Jonas on TikTok is a bad idea

When TikTok's presence in politics is so significant that even Norway's 63-year-old prime minister has to create an account, this should not be understood as an exciting new expansion of the political conversation, but rather as a significant democratic issue.

Single politicians can earn a lot from being on TikTok and other platforms where the youth are. But the community as a whole loses out when more of the conversation moves to the algorithm management and short-form format of TikTok.

‍

Tiktok is Extremistan. Short videos on social media are ill-suited for constructive political conversations. Basically, ten-second videos are not a dream for serious political communication, but the dynamics of algorithms amplify the problem.

Content that captivates attention is more often promoted by the platform's algorithms. On TikTok, the content stream results in favoring extreme and unnuanced positions.

It allows both that users get a skewed impression of the political debate, but also that politicians have an incentive to simplify the message in order to break into the feed.

In the Norwegian context, we can mention Simen Velle's infamous statement that “that a small proportion of men have exclusive access to a large proportion of women” and Amrit Kaur who compared Stoltenberg and Støre to terrorists. When politicians are constantly motivated to shock and ensnare impatient followers, one will more often end up with unseemly statements.

One might object that all debate has a tabloid and pointed element, even in editorial-controlled media. But the difference lies not only in the algorithm-driven content stream, but also in the ability we as a society have to set the premises for the debate.

‍

Community debate is not only something that takes place wherever the people are, but also something that must be facilitated according to democratic principles. We have press support and a Norwegian national broadcaster for a reason.

TikTok is an algorithm-driven stream of content, which is neither supposed to facilitate a constructive political conversation or maketh it.

Social media cannot replace editorial-controlled media. They don't care if the news is fake or real as long as it generates activity and ad dollars. Nor should they supplement them.

TikTok, of course, doesn't bother with the beware poster. Their editorial decisions are not made known to the public. Certain words and phrases are made illegal and posts are removed without transparency and public debate. We do not know what is allowed on the platform and not.

It also makes us unable to question whether these are elections that are legitimate. Tiktok has the power to decide what everyone who uses the app is presented with, and thus quite a significant influence on which voices gain political influence. But there are no mechanisms to hold them accountable for the power they wield.

Prime Minister Støre should regulate TikTok, not throw himself on the wave.

‍

If it was good reasons for young people to use TikTok, so maybe it wouldn't have been so wrong if Støre and the rest of the politcs were there too. But the youth should not be on TikTok anyway.

The major social media platforms are addictive, and are linked by distinguished researchers, such as Jonathan Haidt, to depression and suicidal ideation among young people.

Furthermore, the algorithms can have unfortunate consequences. Young men interested in content about loneliness, for example, are passed on to misogynistic content.

They monitor children who do not have consent powers through the use and misuse of sensitive personal data.

‍

Instead of joining in on the fun, Jonas Gahr Støre should rather ensure proper age limits and a common political sorti from the platform. Both children and societal debate can be successfully spared from the consequences of the attention economy.

‍