China-Based TikTok Actively Banning The Gay Away When Not Helping Authoritarians Be More Authoritarian
from the when-your-core-users-don't-actually-use-the-app dept
TikTok is the new Vine. (I apologize if this sentence is incomprehensible. If I wasn't raising teens, it would be pretty much incomprehensible to me too.) The social media platform that allows users to upload short video and encourages remixing via duets or reaction videos has roped in a billion users in a surprisingly short amount of time.
It's fun for (almost) all ages. The younger you skew, the more popular it is. Fun for all ages, but not all sexualities apparently. The app was created by Chinese company ByteDance, so it's more than receptive than most to calls to censor content based on countries' desire to mute those who aren't heterosexual. (h/t K'Tetch)
The Guardian has been reporting on ByteDance's censorial efforts on behalf of governments around the world. Unsurprisingly, censorship begins at home.
The documents, revealed by the Guardian for the first time, lay out how ByteDance, the Beijing-headquartered technology company that owns TikTok, is advancing Chinese foreign policy aims abroad through the app.
The revelations come amid rising suspicion that discussion of the Hong Kong protests on TikTok is being censored for political reasons: a Washington Post report earlier this month noted that a search on the site for the city-state revealed “barely a hint of unrest in sight”.
The proxy censorship is applied in two ways. ByteDance will delete content it finds unacceptable -- including content it finds unacceptable on behalf of others. It also bans users for repeatedly posting content it later deletes. In other cases, the content stays up, but ByteDance severely reduces its visibility. The end result is a video-sharing platform that contains almost no videos highlighting the protests in Hong Kong.
But it's not just political, even if TikTok's content-burying efforts come at the behest of political parties. The follow-up report from The Guardian notes TikTok has been instrumental in excising plenty of content that fails to denigrate non-hetero relationships and lifestyles.
TikTok’s efforts to provide locally sensitive moderation have resulted in it banning any content that could be seen as positive to gay people or gay rights, down to same-sex couples holding hands, even in countries where homosexuality has never been illegal, the Guardian can reveal.
[...]
[An] entire section of the rules was devoted to censoring depictions of homosexuality. “Intimate activities (holding hands, touching, kissing) between homosexual lovers” were censored, as were “reports of homosexual groups, including news, characters, music, tv show, pictures”. Similarly blocked was content about “protecting rights of homosexuals (parade, slogan, etc.)” and “promotion of homosexuality”. In all those guidelines, TikTok went substantially further than required by law.
TikTok's overzealous content moderation goes further than just muting pro-gay content. It also covers a ton of content various governments find somewhat offensive, but not enough to actually outlaw it. TikTok prevents users in Turkey from mocking the ultra-mockable Recep Erdogan, as well as posting depictions of "non-Islamic gods."
ByteDance calls its content-blocking efforts a "localised approach." But it's really just an extension of something that's all too familiar to citizens of ByteDance's home country: the elevation of governments above citizens, even though its citizens that use the app, not governments.
Weirdly, ByteDance is far more permissive than many social media apps when it comes to questionable content involving children. Sexualized content featuring children tends to avoid moderating efforts -- something TikTok encourages by telling moderators to treat every video subject as over the age of 18 unless they have proof otherwise.
As a private company, TikTok is not a censorship body on its own. It can moderate content however it sees fit without trampling on people's rights. The problem is TikTok has become an unofficial extension of multiple governments by adopting their rules for acceptable content, rather than applying its moderation consistently across the board.
This doesn't necessarily make ByteDance worse than US-based social media platforms. The only difference is its country of origin, where broad censorship is considered normal, rather than an aberration. But US social media companies do the same thing. To avoid being blocked in more authoritarian countries, platforms aid and abet the oppression of citizens by agreeing to follow whatever censorial laws these governments have put in place, even if it means suppressing dissent and making things more dangerous (and less appealing) for their users.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, content moderation, tiktok
Companies: bytedance, tiktok
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Censorship!
New company X which allow people to upload stuff (comments, videos, who cares) also sometimes stops people from using its service and sometimes deletes and/or reindexes the stuff that people have dumped on its storage.
Who cares.
Perhaps better would be an article saying how people are so technically under educated that they dont know how to set up a website or social media platform themselves. The FOSS community have been providing these tools for decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship!
The biggest issue with doing it yourself, other than it costing to have a fixed IP address and a DNS entry, is the lack of network effect when you do it yourself.
"This is where people with common interests gather" is powerful selling point, especially if the search and associated tools are available for finding and linking with like minded people work well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship!
A fixed IP address isn't necessary, and a DNS entry doesn't need to cost. There are free dynamic DNS providers who will give you a subdomain for free, and you can get free domains at freenom.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any china based company has to comply with the laws in china, and
censor minority groups, which include lgbt content .
It happens to be the no 1 app as regards teens posting short video,s at least america .
its strange there ,s no video,s on tik tok about the hong kong protest on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's quite true. just about every country on the Planet is doing whatever it can to ensure that the ordinary people are stopped from finding out anything about their and other governments, it's members, it's opposition members, the elite, the famous and the rich! the exact opposite is also happening when it comes to those above wanting to find out everything about us ordinary people, including but not limited to who we are, what we say, what we read, what we think, what we do, where we go both work and pleasure wise, how we do these things, how we get there, who we meet, who we speak to, what we say and a million other things! we are being enslaved more and more and in so being, we are ensuring that those above can continue to enslave us! and this all came about after the so-called 'financial crisis, when governments everywhere changed to be Conservative oriented, removing as many rights, privacy and privileges as possible, all of which were fought for over decades! instead of being a Planet that shared knowledge, we have become locked down, country by country where nothing matters but money and those who are getting more and more of it, along with the right to control every one of us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If government has done nothing wrong,
why are they trying to hide everything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah... businesses are expected to play ball with the country they are hosted in. We're censored in the US too. Government employees can't host their own copy of classified information on their public servers from home. True threats of violence/criminal activity are removed and (:Horror Face:) probably billions of DMCA take downs have been issued.
If they don't even try to plan to comply with local law when they set up a business they are technically trans-national organized crime not a business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, a company trying to comply with the legal and social norms of other cultures. How awful. Everybody should just do everything the American way, am I right?
Every time I see an article here about Chinese companies, I am reminded of Wittgenstein's Lion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps it's just you who don't understand the lion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you'd actually understood the analogy, you'd know know none of us can understand the lion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand it just fine, it's just that you don't understand me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you clearly didn't understand me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
China is not a lion. It is a country, the country is made of humans, and humans are understandable. Greed, pride, and the desire for power are easily understood.
What you do not seem to grasp is that this is not about nationality, or that things should be done the American way (note the numerous articles lambasting American companies for their behavior, and noting how things are better in certain other companies) but rather that the behavior, which is entirely understandable, is nevertheless reprehensible.
Yes. Tik Tok is a Chinese company. Yes, it complies with Chinese law and government direction. Yes, it attempts to comply with the desires of the various governments and etc. - that's all stated in the article. There's no surprise at this. Nobody is taken aback by this - it was, in fact, expected.
None of that means it's not fucked up. None of that means it's not just more oppression. None of that means it's right.
Legality and morality do not necessarily match. Reprehensible actions can and should be called out where they exist - and a commentary on actions of this company as directed by the various governments they wish to appease becomes a commentary on those governments as well.
If a lion could speak, we would not understand the lion ... but if there is a lion here, the lion is the general citizenry, and the people who don't understand are the governments who want them to stop speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit: War turns what we would otherwise call murder into a legal act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"To wit: War turns what we would otherwise call murder into a legal act."
Similarly the holocaust was perfectly legitimate under national law in 1940. Slavery in the american south was legal before the civil war. Oppression of women is today legal in many nations.
The "moral choice" is often invoked in direct conflict with law which is why everyone needs to question, criticize, and stand ready to violate a law when said law turns out to be of harm rather than help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There were laws in place about murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"There were laws in place about murder."
So there were. Not that it helped since one of Hitler's first acts was to give himself plenipotentiary legislative power. Anything he wrote gained full force of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some Germans were tried under their own law for the Holocaust. Although the Nazi's had control of all government institutions they didn't bother to legalize the holocaust (at least not everywhere) and some were hanged under laws they didn't bother to repeal after allied liberation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Although the Nazi's had control of all government institutions they didn't bother to legalize the holocaust (at least not everywhere)..."
Actually, they did. The nazis were tried for german laws, yes...
...but Hitler's first act in office was to give himself full legislative authority. The holocaust - and all the other atrocities committed by the nazis - had the full power of law as long as Hitler was the one who signed the order.
The Nuremberg race laws and Decree against public enemies (Folk Pest Law" were what "legalized" the holocaust in the third reich. When the allies brought down the third reich regime they similarly rolled back hitler's legislation. It's against that background that the allies, during the Nürnberg trials, chose to apply the laws valid under Weimar and before, in condemning the war criminals.
This was a political decision as it was properly assumed that to pacify the german citizenry and prevent any possible resurgence of nazi ideology they had to be shown that the nazis were criminal monsters convicted under their OWN laws, not those of a foreign invader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You've missed the point entirely, congratulations.
The actions of Tik Tok are reprehensible, yes. To you and me. But morality is subjective. Their actions are certainly not reprehensible from the point of view of Tik Tok, or probably even from the point of view of many Chinese people.
You assume greed, pride, and the desire for power are the motivations for every action because that's what makes sense to you, because those things are huge motivators in your world. They make sense in your context.
Well what if other things were (at least ostensibly) more important in your society than personal freedom and wealth? Things like social order, tradition, and stability? What if you came from an authoritarian state where compliance with the law and social norms is rigidly upheld? If everyone around you is telling you that doing those things is actually right and good, would you still find Tik Tok's actions reprehensible?
The Lion is not Tik Tok, or the Chinese government, it is the Chinese people. Has it occurred to anyone here that the people at Tik Tok probably believe they're doing the right thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's always a sign that you have a super strong argument when you have to resort to "What even is morality?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You've missed the point entirely, congratulations.
Right back atcha.
The actions of Tik Tok are reprehensible, yes. To you and me.
Yes. So why are you defending them, or trying to argue that people should not state that they are reprehensible?
But morality is subjective.
Irrelevant, even if I agreed. If I find the actions of Tik Tok to be reprehensible, I have no reason not to state as much.
Their actions are certainly not reprehensible from the point of view of Tik Tok, or probably even from the point of view of many Chinese people.
Again, irrelevant. I can understand that they may not consider them reprehensible (and that I can understand it is why Wittgenstein's lion does not apply), but that does not mean I cannot or should not call their actions out as being reprehensible.
The actions of the individual people within Tik Tok may be informed by more than the desire for power, the desire for money (greed), or pride, but in the end, it is a corporation making profit, serving an authoritarian government seeking to keep power.
Social order and tradition may be values held, but these do not excuse reprehensible actions. Traditions may be challenged and torn down. Tradition does not dictate morality. Tradition is not immune to criticism. Social order does not dictate morality. Social order is not immune to criticism.
Etc.
That Tik Tok considers themselves to be in the right is evident. Of course people have considered this - and that just makes their actions all the more reprehensible. That a wide swathe of the Chinese citizenry might support these actions is also understood...
And equally irrelevant to whether or not anyone should say anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The actions of Tik Tok are reprehensible, yes. To you and me. But morality is subjective. Their actions are certainly not reprehensible from the point of view of Tik Tok, or probably even from the point of view of many Chinese people."
Not so much.
A morality based on the sanctity of life and liberty is something understandable and acknowledged by everyone who hasn't been indoctrinated to the contrary.
What you are essentially arguing is that China lives in a moral reality so alien from the rest of humanity we should treat them as a different species. It has to be noted that a condemnation and demonization of THAT degree is something not even Israel is willing to pin on the Third Reich.
I'm pretty sure, given the few thousand years worth of chinese literature and philosophy, that the Chinese PEOPLE do not subscribe to any moral paradigm so hostile to humanity as you portray it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why are you attempting to rationalize?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Wow, a company trying to comply with the legal and social norms of other cultures. How awful. Everybody should just do everything the American way, am I right? Every time I see an article here about Chinese companies, I am reminded of Wittgenstein's Lion."
Trolling doesn't get more acceptable just because you throw in some erudite metaphor - which doesn't fit the situation at hand, mind.
If the Lion talks and we couldn't understand it, fine.
If the Lion EATS someone, we kill it.
The condemnation of China's various actions to stem and hinder the free flow of information is based on China actively repressing personal and individual personal lives. Not because we somehow fail to understand WHY the Chinese government is taking action rooted in gender-based bigotry.
We don't need to understand why a bigot is curb-stomping a fellow human being in order to take the moral choice and stop the bigot from harming others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Same Thing Really
The mistreatment of sexual minorities is fundamentally an extension of authoritarianism first and foremost. To those who aren't authoritarian or personally involved their natural reaction is "weird but why should I care?". To authoritarians it is fundamentally an affront to their hierarchical and normist world view and they will grasp at any straws to justify it by their nominal moral frameworks.
We are likely most familiar with Christian ones. The fact "gay sex is bad" was the prevailing judgement of Sodom instead of "mistreating guests and foreigners is unacceptable" and Leviticus is brought out only to cudgel while ignoring the rest of it shows the rationalization pattern. Communist authoritarians displayed similar objections despite disavowing the religion or lacking the same backing even though leaving workers to share apartments
Hell even the Aztecs /started/ with brutal inquisition worthy executions for gay sex well before they had Western contact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Same Thing Really
If you're a genuine authoritarian it isn't necessary at all to grasp at straws to justify your moral framework. All personal interests and freedoms are subordinate to the State and its government, whatever form that entails. It's very simple.
Imagine coming from a society where arranged marriages are still normal, and the state can tell you how many children to have. How must that affect a person's views on marriage and sexuality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Same Thing Really
Authoritarianism is staged and its manifestations depend upon its relative prevalence. Even they must deal with pretenses to hammer in justify a "why" and their power. Also to themselves since someone must be at the local or absolute top with motivations making the decisions - even if it is itself adherence to utter nonsense or mutated beyond recognition.
They don't start out with "obey the great leade because" in the beginning because that gets them chucked in the loony bin next to several different Jesus Christ, Napoleon and Elvis claimants in nicer societies or killed in less kind ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Same Thing Really
An Authoritarian's Reasons "Why?"
The End
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Same Thing Really
"o authoritarians it is fundamentally an affront to their hierarchical and normist world view and they will grasp at any straws to justify it by their nominal moral frameworks."
And that, right there, is the WHY of why China clamps down on anything considered to be in violation of whatever social norm the ruling oligarchy feels should be the acceptable standard.
Truth is, China has always operated - for all of their recorded history - with the view that as long as what you do is hidden from the public eye then you will not be bothered. As soon as what you do and say becomes a public matter the authorities will investigate and if they find anything they CAN object to, shut you down hard, as an example unto others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just in!
Capitalists chase money instead of justice. Details at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This just in!
"Our Top Story today: a Chinese company is behaving in ways that are wholly consistent with Chinese laws and values."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This just in!
And the specific laws and values in question are fucked up. Not hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This just in!
Which laws and values would that be, specifically?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in!
The bigoted, hateful ones listed in the article. Thanks for asking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This just in!
This. Read the article, they're laid out in plain text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This just in!
These Chinese laws and values you speak of are presently destroying Hong Kong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're a parent and you let your children use TikTok, then you're a bad parent. If you're old enough that you don't need your parent's permission and you use TikTok, you're an ignorant fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, thank god there aren't very many of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For varying numbers of fools and ignoramuses.
Mind, ignorance is treatable through knowledge.
Stupid just is, there is no cure.
Politicians are like diapers.
Both need to be changed often and for the same reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice priorities there guys
Sexualized content featuring children tends to avoid moderating efforts -- something TikTok encourages by telling moderators to treat every video subject as over the age of 18 unless they have proof otherwise.
...
[An] entire section of the rules was devoted to censoring depictions of homosexuality. “Intimate activities (holding hands, touching, kissing) between homosexual lovers” were censored, as were “reports of homosexual groups, including news, characters, music, tv show, pictures”. Similarly blocked was content about “protecting rights of homosexuals (parade, slogan, etc.)” and “promotion of homosexuality”. In all those guidelines, TikTok went substantially further than required by law.
Telling rules there on what the company in question considers more harmful, and therefore more important to keep off the service.
Two gay people committing the heinous crime of holding hands? Get that off the platform, there are children on that might see it!
Sexual content where the age of the individual in the video is unknown, and may or may not be above the age of consent? Assume they are 18 until proven otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gay? NO!
Pedophiles? YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Objective VS subjective
Morals are subjective
Justice is Objective (allegedly)
(it why she is always shown with a blindfold on, not because one side or the other pulls the wool over her eyes)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objective VS subjective
I think that's a Greek or Roman God depicted in the Justice statues. Under Greek/Roman theology justice was supposed to be objective but my experience is it is not.
Justice is highly related to a person's sense of fairness and empathy. Sense of empathy is determined by education, social status, societal norms, and many biological factors. Sense of fairness and empathy vary so much from person-to-person and from era-to-era that I don't see how it can reasonably be called objective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]