Tanning Trend on TikTok Sparks Concerns Over Misinformation and Anti-Sunscreen Rhetoric
A new trend on TikTok, where users flaunt their tan lines while lip-syncing to the phrase "I mean, I’d rather die hot than live ugly," has raised alarm bells among researchers and health professionals. The trend, fueled by the platform’s popular sounds feature, highlights the potential for misinformation to spread rapidly on TikTok, particularly regarding health-related topics like sun safety. This seemingly innocuous trend underscores a concerning disregard for the potential health risks associated with excessive sun exposure, including skin cancer. The flippant attitude towards sun protection reflected in the trend raises questions about the influence of social media on health perceptions and behaviors, particularly among younger audiences.
Social media researcher Lauren Miller from Swinburne University points to the algorithmic nature of TikTok’s content delivery system as a key factor in the spread of misinformation. Unlike platforms like Instagram, where users primarily see content from accounts they follow, TikTok’s algorithm serves up content based on user engagement, regardless of its accuracy. This can create echo chambers where misleading or harmful information is amplified, reaching a wider audience than it might on other platforms. Miller also notes that users promoting anti-sunscreen rhetoric are actively engaging with and commenting on posts by medical professionals and dermatologists, further muddying the waters and potentially swaying public opinion against expert advice.
This trend also highlights the limitations of TikTok’s efforts to combat misinformation. While the platform has introduced a STEM feed aimed at promoting science-based content, experts argue that it’s unlikely to reach those already entrenched in anti-science beliefs. The algorithm, designed to prioritize popularity and engagement, may inadvertently favor sensationalized or misleading content over factual information, reinforcing existing biases. While the STEM feed initiative is a step in the right direction, its effectiveness is hampered by the inherent nature of algorithmic content delivery, which prioritizes engagement over accuracy.
TikTok maintains that it has strict community guidelines in place to combat harmful misinformation and actively removes content that violates these guidelines. The platform cites its latest enforcement report, indicating the removal of 1.3 million videos in Australia between July and September last year. Furthermore, TikTok emphasizes its collaboration with independent fact-checking organizations like Common Sense Networks and the Poynter Institute to vet content for the STEM feed. This process, which takes approximately two weeks, aims to ensure the accuracy and credibility of information presented on the platform, particularly within the STEM field. However, critics argue that these measures are insufficient to address the root of the problem.
Science communication expert Michelle Riedlinger from the Queensland University of Technology argues that promoting good content is crucial, but it must be complemented by robust fact-checking mechanisms. Riedlinger points to the fundamental tension between an algorithm driven by popularity and the need for accurate information dissemination. Simply highlighting accurate content isn’t enough; platforms need to actively combat the spread of misinformation, which often gains traction due to its sensationalized or emotionally charged nature. The challenge lies in striking a balance between user engagement and the responsibility to provide accurate and reliable information.
The "die hot than live ugly" trend on TikTok serves as a case study in the challenges of combating health misinformation on social media. It underscores the need for a multi-pronged approach, encompassing platform accountability, media literacy education, and ongoing research into the dynamics of online information dissemination. The trend also highlights the influence of social media on health perceptions, particularly among younger audiences, and the potential for these platforms to amplify harmful messages. Addressing this complex issue requires a collaborative effort from platforms, researchers, educators, and the public alike. Only then can we hope to mitigate the risks associated with health misinformation in the digital age.
