Complaint
A representative of TikTok complained about the following comments by the presenter Amol Rajan:
This is what TikTok does masterfully, doesn’t it?  It is a kind of – it happens to be Chinese – weapon of mass distraction, because if you're on TikTok there is just no gap between looking at something, getting the dopamine hit, and flicking on to the next thing.  This is why some people said, you know, Orwell had that line where he said, “if you want to picture the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever”, and actually the human future is imagine a teenager looking at a screen and doom-scrolling forever.  That's what TikTok is doing to us.
The complainant considered it inaccurate to refer to TikTok as “Cłóľ±˛Ô±đ˛ő±đ” and unfair to have made such a comparison with Orwell’s vision of the future in “1984” without an opportunity for the company to reply. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the ±«Óătv’s editorial standards of accuracy and fairness.
Outcome
While noting the complainant’s points that TikTok’s parent company is legally incorporated outside China as ByteDance Ltd and majority-owned by international investors, the ECU also noted that its operations are located in China, as Douyin Information Service Co Ltd, previously Beijing ByteDance Technology Ltd, and are subject to obligations involving the Chinese Communist Party. It did not consider the term “Cłóľ±˛Ô±đ˛ő±đ” to be a misleading reflection of the company’s origins, interests and structure. This aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
In relation to the allusion to “1984” and the description of the future as “a teenager looking at a screen and doom-scrolling forever”, the ECU understood Mr Rajan had in mind information requested by the European Commission about TikTok’s risk management of addictive design and harmful content. The ECU accepted, however, that the steps taken by TikTok to limit screen time and protect young users should have been reflected in the item, and that it breached the ±«Óătv’s editorial standards of fairness in this respect. Independently of the ECU’s investigations, ±«Óătv News published a posting on the Corrections and Clarifications page of bbc.co.uk which reflected TikTok’s response to allegations that its algorithms can produce an addictive effect and included a link to a page on TikTok’s website with an article by the company’s Head of Trust and Safety. In the ECU’s judgement, this was sufficient to resolve the element of the complaint relating to fairness.
Not upheld/resolved