Ahead of SCOTUS Hearing, Study Finds TikTok Is Likely Vehicle For Chinese Propaganda (gizmodo.com)
- Reference: 0175841783
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/01/06/2150211/ahead-of-scotus-hearing-study-finds-tiktok-is-likely-vehicle-for-chinese-propaganda
- Source link: https://gizmodo.com/ahead-of-scotus-hearing-study-finds-tiktok-is-likely-vehicle-for-chinese-propaganda-2000546312
> The new peer-reviewed paper, which was first reported by [4]The Free Press , begins by examining whether content on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube related to the keywords "Tiananmen," "Tibet," "Uyghur," and "Xinjiang" tends to display pro- or anti-CCP sentiment. The researchers found that TikTok's algorithm didn't necessarily surface more pro-CCP content in response to searches for those terms, but it delivered fewer anti-CCP posts than did Instagram or YouTube and significantly more posts that were irrelevant to the subject.
>
> In the second stage of their study, the NCRI team tested whether the lower performance of anti-CCP content was a result of less user engagement (likes and comments) with those posts. They found that TikTok users "liked or commented on anti-CCP content nearly four times as much as they liked or commented on pro-CCP content, yet the search algorithm produced nearly three times as much pro-CCP content" while there was no similar discrepancy on Instagram or YouTube.
>
> Finally, the researchers surveyed 1,214 Americans about their social media usage and their views on China's human rights record. The more time users spent on any social media platform, the more likely they were to have favorable views of China's human rights record, the survey showed. Users were particularly more likely to have favorable views if they spent more than three hours a day using TikTok. The researchers wrote that they could not definitively conclude that spending more time on TikTok resulted in more positive views of China, but "taken together, the findings from these three studies raise the distinct possibility that TikTok is a vehicle for CCP propaganda."
[1] https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Peer-Reviewed-Paper-in-Press_Dec.-2024.pdf
[2] https://gizmodo.com/ahead-of-scotus-hearing-study-finds-tiktok-is-likely-vehicle-for-chinese-propaganda-2000546312
[3] https://2017-2021.state.gov/ccpabuses/
[4] https://www.thefp.com/p/jay-solomon-pro-china-tik-tok-brainwashes-american-youth
is propaganda really the reason? (Score:2)
If propaganda is the reason, it seems there might be some constitutional problems. If course, SCOTUS doesn't care about the constitution anymore, but they're supposed to.
But if propaganda is a justification, ban Twitter first. Then Fox News.
Chinese propaganda? (Score:2)
Good thing we have Twitter then, our own firehose of freedom. Nose blindness is real.
It they would only admit it’s because they can’t control the algorithm to pump narrative and manufacture consent I might respect them slightly more.
Re: (Score:2)
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Twitter has lost half its users (Score:1)
So I think it's safe to say some people can smell what Twitter is cooking. And it doesn't smell good.
I'd say about 60% of the content I see online has migrated to Blue sky. A lot of the Japanese retro game stuff that gets covered over on time extension is still on Twitter because they haven't really noticed the shit show that is American politics for obvious reasons.
I think Twitter will carry on if only because companies will use it to funnel bribes into the White House for at least the next 4 years
This is an outrage! (Score:1)
I demand only the finest locally sourced propaganda. If my country is going to descend into a fascist hellscape it's going to descend into an *American* fascist hellscape!
Alternative interpretation (Score:2)
> The more time users spent on any social media platform, the more likely they were to have favorable views of China's human rights record, the survey showed. Users were particularly more likely to have favorable views if they spent more than three hours a day using TikTok. The researchers wrote that they could not definitively conclude that spending more time on TikTok resulted in more positive views of China, but "taken together, the findings from these three studies raise the distinct possibility that TikTok is a vehicle for CCP propaganda."
Alternatively, YouTube and Instagram have distinct possibility of [1]being [apnews.com] [2]U.S. [wikipedia.org] [3]propaganda [wikipedia.org].
[1] https://apnews.com/article/iraq-war-wmds-us-intelligence-f9e21ac59d3a0470d9bfcc83544d706e
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
Might be pessimistic... (Score:2)
But I don't think evidence of foreign political influence will play any real part in a the decision the Supreme Court makes on this case. It will just come down to whether enough money is involved for the right people to make stopping the ban worthwhile.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I know what you mean man! IMHO, they are aiming at the wrong target. Granted, it's on a much smaller scale, but they should look into this site I am posting on right now, at least look at many users who constantly post Chinese and communist rhetoric here knowingly or not and at least ban those users.
Re: (Score:2)
> look at many users who constantly post Chinese and communist rhetoric here knowingly or not and at least ban those users.
Why would we do that? It's a pretty warped sense of free speech if you think it only applies to what your national government deems acceptable; isn't that precisely the issue we take with the CPP?
Re: (Score:2)
They still have to write a legal justification for their opinion that will stand up somewhat at least. The court is already losing credibility, with some recent revelations and can hardly effort to lose more. Whether Chinese propaganda is a reason to shut them down is at least legally questionable at least as long as it is not actually posted by the Chinese government. Free speech applies to wrong speech (see Patrick Henry).
Re: (Score:2)
"They still have to write a legal justification for their opinion that will stand up somewhat at least."
Maybe they can cite a British judge from hundreds of years ago, hopefully one that tried witches. That worked for abortion.
SCOTUS long gave up on "standing up" even somewhat. Presidential immunity is based on literally nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
> "They still have to write a legal justification for their opinion that will stand up somewhat at least."
> Maybe they can cite a British judge from hundreds of years ago, hopefully one that tried witches. That worked for abortion.
> SCOTUS long gave up on "standing up" even somewhat. Presidential immunity is based on literally nothing.
Yep, 100%. When president Musk takes office later this month it’s going to be a massive financial win for him and his vice president orange something. I’m buying futures in motor coach companies (NOT RVs), because I expect a very large order coming soon.