My research on this topic suggests that the study referenced in this article is flawed, and if they want to make a study with high validity, they need to design it differently. Reading the study that was mentioned in this article, it’s clear that there are multiple distinct mistakes within their presentation of their findings. First of all, the study states, “Within 2.6 minutes, TikTok recommended suicide content. Within 8 minutes, TikTok served content related to eating disorders.” In no way does this finding claim that the content being served to the account was negative, or encouraging of eating disorders, or mental health disorders. As stated in the article, “The spokesperson said the CCDH does not distinguish between positive and negative videos on given topics, adding that people often share empowering stories about eating disorder recovery.” This is a very important distinction, because the study is claiming that TikTok is pushing harmful content. They did not mention any “harmful” content, which is a purposeful use of words to push the rhetoric that they are looking for. In addition, the researchers admit that, “TikTok operates through a recommendation algorithm that constructs a personalized endless-scroll ‘For You’ feed, ostensibly based on the likes, follows, watch-time, and interests of a user.” In a previous paragraph, the researchers stated that the accounts they made impersonating young teens would stay on eating disorder, self harm, or suicide content for a few seconds, and like and interact with only those posts. It is strange and contradictory that they are explaining how the algorithm works, and then baiting the algorithm to give them the “negative” result. They continue to say, “TikTok identifies the user’s vulnerability and capitalizes on it.” Which we have already explained, is just the algorithm doing what it does… Being an algorithm. In addition, the studies were short, as the article claims, and to my research have not been replicated.
The article was written by Samantha Murphy Kelly, who writes about how technology can impact lives. There are no obvious biases associated with her, other than that CNN is a media platform, and she and the company will likely NOT benefit from media slander such as the referenced study above. As for the CCDH, they make money from producing studies, and claiming to "counter digital hate" Hence the name. It seems as though the writers of the study and the researchers weren't too thorough.
CCDH study link:https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CCDH-Deadly-by-Design_120922.pdf
CNN article link: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/tech/tiktok-teens-study-trnd
