Does TikTok allow quality debate? A case study on poverty

Q1 Social Sciences Comunicacion y Sociedad Pub Date : 2023-10-02 DOI:10.15581/003.36.4.83-97
María-Antonia Paz-Rebollo, Ana Mayagoitia-Soria, Juan-Manuel González-Aguilar
{"title":"Does TikTok allow quality debate? A case study on poverty","authors":"María-Antonia Paz-Rebollo, Ana Mayagoitia-Soria, Juan-Manuel González-Aguilar","doi":"10.15581/003.36.4.83-97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study analyses temporary employees’ perceptions and This article analyzes whether the features of TikTok allow for meaningful debates and how they are conducted. To do so, we used a case study approach: user conversations about socially excluded individuals in a context marked by the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent economic crisis, which have exacerbated hardships in developing countries. A total of 100 videos published in Spain since 2020 on this topic, along with 38,462 comments, are examined. We performed a content analysis of the videos, considering their thematic, technical, and stylistic characteristics. Additionally, we conducted a textual analysis of the comments taking into account the authorial and conversational dimensions. The study concludes that the structure of TikTok does not enable high-quality debates in this case study. The videos provide an episodic view of the topics, and on average users participate only once expressing opinions based on personal experiences or existing biases. Moreover, the debate is muddled in this specific topic due to intergenerational conflicts. Judgmental attitudes lead to messages that are both cruel in the form of advice and expressions of humor. The analysis reveals a strong sentiment of aporophobia in the opinions expressed on this platform. Therefore, it is advisable to recommend the inclusion of this marginalized group among the protected groups in the community guidelines.","PeriodicalId":35210,"journal":{"name":"Comunicacion y Sociedad","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comunicacion y Sociedad","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15581/003.36.4.83-97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study analyses temporary employees’ perceptions and This article analyzes whether the features of TikTok allow for meaningful debates and how they are conducted. To do so, we used a case study approach: user conversations about socially excluded individuals in a context marked by the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent economic crisis, which have exacerbated hardships in developing countries. A total of 100 videos published in Spain since 2020 on this topic, along with 38,462 comments, are examined. We performed a content analysis of the videos, considering their thematic, technical, and stylistic characteristics. Additionally, we conducted a textual analysis of the comments taking into account the authorial and conversational dimensions. The study concludes that the structure of TikTok does not enable high-quality debates in this case study. The videos provide an episodic view of the topics, and on average users participate only once expressing opinions based on personal experiences or existing biases. Moreover, the debate is muddled in this specific topic due to intergenerational conflicts. Judgmental attitudes lead to messages that are both cruel in the form of advice and expressions of humor. The analysis reveals a strong sentiment of aporophobia in the opinions expressed on this platform. Therefore, it is advisable to recommend the inclusion of this marginalized group among the protected groups in the community guidelines.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
TikTok允许有质量的辩论吗?一个关于贫困的案例研究
本研究分析了临时员工的看法,本文分析了TikTok的功能是否允许有意义的辩论以及如何进行辩论。为此,我们采用了案例研究方法:在2019冠状病毒病大流行和随后的经济危机加剧了发展中国家的困难的背景下,用户讨论被社会排斥的个人。自2020年以来,西班牙共发布了100个关于这一主题的视频,以及38,462条评论。我们对这些视频进行了内容分析,考虑了它们的主题、技术和风格特征。此外,考虑到作者和对话的维度,我们对评论进行了文本分析。该研究的结论是,在本案例研究中,TikTok的结构无法实现高质量的辩论。这些视频提供了主题的片段视图,平均而言,用户只参与一次,表达基于个人经历或现有偏见的观点。此外,由于代际冲突,在这个特定话题上的辩论是混乱的。评判的态度导致的信息既以建议的形式残忍,又以幽默的形式表达。分析显示,在这个平台上表达的观点中,有一种强烈的恐空情绪。因此,建议将这一边缘化群体纳入社区指南的保护群体中是可取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Comunicacion y Sociedad
Comunicacion y Sociedad Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The historical coverage of televised media events in print media: The Case of the Eurovision Song Contest Framing China: The Belt and Road Initiative in Argentine national media outlets Personal Agenda-Public Agenda Congruency: A Contingent Condition for Agenda-setting Effects The Genesis and Self-Reliance of Indonesian Local Game Developers as the National Creative Workers in Contemporary Indonesia Crowdfunding in the production of video games in Spain: Evolution and success on Kickstarter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1