The current study is aimed at understanding the impact of TikTok’s recommendation system. The algorithm is perceived as very efficient in targeting users but raises several ethical concerns regarding the ability to manipulate users’ experience and the extent to which private data and preferences are respected. Utilizing the data collected from 40 in-depth interviews, this study explores: How do users perceive TikTok’s ethical responsibilities in regard to their algorithmic recommendation system? Furthermore, the analysis discusses and evaluates the tension between a) how the platform’s algorithm feeds users similar videos that they highly appreciate; and, inversely, b) how the diversification of recommendations is limited. A thematic analysis shows interviewees describe TikTok as a safe space where users can be themselves and feel included in a community of people interested in posting content to connect and engage meaningfully beyond difference. However, the algorithm is perceived as harmful because it tries to manipulate and drive users towards specific videos that increase their ‘addiction’ to the platform. Interviewees consider some of the recommendations on the ForYou page to be questionable because they aimed at persuading or nudging in favor of particular hashtags and social causes. This contradiction may partly be explained by the fact that interviewees report their rationalizations in a performative manner in order to avoid feelings of dissonance while attempting to relate to their own self-identity. This observation leads to the idea that the concept of mediated diversity can explain the tension between the expectation of similarity 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.