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

251–260 of 356 posts

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

#251

Post by pedrosorio »

miguelmota wrote: post #220
papeda wrote: post #4

Geez, I thought this might be an overblown piece about algorithms unwittingly optimizing for the wrong things, but the headline is pretty accurate. Discussing how moderators choose content to recommend to people in the “For You” section (not a user — I assume this is something highlighted to users): > Under this policy, TikTok moderators were explicitly told to suppress uploads from users with flaws both congenital a…

Instagram does the same thing; my 'Explore' tab is full of beautiful people even though I don't follow them. From a business standpoint it makes sense to promote the best looking content since it'll lure in more young users. The young kids probably think something like "Hey look at all those beautiful people. I want to be like them and they use Tik Tok so I'm going to use Tik Tok too."

> Instagram does the same thing

No, it does not.

There is a big difference between:

- showing you unconnected content you are likely to engage with

- having rules enforced with the help of human reviewers to prevent any user from getting recommendations with people deemed ugly/poor/etc.

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

#252

Post by uwuhn »

jjcm wrote: post #32
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…

Or news stations, which hire presenters based on attractiveness. Or fashion products, which hire models based on attractiveness. Or the music industry, which puts forward pop stars that are attractive while keeping ones that don't have sex appeal off the air. Or the film industry. Or the literally any other industry that tries to survive via popularity and getting eye time. Attractiveness sells. What TikTok is doing…

Don't forget the service industry. There's a correlation between how attractive you are and your earning ceiling for bartending and waitering/waitressing.

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

#253

Post by uwuhn »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #166
55555 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fyi tiktok isnt used in China. ByteDance has a different brand there.

Douyin 抖音. It's the same app though.

It's the same underlying app/framework, but not the same content and users, right?

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

#254

Post by uwuhn »

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…

>But how can you objectively establish that somebody is unattractive?

Dating apps are a good data point to start with.

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

#255

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

gbear605 wrote: post #112
whoisjuan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

How about “I’m not allowed to use attractiveness to determine if you can come into my nightclub”

Good luck ever enforcing that.

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

#256

Post by Drew_ »

zapzupnz wrote: post #219
jussij wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I read the OP's analogy is just as the Night Club places restrictions on who can enter, TikTok is also placing restrictions on who can post content. And why I think the analogy does have some merit, is because the metric used to decide on who gets restricted is the very similar in both of these cases.

They don’t limit who can post content but rather whose content reaches the suggestions, regardless of a post’s popularity. Also, again, the people turned away from the night club door still can’t go in. Took Too users who don’t post can still view content.

If the posted content is never shown to anyone then this is the same as not allowing the post.

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

#257

Post by ViViDboarder »

pedrosorio wrote: post #251
miguelmota wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instagram does the same thing; my 'Explore' tab is full of beautiful people even though I don't follow them. From a business standpoint it makes sense to promote the best looking content since it'll lure in more young users. The young kids probably think something like "Hey look at all those beautiful people. I want to be like them and they use Tik Tok so I'm going to use Tik Tok too."

> Instagram does the same thing No, it does not. There is a big difference between: - showing you unconnected content you are likely to engage with - having rules enforced with the help of human reviewers to prevent any user from getting recommendations with people deemed ugly/poor/etc.

I mean, if it’s the same result does it matter if it’s human or artificial moderation?

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

#258

Post by ALittleLight »

mr_toad wrote: post #140
ALittleLight wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TikTok is presumably doing this to create a better network for their users. Most of their users are watchers rather than content creators. I'd expect most watchers would prefer to watch attractive people over unattractive ones. To me, this seems most similar to movie producers hiring attractive people to be in their movies. TikTok creators are making content for the platform, and the platform is curating the content…

> In the same way movie producers select specific people to be in their movies because they think their audience will appreciate them. Sadly, they’re probably right.

I don't think it is sad. Attractive people are, by definition, attractive. They are nice to look at. This is not everything, but it isn't nothing. In the same way, some people have massive innate talent, or disposition, or intelligence. They can be fun to watch or listen to or just be around.

Perhaps it feels sad because much of attractiveness is "unearned". Some people are born more or less attractive than others and that is unfair - but I think most human attributes are like this. A smart person didn't earn their intelligence, and while they may feel they earned their knowledge, and perhaps they're right, they'd never have been able to earn their knowledge and intellectual accomplishments if they had been born mentally deficient. Famous basketball players work hard, but it wouldn't matter if they were born into 5'5" bodies, etc.

That some people are more attractive than others is unfair, but that fundamental unfairness shouldn't prevent us from appreciating attractive people in my view. I don't see anything wrong with promoting more attractive TikTok users provided it does actually result in a better user experience. In the same way I don't see anything wrong with selecting attractive people to be actors in your movie or film. If you want people to like the main character then it is probably smart to cast an attractive person.

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

#259

Post by zapzupnz »

Drew_ wrote: post #256
zapzupnz wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t limit who can post content but rather whose content reaches the suggestions, regardless of a post’s popularity. Also, again, the people turned away from the night club door still can’t go in. Took Too users who don’t post can still view content.

If the posted content is never shown to anyone then this is the same as not allowing the post.

TikTok is like Twitter in that you can follow people.

Something not trending on Twitter isn't the same as not existing or not showing to one's followers. Likewise, something not becoming a suggested TikTok isn't the same as not allowing the post wholesale.

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

#260

Post by paulddraper »

dmix wrote: post #207
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web was never a commons. It all rests on accessing content hosted by privately owned platforms. The commons is SMTP, SNTP, and IRC. Digital natives don't care about these because they aren't shiny and expect that the free stuff they've been given all their life is an inalienable right.

Rights don't involve being given "free stuff", they exist to prevents it from being taken away. Which is a super popular misconception (or at least misuse) all on its own.

Positive vs negative rights [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Post reply on HN