7 ms·
TikTok algo forbids phrase “black people” but not “white people” among others
- undfg 5y agoTiktok is known for not allowing political propaganda on their platform.
- IceDane 5y agoWould that be content like saying you support white supremacy? Because that's what he does in the video attached to the article and TikTok is totally fine with that. The phrase "black people" is a no go, though. Next time, you should probably try clicking the link and maybe reading the article or something before you decide to comment on it. You come out much better that way.
- undfg 5y agoBecause it's an automatic process that detects hot phrases. I doubt they get many videos saying they support white supremacy.
- mrlambchop 5y ago#2cents - its an oversight that if reported, I imagine would get mopped up. Optics are not great however - whatever phrase list they pulled together clearly is incomplete.
- wutbrodo 5y agoI always find it interesting to hypothesize why an automated system does the things it does (the implied theory in the OP video is, unsurprisingly, idiotic). I'd assume that it's a blunt filter that tries to catch racism by not allowing people to say "black" in their advertising profiles. The reason "white" isn't caught up in this filter is probably because the consensus doesn't consider it to be racism when directed at whites ("racism = power + prejudice", all whites have institutional power, etc). I'd guess that the same block would be in place for other groups that are considered to be the "oppressed" instead of the "oppressors" under the childish, binary framework that afflicts so many these days. I'd also guess that "Trying to fix white people" or "Against white people" would be allowed, while the analogues for "black" wouldn't be. That is to say, their threat model is aimed at _negative_ racial phrases, not positive ones (even ones that they wouod definitely reject under manual review, like "pro white supremacy"). The examples in the video are artifacts of this clumsy approach, not evidence of a conspiracy to keep black creators down like the metaphorical Alex Jones in the OP video claims.
- whiddershins 5y ago"the consensus" I don't agree that there is consensus on this definition. It has been around since at least the 1960s and has always been controversial.
- wutbrodo 5y agoI'm being a little imprecise with my terminology, sorry about that. > It has been around since at least the 1960s and has always been controversial. It has been around since the 1960s, as an academic curiosity. In the last half decade to decade, it metastasized into the rest of society and embedded itself deeply, almost religiously, into all of the institutions that shape our discourse. There's no such thing as a society-wide consensus, on pretty much anything (you can even find thoughtful "legalize possession of child porn" takes, like Falkvinge's). But institutional consensus is as close as we come to this, and has real and significant coercive (and doctrinal) power in the form of the media, university curriculums, HR departments, PR departments, etc etc etc.
- jaywalk 5y agoThis is by far the most likely reason for what's being seen, but it's not going to get views like this sensationalist video claiming that TikTok is anti-black.
- tuesdayrain 5y ago>"racism = power + prejudice", all whites have institutional power, etc) Oh please. The attempt to redefine "racism" to exclude white people is itself hilariously racist. It's propaganda that tries to influence people through deceptive language. If the people behind that had honest intentions they would have created a new word to describe the phenomenon rather than try to redefine existing words.
- mizzack 5y agoI don't think the person you're replying to said anything that disagrees with your assessment.
- _def 5y agoWhoever is responsible for the filter words probably knew what they were doing.
- bioinformatics 5y agoIf you say black with capital B, is that OK?