Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 356 posts

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#101

Post by reaperducer »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #20

How is this different from nightclubs having a high bar to entry? I am not saying this is an ethical thing to do, I am saying these apps are no different from nightclubs and they gotta do what they gotta do to survive. And no matter what you may say, humans prefer non ugly people over ugly people. I am sorry but this is simply how humans work. If you disagree, then you are a hypocrite. So should high end nightclubs b…

How is this different from nightclubs having a high bar to entry?

Why does it matter? Because a nightclub does it, suddenly it's OK for TikTok to do it, too?

If Johnny jumps off a bridge, are you going to leap as well?

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#102

Post by chenster »

thereare5lights wrote: post #85
mwfunk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because TikTok isn't a nightclub, it's a place for people to put their own content out on the Internet. Not just people, but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that doesn't allow them to access other places on the Internet that they could put their content on. But even ignoring the authoritarian state angle, surely you'd think it'd be weird and counterproductive for user content from YouT…

> Not just people, but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that doesn't allow them to access other places on the Internet that they could put their content on. No it's not. China has their own version of TikTok called Douyin. If I recall correctly, TikTok isn't even available in China. Since TikTok isn't even used in China, who exactly are the users you're describing as "people living in a…

Mind you it's the same company behind TikTok tailored to westerns.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#103

Post by def8cefe »

whoisjuan wrote: post #88
leereeves wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 100 years ago race, sex, and sexual orientation weren't protected classes. Society makes progress, slowly.

But how can you objectively establish that somebody is unattractive? Assuming the world moves into this hypothetical society you're describing nobody wants to be part of that new protected class. If you're by some semantic classified as unattractive, you will automatically feel segregated and marginalized. This is not like sexual orientation where non-heterosexual people actually have a desire to express their sexual…

>Unattractive people, whatever that means, don't want to be part of that group.

Neither do the elderly, the disabled, etc, but still they are legally protected from descrimination.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#104

Post by nl »

nkkollaw wrote: post #12
nl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TikTok works with AI No, it's manually done by humans.

It's not. The whole point is that you keep scrolling and they show you what the algo thinks you'll like.

Did you read the article?

Quote: Under this policy, TikTok moderators were explicitly told to suppress uploads from users with flaws both congenital and inevitable. “Abnormal body shape,” “ugly facial looks,” dwarfism, and “obvious beer belly,” “too many wrinkles,” “eye disorders,” and many other “low quality” traits are all enough to keep uploads out of the algorithmic fire hose.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#105

Post by catalogia »

afterburner wrote: post #93
catalogia wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't shame people unless I think it will accomplish something productive. I wouldn't think of denying that you have the right to shame people for whatever reason you like, but I choose not to do it myself unless I see a good reason for it.

To affect their behaviour, obviously. To provide negative feedback.

So back to my question: "What would shaming them for this accomplish? Is the idea to shame them so much that they pretend to like ugly people like me? What would be the point of that?"

What effect on their behavior do you hope to accomplish by shaming pretty people for not wanting to hang out with ugly people? I'm not seeing a productive reason to do this.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#106

Post by simplify »

finnh wrote: post #62
ccktlmazeltov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what a lot of nightclubs end up doing is definitely discriminatory and we should not tolerate that.

unattractive people are not a protected class

They are the most highly discriminated against, though.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#107

Post by whoisjuan »

leereeves wrote: post #97
whoisjuan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how can you objectively establish that somebody is unattractive? Assuming the world moves into this hypothetical society you're describing nobody wants to be part of that new protected class. If you're by some semantic classified as unattractive, you will automatically feel segregated and marginalized. This is not like sexual orientation where non-heterosexual people actually have a desire to express their sexual…

People in this hypothetical protected class are placed there by others. They're already segregated and marginalized, and generally no one asks them if they want that. We have an example of that right here from TikTok.

That's exactly my original argument.

"I determine you're ugly but you can still come into my nightclub" is not that much better than "I determine you're ugly and you can't come into my nightclub"

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#108

Post by rvz »

Well that's no fun isn't it. You warp reality to make the whole social network a complete misrepresentation of only looking at the happiest of everyone's side. There is at least someone keeping a straight face and on TikTok but still feeling ugly or depressed there anyway. It is the same nature that users of Facebook have and it isn't very healthy and promotes one-sided stories.

The interesting observation and funny side to this policy is that there could be a story to be told here where the suppressed "ugly" and "poor" people become the heroes and the TikTok elite and its glamorous fans have become the super-villains.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#109

Post by AndrewKemendo »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #20

How is this different from nightclubs having a high bar to entry? I am not saying this is an ethical thing to do, I am saying these apps are no different from nightclubs and they gotta do what they gotta do to survive. And no matter what you may say, humans prefer non ugly people over ugly people. I am sorry but this is simply how humans work. If you disagree, then you are a hypocrite. So should high end nightclubs b…

It's not. It's just a giant nightclub filled with a lot of people, so there are more people to complain.

Re: TikTok told moderators to suppress posts by “ugly” people and the poor

#110

Post by whoisjuan »

def8cefe wrote: post #103
whoisjuan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how can you objectively establish that somebody is unattractive? Assuming the world moves into this hypothetical society you're describing nobody wants to be part of that new protected class. If you're by some semantic classified as unattractive, you will automatically feel segregated and marginalized. This is not like sexual orientation where non-heterosexual people actually have a desire to express their sexual…

>Unattractive people, whatever that means, don't want to be part of that group. Neither do the elderly, the disabled, etc, but still they are legally protected from descrimination.

I guess I wasn't clear enough about that. Disabled people certainly don't want to be part of that classification but there's no subjectiveness when it comes to their disablement.

Unattractive people don't want to be part of that classification and their belonging to that class is 100% subjective in any direction. Even them leveraging their status to get some sort of benefit.

Also, where's the line? Does that mean that rhinoplasty should be covered by insurance under the same merits of sex reassignment surgery?

Post reply on HN