Selected Papers of #AoIR2023: The 24th Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers Philadelphia, PA, USA / 18-21 Oct 2023 Suggested Citation (APA): Scharlach, R. (2023, October): Platform PR - The public moderation of platform values through TikTok for Good. Paper presented at AoIR2023: The 24th Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Philadelphia, PA, USA: AoIR. Retrieved from http://spir.aoir.org. PLATFORM PR – THE PUBLIC MODERATION OF PLATFORM VALUES THROUGH TIKTOK FOR GOOD Rebecca Scharlach The Hebrew University of Jerusalem TikTok claims it wants to “inspire creativity” and “spark joy” (ByteDance, 2023), Meta aims to “bring the world closer together” (Haupt, 2021), and YouTube aspires to “give everyone a voice and show them to the world” (YouTube, 2023). Platforms state that they want to do good. However, they regularly get international attention for being bad. Such accusations often relate to social media data scandals, from MySpace’s data leaks (2013) to Facebook’s data breaches (2013, 2019) and WhatsApp’s scandal relating to their Privacy Policy update (2021). The misuse of social media data is covered substantively in journalistic and academic work (see Bacallao-Pino, 2015; González et al., 2019; Griggio et al., 2022; Weiss-Blatt, 2021). In response to such allegations, platforms have declared their aims to be more transparent and socially responsible, taking steps such as establishing transparency reports, giving academics access to data, and creating social campaigns. Yet initiatives to counterbalance these backlashes, such as YouTube’s Black Voices Fund or TikTok for Good, are rarely investigated. This project explores “TikTok for Good.” The social initiative developed out of #EduTok, a campaign launched in 2019 to counterbalance “potentially harmful content” (Zeng & Kaye, 2022). Other campaigns from social media platforms have similar histories: Douyin’s #positiveenergy campaign to promote more “appropriate, patriotic content” was a response to the Chinese government’s criticism of pornographic content on the platform (Chen et al., 2021) and Facebook’s “Data for Good” data sharing campaign was a response to data leaks. In this social initiative, TikTok curates and promotes causes that “inspire” and “encourage” – from the benefits of knitting for OCD, to sustainable farming, to gentle parenting. Videos get published on the designated TikTok account @tiktokforgood in cooperation with TikTok creators producing content in line with what the platform aims to promote: Our idea is simple...use TikTok to do good. TikTok wants to inspire and encourage a new generation to have a positive impact on the planet and those around them. (ByteDance, 2023) Although platform initiatives' content is often not on the top of your For You Page (FYP), competing with algorithmically curated content (Gillespie, 2014), such social initiatives are fruitful sites for unpacking the values a platform aims to promote, namely what they try to center as important or worthwhile. Two bodies of literature inform this study: research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and research on platform moderation. CSR, “a term that spans a variety of practices employed by corporations to exhibit ethical business conduct” (Boxman- Shabtai, 2019), is not a new phenomenon. Corporations have always claimed they have responsibilities toward society, yet the framing of these responsibilities has changed over time (Latapí Agudelo et al., 2019). Focusing on the intersection between CSR and social media, scholars have explored how companies strategically use social media to promote their initiatives and how users relate to such campaigns. For example, researchers have examined users' attitudes toward influencer CSR marketing (Li, 2022) and user engagement with companies' CSR campaigns (Austin & Gaither, 2016). Studies have also explored how companies implement more traditional CSR values such as sustainability or well-being through social media campaigns (Castillo-Abdul et al., 2022). However, research in this area generally evaluates their success through user perception of communicative values such as authenticity and engagement (Balasubramanian et al., 2021; Li, 2022). This strain of research adds to our understanding of the importance of social media for corporate social responsibility, yet research has evaded looking at CSR initiatives taken by social media platforms. The second body of knowledge informing this study relates to platform moderation. Platforms have become “unavoidably curators” (Gillespie, 2022) of public discourse, negotiating the competing interests of different stakeholders (Gillespie et al., 2020; Gorwa, 2019). Building on work about the disciplinary power of ranking algorithms by Bucher (2012), Zeng and Kaye (2022) introduce the concept of “visibility moderation,” defined as “the process through which digital platforms manipulate the reach of user- generated content through algorithmic or regulatory means” (p. 81). They point out that TikTok governs through visibility, arguing that the platform promotes content that nudges creators towards “social justice campaigns, particularly those that promote the platform's overall corporate image by serving socially responsible goals” (p. 83). To further explore these socially responsible goals, I investigate the concept of “visibility moderation” through the lens of platform values. Previous research on the construction of platform values through social media policies found five core values across five platforms, including TikTok: expression, community, safety, choice, and improvement (Scharlach et al., 2023). Yet, platforms limit their burden to execute these values by selectively assigning responsibility for their enactment, often unloading these responsibilities onto users. Social initiatives function as a pivot point, allowing for a closer look at a platform’s explicit promotion of values, and the division of responsibilities for their enactment. The following questions structure this study: What types of content does the “TikTok for Good” initiative promote? What values are associated with the initiative? And who is responsible for promoting these values? Altogether, these questions will allow me to understand what the good in “TikTok for Good” actually means. Method To address these questions, I adopt the definition of values by Heinich (2020), who treats values as tangible objects and underlying principles. Based on previous work by Hallinan et al. (2021), I work with the notion of “values-as-goods: those (tangible or abstract) objects that have consistently been deemed worthy of appreciation such as art or friendship” (p. 7). First, I will perform an inductive analysis answering the questions “What is defined as good?” and “Who is in charge of promoting good?” for each video (n=180) to understand what values are promoted in TikTok for Good. Combined with a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012), this will allow me to systematically identify patterns in the topics TikTok promotes, including what types of creators are promoted and the groups of people they address in the videos. Preliminary results An initial analysis of 50 videos led to three observations. Similar to the results of previous research on platform policies (Scharlach et al., 2023), the enactment of promoting values is overwhelmingly a private act. It requires the viewer to actively do good, whether by reducing plastic waste, using inclusive language, or spending money for a social cause. TikTok for Good is about how people can improve their daily lives. However, it evades raising more critical questions about potential legislative changes that would move responsibility from a personal problem to a structural one. Second, videos promoted through the TikTok for Good initiative circle around topics of sustainability, mental health, education about a specific subject, building community, and spreading awareness. These topics promote values aligning with current social issues. At the same time, videos such as “good animal news of today” potentially mask political issues associated with anything that is not inspiring or good, such as the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was not part of any of the videos. Lastly, it raises the question of what responsibilities an initiative of a social media platform should carry. Can TikTok for Good do more than just inspire and encourage? Should a platform do more than provide a space to promote good? References Austin, L. L., & Gaither, B. M. (2016). Examining public response to corporate social initiative types: A quantitative content analysis of Coca-Cola’s social media. Social Marketing Quarterly, 22(4), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500416642441 Bacallao-Pino, L. M. (2015). Challenging mainstream media systems through social media: A comparative study of the Facebook profiles of two Latin American student movements. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3702–3720. Balasubramanian, S. K., Fang, Y., & Yang, Z. (2021). Twitter presence and experience improve corporate social responsibility outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(4), 737–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04537-x Boxman-Shabtai, L. (2019). The practice of parodying: YouTube as a hybrid field of cultural production. Media, Culture & Society, 41(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718772180 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media& Society,14(7), 1164–1180. ByteDance. (2023). TikTok for Good. https://www.tiktok.com/forgood. Castillo-Abdul, B., Pérez-Escoda, A., & Civila, S. (2022). Social media fostering happiness management: Three luxury brands case study on Instagram. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 22(3), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2021-0201 Chen, X., Valdovinos Kaye, D. B., & Zeng, J. (2021). #PositiveEnergy Douyin: Constructing “playful patriotism” in a Chinese short-video application. Chinese Journal of Communication, 14(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2020.1761848 Gillespie, T. (2014). The Relevance of Algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). The MIT Press. Gillespie, T. (2022). Do not recommend? Reduction as a form of content moderation. Social Media + Society, 8(3), 205630512211175. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221117552 Gillespie, T., Aufderheide, P., Carmi, E., Gerrard, Y., Gorwa, R., Matamoros-Fernández, A., Roberts, S. T., Sinnreich, A., & Myers West, S. (2020). Expanding the debate about content moderation: Scholarly research agendas for the coming policy debates. Internet Policy Review, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1512 González, F., Yu, Y., Figueroa, A., López, C., & Aragon, C. (2019). Global reactions to the Cambridge Analytica scandal: A cross-language social media study. Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference, 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3316456 Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914 Griggio CF, Nouwens M and Klokmose CN (2022). Caught in the network: The impact of WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update on users’ messaging app ecosystems. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans LA USA, 27 April 2022, pp. 1–23. ACM. 10.1145/3491102.3502032 Hallinan, B., Kim, B., Mizoroki, S., Scharlach, R., Trillò, T., Thelwall, M., Segev, E., & Shifman, L. (2021). The value(s) of social media rituals: A cross-cultural analysis of New Year’s resolutions. Information, Communication & Society, 0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1983003 Haupt, J. (2021). Facebook futures: Mark Zuckerberg’s discursive construction of a better world. New Media & Society, 23(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820929315 Heinich, N. (2020). Ten proposals on values. Cultural Sociology, 14(3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975520922173 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914 Latapí Agudelo, M. A., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018- 0039-y Li, M. (2022). Influence for social good: Exploring the roles of influencer identity and comment section in Instagram-based LGBTQ-centric corporate social responsibility advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 462–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1884399 Weiss-Blatt, N. (2021). The techlash and tech crisis communication (First edition). Emerald Publishing. YouTube. (2023). About YouTube—YouTube. https://about.youtube/ Zeng, J., & Kaye, D. B. V. (2022). From content moderation to visibility moderation: A case study of platform governance on TikTok. Policy & Internet, 14(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.287