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

291–300 of 356 posts

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

#291

Post by czardoz »

miguelmota wrote: post #266
pedrosorio wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the same result. Ugly/fat/poor people can make engaging content and that will be recommended on Instagram. The content you see depends on your interests. Making this up: if you regularly engage with topics that have a majority of fat people posting, say weight loss strategies, you will see a lot of fat people in Instagram Explore. It's the difference between: - Instagram: "I mostly see beautiful people" (bec…

Let's say there's 10 people on Instagram and 5 are ugly and 5 are non-ugly people Suppose 10 users on average interact with 2 non-ugly persons and 1 ugly person. People like commenting on the non-ugly people's content with "wow so pretty!" and "that's awesome! ", etc, etc while ugly people don't get as many comments and maybe even receive neutral to non-positive comments. Now a new person signs up. They get recommend…

What's your point? Are you saying that TikTok having these guidelines is okay?

(I work at IG, but not on Explore)

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

#292

Post by Broken_Hippo »

whoisjuan wrote: post #136
leereeves wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does that mean that rhinoplasty should be covered by insurance under the same merits of sex reassignment surgery? If someone's nose is causing as much distress as gender dysphoria, why not? Sex reassignment surgery isn't easy to get, and presumably coverage for "corrective" cosmetic surgery would also take some evidence. Patients couldn't just make an appointment on a whim.

> If someone's nose is causing as much distress as gender dysphoria, why not? I definitely agree with you on this one. But that's where I feel the line gets super blurry. This is not a white or black issue. Gender Dysphoria is an actual documented mental disorder. Feeling ugly (or in the context of this debate, being classified as ugly), in general, it's not.

Sure, the line is blurry. But so are so many other lines and we can't simply peer into one's mind and see things. Fatigue is a symptom of at least a few autoimmune disorders, but that line is definitely fuzzy and we can't really tell if someone is faking or not.

Body dysorphic disorder is a real thing (probably spelled incorrectly). There are people out there that feel like their limb isn't theirs - it is alien - and go to great lengths to stop it. Some folks spend lots of time and money hiding "flaws" (like their nose), even when they cannot really afford the costs every month, and avoid dating and going out because of these things. Just because it isn't a specific disorder doesn't mean the people are healthy.

And then there is another category altogether: Folks that have had accidents of different sorts. Sure, facial scars from burns or a disfigured nose might not actually cause a psychological disorder and it might not make things physically difficult, but damn it is hard to argue that fixing these things (when possible) wouldn't improve one's quality of life.

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

#293

Post by teekert »

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…

I'm suprised, I mean normally people themselves are already quite capable of following and watching only the most gifted, beautiful and talented individuals, or at least the ones that appear so. All to feel a little bit worse about themselves every day.

I don't understand why you would need to actively encourage this, I don't believe Twitter would ever have people with “Abnormal body shape,” “ugly facial looks,” dwarfism, and “obvious beer belly,” “too many wrinkles,” “eye disorders,” and many other “low quality” features trending.

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

#294

Post by inapis »

keanzu wrote: post #49

A TikTok spokesperson said the goal was to prevent bullying on the platform, tying the document to a report from December that showed that the company was suppressing vulnerable users’ videos in a misguided effort to prevent them from becoming the centre of attention that could turn sour. Now that is some fine spin! Reminds of the Oscar Wilde sketch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycsfu4574w

TikTok would be naive to believe that that tactic would alleviate bullying. Anyone long around knows that the internet will find a reason to take you down if they get salty for some reason. Maybe if you’re unattractive, that itself becomes a bullying point but I’ve seen plenty of youtubers/instagramers being torn to shreds for not wearing the right dress, not choosing the correct words etc etc!

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

#295

Post by pjc50 »

teekert wrote: post #293
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…

I'm suprised, I mean normally people themselves are already quite capable of following and watching only the most gifted, beautiful and talented individuals, or at least the ones that appear so. All to feel a little bit worse about themselves every day. I don't understand why you would need to actively encourage this, I don't believe Twitter would ever have people with “Abnormal body shape,” “ugly facial looks,” dwar…

Twitter is great for people who don't look conventionally attractive, because there's no expectation of having real profile photos. On Twitter you really can go viral just by being funny.

Instagram on the other hand is so beauty centric that it's created its own makeup aesthetic.

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

#296

Post by Spoppys »

nojvek wrote: post #272
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…

Tinder does the same thing too right ? Attractive people are matched with attractive people At the end of the day when it comes to eyeballs, sexiness sells. The rules of attraction are very much gamified at this point.

They can be both be wrong. Whataboutism can be a dangerous race to the bottom

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

#297

Post by wyclif »

teekert wrote: post #293
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…

I'm suprised, I mean normally people themselves are already quite capable of following and watching only the most gifted, beautiful and talented individuals, or at least the ones that appear so. All to feel a little bit worse about themselves every day. I don't understand why you would need to actively encourage this, I don't believe Twitter would ever have people with “Abnormal body shape,” “ugly facial looks,” dwar…

In SE Asia, "eye disorders" is code for chinky eyes. In some countries, like South Korea and Japan, women will spend loads of money for blepharoplasty because the culture romanticizes large, round eyes (see anime).

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

#298

Post by mgraczyk »

scarmig wrote: post #289
mgraczyk wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, having worked on explore sourcing and ranking I can tell you with certainty Instagram does not do the same thing.

Implementation is different, but passes all the same test cases.

Instagram explore is actually pretty good at becoming personalized based on usage. Here's mine.

https://assets.opentoken.com/sha256/yhEqWEExzLtoLZ_fBRrGsyOD...

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

#300

Post by leereeves »

kharak wrote: post #288
leereeves wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The restaurant counter was one of the first civil rights issues. Not that different from a nightclub. What's the real difference here? That effectively segregating ugly people is more acceptable than segregating by skin color? The ignorance here is among those who don't understand that people are suffering from this discrimation, and the offense is coming from people who justify and defend it. Nightclubs and TikTok a…

So no group can select their members anymore? Nonsense. A model agency will continue to hire exclusively beautiful people. Top tier universities will remain a club for well doers in the education system. My group of friends remains closed to most everyone else and so does yours. Exclusivity is a necessity for society.

No one is trying to end "exclusivity". Harvard is still exclusive even though it now admits a whole lot of people they would never have considered 100 years ago.

But if a group is excluding people based on innate physical characteristics, maybe they should rethink that.

Post reply on HN