It’s a video covering all sorts of forbidden topics in China and tagged with hashtags like #uyghur and #tiananmensquare but the video showed up on people’s “for you” page and engagement/views was in line with most of his other videos. On the other hand, his videos where he brings up other topics like the CIA get outright censored. He uploaded a video about Palestine and tagged one with tags like #freepalestine and then uploaded the same video again without those hashtags and the one with the hashtags has <70k views versus the >930k views of the video without the hashtags.
So you’re big “Gotcha” moment was to illustrate you didn’t understand the concepts after they were explained to you. That science is wrong because you found a video with views on it?
That “sCiENcE” being:
NCRI began by analyzing differences between Instagram and TikTok hashtag use around popular culture icons and content. NCRI reasoned that the wide reach of platforms like Instagram and TikTok should ensure comparable use of popular culture hashtags.
So they work off the assumption that tiktok and instagram would have similar amounts of usage for the same hashtags. Fucking why? Did they not think different platforms would have different audiences?
Meanwhile I posted a clear example that demonstrates that not only do they not suppress content critical of China, they actually suppress content of certain sensitive topics for the US. You’d know that if you clicked the link, but you can’t even be bothered to read your own link, so I guess my expectations of you were too high.
“Fucking why? Did they not think different platforms would have different audiences?”
That difference amounts to nothing past hundreds of millions of users, much less constrained to US Based statistics. Basically the demographics would average out at that sample size.
