section_path: Content/Censorship and moderation
section_name: Censorship and moderation
paragraph_text: Censorship and moderation
  
  TikTok's and Douyin's censorship policies have been criticized as non-transparent. Internal guidelines against the promotion of violence, separatism, and "demonization of countries" could be used to prohibit content related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, Falun Gong, human rights in Tibet, Taiwan, Chechnya, Northern Ireland, the Cambodian genocide, the 1998 Indonesian riots, Kurdish nationalism, ethnic conflicts between blacks and whites, or between different Islamic sects. A more specific list banned criticisms against world leaders, including past and present ones from Russia, the United States, Japan, North and South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Turkey. In 2019, The Guardian reported that TikTok had censored videos of topics not favored by the Chinese government. That year, TikTok took down a video about human rights abuses in the Xinjiang internment camps against Uyghurs but restored it after 50 minutes as well as the creator's account, saying that the action was a mistake and triggered by a brief "satirical" image of Osama bin Laden in another post. Other human rights activists have also said that their TikTok videos discussing human rights violations of the Uyghurs have been taken down.
  
  TikTok moderators were instructed to suppress posts from "For You" recommendations if the users shown were deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled". The consumption of alcohol, full or partial nudity, LGBT, and intersex contents were restricted even in places where they are legal. TikTok has since apologized and instituted a ban against anti-LGBTQ ideology, but censorship continues on Douyin due to regulations in China. Douyin guidelines also forbid live broadcasting by unregistered foreigners, "feudal superstition", "money worship", smoking and drinking, competitive eating by the "already obese", "toxic" slime, "pornographic" ASMR such as ear-licking, and female anchors wearing revealing clothes.
  
  ByteDance said its early guidelines were global and aimed at reducing online harassment and divisiveness when its platforms were still growing. They have been replaced by versions customized by local teams for users in different regions. A March 2021 study by the Citizen Lab found that TikTok did not censor searches politically but was inconclusive about whether posts are. A 2023 paper by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Institute of Technology concluded that TikTok is "not exporting censorship, either directly by blocking material, or indirectly via its recommendation algorithm."
  
  After increased scrutiny, TikTok said it is granting some outside experts access to the platform's anonymized data sets and protocols, including filters, keywords, criteria for heating, and source code. A December 2023 study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) found a "strong possibility that content on TikTok is either amplified or suppressed based on its alignment with the interests of the Chinese government." According to its director, the NCRI is an independent non-profit research organization funded by Rutgers University, the British government, and private donors. The New York Times commented that "lready, there is evidence that China uses TikTok as a propaganda tool. Posts related to subjects that the Chinese government wants to suppress — like Hong Kong protests and Tibet — are strangely missing from the platform." TikTok subsequently restricted the number of hashtags that can be searched under its Creative Center, saying it was "misused to draw inaccurate conclusions".
  
  A historian from the Cato Institute said that there were "basic errors" in the Rutgers University study and criticized the uncritical news coverage that followed. The study compares data from before TikTok even existed to show the app has fewer hashtags about historically sensitive topics, distorting the findings.
  
  In August 2024, the NCRI released a subsequent report based on user journey data from 24 accounts that they created across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. By searching for four keywords—Uyghur, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Tiananmen, the researchers found that TikTok returned a higher percentage of positive, neutral, or irrelevant content related to human rights in China. For example, more than 25% of results for "Tiananmen" on TikTok were considered pro-China by the researchers, compared to 16% on Instagram and 8% on YouTube. In other cases, however, Instagram and YouTube showed higher rates of pro-China content than TikTok. For example, 50% of searches about "Uyghur" and "Xinjiang" on YouTube were considered positive, compared to less than 25% on TikTok. The researchers said this is because some YouTube accounts are linked to state actors. According to their survey, people who use TikTok more than three hours daily are significantly more positive about China's human rights record compared to those who do not use the app. TikTok pushed back against the NCRI, saying that making "accounts that interact with the app in a prescribed manner" is not the same as the experience of real users and some of the events being compared happened before TikTok existed.
  
  TikTok's and Douyin's censorship policies have been criticized as non-transparent. Internal guidelines against the promotion of violence, separatism, and "demonization of countries" could be used to prohibit content related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, Falun Gong, human rights in Tibet, Taiwan, Chechnya, Northern Ireland, the Cambodian genocide, the 1998 Indonesian riots, Kurdish nationalism, ethnic conflicts between blacks and whites, or between different Islamic sects. A more specific list banned criticisms against world leaders, including past and present ones from Russia, the United States, Japan, North and South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Turkey. In 2019, The Guardian reported that TikTok had censored videos of topics not favored by the Chinese government. That year, TikTok took down a video about human rights abuses in the Xinjiang internment camps against Uyghurs but restored it after 50 minutes as well as the creator's account, saying that the action was a mistake and triggered by a brief "satirical" image of Osama bin Laden in another post. Other human rights activists have also said that their TikTok videos discussing human rights violations of the Uyghurs have been taken down.
  
  TikTok moderators were instructed to suppress posts from "For You" recommendations if the users shown were deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled". The consumption of alcohol, full or partial nudity, LGBT, and intersex contents were restricted even in places where they are legal. TikTok has since apologized and instituted a ban against anti-LGBTQ ideology, but censorship continues on Douyin due to regulations in China. Douyin guidelines also forbid live broadcasting by unregistered foreigners, "feudal superstition", "money worship", smoking and drinking, competitive eating by the "already obese", "toxic" slime, "pornographic" ASMR such as ear-licking, and female anchors wearing revealing clothes.
  
  ByteDance said its early guidelines were global and aimed at reducing online harassment and divisiveness when its platforms were still growing. They have been replaced by versions customized by local teams for users in different regions. A March 2021 study by the Citizen Lab found that TikTok did not censor searches politically but was inconclusive about whether posts are. A 2023 paper by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Institute of Technology concluded that TikTok is "not exporting censorship, either directly by blocking material, or indirectly via its recommendation algorithm."
  
  After increased scrutiny, TikTok said it is granting some outside experts access to the platform's anonymized data sets and protocols, including filters, keywords, criteria for heating, and source code. A December 2023 study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) found a "strong possibility that content on TikTok is either amplified or suppressed based on its alignment with the interests of the Chinese government." According to its director, the NCRI is an independent non-profit research organization funded by Rutgers University, the British government, and private donors. The New York Times commented that "lready, there is evidence that China uses TikTok as a propaganda tool. Posts related to subjects that the Chinese government wants to suppress — like Hong Kong protests and Tibet — are strangely missing from the platform." TikTok subsequently restricted the number of hashtags that can be searched under its Creative Center, saying it was "misused to draw inaccurate conclusions".
  
  A historian from the Cato Institute said that there were "basic errors" in the Rutgers University study and criticized the uncritical news coverage that followed. The study compares data from before TikTok even existed to show the app has fewer hashtags about historically sensitive topics, distorting the findings.
  
  In August 2024, the NCRI released a subsequent report based on user journey data from 24 accounts that they created across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. By searching for four keywords—Uyghur, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Tiananmen, the researchers found that TikTok returned a higher percentage of positive, neutral, or irrelevant content related to human rights in China. For example, more than 25% of results for "Tiananmen" on TikTok were considered pro-China by the researchers, compared to 16% on Instagram and 8% on YouTube. In other cases, however, Instagram and YouTube showed higher rates of pro-China content than TikTok. For example, 50% of searches about "Uyghur" and "Xinjiang" on YouTube were considered positive, compared to less than 25% on TikTok. The researchers said this is because some YouTube accounts are linked to state actors. According to their survey, people who use TikTok more than three hours daily are significantly more positive about China's human rights record compared to those who do not use the app. TikTok pushed back against the NCRI, saying that making "accounts that interact with the app in a prescribed manner" is not the same as the experience of real users and some of the events being compared happened before TikTok existed.