
TikTok curbed reach for people with disabilities - imartin2k
https://netzpolitik.org/2019/discrimination-tiktok-curbed-reach-for-people-with-disabilities/
======
justwalt
The “only visible in home country” clause does seem to support TikTok’s claim
that they were doing it for the hidden users benefit. It’s hard to say whether
or not the policy has a net positive or negative effect.

If you browse the recommended posts page on the app, it’s pretty much
guaranteed that you’ll see someone who falls under the named categories from
the article (queer, fat, disabled). They’re almost always showered with
support and positivity in the comment sections.

~~~
specialp
I've found the comments on TikTok quite positive in general. Especially with
these "vulnerable" groups of people. I think it is due to the younger user
base. It seems that people that have grown up with social media nearly their
entire lives know how to be more polite, and just handle it better all around.

~~~
judge2020
It feels like social media breeds you to know that anything you say or do can
come back to you as a "viral" moment, whether it be on sites like Twitter or
Reddit (r/IdiotsInCars has surged in popularity) or in real life since it's as
hard as ever to separate your online presence from your regular life.

------
rmason
I've never met anyone in real life with Tourette's, just as characters in a TV
show that's trying to be edgy.

But in browsing TikTok I've met several people with Tourette's and learned
about their lives. The majority of them whistle and don't use many profanities
and this was a revelation to me. Also a fair number of BBW women who are both
sexy and hilarious. But what I haven't seen at all are overweight men come to
think of it.

I think that if TikTok wants to protect those under 18 from bullying it's a
less than perfect solution. Perhaps they should target the bullies for banning
instead?

But for adults it's clearly discrimination and they should stop. Can you
imagine TV never airing Jackie Gleason, Benny Hill or Chris Farrelly?

~~~
bdcravens
My first wife had mild Tourette's. In public she could hide it; in private it
manifested itself in the form of twitching. The only time she uttered
obscenities was when I did something stupid.

~~~
dzdt
My wife utters obscenities when I do something stupid, but there is no
Tourette's involved!

------
privateSFacct
Is this article pushing for getting quirky viral clips of folks with down
syndrome etc pushed more broadly into the feed?

Tiktok is very viral oriented - and the net is not that friendly - I hope
netzpolitik are willing to provide support for folks facing attack and/or
ridicule as a result of going viral - not everyone is in a good place for that
(even youtube stars going through crazy burnout / meltdown cycles).

~~~
mynameisvlad
> not everyone is in a good place for that (even youtube stars going through
> crazy burnout / meltdown cycles).

Then these platforms should actually punish the people attacking, not the
victims. Why is it the victim's fault that people around them aren't mature
enough to treat them like a human being? Why is it their fault that they're
being attacked for being themselves? Why should they be the ones that are
being punished for being different?

What TikTok is doing is literally victim-blaming, and it's not ok.

~~~
privateSFacct
Not every child (of any type) is helped by a global audience.

So we are clear - these are for profit platforms exploiting / providing a free
service depending on your perspective for content providers and users ->
usually with the goal of marketing to them or otherwise monetizing them.

Now mix in folks with development disabilities and a history of exploitation /
abuse in this area generally. That down kid gyrating so you can laugh and show
your co-workers is not an adult making a fully informed decision.

What these for profit platforms are doing is in many cases literally
exploitative -> with the rights to monetize the content held by the platform,
so you can laugh in the morning - and it's not OK.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Who said this was limited to children, anyway? You have to be 13+ to join as
per COPPA, and age is never a part of their own equation as to whether a user
is vulnerable or not. Everyone in the article is over 18, so this is clearly
being applied to adults.

In any case, none of what you said actually responds to my questions -- why
are the victims the ones being punished here? What did they do to deserve
being silenced other than being themselves?

Yes, what these platforms are doing _is_ exploitative, and that's a real
separate issue that needs to be solved. But the right solution isn't this
victim-blaming discrimination.

It's far easier to argue that TikTok et al are exploitative, it's much harder
to discuss the proper solution to the issue that the thread is talking about.
Let's keep it to that.

~~~
privateSFacct
Let's keep this very focused on this issue.

Someone with down syndrome at 13 or even 21 is in a different place than an
adult without down.

We probably disagree somewhat on whether exposure to a global audience as a
child is healthy, even if it is 99% supportive. I'd be curious how star wars
kid, and other young stars are doing - kids / disabled are CONSTANTLY being
exploited, particularly if there is a financial angle to it.

We ALREADY see this on youtube where streamers absolutely do crazy stuff with
their kids for views.

I'm sure we'll have some funny down syndrome tiktok stars, most likely ones
with support staff / agents etc able to keep a good pace of content coming.

I think we are in total agreement - folks making nasty comments should be
consequenced. That's the easy part.

But I'll be curious what stories we hear in 5 - 10 years about whatever tiktok
stars end up making it big by being themselves. Who gobbled up the money, how
happy were they etc. I say this because fully mature adults struggle with this
terribly on these platforms already. The history here is not great BTW.

And where you and the rest are reading the since changed guidelines as "victim
blaming discrimination" by an evil corporation - another possibility is that
they used a guideline (potentially from an education setting) and applied it
in a setting that it wasn't considered for.

I say this because in an ed setting with down / disabled kids you really don't
(even with their permission or their parents) video and promote the "funny"
things they do.

~~~
mynameisvlad
I was trying to very politely tell you you're arguing a strawman. This thread
is not about the exploitation of people on social media, whether by the
companies running them, or others (ie. their parents). This thread is not
about who will make it big and who won't on TikTok or whatever other platform.

While a lot of what you are saying is important and something that should be
talked about, this thread is not the right place for this discussion. This
discussion is specifically about "TikTok [curbing] reach for people with
disabilities".

I will comment on two things:

> And where you and the rest are reading the since changed guidelines as
> "victim blaming discrimination" by an evil corporation

Intentions don't really matter if the act comes off as "victim blaming
discrimination" to everyone. If everyone (or, more specifically, "you and the
rest") sees it as that, then that's what it is. The duck test very much
applies.

> I say this because in an ed setting with down / disabled kids you really
> don't (even with their permission or their parents) video and promote the
> "funny" things they do.

Once again, we're not talking about kids. And we're not specifically talking
about people with Down's. Those are two very specific instances you
cherrypicked, but are not the only cases of "disabilities" used by TikTok in
this instance, or in previous instances of censorship. Setting aside the
Down's adult argument, where intelligence and ability consent vary _wildly_
between people, it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it seem, are adults
with facial disfigurements suddenly not able to decide for themselves? What
about members of the LGBTQI+ community (who have been known to be censored on
this specific platform)? Amputees? Paraplegics? People with a "birthmark or
slight squint"? All of these groups of people, and more, would be "Auto R"ed
or given a higher risk category which would prevent their content-- content
that they explicitly and willingly uploaded and wanted to make public-- from
being seen by others. This is like the textbook definition of censorship,
discrimination, and victim blaming.

If you're willing to engage in an actual discussion on this topic, I'm happy
to do so, but so far I've been saying things that you're either willingly or
unwillingly completely dismissing in lieu of your arguments on a completely
different topic.

~~~
privateSFacct
In your case you have constructed a narrative that this company is out to
victim blame and discriminate against the disabled. You've then constructed an
elaborate - and very harshly worded set of arguments around this.

Their guidelines "literally" (to use a word you keep on misusing) say this is
about cyberbulling - the fault lies with the bullies in cyberbulling if you
use that term.

Despite your use of the world "literally" the guidelines do not say this risk
marking is designed to "victim blame" and "discriminate against the
handicapped".

If you read the guidelines and have a background in this space (I can tell you
do not) you may recognize some of these elements from guidelines used in
educational and other setting for folks who have a mental handicap. Whether
it's proper to bring them over is debatable, but you ascribe a lot of intent
to tiktoc and seem unwilling to consider any other perspective than your own.

Content moderation is generally a cost center for platforms. They do it not
because they want to, but because they HAVE to. They have links to suicide
hotlines, ways to block and report followers. Your premise - that a for-profit
company set out to incur costs to discriminate and victim blame (and you've
done no analysis of steps they've taken around bullying on the platform). In
fact - why was my account suspended is a very common question around tictok -
in many cases exactly because of their steps here - they've constructed a
reasonably positive community.

Suicide is I believe the second cause of death up to 30 or so (someone correct
me) - so focus on questions of cyber-bullying is not unwanted. And yes - fault
lies with the bullies - just the way it lies with the criminals who would
abuse a child on the street in a city at 2AM. But you still might tell that
child to be home while its light out to reduce the risks to them if they were
vulnerable - and your intent may not be discriminate against your child's
chance to do what they want but to protect them.

------
unglaublich
Sounds like how social media works in general: highlight what is most aspired;
tuck away what deviates from these ideals.

~~~
ctrl-j
> TikTok, the fast-growing social network from China, has used unusual
> measures to protect supposedly vulnerable users. The platform instructed its
> moderators to mark videos of people with disabilities and limit their reach.
> Queer and fat people also ended up on a list of „special users“ whose videos
> were regarded as a bullying risk by default and capped in their reach –
> regardless of the content.

I'm certainly not privy to all the inner workings of other platforms, but this
doesn't sound like what happens on other social media sites...

------
40acres
Interesting because there is a recent tiktok meme going around about being
socially accepted (people coming out to their parents, romantic insecurities,
teenage pregnancy, etc.) and its really heartwarming and endearing. One thing
I've noticed about the younger generation is they definitely seem less harsh
when it comes to bullying in general then my generation (I'm 28) at the same
age. Although the individual cases of bullying seem more intense.

------
wlll
Nothing about this sounds like it is to protect people, and everything about
it sounds to me that they are just trying to minimize the selected groups.

------
vmchale
Seems to use the German way to punctuate quotations even though it's an
English article :)

------
subject117
TikTok went the wrong way about preventing cyber bullying against the
disabled. In this situation it would have been better to do nothing at all. If
they had just let disabled individuals get cyber bullied they could have
avoided this negative press altogether.

~~~
mliker
Yes, but then the disabled individuals would have been mentally traumatized.
Companies shouldn't avoid doing things just to avoid negative press. They're
providing a service for the people.

~~~
akira2501
> Yes, but then the disabled individuals would have been mentally traumatized.

This is absolutely backwards, as it is based upon the presumption that
disabled individuals are so fragile that they cannot face any adversity or be
"traumatized."

That's just reverse-discrimination, and it's just as damaging as outright
discrimination.

> Companies shouldn't avoid doing things just to avoid negative press.

Companies aren't going to arrange themselves along moral lines, we've seen
this failure too many times to think it's a possible or even desirable goal.
Negative press is a useful tool and is simply reflective of our societies
attitudes and morals.

I'm perfectly fine with companies using "negative press" as a bellwether for
internal policy.

> They're providing a service for the people.

...and those people _willingly_ decide if they want to use it or not.

~~~
profunctor
> the presumption that disabled individuals are so fragile

No such presumption. Lots of people, especially kids, can become traumatised
by bullying. This argument seems like concern trolling to be honest.

> and those people _willingly_ decide if they want to use it or not.

Children can willingly decide to gamble or buy a beer but we as a society
don't let them. And we don't just leave it up to the parents in those
situations either.

~~~
randallsquared
> _And we don 't just leave it up to the parents in those situations either._

...well, with beer we often do, in the US, at least:
[https://www.alcohol.org/laws/underage-
drinking/](https://www.alcohol.org/laws/underage-drinking/)

------
aaron695
Relevant XKCD - [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

~~~
slimed
Actually it's illegal in the U.S. and Europe to "show people the door" because
of a medical disability.

~~~
jessaustin
Although the original xkcd is simply wrong, it's possible that parent post is
irony in order to illustrate that?

~~~
juped
I don't know what the original intent may have been, but this is the only
reading that makes sense.

------
nodemaker
Finally a company that is sensible and free from virtue signalling bs from
silicon valley who in fact end up doing more social damage contrary to what
they claim!

