In her 2023 article, “TikTok has its faults, but it’s also diverse, eye-opening and completely full of life,” Amelia Tait writes about her overwhelmingly positive experience on the popular app TikTok. Though she acknowledges some of the criticism laid against it, the author ultimately positions herself as a staunch advocate for its inherently good use.
Tait introduces TikTok as an app that has been the subject of fearmongering and controversy – but proceeds to reassure the audience through the retelling of multiple wholesome scenarios. She then reveals that U.S. teens spend more than an hour a day on TikTok, which is also the most popular news source for young teenagers. Despite these supposedly alarming statistics, the author insists that she has learned much from the app, which features people of all backgrounds, and concludes that she feels fulfilled and fascinated by its usage.
The author begins by stating that she has accomplished something her ancestors would have never dreamed of, thanks to TikTok. Before explaining further, she places an expectation on the audience: by insisting that, “you’ve undoubtedly already read endless scaremongering headlines,” Tait sets the stage that her opinion is the correct one by guilting audiences into listening to what she has to say. The author also asserts her position as a journalist to agree that TikTok has its faults, but ultimately emphasises that it is the most marvelous app she has encountered – and readers are inclined to believe her because of her experience and position as a journalist. By using words and phrases such as, “eye-opening”, “heart-wrenching”, “mind-bending”, and “full of life”, Tait stirs a strong sense of positive emotion among readers.
The examples of TikTok content featured in the author’s article were carefully selected to appeal to human nature and emotion, evoking a sense of humour, inspiration, and sympathy. Conveniently, Tait leaves out any mention of the negative content posted daily on TikTok. For example, according to a study completed by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, it was found that TikTok recommended videos about mental health or body image to Standard Teen Accounts every 39 seconds, with vulnerable teens exposed to more harmful content, not less (CCDH, 2022).
Tait goes on to state that U.S. teens spend 99 minutes a day on TikTok; however, the source she links is a parental control software, which means the data is only applicable within certain contexts and does not apply to a wider sample. Furthermore, this data was compiled during the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which people generally spent more time on their devices and online; 72% of parents with children in kindergarten through 12th grade say their children were spending more time on screens (Pew Research Center, 2021). The author chooses to glaze over this statistic with the comment that the teens could be learning new things.
The generalisation that TikTok rises above the stereotypical notion of Instagram being “for beauty” and Twitter being “for brains” is problematic, as the author does not provide any examples to justify her claims about the other social media sites. This, in turn, makes her argument in favour of TikTok less credible. Tait then mentions that TikTok is the most popular news source of 12–15-year-olds, but fails to mention that this statistic is geographically specific to the United Kingdom. This omission makes her argument seem more universal than it is.
By mentioning that BBC News, Daily Mail, and the Guardian are on TikTok, the author attempts to appeal to authority and establish a sense of rapport by association with prominent figures. This could be considered a form of name-dropping. Though Tait says, “it’s wrong to characterize users’ attention as shallow or short,” this is an unfounded generalisation. A study conducted by Microsoft Corp. found that between 2000 and 2013, the average human attention span decreased from 12 seconds to 8 seconds, a drop of nearly 25% that correlated to social media use (Microsoft, 2015).
Tait also utilises an appeal-to-tradition fallacy when she argues that “people have always done these things and always will”, and a package deal fallacy in comparing the case against TikTok to past moral panics about television, games, and the Sony Walkman. The author includes her personal bias as part and parcel of her argument – thus appealing to readers’ emotions and invoking their trust in her vouching for TikTok. She also uses the appeal-to-the-people fallacy in the wording “the multitudinous ways of living on this planet that we share”, as it invites readers to support TikTok, and in doing so, to feel like part of a cause bigger than themselves. Overall, Tait provides an emotional read that certainly sways readers towards believing that TikTok is an application of many wonders and purposes. However, her arguments often rely on fallacies and sweeping generalisations without proper support to back up her claims. This makes it difficult for audiences to have full trust in her stellar review of TikTok. Nevertheless, should the author choose to focus on the facts and foster further discussion on the matter, providing the full picture and not a partial view, the public could be educated on the genuine positives of using TikTok.