This study focuses on the contradiction between the alleged inclusivity and diversity that TikTok promotes and its apparent indifference for ethical standards. Specifically, the goal is to explore how social media users think in individualistic, moral and ethical terms about their online participation when they talk about TikTok. Relatively little research has focused on moral and ethical reasoning in the use of social media and no study to date has provided the opportunity to voice a user's own experience with moral issues as they perceive them through their use of TikTok. A thematic analysis of 47 in-depth interviews is applied to identify three dimensions of moral reasoning. First, interviewees talk about themselves as being an individual worthy of receiving moral esteem and stress the fact that they have the correct moral motivations. Second, interviewees locate the focus of morality in their own actions, whereas they justify their ethical decision by expressing themselves as a holder of moral virtues. Third, interviewees are aware of the ethical problems that have been discussed in the news, but they do not abandon their moral principles while participating on the platform. In order to reconciliate the conflict, they provide moral rationalizations which highlight TikTok's positive, inclusive functions for the individual or society. This aspect is confirmed by how they link authenticity to the concepts of inclusivity and diversity.

The release of the Netflix’s show 13 Reasons Whycaused significant public concern about the risk of suicide contagion among teenagers – particularly those who have suicidal thoughts. Practitioners and researchers expressed apprehension about the show for its apparent praise of suicide and for allegedly increasing suicide risk among vulnerable teenagers. However, there is a lack of clear evidence for the influence of fictional content on self-harm. Little is known about variations in media effects between news and fiction. The literature focuses mainly on non-fictional media reporting, without making any distinction between individual vulnerability and the type of media portrayal. The present article criticises the assumption that risk of self-harm is reduced by sanitising fictional content. The absence of scientific evidence is precisely why this article re-addresses the problem through an ethical perspective by focusing on the moral responsibility of Netflix in creating graphic content for young adults. Censoring fiction may do more harm than good, but producers have the responsibility to evaluate in advance the potential impact that such content has on vulnerable people and support viewers as well as parents, educators, practitioners through an adequate campaign of prevention.