Sacrificing Integrity for Profit: The Dark Side of TikTok's Tolerance for Controversial Creators
Like many, I found myself downloading TikTok during the lockdown period. Isolating due to COVID, I was grappling with boredom, and before I knew it, three hours had effortlessly slipped by as I mindfully swiped through TikTok's content stream. It's intriguing how I was consciously scrolling subjecting myself to a series of short, dopamine-inducing bursts every mere 20 seconds.
TikTok emerged as a novel conduit for connectivity, a digital lifeline in a world where physical distances were mandated—precisely 6 feet apart. Initially, it served as an antidote to monotony, offering a delightful assortment of frivolous dances, homemade bread recipes, and ingenious DIY tips. Yet, now, three years down the line, opening the app exposes one to a starkly different reality: a barrage of pleas for virtual gifts, content creators compromising their dignity for views, weekly controversies, and incessant live streams peddling plastic tat that are destined to disintegrate within a week. It's bewildering how this is now categorized as 'content'.
This prompts a fundamental question: How did a once-enjoyable platform degenerate into an unsightly quagmire? The answer, in a single word, is money.
An investigation conducted by the BBC revealed a distressing reality: children within Syrian refugee camps had resorted to utilizing TikTok's live streams as a means to beg for virtual gifts on the platform. If you were not aware, TikTok claims a share of all revenue generated within its app—be it from gifts, subscriptions, views, livestreams, or battles. Despite TikTok's assertion that it prohibits 'exploitative begging,' this practice overwhelmingly pervades most livestreams and videos. The underlying motivation for TikTok seems clear: discouraging accounts that drive users to expend both coins and hours on the app isn't in their best interest.
Turning our attention to the three most notorious UK TikTokers, we embark on an exploration of how some of the least commendable individuals in our society are gaining infamy on the platform, amassing millions of views and thousands of pounds through their questionable 'content'. You may have come across Chelsea Lee Art, Elphaba Orion Doherty, and Paul Breach on your 'For You' pages. Their content ranges from cringe-worthy dances and contentious exchanges with trolls in live chats, to livestreamed spectacles of drama, emotional breakdowns, and defensive retorts against allegations of grooming, sexual assault, and racism. A charming bunch, indeed!
With this backdrop, let's delve into who these personalities are, dissect how they've managed to cultivate an audience, and uncover the staggering financial gains they've derived from their distasteful content.
Elphaba Orion Doherty, a 19-year-old trans individual, boasts an impressive following of 650,000 on TikTok. Her initial rise to prominence on the platform came by continuously belting out 'Defying Gravity' from the musical "Wicked." While her singing often misses the mark and could be likened to a cat being strangled, the crux of concern lies not in her musical capabilities, but rather in the problematic aspects of her content.
Elphaba has crafted her audience through a combination of falsification, manipulation, vociferation, and begging. Accusations from fellow TikTok users have ranged from her alleged fabrication of autism and Tourette's syndrome to gain clout, to more serious allegations of engaging in charity fraud and inappropriate interactions with children as young as 10 within group chats. Given that TikTok is inhabited by an estimated 275 million children, the question looms: why does the platform continue to grant someone as brazen as Elphaba a presence?
Let's delve into the figures to glean insights. TikTok user @urgirlamberxx elucidates the financial dynamics between TikTok and Elphaba, particularly during a week in August 2023. By the 12th of August, Elphaba had accumulated 610 subscribers, each contributing £5.99 per month. Of this subscription fee, the mobile provider garners 30%, TikTok claims 35%, and Elphaba retains the remaining 30%. In the realm of livestreams, viewers can express their appreciation through gifting, which involves purchasing coins with real currency. These coins, in turn, are translated into diamonds, with 1 diamond holding a value of $0.05.
@urgirlamberxx further dissects Elphaba's livestream earnings. In the weekly livestream rankings, the gifts bestowed upon Elphaba totaled a staggering 1.8 million diamonds. This implies that her boisterous, expletive-laden, and abusive livestreams amassed $27,692.31. TikTok takes an approximate 66%* slice of this revenue, equating to $18,276.92, leaving Elphaba with $9,415.39.
*It's important to note that the 66% estimation doesn't accounts for the alleged practice where creators in the top 10 earn a bigger cut to encourage them to remain in the top 10. This complex financial interplay brings to light the intricacies of how creators and the platform are compensated, painting a multifaceted picture of the modern digital content landscape.
Let's put that into perspective, one week of Elphaba's unpleasant content generated over $18,000 for TikTok. No wonder TikTok boasted an $25 Billion annual profit, an increase compared to 2021 that saw $14 billion profit.
Now, let's shift our focus to Chelsea Lee Art, an individual who has garnered a substantial following of 395.4k through a series of frequent and unhinged livestreams. These streams captivate an audience who watch as she launches into verbal tirades, directing abuse towards members of the public, hospitality staff, and retail workers. In a particularly recent and alarming incident, a livestream unfolded as she was apprehended by the police for racially aggravated assault, all transpiring while thousands of viewers looked on in astonishment.
Chelsea's antics have even reached the local news in Cornwall, where her outrageous behavior took center stage. She notoriously broadcasted herself shouting at restaurant staff in a bid to evade settling her bill, a ploy she has employed multiple times. Chelsea leverages the intimidating prospect of having a legion of viewers prepared to unleash digital onslaughts against businesses, effectively coercing staff into refraining from pursuing payment. This, in turn, not only boosts the stream's viewership numbers as people inevitably flock to the spectacle, but it also amplifies the drama itself, as most individuals find it irresistible to look away from such controversies.
One might reasonably expect that such behavior would warrant removal from the platform. Per TikTok's own community guidelines, there exist rules governing harmful content, and it is stipulated that "individuals who commit severe or repeated violations will have their account banned." However, Chelsea's account remains active. Let's deconstruct her earnings on the app to ascertain if financial incentives are contributing to her continued presence.
TikTok user @thenullhypothesis conducted an estimation in January 2023, determining that Chelsea earned £3,158 for one week of content after TikTok's share. Extrapolating from this, her potential annual earnings could reach around £164,241 before taxes.
So, who constitutes the audience and why are they gifting these creators?
Motivations vary among those who contribute gifts. Firstly, some gift in order to fuel and endorse the negative behaviour. As views and gifts accumulate, creators often escalate their outrageous actions to retain their audience's attention.
Secondly, gifting occurs due to fandom. Admirers of these creators feel compelled to make increasingly substantial gifts to garner recognition or even a mention during livestreams. This dynamic is particularly evident in creator live battles, where two content creators vie for supremacy, and the one receiving the most gifts when the time expires is declared the winner. This mechanism is inherently predatory, relying on fans to dig deeper into their pockets in the fervent hope that their favoured creator will emerge victorious. Both Elphaba and Chelsea Lee Art have participated in these battles, urging the viewing audience to shower them with gifts and wielding the threat of discontinuing livestreams if they do not secure victory. Such tactics exploit the emotional investment of their followers, transforming financial transactions into a coercive game.
Additionally, allegations have surfaced regarding the existence of a UK gifting ring, a scheme in which prominent accounts collaborate to exploit a TikTok coin glitch. Reportedly, well-known UK creators utilize a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to deceive the TikTok app into believing they are located in another country. This allows them to purchase coins in regions with more advantageous currency exchange rates. Subsequently, these creators employ separate accounts to regift themselves, effectively multiplying their earnings by converting gifts into the more valuable British pound exchange rate. Alternatively, if involved in a gifting ring, they bestow high-value gifts upon other problematic creators, reciprocating in kind.
This manoeuvre not only propels these ethically questionable creators to the apex of the leaderboard week after week, but it also goads devoted viewers into gifting substantial amounts, fostering a sense of participation in their favorite creators' livestreams. This phenomenon finds resonance in a 1950s psychology experiment known as the "Asch conformity experiment," wherein an individual's actions are swayed by the behaviors of others within the group. Consequently, fans are more inclined to bestow high-value gifts, not necessarily because the creators have exhibited commendable actions deserving of such gifts, but due to the pervasive influence of others engaged in the same practice.
Turning our attention to the final notorious UK TikToker worth discussing, we encounter Paul Breach. For a considerable period during the Euros, the incessant and catchy 'Jack Grealish' song, as well as George Ezra's 'Green Green Grass,' inundated TikTok, both having become synonymous with Paul Breach's perpetually online presence. Despite ongoing allegations that include sexual assault of an OnlyFans sex worker, photographing children, attempting to 'cuckoo' a family who had provided him a place to stay and employing TikTok as a platform for grooming young girls, Paul, aged 43, has amassed a staggering 923.8k followers. Given that 57% of TikTok users identify as female, harboring an individual with alleged predatory behavior on the platform hardly aligns with a favorable image. Yet, perplexingly, his account remains active.
Examining Paul Breach's earnings reveals yet another troubling example of an individual profiting from abhorrent behavior while enriching TikTok's coffers. Paul's earnings fluctuate in correlation with the events in his life. In December 2022, during the period when the allegations of sexual assault emerged and he was reportedly disowned by his family and made homeless, TikTok user @beautybeyondtheyeheyhey_ estimated his monthly earnings to be $45,000. This surge can be attributed to the morbid fascination with his account, spurred by the reactions to the allegations.
Additionally, TikTok user @thenullhypothesis projected in a January 23rd, 2023 video that Paul's weekly earnings amounted to £1537. Consequently, his potential annual income, even after TikTok takes its share, could reach a staggering £80,000. More recently, on June 13th, 2023, TikTok user @Paulbreachgoeslive (an account that streams Paul's content to diminish his potential earnings) approximated Paul's potential monthly earnings to be around £2500.
This unsettling case highlights a disconcerting trend where individuals engaging in reprehensible conduct find a lucrative space on the platform, ultimately raising questions about the ethical responsibility of both creators and the platform itself.
To conclude, while TikTok undeniably bears a responsibility for the content that persists on its platform and the behavior of its prominent creators, it's equally important for society to acknowledge its own role in amplifying the notoriety of questionable individuals. As voyeurs, we are drawn to the spectacle of online conflicts, much like rubbernecking at a car crash. By ceasing to provide these antagonistic figures with the attention and audience they seek, there's hope that their influence and financial gains can be curtailed.
Moreover, parents have a crucial role to play in addressing their children's TikTok usage. The surge of neurotransmitters that children experience while engaging with the app can be overwhelming for their developing minds. It's imperative for parents to be vigilant about their children's interactions and gifting behaviors on the platform. By taking these steps, both as a society and within our households, we can foster a safer and more responsible digital environment for all users.
Comments
Post a Comment