Does TikTok allow quality debate? A case study on poverty
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 p...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Communication & Society 2023-10, Vol.36 (4), p.83-97 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2386-7876 2386-7876 |
DOI: | 10.15581/003.36.4.83-97 |