TikTok and the AfD: “Covered activity to exert influence”

2024-03-20 17:49:36

It has been widely reported that some companies, foundations, some (few) media outlets and high-reach individuals have left Platform X. Reason given by the demolitionists: Too much “hatred and agitation” since Elon Musk took over.

The same has not yet been said about TikTok. Nobody is threatening to quit, only recently the music label Universal withdrew its artists from the platform, but that is only because they want more money from TikTok. Otherwise, TikTok is growing steadily. The allegations against the video platform – such as inadequate youth and data protection – are serious. The EU Commission has opened proceedings against both X and TikTok.

While the solution for X seems to be to cancel the account (“it’s no longer important anyway”), for TikTok it seems to be the other way around. A number of well-known people and organizations are now pushing for the platform, which is owned by a Chinese company, which in turn says that the majority of the company belongs to Western investors and that the company’s headquarters are in the Cayman Islands.

#ReclaimTikTok is the name of the hashtag under which Luisa Neubauer, Karl Lauterbach and soon the federal government want to use the platform. “Reclaim” means something like “to reclaim”. Which is bizarre because you don’t know exactly what you’re actually asking for back. The “movement” wants to “bring democratic discourse back to the platform”. Has TikTok ever been a platform where democracy dances for joy? Hardly likely. The video platform was not built for this – initially, like other social media, it is designed so that users spend as much time as possible there.

The reason for the new initiative is that the AfD edits the TikTok channel most effectively of all political parties and at least has by far the most followers. The “Spiegel” just reported on the “TikTok panic in German politics”. Politicians apparently fear that young people will let the AfD spread the anti-democratic virus to them. That’s why the motto is to hold back (instead of running away like with X). Lauterbach, Neubauer and Co. are of course unaffected by this. However, the assumption that pure presence acts as a “counterweight to disinformation” could turn out to be naive.

Trigger topics

The question is rather why the AfD has so many more customers than the other parties. The general explanation is that the AfD people’s videos are more pointed, more polarizing, more triggering. And the other politicians, on the other hand, don’t have as much reach because they cater to less negative emotions. Are these trigger topics such as migration, climate and the war in Ukraine now simply more in demand among TikTok users? Or does the platform’s algorithm ensure that these videos are delivered or played more frequently? And if the latter is the case, is this done on purpose? And if not, is there an algorithm that promotes “good discourse” even when it includes controversial but ultimately permissible expressions of opinion?

This debate is currently being conducted intensively in the USA. A bill has been introduced that, if passed by the Senate, would require TikTok parent company Bytedance to sell its US business. And if that doesn’t work within six months, the platform in the country would have to be closed. How things would work in the event of a sale is unclear. Because the algorithm that is used around the world would presumably remain at Bytedance. But what would actually be sold?

“It is still completely unclear whether the law will be on the agenda in the US Senate”

A US law intended to bring the short video app Tiktok under American control has cleared the first hurdle. The House of Representatives in Washington approved it on Wednesday with a large majority of 352 yes votes. US correspondent Michael Wüllenweber reports.

Source: WELT TV / Carsten Hädler

The rationale for the law is explained in its name: “The Act to Protect Americans from Applications Controlled by Foreign Adversaries.” On the one hand, supporters believe that user data could be passed on to the Chinese government, and on the other hand, there are speculations that videos that have the potential to divide society because they spread particularly pointed information and even disinformation are deliberately made particularly visible . One has to be distinguished from the other.

Back to Germany. TikTok just released one new transparency report. In it, the company also announces a “covert influence activity” that has been removed. What is known about it: A network of users is said to have created fake user accounts in Germany in order to distribute content that supports the AfD – and at the same time place content from Russian state media. The aim was therefore to manipulate the political discourse in Germany. Because it is one covert actionn acted with the aim of manipulation, these accounts were deleted. The total of 32 accounts had around 445,000 followers.

Separately, it was announced on Tuesday that Account of AfD Politician Maximilian Krah “due to repeated violations of the Community Guidelines“ will not appear in the app’s “For You” feed for a period of 90 days. This intervention leads to a significant reduction in the visibility of a video – you then have to be a subscriber to the account or search for it directly.

His first TikTok video: Karl Lauterbach and Sascha Lobo (r.)

Source: demokratie_fan via TikTok; Screenshot WORLD

TikTok does not name the specific videos that led to the restriction. Which in turn opens up space for speculation and accusations from the AfD. Last fall, Krah published a video in which he said: “TikTok is censoring me so you don’t see what I have to say.” And further: “All major platforms are censoring the truth.” Krah is also playing on the new ones EU Digital Services Act, which requires social networks to moderate their content more.

For years there has been a fine line between permissible expression of opinion and impermissible hate crime. In addition, there are the community standards now mentioned by TikTok, which are available on all platforms. In the case of Maximilian Krah, the AfD candidate for the European elections, it is said to be about five videos in which TikTok claims to have identified homophobia, hate speech and conspiracy theories. TikTok decides where the boundaries should be drawn – and like any other platform, it will always moderate too much for some and too little for others.

This dilemma is not new, but it presents itself in a more acute form. When it comes to elections in Germany, the USA and other countries, where the influence of TikTok is far greater than that of Twitter ever was, where trust in institutions of all kinds is declining. It is a paradox that, according to various surveys, trust in information distributed via social media is not particularly high – but the impact of the platforms is still very high, especially among young people who also consume news via TikTok.

also read

Addressing those at risk at a high school

The sheer number of videos that TikTok (and other platforms) delete speaks for this – they wouldn’t exist, at least not in this quantity, if they didn’t have an impact. Between October 7 and the end of the year, TikTok removed more than 1.5 million videos related to the Gaza war that supported Hamas and terror. 169 million fake accounts have been removed.

So if the solution isn’t to say goodbye to TikTok, because well over a billion people regularly watch videos there, then what should be done? In all the years since social media went from promising to help people communicate to threatening, no real answer has been found. The mass use of artificial intelligence is likely to exacerbate the problems – and in turn lead to the mass use of AI, for example to identify fake accounts.

Who will then set up the AI ​​processes so that decisions are understandable (and, if necessary, contestable)? It is not yet possible to say where the truth or at least a discourse based on fair and verifiable facts remains in all of this. The more you look at developments in the networks, the more you get the impression that systems have been created that can no longer be controlled, not with technology and not with what was previously called “common sense”.