to follow is disingenuous, to say the least, or it is perhaps "propaganda" ;)
[+] [-] poopiokaka|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] invig|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayindirh|2 years ago|reply
Does Meta's (or other similar actors') actions align with potential countries' geopolitical objectives?
Can we look both of them objectively and say both are bad (I think so), or is there us vs. them mentality?
[+] [-] alexsereno|2 years ago|reply
China is quite good about filtering out which propaganda interests they want their citizens exposed to, and of course are more active in influencing operations globally as well.
We can argue if that model of propaganda and control is good or not, but regardless they are smart enough to know that they don’t want to open up their youth to US propaganda machines but are happy to have us open ourselves to their propaganda. It’s asymmetrical, and that causes a lot of consternation. It’s also risky.
[+] [-] notjoemama|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvdtnz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajross|2 years ago|reply
Presumably because Palestine is one salient issue, being moderated at a time of extreme engagement, while the linked article asserts a pattern of such moderation across the site.
It's the difference between "This subreddit doesn't allow political discussion" and "conservative topics are banned on Reddit".
[+] [-] avalys|2 years ago|reply
China is a geopolitical enemy ruled by a communist dictatorship that wants to diminish America's power, standing, and influence in the world to advance their own. American power and the mere threat of bringing it to bear on our adversaries is what enabled the past three decades of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, and China is actively working to undermine and diminish it in favor of their own.
Asking for some kind of balance or symmetry here is like saying it's unfair that fighter jets drop bombs on the enemy and not their own side. Yes, that's the whole point. We win, they lose.
[+] [-] goalieca|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slowhadoken|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hnrobert42|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
> Can we look both of them objectively and say both are bad (I think so), or is there us vs. them mentality?
Yes. That doesn’t preclude classifying how they are bad, both commonly and uniquely.
[+] [-] kortilla|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] superduty|2 years ago|reply
This nonsense was created as fodder for incompetent and dishonest politicians.
You’ll now hear the least competent ones exclaim things like “a rutgers study says China bad, China spy, China control of social media not same as US government control of social media ugg ugg fire fire”.
[+] [-] fjoiefj|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]