Summary

A study found that TikTok’s recommendation algorithm favored Republican-leaning content during the 2024 U.S. presidential race.

TikTok, with over a billion active users worldwide, has become a key source of news, particularly for younger audiences.

Using 323 simulated accounts, researchers discovered that Republican-leaning users received 11.8% more aligned content than Democratic-leaning users, who were exposed to more opposing viewpoints.

The bias was largely driven by negative partisanship, with more anti-Democratic content recommended.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Democrats could have a pretty powerful anti-establishment and anti-billionaire narrative in the near future, and it would probably be pretty successful.

    But only if the Democrat billionaires and establishment get out of the way.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      They published a Tax the Rich plan which removed the cap for social security so the rich paid their share, targeted unrelized gains on the top while lowering taxes for people who make less than 100k, and never raising taxes below 400k.

      It doesn’t fucking matter what their platform is if we’re not actively promoting them because they aren’t pure enough they will still lose.

    • NABDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Or we could stop hoping the Democrats take the lead and force them to follow the people. However, that would likely get ugly.

      It also depends on the non-fascist elements of society putting aside their differences and working together, which has historically been a requirement and a stumbling block any time the populace wants to get out from under the oppression of the 1%.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Using a controlled experiment involving hundreds of simulated user accounts, the study found that Republican-leaning accounts received significantly more ideologically aligned content than Democratic-leaning accounts, while Democratic-leaning accounts were more frequently exposed to opposing viewpoints.

    Does this mean the algorithm was designed to push a republican agenda? Or does the algorithm know that liberals are more likely to watch videos from the opposing side than conservatives?

    I don’t doubt that billion dollar social media companies wanted Trump to win and put their fingers on the scale in whatever way they could. But I wonder how you can prove the algorithm is pushing an ideology at the expense of its users as opposed to the algorithm is just pushing the ideology that gets the most views from its users.

    • Glide@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Does this mean the algorithm was designed to push a republican agenda? Or does the algorithm know that liberals are more likely to watch videos from the opposing side than conservatives?

      Both of these things can be true.

      A friend of mine likes to say, a systems goal is what it does in practice, not its design intent.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Sure, kinda like saying, if it looks like shit and it smells like shit, it’s probably shit. Apt metaphor.

        I guess I’m just wondering about the intent. Like, is it possible to prove that an algorithm was designed to have a bias vs the bias is a natural result of what people spend their time watching. I am sure it’s the former, but how does one prove that without leaks from the inside.

        • naught101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          The intent on e.g. YouTube is to optimise views. Radicalisation is an emergent outcome, as a result of more combatitive, controversial, and flashy content being more captivating in the medium term. This is documented to some extent in Johann Hari’s book Stolen Focus, where he interviews a couple of insiders.

          So no, the stated intent is not the bias (at least initially). The bias is an pathological outcome of optimising for ads.

          But looking at some of Meta’s intentional actions more recently, it seems like maybe it can become an intentional outcome after the fact?

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I think it’s a matter of How Many Coincidences Does It Take

          If we’re assigning good faith to the TikTok algorithm.

          Which - reading that out loud just sounds absurd.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      TikTok being owned by the CCP and used for their political interests means they absolutely would do everything in their power to weaken the USA and NATO.

  • Dale@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Seen that more after the election honestly

    My TT algorithm was about as far from right wing as it could get

      • Dale@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        It was promoting Kamala. Was also promoting communism and hatred of Jill Stein. Pre-ban TikTok seemed to show you whatever you were interested in.

  • nocturne@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Pre-ban/restoration I used to watch a lot of TikTok. If anything I saw very little if any right wing content, and more anti right wing content. Maybe I was too far left and deemed a lost cause.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      If it didn’t actively promote Kamala the same way it actively promoted Trump then it was biased by definition.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Democrats: “We’re going to obliterate your company and hand the scraps to our friends in Silicon Valley.”

    Republicans: “Maybe we can cut you a deal if we win, so they won’t do that.”

    Can’t believe TikTok has developed a conservative bias. Stunning.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Banning TikTok was widely supported and Bipartisan. It is run by the Chinese State and sends massive amounts of USA citizen data directly to China including contacts, audio recordings, message history, and photo library.

      Biden promised not to enforce the TikTok ban just the same as Trump did.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Probably not by millions of mostly young people who use it… The Dems pushing that through in an election year probably didn’t help their chances…

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          It was good policy, pushed through by both parties, but wasnt implemented fast enough to be effective.

  • young_broccoli@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Lets ban tiktok! They promote socialist propaganda.

    Huh? That didnt work…

    Lets ban tiktok! They promote republican propaganda.

    Now that should do it.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      If by “Socialist” you mean the Chinese government then both are true. The CCP backed the Trump campaign from start to finish. Weakening the USA and NATO is a dream come true to them.

      Even the Tankie communities here on Lemmy were praising Trump and trashing Biden and the DNC.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      You just need to keep screaming “China! China! China! They hacked our elections! We have to stop China!” and either you’ll get something banned eventually.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    They created 323 “sock puppet” accounts—fake accounts programmed to simulate user behavior—across three politically diverse states: Texas, New York, and Georgia. Each account was assigned a political leaning: Democratic, Republican, or neutral (the control group)…

    To analyze the political content of the recommended videos, the researchers downloaded the English transcripts of videos when available (22.8% of unique videos). They then used a system involving three large language models—GPT-4o, Gemini-Pro, and GPT-4—to classify each video. The language models answered questions about whether the video was political, whether it concerned the 2024 U.S. elections or major political figures, and what the ideological stance of the video was (pro-Democratic, anti-Democratic, pro-Republican, anti-Republican, or neutral). The majority vote of the three language models was used as the final classification for each question.

    Imagine believing one super sketchy study from some dudes in the UAE ffs. Even if this is accurate (highly doubtful), it might be because kamalacaust didn’t campaign in swing states for example. There’s no real evidence that this is real and, even if it’s real, there’s no evidence that’s it’s due to bias at TikTok.

    However there is plenty of evidence that people are trying to ban TikTok because it reveals unfiltered information about palestine, etc.

    • Glide@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      You quoted a bunch of stuff from the study like there’s a problem with it. If you’re going to attempt to dismiss the study as bullshit, you should probably try finding evidence of bullshit, rather than pointing and screaming, like we all understand whatever incredibly biased point it is you think you have.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      The problem is literally no one cares about Palestine. They should, but they don’t.

      You chose the worst fucking hill to die on. Some brown people getting exploded in a place most people can’t find in a map on the other side of the world is nothing to an average working person compared to their rent, utility or grocery bills going up.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The problem is literally no one cares about Palestine.

        Quite a few people care about Palestine. That’s a “problem” in so far as there are no pro-Palestinian political currents in the American political scene. So you’ve got these people eager to support candidates, but no candidates for them to support.

        You chose the worst fucking hill to die on.

        At some point, “I’m going to vote for the second biggest pro-genocide party on the ticket” isn’t the message that gets people to the polls. Dems lost 15M votes over four years, as they shed their reputation of competency and compassion for one of compromise and corruption. Trying to force TikTok to sell its operations to an American Tech Company, on the grounds that it was too friendly to Palestinians, was just one more straw on the camel’s back.

        compared to their rent, utility or grocery bills going up.

        Dems couldn’t bring themselves to do anything about that either. All they could do was inflate the rate of profit enjoyed by the NASDAQ. And once they’d accomplished that task, they were of no more use to the Silicon Valley bag men.