The social media app, which has been an instrumental tool during the strike, is blocking searches for “WGA.”


TikTok was blocking some searches relating to the ongoing writers’ strike on Monday. The social media network has been a central method for striking workers to share updates and promote the strike, which has been ongoing for months.

The block was first reported by Media Matters for America. Screenshots shared by MMFA show that the app does not return searches for “WGA,” the acronym used for the Writers’ Guild of America, the union currently on strike against Hollywood studios for better wages and AI regulation. Instead, users are told that no results were found, and that the phrase “may be associated with behavior or content that violates our guidelines.”

Motherboard searched “WGA” on TikTok and was also presented with this screen.

When reached for comment, a TikTok spokesperson said the term “WGA” was blocked because it resembled a conspiracy theory. The spokesperson would not confirm on the record which conspiracy WGA resembled, but it’s worth noting that a widely-used QAnon slogan is “Where We Go One We Go All,” or WWG1WGA. (After this article was published, the spokesperson told Motherboard that it restored the “WGA” search term.)

MMFA also reported that searching for WGA in combination with other words, like “WGA strong” or “WGA strike,” likewise returns no results in the “Videos” or “Hashtags” categories that allow users to filter what kind of results they want to see. Motherboard was able to replicate these search results as well.

The search block for “WGA” had quite a few loopholes. Searches in the “Top” category still produced some results. “WGA strong” yielded two user accounts, only one of which contained the search term. A search for “WGA strike” yielded one account, @wgastrikeunite, and a Wikipedia link to the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, which took place in Canada.

Searching “Writers Guild of America,” the union’s full name, returned search results in all tabs, and so did “writers strike.”

TikTok’s community guidelines, which are referenced in the failed searches, include bans against “violent behaviors”, “hate speech”, and “violent or hateful organizations,” as well as suggestions that users “foster civility” and “provide transparency and consistency.”

Update: After this article was published, TikTok told Motherboard that it stopped blocking the search term “WGA.” The article and headline have been updated to reflect this.


  • recursive_recursion [they/them]@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s really only a problem if you’re getting your news from tik tok rather than a legitimate news source.

    people really shouldn’t be getting their news solely from social media of any kind.

    I do agree in that using TikTok as a primary source for news seems real sketch(and probably a bad idea);

    • however in this situation since TikTok is being used as an effective tool by WGA strikers to raise awareness of the situation at large, it’s somewhat closer to Lemmy’s structure in being a federated/collaborative system where you’re more likely to get direct updates/coverage of the strike from WGA members, individual writers, and then reporters that are independant or corporation based. So quite a smorgasbord of coverage across a wide spectrum.

    Plus aren’t there times when even primary news sources gets things wrong accidentally/unintentionally?

    • There are definitely more trustworthy news sources than TikTok or Fox news but it doesn’t make other media companies/news sources infalliable to accidental errors or plain misinformation/sensationalization for clicks(money)(everyone’s seen the trashfire called clickbait).

    I don’t really agree with the blanket statement that all SNS can’t be trusted as the quality of information changes based on what platform you’re using.

    • eg: Reddit(Spez why did you ruin it all) vs Lemmy(probably better - speaking from bias).

    <br>

    btw I hope this comes across as me disagreeing with your statement and not you as a person