When social media platforms adopt advertisers’ view that what comes after the pre-roll ad is unimportant it creates major issues like Andrew Tate's rise to infamy on TikTok.
Across the Anglophone internet one term has been ubiquitous for the last five years: content. In the quaint infancy of youtube the creators there were ‘Youtubers’ or ‘video creators’, but now everyone who shows off their work digitally, be that amateur or professional, is considered a ‘content creator’. This changing nomenclature is not exclusive to creators either; it’s not unusual to see comments saying that the viewer of a youtube video loves the creator’s “content”. I’ve come to resent the term due to how it trivialises people’s creative works and for how it creates perverse incentives for the platforms “content creators” use to share their views, art, and humour. I wrote a blog post earlier this year about the similarities in the gig economy and the content economy in which I mention that the content business model isn’t new or unique to the digital age, it’s essentially exactly how many TV and radio stations operate. That is certainly true but since writing that post I’ve come to realise how the digital platforms which form the backbone of the content economy have different incentives to more traditional content providers, incentives to keep undesirable accounts producing content until they get big enough to get noticed.
One of the big stories on the internet in the last couple of months has been the tale of one Andrew Tate. Tate is a self described sexist, he has been described by several non-profit organisations working to prevent domestic abuse as an extreme misogynist, and is being investigated in Romania where he currently lives for alleged human trafficking. Tate is banned from practically all social media platforms, but gained most of his notoriety on TikTok before he was banned. According to the Guardian’s article on Tate his TikToks have been seen 11.6 billion times on the platform. Few would argue that getting rid of Tate was the wrong decision. Sure, there are issues of free speech and we really should be concerned with the amount of power platforms like TikTok have, but even in spite of such concerns the case for banning Tate is clear and overwhelming. It’s by being a platform rather than a publisher which separates TikTok from a TV-station and it is this change which enables the rise of people like Tate. No one in their right mind would give Tate a TV programme, in fact he was actually on the UK’s Big Brother in 2016 but was taken off the programme when his Tweets came under scrutiny. Internet platforms are fundamentally different though, as they bear little responsibility for what their users post.
It’s this view of what users posts as homogenous, interchangeable ‘content’ used to attract viewers so that the platform can sell advertising spots which creates the space for people like Tate to flourish. TikTok has a powerful incentive to keep highly controversial people on the platform for as long as possible because of how much interest they generate. In his video explaining how TikTok and its culture works Chris Franklin talks about what he calls ‘Warhol’s Curse’, or the main character of the day. Platforms like Twitter and TikTok have a quirk where it’s common for someone to get a lot of attention which makes other users make their own videos giving their takes or making fun of the clip which went viral. The algorithm is designed to make these sorts of main characters of the day, and while it can be positive it’s often negative; like with Tate. The algorithm makes heroes and villains for a week, and while the villain might well be someone advertisers don’t want to be associated with, most people who are participating in the buzz surrounding the villain of the week will be ad friendly. TikTok is also uniquely well suited to these villains of the week situations given that the platform doesn’t display ads tied to a specific video, meaning that if your ad happens to run before an Andrew Tate video that was pure chance. Tate himself would be most publishers’ worst nightmare, but to TikTok he’s just an input in the content making process.
Making users supply content to rake in the advertising money is clearly a very successful business strategy but it also creates a powerful engine to produce online stars without supervision. The content economy has enabled huge productions of art and entertainment which would likely never have been created or widely shared if creators couldn’t have a chance at profiting from their work, and all of that is enabled by advertising. But when platforms adopt the marketers’ view that what comes after the pre-roll ad is unimportant it creates major issues. By being one step removed and only promising content instead of videos, art, entertainment, music, etc. platforms like TikTok tries to wash its hands of any guilt in creating online personalities like Tate, while directly benefiting from their fame, and while directly enabling their rise.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about the political movement I call Nativism here or the rest of my writings here. It would mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Comments