2004
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 2665-9085
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9085

Abstract

Abstract

TikTok has rapidly developed from a punchline for jokes about “kids these days” into a formidable force in American politics. The speed of this development is unprecedented, even in the rapidly-changing world of digital politics. Through a combination of hashtag and snowball sampling, we identify 11,546 TikTok accounts who primarily post about politics, allowing us to analyze trends in the posting, viewing and commenting behavior on 1,998,642 tiktoks they have uploaded. We test a number of theories about how the unique combination of affordances on TikTok shapes how it is used for political communication. Compared to the dominant platform for political videos (YouTube) we find that a higher percentage of TikTok users upload videos, TikTok view counts are more dominated by virality, and viewership of videos are less dependent on a given accounts’ number of followers/subscribers. We discuss how these findings affect the production of content that ultimately determines the experience of TikTok consumers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2022.2.004.GUIN
2022-10-01
2022-11-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/26659085/4/2/CCR2022.2.004.GUIN.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2022.2.004.GUIN&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abidin, C. (2018). Internet celebrity: Understanding fame online. Emerald Publishing Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Caplan, R., & Gillespie, T. (2020). Tiered governance and demonetization: The shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), 2056305120936636.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chang, C., & Masterson, M. (2020). Using word order in political text classification with long short-term memory models. Political Analysis, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PloS one, 10(4), 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Drummond, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2018). Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(8), 530–532.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fisher, R. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. London: Oliver and Loyd, Ltd, 99–101. Hindman, M. (2008). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hindman, M. (2018). The internet trap: How the digital economy builds monopolies and undermines democracy. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in internet time. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 639–661.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lewis, R. (2020). This is what the news won’t show you”: Youtube creators and the reactionary politics of micro-celebrity. Television & New Media, 21(2), 201–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Literat, I., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2019). Youth collective political expression on social media: The role of affordances and memetic dimensions for voicing political views. New Media & Society, 21(9), 1988–2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Munger, K. (2020). All the news that’s fit to click: The economics of clickbait media. Political Communication, 37 (3), 376–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Munger, K., & Phillips, J. (2020). Right-wing youtube: A supply and demand perspective (forthcoming). International Journal of Press/Politics.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. science, 311(5762), 854–856.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Schüll, N. D. (2014). Addiction by design: Machine gambling in las vegas. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Serrano, J. C. M., Papakyriakopoulos, O., & Hegelich, S. (2020). Dancing to the partisan beat: A first analysis of political communication on tiktok. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05478.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Settle, J. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes america. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Stokel-Walker, C. (2020). Inside tiktok’s latest big pitch to advertisers with new numbers showing time spent on the app and engagement metrics. Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-tiktok-slides-engagement-time-spent-activity-2020-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Swason, B. (2021). The anxiety of influencers. Harpers Magazine, June.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Thorson, K., Edgerly, S., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Xu, Y., & Wang, L. (2016). Climate and sustainability| seeking visibility in a big tent: Digital communication and the people’s climate march. International Journal of Communication, 10, 23.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. TikTok. (2019). Tiktok transparency report 2019 h2. TikTok Safety Center: https://www.tiktok.com/safety/resources/report.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. TikTok. (2020). Tiktok transparency report. TikTok Safety Center: https://www.tiktok.com/safety/resources/transpar report-2020-1.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tufekci, Z. (2018). Youtube, the great radicalizer. The New York Times, 12, 15.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang, Y. (2020). Influence of camera view on tiktok users’ presence, immersion, and adoption intent. Computers in Human Behavior, 106373.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2022.2.004.GUIN
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2022.2.004.GUIN
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error