TikTok tracked users who watched gay content, prompting employee complaints(wsj.com)
wsj.com
TikTok tracked users who watched gay content, prompting employee complaints
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-tracked-users-who-watched-gay-content-prompting-employee-complaints-5966a5f5
12 comments
I would argue this has more to do with the Oaths the priests took. It would be similar to an MDM -- enforcing company (in this case, Church) compliance.
If an employer purchased data from a scummy tracking company about the use of apps on a personal device outside work hours I'd be outraged too. Even if the company discovered actual wrongdoing.
The ends don't justify the means. a private organization doesn't get to spy on its members. They can ask you to install MDM, they can't peek in your bedroom window. We live in a society.
The ends don't justify the means. a private organization doesn't get to spy on its members. They can ask you to install MDM, they can't peek in your bedroom window. We live in a society.
Being a priest is a vocation, not a job. There are no working hours. Their entire life must be a reflection of their beliefs.
Is this a legal difference?
interestng that pretty much every US company seems to think that of their bots, ehm, I mean, employees. I don't accept it for any company, and the church is also not entitled to convert all their people into good little bots who are 100% company man facade, 100% of the time
I agree with you but there is some kind of irony about priests who ostensibly believe an omniscient being watches their every move expecting privacy from digital surveillance. We are in the process of building a god of sorts (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) and I’m not sure it’s a good thing.
There is no such thing as "outside work hours" for a priest. They are to serve as a leader for their congregation, actively engaging in behavior which is contrary to that mission should absolutely be exposed.
Fair point on the work hours bit. But I think there has to be some limit on the kinds of investigation allowed.
I think society is better off if nobody is allowed to purchase advertising data that identifies specific people and use it to uncover their activities.
I think society is better off if nobody is allowed to purchase advertising data that identifies specific people and use it to uncover their activities.
You're looking at this from the outside in. Priests consent to having their own thoughts and behaviors surveilled by the Clergy. This is not a legal battle. If the Priest wanted, he could just leave.
> ... identifies specific people and use it to uncover their activities.
Possibly with the exception of elected officials. :)
Possibly with the exception of elected officials. :)
I am generally inclined to agree, I think it would be best for society as a whole to not allow any service to be selling user information in the way which is common. I think having data available can be abused, but I don't really think this is a good example since the "victims" are people getting held to standards they vow to uphold.
This is absolute nonsense. Just because some people choose not to understand the concept of work/life balance doesn't mean that the institution of the church is magically beyond reproach. Employers shouldn't get to spy on their employees, full stop. Please stop making excuses for corporate overreach.
It does because the Priests are consenting. It isn't a legal relationship - it is a spiritual one.
Being a priest isn't a "job". You don't commit to being a mere "employee" when you become a priest, just as a parent doesn't get to just decide to not care for their child because they don't like the "job" anymore. When you become a priest you vow to uphold certain teachings, standards, and practices.
This is about your view of morals as they relate to religion though, right? Legally speaking priests are employees and the church is the employer. I think our government system should treat them as such.
Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
> Legally speaking priests are employees and the church is the employer. I think our government system should treat them as such.
Priests within a religion are something like government officials and something like members in a fraternal or sororal organization (such as the Masons or Elks). In another sense they're like "independent sales representatives" in a multi-level marketing scheme. In another sense they'd be like enlisted or officers in a military. In another sense they'd be like executives in a corporation (who have contractual fiduciary, and yes, moral obligations that regular employees don't have).
The duties and expectations are different from those of regular employees. In fact, I'm sure most religious institutions have many regular employees (such as janitors, some teachers for religious schools, etcetera), who are probably held to lesser standards.
> Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
Yes. Unfortunately we don't have many such rules when it comes to data we've shared with third parties.
Priests within a religion are something like government officials and something like members in a fraternal or sororal organization (such as the Masons or Elks). In another sense they're like "independent sales representatives" in a multi-level marketing scheme. In another sense they'd be like enlisted or officers in a military. In another sense they'd be like executives in a corporation (who have contractual fiduciary, and yes, moral obligations that regular employees don't have).
The duties and expectations are different from those of regular employees. In fact, I'm sure most religious institutions have many regular employees (such as janitors, some teachers for religious schools, etcetera), who are probably held to lesser standards.
> Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
Yes. Unfortunately we don't have many such rules when it comes to data we've shared with third parties.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, here are a couple of items for your consideration.
> This is about your view of morals as they relate to religion though, right? Legally speaking priests are employees and the church is the employer.
Everyone involved in this discussion is positing moral views that are independent from the current law. It's apparently legal for companies to sell their users personal data, just as a priest may be legally considered an "employee" even though I don't think that is what a priest is.
> I think our government system should treat them as such.
> Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
I would disagree that the government should treat priests as employees, but regrettably I think this won't be a fruitful venue for discussing this since it's likely that we have too many different priors in this area that would take too long to hash out.
In terms of how privacy rules should work, I am generally inclined to support generalized prohibitions on selling/distributing user data without an explicit voluntary opt-in. Where I likely differ is in that I don't believe that in principle it's wrong to use available data in ways that I see as being moral. If a company has data that would prove one of their users is a serial killer I'd say they'd have the obligation to use that to help the killer get caught, but I also think generally in order to prevent greater societal evils that user data should be protected.
I'll try an example, hopefully it's not too strained. I think spying on people in their homes would be bad, it would be detrimental to familial privacy and unity among other things. But if someone happens to see into someone's house and witness a crime I wouldn't have any issue with that crime being reported. So I can say we should have laws preventing peeping toms/protecting privacy in homes while also not seeing every instantiation of acquiring information as being immoral in and of itself. Hope that makes sense, I'm a bit scrambled right now regrettably.
> This is about your view of morals as they relate to religion though, right? Legally speaking priests are employees and the church is the employer.
Everyone involved in this discussion is positing moral views that are independent from the current law. It's apparently legal for companies to sell their users personal data, just as a priest may be legally considered an "employee" even though I don't think that is what a priest is.
> I think our government system should treat them as such.
> Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
I would disagree that the government should treat priests as employees, but regrettably I think this won't be a fruitful venue for discussing this since it's likely that we have too many different priors in this area that would take too long to hash out.
In terms of how privacy rules should work, I am generally inclined to support generalized prohibitions on selling/distributing user data without an explicit voluntary opt-in. Where I likely differ is in that I don't believe that in principle it's wrong to use available data in ways that I see as being moral. If a company has data that would prove one of their users is a serial killer I'd say they'd have the obligation to use that to help the killer get caught, but I also think generally in order to prevent greater societal evils that user data should be protected.
I'll try an example, hopefully it's not too strained. I think spying on people in their homes would be bad, it would be detrimental to familial privacy and unity among other things. But if someone happens to see into someone's house and witness a crime I wouldn't have any issue with that crime being reported. So I can say we should have laws preventing peeping toms/protecting privacy in homes while also not seeing every instantiation of acquiring information as being immoral in and of itself. Hope that makes sense, I'm a bit scrambled right now regrettably.
[deleted]
It is scummy behavior to buy tracking data. But are there "outside work hours" for priests? Seems like it is an all-in kind of thing.
Why not let God do the judgment?
TheFreim(1)
Wow, lot of homophobes and/or trolls on Hacker News these days (not OP, other comments in this thread).
Specifics of the example aside, are people really defending organizations buying private user data for use in employment decisions?
Specifics of the example aside, are people really defending organizations buying private user data for use in employment decisions?
I didn’t interpret the grand parent comment as defending this practice at all.
Article should be: "Content on TikTok is categorized, TikTok tracks the categories of content users watch. There exists a gay content category that TikTok tracks."
And they definitely won’t use that for potential blackmail purposes. Don’t worry guys.
I don't see how it could be used for blackmail. All that's being tracked is that TikTok reckons that you enjoy LGBT-aligned content, based on a lot of chaotic circumstantial indicators. It's not porn, and it doesn't even mean that the user requested LGBT content. You can probably even get put into that category because you frequently argue against LGBT people in replies (the algorithm seems to heavily weight replies, since that's a deeper interaction than a like or a rewatch). The information itself is no more usable for blackmail than if a stranger on the street were to personally declare of you, "I reckon that this guy is gay, based on his typing style."
They probably won't. they most likely will however flag you for a bit of extra tracking if you enter China.
And what does that extra tracking lead to if not eventually blackmail?
Sure 99.999 of cases will never get there… Its that Pesky one or two people who were disappeared as a result
Most people chalk that up to “doing business” unfortunately instead of seeing it as inducing existential risk where unnecessary
Sure 99.999 of cases will never get there… Its that Pesky one or two people who were disappeared as a result
Most people chalk that up to “doing business” unfortunately instead of seeing it as inducing existential risk where unnecessary
You forgot "prompting employee complaint"
Regardless, the original title is much shorter.
Regardless, the original title is much shorter.
Who cares if employees complained? People will complain about anything. It’s not indicative of relevance or importance.
I’ve found myself completely avoiding any article for which the headline is some variation of “person/people complain about something”, e.g. “activist group slams company X decision”, “politician calls out other politician”, etc. It’s lazy and pointless faux-journalism, and usually deployed because the author or editor has something the themselves want to complain about and need an excuse to do so. So “people are talking” becomes the justification.
I’ve found myself completely avoiding any article for which the headline is some variation of “person/people complain about something”, e.g. “activist group slams company X decision”, “politician calls out other politician”, etc. It’s lazy and pointless faux-journalism, and usually deployed because the author or editor has something the themselves want to complain about and need an excuse to do so. So “people are talking” becomes the justification.
So, under many regulatory regimens (notably the GDPR, but others, too), sexual orientation and other personal data are treated somewhat differently than, say, “this user likes cat videos”. Now, that’s not to say that it is absolutely forbidden or anything, but it is _not_ the same thing as a generic “this person likes this sort of video” (even if it is inferred from precisely that) and it’s disingenuous to pretend that it is.
I doubt TikTok had any particularly sinister motivations here (or at least no more sinister than any other profile-building), but that is arguably not the _point_.
I doubt TikTok had any particularly sinister motivations here (or at least no more sinister than any other profile-building), but that is arguably not the _point_.
Still, every social media out there does exactly this kind of categorization, at least for gay content. TikTok is all kinds of shady in general, but this is not a good example of them being any different from any other such org.
This rename makes it seem like a LGBTQ category is as important as categories like "gaming" or "DIY" when people are still discriminated against for the former.
Well, it is. Arguably even more so, especially for people who live in these types of places and need to see more supportive content to feel good about themselves.
Seems like wsj trying to make something out of nothing. Obviously there is content that can be categorised as LGBT, and obviously there are users who engage with it. Those users will be associated with the content somewhere, that's a prerequisite for a recommendation algorithm that gives you more of what you watch. What's the issue here? TikTok also tracks users who watched content about kites, airplanes, Democrats, Republicans, and dinosaurs. And pretty much any other category of content you can imagine.
It makes sense that TikTok tracks interests like this, and there's some legitimate concern with folks being on a list that can get you executed in quite a few countries.
As the article says: “Social-media and ad-tech industry practices, however, discourage tracking potentially sensitive traits such as sexuality, according to people who work with digital information. This data can essentially create a list of vulnerable users in parts of the world where some LGBT people face harassment and violence.”
There don’t tend to be laws against liking kites or airplanes, nor violence against people who like them on the basis of that interest.
There don’t tend to be laws against liking kites or airplanes, nor violence against people who like them on the basis of that interest.
Name one major platform that if you watch LGBTQ related content you don't get suggested more LGBTQ related content. You can only do that if you track it, and each specific category within it as it's not just one category and many niches within each category. This is no different than any other category, like rock music or classical, and more specific various subgenre within (modern rock, classic rock, 70's rock, hard rock, speed metal, heavy metal, nu metal, grunge, etc). If you don't categorize content and don't categorize viewers, you can't recommend like content. So I'm wondering where this "industry practice" is actually implemented beyond virtue signaling to the media.
Generally people associate sexuality with other protected classes, not music genres. While I agree that these systems are indeed setup as feedback loops, it does seem like a bad idea for certain things.
> So I'm wondering where this "industry practice" is actually implemented beyond virtue signaling to the media.
Old people, people from other places, religious people, disabled people, pregnant people and veterans.
> So I'm wondering where this "industry practice" is actually implemented beyond virtue signaling to the media.
Old people, people from other places, religious people, disabled people, pregnant people and veterans.
The article seems really wrong on this.
E.g. there’s a big trend of congratulating companies for allowing users to opt out of Mother’s Day / Father’s Day ads, which requires companies to keep list of sensitive data about user’s relationship to parents. Similarly, FB has the “interested in” field on profiles… maybe some platforms don’t expose this to advertisers, but they all collect that data.
E.g. there’s a big trend of congratulating companies for allowing users to opt out of Mother’s Day / Father’s Day ads, which requires companies to keep list of sensitive data about user’s relationship to parents. Similarly, FB has the “interested in” field on profiles… maybe some platforms don’t expose this to advertisers, but they all collect that data.
The fact I don't want a Mother's day email isn't that sensitive. The specific reason why is.
> maybe some platforms don’t expose this to advertisers, but they all collect that data.
They all collect interest data, sure. They could be blocklisting advertisers from from seeing sensitive interests like LGBTQ. I don't know if they do, it certainly sounds like a responsible choice.
> maybe some platforms don’t expose this to advertisers, but they all collect that data.
They all collect interest data, sure. They could be blocklisting advertisers from from seeing sensitive interests like LGBTQ. I don't know if they do, it certainly sounds like a responsible choice.
What if one would like to opt-out of gay content? not taking a stance, food for thought
This isn't tracking sexuality. It's tracking who watches this content, which is definitely not aligned with sexuality.
If TikTok didn't have a LGBT category, they'd be called out by modern "journalists" for suppressing/not recommending LGBT content and treating LGBT unicorns as second class citizens.
It's disappointing that the full WSJ link was submitted instead of an archive.org link, outrage bait should not be rewarded with ad impressions.
It's disappointing that the full WSJ link was submitted instead of an archive.org link, outrage bait should not be rewarded with ad impressions.
I'm glad someone gets it. So many comments in this thread are frighteningly naive.
Breaking news: TikTok tracks what people watch so they can show them related content.
My wife(I being her husband) and I both watch LGBTQIA2S+ content on TikTok.
Watching content doesn't mean anything other than that you are watching content.
Edit: Breaking: Water is wet, tonight at 11.
Watching content doesn't mean anything other than that you are watching content.
Edit: Breaking: Water is wet, tonight at 11.
The problem is, you know who else watches LGBTQIA2S+ content?
Folks in the LGBTQIA2S+ closet living in parts of the US that are not tolerant of any of these groups.
If push came to shove, the Chinese government has a significant ability to blackmail a substantial amount of Americans in the deep south.
Folks in the LGBTQIA2S+ closet living in parts of the US that are not tolerant of any of these groups.
If push came to shove, the Chinese government has a significant ability to blackmail a substantial amount of Americans in the deep south.
In practice if nearly everyone gets blackmailed for being gay in one way or another that could be the sexual revolution some places are clearly waiting for.
> Watching content doesn't mean anything other than that you are watching content.
Do you think, say, Iran's religious police will see it that way?
Do you think, say, Iran's religious police will see it that way?
I would certainly hope so.
I get your point however.
The article is counting on outrage from people who can't understand the term watching.
I watch the news without being a newscaster.
I watch NHL without being a pro athlete.
I get your point however.
The article is counting on outrage from people who can't understand the term watching.
I watch the news without being a newscaster.
I watch NHL without being a pro athlete.
"Users who engage with LGBT content on TikTok may not identify as LGBT themselves, just as there are people who enjoy baking content but aren’t bakers"
I wouldn’t expect them to understand it. because if they did, $backwardsState probably wouldn’t be such a bad country to live in in the first place.
On the other hand I believe that you shouldn’t be traveling to places which regularly violate human rights at all.
On the other hand I believe that you shouldn’t be traveling to places which regularly violate human rights at all.
Sure, watching it doesn't mean you're gay, but it definitely makes it more likely that you are, or at a minimum that you support gay rights. What percentage of people who watch such content don't support gay rights, do you think?
Probably a very very small sum if not zero.
I can also think of far superior methods of obtaining a list of gay or gay supporting people.
Like any number of data breaches would provide access to.
Hell, I can uncover that data on 90% of Canada using exclusively my own disclosures from the last ten years.
I can also think of far superior methods of obtaining a list of gay or gay supporting people.
Like any number of data breaches would provide access to.
Hell, I can uncover that data on 90% of Canada using exclusively my own disclosures from the last ten years.
I watched every single episode of Bewitched when I was a child. I watched and enjoyed The Wizard of Oz. I definitely enjoyed Bram Stoker's Dracula in my goth youth. Only a few years ago, I purchased a ticket to see one of my favorite actresses in The Importance of Being Earnest; while I only knew a little bit about Oscar Wilde's background, the production crew appeared for Q&A afterwards and explained every single detail of the play to demonstrate just how ga y it all really is, without explicitly portraying a single LGBT character or relationship.
On Wilde, there’s a very good reason that it doesn’t explicitly portray a single LGBT character or relationship; it was illegal to do so. All was subtext back then.
Based on the red team rage posting about this stuff, I think you'd be surprised... certainly the only time I see TikTok videos by transgender people is when some republican grifter links to one on Twitter.
[deleted]
> What percentage of people who watch such content don't support gay rights, do you think?
I don’t know what percentage, but likely more than you think. Look at someone like Chaya Raichik (creator of Libs of TikTok) - she’s not exactly supportive of LGBT rights, but she obviously spends a lot of time watching pro-LGBT content to try to find stuff to criticise about it. The same is true of many of her supporters who send her tips. And there are other conservatives who obviously do the same thing, e.g. Christopher Rufo or Rod Dreher
I don’t know what percentage, but likely more than you think. Look at someone like Chaya Raichik (creator of Libs of TikTok) - she’s not exactly supportive of LGBT rights, but she obviously spends a lot of time watching pro-LGBT content to try to find stuff to criticise about it. The same is true of many of her supporters who send her tips. And there are other conservatives who obviously do the same thing, e.g. Christopher Rufo or Rod Dreher
That’s _probably_ a niche activity, though; a few mentally disturbed people with twitter accounts aren’t going to swing the stats too much.
Like statistics about Qanon (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/16/5-facts-a... ) I would guess viewership is more bipolar.
Argument for the sake of argument. Please no.
What does each of you watch when unaccompanied?
With an annual average sample size of roughly 35,600 videos consumed per user, I'll rankly speculate that it can be determined which users focus on either exclusive "L" or "G" content when the partner isn't around, with a very low error rate.
I will also speculate that the sets which result are not empty, and that we can sort each based on length/duration of such "L" or "G" videos viewed consecutively by the unaccompanied partner.
TikTok slurps up all kinds of data from users in addition to this, leading to more detailed sorted lists of these users.
In conclusion, I speculate that watching content means vastly more than watching content.
With an annual average sample size of roughly 35,600 videos consumed per user, I'll rankly speculate that it can be determined which users focus on either exclusive "L" or "G" content when the partner isn't around, with a very low error rate.
I will also speculate that the sets which result are not empty, and that we can sort each based on length/duration of such "L" or "G" videos viewed consecutively by the unaccompanied partner.
TikTok slurps up all kinds of data from users in addition to this, leading to more detailed sorted lists of these users.
In conclusion, I speculate that watching content means vastly more than watching content.
Doesn’t every company do this?
Netflix and Hulu have LGBT categories that they show (and oddly seem to feature at login as top category a few times a year, in addition to pride month). I assume they are tailoring that to my viewing habits.
And I would be shocked if they don’t track users who spend more time browsing and watching that category just like every other category.
Know Netflix, they will ignore my preferences and show whatever thing they produced. But Hulu does seem to pay attention to what I watch and rate and shows me things that I mostly enjoy. Netflix is kind of surreal as they seem to ignore all my habits and ratings.
Netflix and Hulu have LGBT categories that they show (and oddly seem to feature at login as top category a few times a year, in addition to pride month). I assume they are tailoring that to my viewing habits.
And I would be shocked if they don’t track users who spend more time browsing and watching that category just like every other category.
Know Netflix, they will ignore my preferences and show whatever thing they produced. But Hulu does seem to pay attention to what I watch and rate and shows me things that I mostly enjoy. Netflix is kind of surreal as they seem to ignore all my habits and ratings.
imagine the intricate profiles Facebook has built on everyone, especially when it's siphoning data regularly from apps which are opened. This goes for all dating apps to any page with a "like" button, or a FB conversion scripts, to whatever data companies pump to FB to do ad-targeting (phone numbers, emails)
You can also directly target gays with Facebook ads. At least that was always the case.
Is there some element I'm missing in this story? Isn't it common knowledge by now that most prominent social media tracks user preferences? Who out there still has an expectation of privacy when they go online?
Consider how you'd react to the opposite story, where TikTok refused to index and recommend gay content.
Does not say TikTok specifically indexed and promoted gay content
For what it's worth, everyone tracks that stuff. The Wall Street Journal probably has a file on you with the categories of things you're interested in.
Archive with full text: https://archive.ph/sAuiA
I never trust any of these services, which is why I have multiple accounts, which I access with multiple IPs. And I rarely access these privacy invasive products, only once in a blue moon.
> Catholic group spent millions on app data that tracked gay priests. A group of philanthropists poured money into a Denver nonprofit that obtained dating and hookup app data and shared it with bishops around the country, a Post investigation has found
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/09/catholics...